Zeek pimps want discovery delay till dismiss motions resolved
With the first discovery responses in the ongoing clawback litigation filed against Zeek Reward’s top investors due less than a week from now, Trudy Gilmond, Jerry Napier and Darren Miller have filed a last-ditch effort in an attempt to avoid providing the Receivership with the requested information.
With this information likely to be incriminating and used against them in the future, one can understand why Gilmond, Naper and Miller are so desperate to avoid answering the Receiver’s discovery requests.
The filing, made on September 26th, requests the North Carolina District Court pass
an order staying discovery until fifteen (15) days following resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Gilmond, Napier and Miller argue they are entitled to this order because
a favorable resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss would eliminate the need for discovery.
The Motions to Dismiss in question were filed in June, with the Receivership filing his replies in August. A decision on any of the motions is yet to be made.
If these motions are granted, the scenario before us would be something like this:
Hi there. So Zeek Rewards was an $850 million Ponzi scheme and you are the top profiteers from it?
Correct.
And now you want to walk away with the millions you collectively stole from Zeek’s one million plus victims?
Correct.
No worries. Motion granted, send us a postcard from the Bahamas!
As ridiculous as that sounds, that’s the general thrust behind the filed Motions to Dismiss.
Will any of them be granted though?
Well, Gilmond, Napier and Miller seem to think so. And if not well hey, two weeks is ample time to… wait, why do they need an additional two weeks after a ruling on the Motions to Dismiss have been made?
I don’t want to suggest anything untoward, but two weeks would certainly be ample time to destroy requested evidence and shift financial assets overseas…
In any other case with any other set of defendants, one might be forgiven for thinking Gilmond, Napier and Miller’s motion was perfectly reasonable.
What you have to do though is put this latest delay-tactic into context.
This is the same trio who only months prior, despite already collectively stealing millions from Zeek’s victims, demanded that the Receivership pay them an additional $947,000.
Why?
Napier, Miller and Gilmond contend that they “completely performed all of their responsibilities and obligations to RVG under the contract”. That contract in question being the investment of money and then advertised ROI Zeek promised them.
Effectively arguing that there is nothing Ponzi-like about hoarding virtual bids that nobody uses to cover the transfer of money from new investors to those who have already invested, the trio, reasoning that the Receivership is now “standing in the shoes of RVG”, is responsible for a breach of contract.
Trudy Gilmond, Jerry Napier and Darren Miller don’t do “reasonable”. And it’s high-time a lot of these frivolous motions were buried.
The Receivership can only push back so far by right of reply. We really need to start seeing the courts take decisive action against Ponzi pimps who do nothing but waste everybody’s time.
Update 10th December 2014 – In an order made on December 8th, Judge Mullen has uniformly dismissed every motion to dismiss filed by Zeek’s net-winners.
As such the requested “stay on discovery” discussed in this article is now likely redundant.
They’ve had more than 2 weeks since the start of litigation… not sure what an additional few weeks will matter if they are dowing something untoward.
I was thinking about big assets/accounts. Access to your stuff becomes a problem if you totally liquidate yourself.
It’s sort of a last-ditch resort and if their motion to dismiss fails I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them went into panic mode. Why else would they waste time filing something like this a week before their responses are due?
@littleroundman
you have asked questions on an incorrect thread , please find your answers here ;
What are you saying here, Anjali ???— i’m saying gilmond/king raised some valid questions in their motion to dismiss. it will be a treat to see how the SEC and judge mullen shoots them down , but they are valid questions , which need to be answered.
It’s still pending ???—-yes some issues raised by gilmond/king are pending and judge mullen has insisted on taking them up during clawback litigation.
Gilmond and King were successful ??——no, their intervention was unsuccessful , but they were able to ensure a future hearing on some important issues. so partly win, partly lose.
The receivership was dissolved ??—no, because the court found that the matter of receivership was settled for now , because gilmond/king came to the court ‘late’. however jurisdiction of the SEC and the sanctity of the receivers appointment will be discussed during clawback litigation.
The receiver is operating illegally ??—-the court has not decided on that yet . the receiver is entitled to deal with the estate of RGV [ due to the consent agreement] ,but whether the receiver can recover money from other parties is an undecided question at this point.
The defense was right and the SEC and receiver were wrong ??—-the court found the SEC and receiver right, as far as the RGV estate goes. the money from the RGV estate was being returned to investors , and the court did not see anything stoppable about that . BUT , the court will check if the receivership has proper legal grounds to recover money from from net winners, without ‘proving’ securities fraud.
it’s not all black and white. learn to understand things more than one level deep.
if this is also an incorrect thread , the moderator is requested to move this post to a relevant thread .
and that is all it is – a notorious troll going by the forum name “Anjali” saying stuff simply because she can.
Well understood and articulated Anjali. Thank you for the explanation. A+
thanks hoss.
gilmond/kings stance regarding the unproven allegations of the SEC, about ‘zeek securities’ is further fortified by ‘point no 12’ of doc 5 [consent agreement], of the zeek documents . this document is not copiable, so i’ll type out a phrase and the entire para can be read in the link below :
12]……..the commission [SEC] has not taken any position on the legality of zeekler.com or rex ventures LLC…..
drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxhc2R1cGRhdGVzZmlsZXN8Z3g6NjA1OWY2YThiZDdjZDM0Yg
[ https://behindmlm.com/companies/zeek-rewards/paul-burks-indicted-for-operating-zeek-rewards/#comment-324533 ]
zeek will remain a fraud , no matter what. but law is technical , so defining the fraud and its jurisdiction, is the basis of any matter before law.
if the SEC did not have jurisdiction , then the civil side matter gets hit.
the criminal side also will change , because DOJ will have to re indict burks on the ‘basis’ of some other kind of fraud , and not a ponzi fraud.
A Ponzi scheme can work without “securities”, e.g. an oral promise may work just as well as investment contracts—norway
yes, it may . but in this case the bill of indictment clearly states that VIP bids were functioning like ‘shares’ of the company, with some promised ROI. and the SEC clearly says that RVG sold ‘securities’ in the shape of ‘investment contracts’
yet , in their reply to gilmonds ‘motion to dismiss’, they imply , that the very fact that rex handed itself over to the state , and the very fact that rex entered the consent agreement , means they have conceded they were dealing with unregistered securities. strangely they do not mention that burks/rex did not admit/deny guilt .
if admission/denial of guilt had no legal value , why would the SEC make admission of guilt a condition in some settlements, from 2014 onwards?
Because nobody cares. Zeek Rewards was a Ponzi scheme offering unregistered securities.
[https://behindmlm.com/companies/zeek-rewards/paul-burks-indicted-for-operating-zeek-rewards/#comment-324605]
the question about whether zeek was offering ‘investment contracts’ or some other type of contract , seems to be the bone of contention between gilmond etc and the SEC .
the fourth prong of the howey test : ‘which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party’ is interpreted differently by both sides.
SEC : burks/rex did the lions share of the ‘work’ that made zeek run .
gilmond etc: without the ‘work’ of the affiliates there would be no zeek at all .
Article updated with news of Zeek’s net-winner’s motions to dismiss being denied.