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?
And now you want to walk away with the millions you collectively stole from Zeek’s one million plus victims?
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.
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.