Zeek Rewards Receiver sues top Australian net-winners
So far the court-appointed Zeek Receivership has sued the $850 million dollar Ponzi scheme’s top domestic (US) net-winners and their Canadian counterparts.
Now, in a lawsuit filed on the 29th of December, the Receivership is going after Zeek’s top Australian net-winners too.
The worst of the worst of Zeek’s Australian investors, these are the Ponzi thieves who have thus far failed to negotiate a settlement and return the millions they collectively stole from their victims.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are:
Gert Bjerring ($826,801)
A resident of Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Dancon Pty. Ltd. is, upon information and belief, a shell company through which Bjerring was a ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of $826,801.73 under one or more usernames, including “globalvision1.”
Since Zeek, Bjerring has laid low but recently he got involved in Staged (“content hijacking” recruitment scheme). He also appears to be a fan of Wenyard (shares-based scam).
Bjerring appears to be living quite comfortable and regularly publishes photos of himself and his assets on Facebook:
David Mitchell ($298,802)
A resident of Tyalgum, New South Wales, Australia.
Mitchell is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $298,802.10 under one or more usernames, including “davemitchell.”
Nicola Holloway ($273,009)
A resident of Hope Island, Queensland, Australia.
Holloway is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $273,009.36 under one or more usernames, including “globalnetworks.”
Sam Fawahl ($232,564)
A resident of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Fawahl is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $232,564.55 under one or more usernames, including “TeamUnited.”
Back in 2011 Fawahl, along with two co-founders, attempted to launch a MyShoppingGenie teambuild under the name “PreLaunch Australia“.
That never really went anywhere… with Fawahl later ditching the name for The Beehive Strategy.
Fawahl wasn’t happy with our coverage of his various ventures, telling BehindMLM that “the authorities” would “take further action without hesitation” if we didn’t “cease and desist” our reporting.
Whether or not Fawahl was a Zeek investor before or after his failed MLM launch attempts is unclear. Given he pretty much dropped off the radar after The Beehive Strategy also went nowhere, I’d be tipping the latter.
After stealing a couple of hundred thousand from Zeek’s victims, Fawahl went on to join Empower Network ($25+ cash gifting).
Warren Hickey ($159,757)
a resident of Hope Island, Queensland, Australia.
Health and Success Pty. Ltd. is, upon information and belief, a shell company through which Hickey was a ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of $159,757.73 under one or more usernames, including “GlobalProfitShare.”
After Zeek, Hickey went on to invest in Bidify. Modelled closely on Zeek Rewards, Bidify sought to clone the “success” of the penny auction Ponzi craze at the time.
After going through numerous relaunches to put off the inevitable Ponzi collapse, Bidify (now MyCenterBid) management expressed their frustration last year at the lack of new investors coming on board.
Other opportunities Hickey has been involved with include Numis Network and Monavie.
About a year before Zeek was shutdown by the SEC, Monavie’s President warned the public that it was “probably a Ponzi” scheme.
Lars Frederiksen ($139,365)
A resident of Willetton, Western Australia, Australia.
Frederiksen is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $139,365.49 under one or more usernames, including “perth.”
Frederiksen appears to have ditched MLM, going on to launch “Product Agency” in February 2014.
Product Agency is a Business-to-Business platform, promoting only unique products & services, supplied by small to medium sized businesses.
We provide suppliers with an online dedicated product page, showcasing their product or service. In addition suppliers receive SEO, page statistics, videos, and much more.
Paul Mandelt ($128,913)
A resident of Hillarys, Western Australia, Australia.
Mandelt is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $128,913.02 under one or more usernames, including “sunray.”
After Zeek Rewards Mandelt signed up as an affiliate with Seacret (sea salts autoship focused opportunity).
Kelvian Hansen ($111,799)
A resident of Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Hansen is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $111,799.43 under one or more usernames, including “Kellil.”
Hansen doesn’t appear to have gotten over the Ponzi scheme bug, having gone on to invest in WorldWide Solutionz:
Anni Thompson ($95,566)
A resident of Yandina Creek, Queensland, Australia.
Thompson is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $95,566.00 under one or more usernames, including “teamliberty.”
Ann Audrey Hickey ($83,487)
A resident of Hope Island, Queensland, Australia.
Hickey is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $83,487.05 under one or more usernames, including “GlobalProvenPattern.”
R&J Thumm Family P/L ($80,130)
As Trustee for Thumm Investment Trust (“R&J”) is a proprietary limited company organized under the laws of Australia.
R&J is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $80,130.26 under one or more usernames, including “GlobalWealthSystems.”
Robert Heinz Thumm (who presumably signed his family up under their trust account), is Managing Director of Thumm Estate Wines.
Nestled in a magnificent majestic valley at the base of the Gold Coast’s Mount Tamborine, Managing Director / Oenologist Robert Thumm continues his family’s three hundred year heritage of viticulture and winemaking.
Maybe there was a downturn in the Queensland wine industry over 2011 and 2012?
David Cane ($77,296)
A resident of Hope Island, Queensland, Australia.
Karanda Holdings Pty. Ltd. is a shell company through which Cane was a ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of $77,296.57 under one or more usernames, including “GlobalCashFlow.”
As per the Karanda Holdings website:
Karanda Holdings Pty Ltd is a family owned company started in 1994 to operate family business interests.
From time to time we may list or recommends certain business, opportunities or Affiliate Programs that we have found rewarding or believe they have future potential.
There are currently no MLM related businesses listed on the site.
Donna Walton ($76,730)
A resident of Beaudesert, Queensland, Australia.
Walton is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $76,730.36 under one or more usernames, including “Candyamore.”
Michael Georghiou ($74,968)
a resident of Cheltenham, Victoria, Australia.
Georghiou is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $74,968.93 under one or more usernames, including “4ever.”
Prior to investing in Zeek Georghiou was an affiliate with LifeWave (skin patches recruitment orientated opportunity).
After Zeek Georghiou went on to become a “founding member” of the Auruma International gold-based recruitment scheme:
At the time of publication the Auruma International website was non-responsive.
Thomas von Eitzen ($74,854)
A resident of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Eitzen is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $74,854.07 under one or more usernames, including “tomve.”
Immediately after the SEC shutdown Zeek, von Eitzen began to promote the reload scam Global One:
Global One floundered for months, before eventually collapsing.
Shortening his name to just “Tom”, von Eitzen has since gone on to invest in the Ponzi schemes Wenyard and My Advertising Pays (YouTube accounts: “Viral Marketing Tools” and “Tom von Eitzen”).
Here’s how von Eitzen pitches My Advertising Pays:
It’s Impossible NOT To Make Money” – Get PAID EVERY 20mins, 24/7
‘MyAdvertisingPays’….aka ‘M.A.P.’, GUARANTEES to PAY EVERYONE 72 times per day after viewing just 10 Ads Daily, which takes just 5 – 10mins each day.
Every Single person Makes Money – in fact it’s impossible NOT to make money.
Top US Attorney Kevin Thompson on-board.
Register here and start earning 2% Daily
Regards,
Tom von Eitzen
UserName: cash4ads
Email: (removed)
Int Phone: +61-4-6843-0596
Mobile: 0468430596
Skype: tom.voneitzen
Bradley Ferries ($72,325)
a resident of Hope Island, Queensland, Australia.
Ferries is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $72,325.96 under one or more usernames, including “GlobalAdvantage.”
Robin Reid ($61,114)
A resident of Hope Island, Queensland, Australia.
Reid is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $61,114.41 under one or more usernames, including “Globalstar.”
Linda Welch ($60,274)
a resident of Lower Beechmont, Queensland, Australia.
Welch is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $60,274.22 under one or more usernames, including “DailyReward.”
Maureen Fisher ($55,797)
A resident of Dicky Beach, Queensland, Australia.
Fisher is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $55,797.49 under one or more usernames, including “Globalsuper.”
Barry Goodsell ($53,650)
A resident of Bertram, Western Australia, Australia.
Goodsell is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $53,650.26 under one or more usernames, including “barryandsue.”
After Zeek Goodsell signed up as an affiliate with Organo Gold (coffee).
The website Goodsell was marketing on Facebook (circa 2013) was unresponsive at the time of publication.
David Joseph ($52,581)
A resident of Mount Claremont, Western Australia, Australia.
Joseph is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $52,581.70 under one or more usernames, including “dkjoseph.”
Birthe Seaton ($52,477)
a resident of Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia.
Seaton is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $52,477.31 under one or more usernames, including “jobiperry.”
The Zeek Rewards affiliates above have thus far failed to repay the funds they stole Zeek Rewards victims.
The Receivership, citing three prayers of relief, has now asked the Western District court of North Carolina to
- Enter Judgment against each of the Defendants in the amount of their net winnings from the ZeekRewards scheme
- Enter an injunction against the Defendants prohibiting each of them from dissipating their assets pending satisfaction of the Judgment against them and
- Award prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and such other and further relief against all Defendants as the Receiver is entitled to recover
From here the named defendants above will now have the opportunity to respond to the lawsuit filed against them.
If they fail to file a response, as we’ve seen in both the US and Canadian lawsuits, the Receivership will then likely file for default judgement.
This has been granted by the court in both the US and Canadian cases when requested, and is likely to be granted should any Australian investors fail to respond too.
As for enforcing US judgement against Zeek’s Australian investors in Australia itself, the Attorney-General’s Department writes:
Whether a foreign judgment can be enforced in Australia depends on where the judgment was issued and the type of judgment that was issued.
Currently, the enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia is governed by both statutory regimes and common law principles.
With respect to statutory regimes, the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 and the Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992 provide for the procedure and scope of the judgments that can be enforceable under the statutory regime.
It’s not entirely straight forward, but I believe Ponzi judgements would come under the Foreign Judgement Act.
Australian law firm Clayton Utz offer some further clarification:
A party seeking to enforce a US judgment in Australia must instead rely on the common law principles for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The good news is that the common law requirements are at least reasonably settled.
What US judgments can be enforced in Australia?
To be capable of enforcement in Australia, a US judgment must satisfy six requirements:
1. it must be final and conclusive;
2. there must be an identity of the parties;
3. if it is a judgment in personam, it must be for a fixed debt or readily calculable sum; the US court must have exercised jurisdiction in the international sense as recognised by Australian courts;
4. it must not be wholly satisfied; and
5. it must have been obtained within the last 12 years.
Looking at Clayton Utz’s explanation of requirement three, it might post a problem:
To enforce a US judgment in Australia the plaintiff must prove that the US court exercised jurisdiction over the judgment debtor which is recognised by Australian courts. This is often called “jurisdiction in the international sense”.
Under Australian common law rules a US court will be deemed to have exercised the relevant jurisdiction if:
the defendant voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction; or the defendant was ordinarily resident or present in the US at the time that he or she was served with the originating process.
While these are the two most common grounds for establishing jurisdiction in the international sense, there is an emerging line of authority which says international jurisdiction will be recognised where the defendant was a citizen of the country of the foreign court and the defendant actively used his or her citizenship.
Not sure how that’s going to play out later down the road, as to the best of my knowledge none of Zeek’s Australian investors named above fit that specific criteria.
First things first though, let’s see which of Australia’s top Zeek Rewards Ponzi pimps respond to the Receiver’s lawsuit.
Stay tuned…
Footnote: Our thanks to Don @ ASDUpdates for providing a copy of the Zeek Receiver’s December 29th civil action complaint.
Update 24th May 2017 – Default Judgement was granted against Gert Bjerring, David Cane (Karanda Holdings), Bradley Ferries, Maureen Fisher, Lars Frederiksen, Barry Goodsell, Kelvian Hansen, Ann Audrey Hickey, Warren Hickey (Health and Success Pty Ltd), Nicola Halloway, David Joseph, Paul Mandelt, R&J Thumm Family P/L, Robin Reid, Anni Thompson, Thomas Von Eitzen, Frank G. Johns, Donna Walton and Linda Welch.
to enforce foreign judgments in australia, the judgement must either fall within the scope of the Foreign Judgement Act, or under the scope of Common Law enforcement.
1] Foreign Judgments Act 1991:
2] for consideration under the Common Law Enforcement instrument, the Foreign Judgement may fall within a bilateral treaty for the ‘Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1994’. The UK has such a bilateral treaty with australia, but the US does not.
3] for consideration under the Common Law Enforcement instrument, the judgement creditor, who does not fall within the scope of a bilateral treaty, will have to apply to the australian court to enforce a foreign judgment (e.g. a judgment from the USA) under common law.
a] The foreign judgment must be final and conclusive. In other words, the foreign judgment must end not only the proceedings between the parties, but also the dispute which led to the proceedings. [ in the case of zeek, the dispute that has led to the proceedings, is still unresolved ie jurisdiction of SEC. the interlocutory order of judge mullen, finding SEC jurisdiction, is not the end of the dispute by a long shot]
b] If a foreign judgment is a form of default judgment, this could lead to some difficulty [some case law precedents]
4] the judgment debtor has a number of defenses available under common law, including the defense that the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud, that the foreign court acting contrary to natural justice or that the foreign judgment is estopped by an earlier inconsistent local judgment
all in all, unless a country has bilateral agreements with australia under the foreign judgement act or common law, the australian govt makes it tough for anybody to collect debt from it’s citizens.
Burks paid his fine and the matter ended. It’s resolved.
The criminal side of the case legally has nothing to do with the SEC’s case or Receivership.
just like the US clawback defendants are claiming the SEC and receiver have not proved their case, and so have no right to demand clawback from them, the australian clawback defendants could argue to their court, that the judgments of the US court, is based on a settlement, and hence not natural justice. its possible.
None of which apply in the SEC’s civil case. Yawn.
If they want to argue like their US counter-parts, they need to do it in the US. After default judgement is handed down it’s too late.
R&J may be a sound-alike. Its ID, GlobalWealthSystems has a Youtube ID with videos linking it to MyShoppingGenie
As for whether US lawyers can sue in Aussie courts… My feeling is these Aussies knew it’s an American scheme, so they subjected themselves to US law by participating. 🙂 Wonder what will their lawyers say… if they bothered hiring any.
The address in the complaint matches that of the winery.
There’s no “whether” about it.
The fact Anjalitroll casts doubt on it says more about her total lack of knowledge about the subject, than it does about the reality of the situation.
Anjalitroll is asking us to believe Kenneth Bell is simply whistling Dixie and Anjalitroll knows better
“could happen” my ***
There’s no current dispute about that, other than as a defense argument in “Bell v. Disner et al”. That case will eventually be tried in court.
* “SEC v. Paul Burks and RVG” has been correctly resolved. Consent judgments are completely legitimate, so there’s no dispute about jurisdiction there.
Disputes about details won’t be “exported” from one case to another. If any of the Australian defendants want to dispute any details, that dispute will eventually be resolved by the U.S. court.
The dispute there is currently about the MONEY, i.e. the net winnings from Zeek Rewards. That dispute will clearly be ended with the enforcement of a judgment.
The potential problem here seems to be about default judgments. Default judgments can be set aside, modified or vacated within one year from the date of judgment. They’re not “final”.
Nicola Holloway ($273,009) Usernames, including “globalnetworks.”
REAL NAME IS – Nicky Horking, now building Isagenix.
There’s nothing wrong with settlements?
Natural justice is about fair trial / due process / right to be heard. The net winners clearly have the possibility to excercise that right in the correct case. It’s not about constructed theories.
Third parties usually don’t have any right to be heard. Paul Burks had the right to be heard and the right to accept a judgment. Any third party won’t have the right to intervene with a “I’m not consenting to that judgment! It may indirectly affect me negatively in the future!”.
“SEC v. Paul Burks and RVG” has been correctly resolved. Consent judgments are completely legitimate, so there’s no dispute about jurisdiction there——norway
(Ozedit: As I mentioned earlier, the defendants are free to challenge the case in a US court. Once a judgement has been rendered (default or otherwise) it’s too late to challenge it.
The judgement will be looked over by the Australian court, not to challenge it but to see if it’s valid. The merits of the case or any arguments against the judgement itself are irrelevant at that point.)
…..and US sourced judgments will be covered…. providing the Receivership prevails in the Bell v Disner case.
A default judgment is not a settlement. A default judgment will be enforceable in Australia providing there is a final Order of Disgorgment in the US Bell v Disner case and there is no stay.
By the time the Receiver has disposed of the Bell v Disner case (months from now) the Australian defaults will be nearly ripe for collection and all Bell will need to do is succeed in the clawback suit and then “apply to the Australian court to enforce a foreign judgment”.
None of the common law defenses listed in item #4 have any credibility and your conclusion that Australia makes it tough for anybody to collect debt from it’s citizens is only true if items listed in item #4 apply…. and they most certainly won’t.
You assume Bell will go off half-cocked and try to collect on the US default judgments before he prevails in the Bell v Disner case. He will not do that.
Everything will be final in the US before he applies for enforcement in an Australian court.
a default judgment of a foreign country is enforceable in australia, according to australian rules. bilateral treaties are a big help, but the US aint got any with australia.
proving ‘jurisdiction’ is the most difficult aspect. an australian court has to decide that, receiver bell cannot.
a recent important international example regarding enforcement of default judgments comes from the UK:
(Ozedit: What happens in the UK is entirely irrelevant to Australia. Stay on topic please.)
Can someone explain this?
These opportunities appear. Oz dissects them, and… conclusion Ponzi. So why does it take the Authorities (in most cases) 18 months – 2 years before they close them down?
If it’s a PONZI it is a PONZI from day one right? It doesn’t take 12 months to become one. Or is it the cynical in me, that thinks they wait until lots of money is made so they can dish up to the receivers, lawyers, courts, knowing that a large percentage of losers will not claim, therefore the Government gets some nice cash.
Surely, as soon as it starts someone can get on the case stalling these PONZI’s so they don’t get off the ground.
the reason foreign defendants do not reply to court proceedings in the US , is that participation may be construed as acknowledging jurisdiction of the US court.
to avoid falling into the jurisdiction trap, a foreign defendant, may thus get a default judgement against him, due to non response.
thus, how seriously a court in australia, may view a default judgment arsing out of non responsiveness of the defendant, is to be seen.
Until people start filing complaints, the authorities don’t know about them. The ones that file complaints are the ones that don’t make money and/or lose money which sometimes can take awhile. It also takes more than one or two complaints to get on the radar.
Take a look at any business and you will find at least one person who has a beef with the company yet you’ll find lots more that are as happy as clams with it. So one or two complainers aren’t going to mean anything.
Once a company does come on radar, an investigation must take place. This can take some time and is usually done behind the scenes. It isn’t until enough evidence is gathered that the authorities will make a move.
Add to the mix that companies are located in different countries and there are different rules/laws. Plus a lot of companies keep switching things up either trying to stay afloat or ahead of the authorities.
As opposed to default judgement arising out of….?
/facepalm
Attention: The rules you posted allow a non-bilateral country to petition the court and obtain approval.
Its highly probable that the bilateral countries you speak of are members in the Commonwealth of Nations (former British Empire states and colonies.
For historical reasons the US would not be a part of that, but for you to suggest that the US and Australia are legally estranged is poppycock. Bilaterals obtain automatic recognition and others by application with the Australian court. That is all that your post illustrates.
You may go off half cocked but Bell will not.
None of the Zeek default judgments (as they are now) are enforceable in the US or in Australia because no court will enforce a judgment while the underlying issues are still in litigation.
If Bell does not prevail in the clawback suit the default judgments would, upon petition, be summarily set aside.
This much more than any fear of acknowledging US jurisdiction is why someone from Australia would not make an appearance in the US Court. Disner et al are litigating the case for them. As goes Disner so goes them all.
There currently exists over 200 bilateral treaties between the USA and Australia, including those involving Australias’ membership of the British Commonwealth.
In addition, the USA and Australia are both signatories to multiple International treaties and conventions, including anti terrorism and anti money laundering.
My point there was that you only have managed to come up with unsupported theories, e.g. theories supported only by other theories.
Theories must be supported by facts (from the case, or from some relevant legal sources). “Rule 52 says …” will point to a fact (what the law acutually says). Theories about what the Supreme Court actually can have meant in “UHF v. Forman” will be a theory rather than fact.
“SEC v. Paul Burks and RVG”, “Bell v. Disner et al”, “Bell v. Paul Burks et al”, “Bell v. Australian net winners”, etc. are independent cases in terms of judgments against the parties.
* The judgment against Paul Burks and RVG is a valid, final judgment. The appointment of a Receiver is valid and final too. Trudy Gilmond didn’t have any right to be heard in that case (it was denied). Australian net winners won’t have the right to be heard either.
You can of course try to prove otherwise, but you will need to prove that the judgment isn’t valid and final.
* Trudy Gilmond didn’t manage to prove her substantial right to intervene. Her right to intervene by permission was denied too. Any dispute she might want to raise against jurisdiction could be / can be brought up in “Bell v. Disner et al”.
* Australian net winners don’t have any rights in “Bell v. Disner et al”, in “Bell v. Paul Burks et al”, or in “SEC v. Paul Burks and RVG”. If they want to raise disputes about something, they will need to do it in the correct case.
There’s many other countries too, e.g. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, Israel, Malawi, Japan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and other countries.
The source Anjali referred to was something similar to this one. I didn’t find the exact source.
NOLINK://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/260096/International+Courts+Tribunals/Enforcement+of+foreign+judgments+in+Australia
Jake,
This is my two cents on why more of these ponzis are not investigated and shut down.
First off, I think people complaining about it is only part of the equation. Think about it. There are so many of these ponzis there. I do not think the US government has the resources to be chasing every one of these things down.
There is a lot of behind the scenes investigation that needs to go on prior to anything formally happening. I mean, seriously, all the government would have to do is sit here and watch what comes through and go from there.
So my opinion is it comes down to not having enough resources so the government has to pick and choose. And I also think that it has to be worth the time financially.
Many of these scams are so small that is it not worth the legal hassle to pursue.
It’s because of the different functions, i.e. a blog doesn’t have the same functions as a regulatory agency or as a court. Most people already know that, so we won’t need to repeat it.
There’s a difference, e.g. in standard of evidence, between a blog post and a regulatory action. Regulatory agencies will typically use other laws if they wish to act FAST, e.g. Montana AG will typically use lack of business registration locally in Montana to halt pyramid schemes from operating in that state.
Zeek Rewards was banned from operating in Montana 2 or 3 months before the shutdown. I don’t know the exact date, but Zeek had known problems in Montana in June 2012. WCM777 was banned from operating in Montana sometimes between August 2013 and November 2013. I don’t remember exact dates for that. Lack of business registration is relatively easy to prove.
A blog will not need to follow any “rules for civil procedure”, “rules for evidence” or any other relevant rules. If you won’t need to follow any specific rules then decisions can be made much faster, e.g. you can use theories as a type of “proof” for conclusions. You won’t have any jurisdiction problems either.
IIRC, Funky Shark was halted during pre-launch.
NOLINK://behindmlm.com/companies/funky-shark-abandoned-over-penny-auction-concerns/
Most Ponzi schemes will simply collapse or disappear relatively early.
Because we ain’t cops, and law enforcement, literally, has “bigger fish to fry”. Most of these matrix schemes barely reach a million or two. The really good ones reach 10 or 20. It’s the rare ones like WCM777, TelexFree, ZeekRewards, etc. that break 100 million and went for the 1000 million (i.e. 1 billion).
But the authorities are waking up to the fact that more and more ponzi and pyramid schemes are going online. There’s a WSJ article specifying that, and even mentioned the good old serial Ponzi-cheerleader T. LeMont Silver, hiding out in Dominican Republic.
With at least FOUR major SEC action in 2014, plus a few more warnings and lawsuits from Massachusetts (Go Galvin!) and other states, we can expect to see more and faster responses by the individual US states as well as SEC and FTC on these scams.
Yes there are many other countries. What of it?
Never mind. You meant many other countries that are on the bilateral agreement list. Yes there are.
It seems like you believe in the theory that the court has “brought the dispute forward to a new, hypothetical case” when it denied the MTI? “Bell v. Disner et al” didn’t exist in July 2013 when the MTI was denied, and a court can’t “bring a dispute forward” to a hypothetical case in the future.
If the Australian net winners want to dispute something, they will need to raise the dispute in the correct case.
A dispute about SEC’s jurisdiction will not be “brought forward to Australia” as an issue to be resolved by an Australian court. The Australian court won’t have the correct jurisdiction for that issue.
“The owl of Minerva flies at dusk.”
FFS sake get real!
They close them down, then find staff (at a major cost) and chase the money.
What about prevention?
One reason for not shutting down small Ponzi schemes is the “poor versus rich” argument. An agency can’t use more resources on small, relatively unimportant schemes “organized by poor people” than it uses on more major schemes “organized by Wall Street”.
Multiple scemes shut down in their early beginnings will give the impression that poor people have become a target for actions, while rich people can be allowed to go free for years or decades. There will always be some big schemes that can go on undetected for many years (just like Madoff).
When the next big scheme is shut down too late, any statistics showing that SEC mostly have shut down small schemes can be used against the agency. “That’s where SEC use most of its resources, attacking the poor organizers while ignoring the really big ones”. 🙂
At any given time the two major HYIP ponzi forums alone have over 2000 “programs” listed as being current.
The majority of them are run by people who purposely use false identities, untraceable payment processors, multiple IP addresses, disposable phones and parked domains.
IOW, they use the same anti detection methods as professional criminals dealing in millions of dollars
I suggest you have a quick read of this Letter from a scammer NOLINK:talkgold.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-143765.html to get a basic idea of just how “professional” at avoiding detection some of these people can be.
It is rare that a US based ponzi / pyramid fraud such as Zeek or AdSurf Daily comes along which lasts long enough to make an investigation likely to succeed, given the time it takes to collect enough evidence to satisfy a courts’ requirements.
@Jake
Ponzi schemes are illegal, you can’t get much more preventative than that.
Regulatory agencies punish offenders, they aren’t the thought police.
I try to keep track of major cases handled by the SEC and there are literally 20 to 30 pushed through every week. One in a few hundred might be MLM related…
Law enforcement is about reaction rather than prevention. We don’t have a “Pre-Crime” unit (i.e. Minority Report) that can anticipate crime happening.
Tougher regulations is not the answer either. In China, where fraudsters are sometimes actually put to death (or at least get the death penalty to be commuted to life in prison) there are still much fraud going on.
Yes, I know you are frustrated. Trust me, not as much as we do.
Oz have been at this longer than I am but we’ve seen too many “obvious scams” live on far longer than we anticipated. It’s time for the international law enforcement to step up their efforts on cracking down on Internet-assisted fraud instead of the big-name hacks and whatnot.
Here’s some more information about that case:
NOLINK://behindmlm.com/companies/funky-shark-fined-40000-by-montana-csi/
One problem may be that Montana only will act locally. It will act relatively FAST, but it will usually not offer any “complete solution”. Sometimes it’s much better to act FAST.
here is a recent example of US default judgment which was enforced by australia:
(Ozedit: I’m going to stop you right there as I saw nothing about Ponzi schemes in the rest of the comment. Stay on topic please.)
Anjali I’m this close to spambinning you for a few weeks again.
Stop posting irrelevant waffle that has nothing to do with Australia or Ponzi scheme judgements. I wasn’t initially paying attention to the last few Zeek articles but damned if this one turns into another thousand comment wafflefest of offtopic irrelevancy.
there is no special law for ponzi default judgment. the basis of proving jurisdiction remains the same.
No, it doesn’t. It’s a case by case basis.
$850 million Ponzi scheme clawback judgements are not the same as some pissy failure to make payment contract dispute.
allright, bye.
The Australian ATO ( AUSTRALIAN TAX OFFICE ) will be looking into all Australian net-winners tax returns.
Which is why courts don’t make a practice of handing out default judgements for cases in which they have no jurisdiction
I think Bell will eventually include the foreign defendants as one or more subclasses of the Disner et al. class action suit. This way they will be afforded an opportunity to defend their receipt of funds. Following that, the class and all subclasses should be ordered to disgorge their winnings, and money judgments issued.
How Australia, or any other country reacts to this depends in part on jurisdiction but also the way a particular country views internet fraud and the promotion of illegal business opportunities by and to their own citizens.
Legalistic arguments aside its hard to imagine Australia/Canada not playing a role in combating this type of traffic.
The Australian defendants will most likely be summoned through an Australian court in their own districts, a court with personal jurisdiction over the defendants. That’s how it normally will be done across geographical jurisdictions.
There are currently only 22 Australian defendants, so there’s no excuses for using any simplified procedures.
We can look at this case to see how it will be resolved, i.e. we won’t need to put up any complicated theories. But summonings are currently missing among the court documents (the Docket file only lists 2 entries).
Someone else who was in over his head with Zeek was John Lavenia, author of Integrity Is Everything. He then went on to Empower Network.
He claims he was a loser in Zeek Rewards compared to the above mentioned. Along with Tony Rush they went over to Dubli.
John was also in GiveOpp. A website you reviewed back in 2010.
I don’t see service of process as establishing in personam jurisdiction in the international sense that Oz described.
Until some further information comes along, enforcing a judgment based on in personam jurisdiction looks pretty iffy.
On the other hand recognition of in rem jurisdiction may work, which is to say, that the Aus. court would recognize the Zeek estate’s right to recover its property wherever it may be.
I wasn’t talking about “establishing personal jurisdiction”, but about which procedure to use to make sure the defendants could be properly informed about the lawsuit, “the due process rights”.
If the initial information, summons and complaint, are sent through an Australian court (in the defendant’s own district), the plaintiff will get a “proof” for that the defendant has been properly served using the correct local procedure.
In rem = juridiction over property?
That idea sounded a little “sought”, as in “if the personal jurisdiction doesn’t seem to fit, then the next type of jurisdiction will probably fit”.
Do you have a better idea?
That’s a given. The issue was jurisdiction not process of service.
Safe to assume the book was a comedy?
I didn’t focus on “the issue”. 🙂
Australia seems to have some restrictions on foreign lawsuits / judgments from foreign courts. I simply looked at one of the options for how to serve the lawsuit.
FRCP Rule 4(f):
A local court, in the defendant’s own district, should normally know the most correct procedure to use.
I didn’t bother to analyse any of the alternatives. Serving the lawsuit through a local court is one of the methods that can be used.
in his MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [july 2014], bell clearly writes:
bell, cannot unilaterally include foreign resident zeeklers,including australians, into a class action without their permission. this is because if foreign residents get included in the class, they are effectively submitting to the jurisdiction of the US court.
foreign resident zeeklers, will try to hide behind australia’s enforcement regulations, and mainly contest jurisdiction, as it is the strongest weapon they have, in the absence of relevant treaties with US.
australia and the US, are both member countries of the hague convention of the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents.
besides this australia also allows use of private process servers, diplomatic channels or local agents.
once the defendant has been served, bell will have to approach the local australian court, to enforce the judgment, by rendering their own judgment, which becomes equivalent to the foreign judgment, and hence enforceable within the sovereign boundaries of australia.
Fantasy, IMHO.
They participated in business transactions involving a US entity. Don’t recall if Zeek had a disclaimers section, but it probably *did* say any applicable laws will be that of North Carolina, US of A.
so, US jurisdiction, if not particularly north carolina is pretty clear!
further a long boring reading , which is non copiable [!], says that ‘forum clauses’ are easily accepted by both US and australian courts as a decidor of jurisdiction, as both parties have mutually agreed to it at some point.
[http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61917/1/Paula_Huang_Thesis.pdf]
good job chang, you solved the puzzle of the day ! 🙂
is a judgment in north carolina enforceable in nevada?:
the uniform enforcement of foreign judgments act, USA 1964 [intrastate] , which is accepted by most US states, has a ‘full faith and credit’ clause, which enforces the judgments made in one state, in another state.
a judgment in one state, is fully enforceable in another state, as a local judgment, and can be contested only on very narrow grounds that it was obtained unfairly or inappropriately.
Good catch. Not sure why you think inclusion in the class would imply consent to US jurisdiction but its not going to be an issue anyway according to the passage you quoted
The N.C. District Court will interpret the TOS contract per Nevada law. If judgments result and Bell or an assignee desires to enforce them, they must be filed in the State where the judgment debtor resides.
I did business with a California company and sued them in my State of residence. The CA company did not answer the summons and I received a default judgment.
I then attempted to enforce the judgment in CA which resulted in far more litigation costs than did obtaining the default judgment in the first place.
also remember, that unlike you, receiver bell has long arms and deep pockets.
but, when zeekrewards was incorporated under nevada law, why is it being sued in north carolina?
Because like TelexFree, the rego in Nevada was meaningless. Everything was being run out of NC.
AdSurfDaily also was incorporated in Nevada. So was WCM777 Inc., one of the Ming Xu entities.
Some of the Ponzi schemers appear to read from the same playbook: I know! Let’s deke them with a Nevada mail drop!
The Feds ended up going after ASD in the District of Colombia, even though it was operating as a Nevada foreign corporation from Florida. The SEC chose California to go after WCM777.
PPBlog
Why wouldn’t it be sued in one of the places it committed the offences ??
SEC doesn’t see itself as a “you”, so it has probably ignored the Terms of Service agreement. 🙂
You will understand what that “you” is if you read your own quote in post #56.
Regardess of funds available the cost of enforcing a judgment across State lines and access to the court is the same for pauper or king.
It is not unusual for an out of State defendant to let a summons go unanswered because addressing a suit out of town with unfamiliar counsel is not only costly but can be disadvantageous.
The defendant may choose instead to default and contest the judgment on their own turf. This naturally turns the tables on the plaintiff who must now argue his case out of State with unfamiliar counsel in order to obtain enforcement.
As a general maxim of law it is said that “Equity abhors a forfeiture” which is why default judgments are not all that plaintiffs might wish them to be.
I’m pretty sure Zeek rewards is a dba of Rex Ventures which is the Nevada LLC, (Burks company) which was was conducting business out of N.C.
When a Federal agency brings suit it does so in Federal Court. It can choose any Federal Court it wants, including the one in Las Vegas but it chose the one in Charlotte, NC for its own convenience.
A private individual could file in Federal Court to providing the dollar amount at issue is in excess of $50K (?) and there is diversity (i.e., parties from at least two different states)
The choice of law and venue invoked by the TOS is Nevada but this action is not between affiliates and RVG, therefore the law that applied to SEC v Burks was Federal securities laws not Nevada Law.
The significance of the TOS may be that the Australian affiliates agreed to venue and law of Nevada. Is that tantamount to agreeing to US jurisdiction. Arguably yes but who really knows at this point.
The dollar amount and diversity criteria are fulfilled in the Receiver’s Bell v Disner clawback case and suits brought against foreigners (Aussies etc.) are properly venued in Federal Court as well.
exactly. if enforcing judgments can be a pain between states of the US itself, imagine the difficulties of enforcing judgments abroad.
according to paula huang’s thesis [post#56], the US and australia, do not extend easy cooperation in the matter of enforcing each other judgments, and like to go into the finer print. i will be surprised, if australian netwinners respond to bells motion.
canada, on the other hand, has introduced some new legal standards for establishing jurisdiction of the defendant [real and substantial connection], and hence enforcing foreign judgments of the US in canada, is easy. this may explain why some canadian netwinners have replied to bells motion.
This is now patently absurd.
Anjalitroll basing her pronouncements on a thesis by some random person she’s dug up is just plain ridiculous.
I think I might just continue to believe a receiver with Mr Bells’ experience might just know a tiny bit more than some random, non US based blogger with a history of trolling.
this why companies like zeek register in nevada, and this is why, the SEC and DOJ chose not to go after zeek under nevada law, in my opinion :
it’s entirely possible burks and other top management had created shell companies, and shifted money to save havens abroad.
Your opinion is wrong. The SEC have sued not just Zeek, but other companies where their primary business operations take place (TelexFree in Massachusetts for example).
Suing a company where it is registered in name only makes little sense.
None of this has been mentioned in any of the regulatory lawsuits to date. Please don’t just make up stuff you pulled outta your arse. At least without acknowledging that you just made it up.
I agree. I think they will take the default, let the Sorkinistas argue against clawbacks and hope the default can be set aside.
Failing that they must argue jurisdiction in an Australian court, where the terms of the TOS make it very unlikely they will prevail.
I think you’re on the wrong trail there. Rex Ventures and Burks are alleged to have broken federal securities laws. The SEC is a Federal Agency and does not sue in State court under State law…It sues in Federal District Court under Federal law.
Nevada could have brought suit but it didn’t…end of story.
If needed Mullen will interpret the TOS and affiliate contracts per Nevada law because the terms of the agreements say so, otherwise Nevada has nothing to do with this.
The anonymity and protection against personal liability that a Nevada LLC could have afforded Paul Burks is long gone.
Zeeks’ ToS is unenforceable, due to the fraudulent nature of its’ operations.
“For these reasons, the court held that the terms and conditions were void, and all the provisions contained in those terms and conditions, including the purported agreement to arbitrate any disputes, did not bind the parties”
Australia, like many of the countries in which net winner reside, is a signatory to the Hague Convention which provides an established method to provide service of process.
Without having to resort to conspiracy theories or uninformed commentary, why would anyone assume Mr Bell hasn’t already put in place the necessary mechanisms to recover the debts, including co operation with legal firms in all the different jurisdictions precisely as he said he would ??
Mr Bell filed the necessary paperwork in the 93 Federal districts in which he believed recoverable assets may have been located BEFORE he sought court permission to proceed.
Without resorting to conspiracy theories, what would lead anyone to believe he didn’t do the same BEFORE seeking (and gaining) court permission to proceed against overseas based net winners ??
Terms of Services is an agreement between Zeek Rewards and affiliates. SEC isn’t an affiliate, is it? DOJ isn’t an affiliate. The Receiver isn’t an affiliate.
The only case where Nevada jurisdiction ever have been mentioned is in “Bell v. Howard Kaplan”. The Nevada jurisdiction can be relevant for “internal affairs” in the company.
1] hague convention has many different topics under which international cooperation is sought.
2] australia and US are both NOT signatories to the hague convention of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters.
3] australia and the US are BOTH signatories to the hague convention of service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents
effectively this means there can be service of judicial documents/judgments between both the countries, but there is no binding on either country to enforce these judgments.
of course, receiver bell is perfectly capable of servicing the foreign judgments with ‘due process’. it was enforce-ability which was the subject of doubt.
but isn’t the receiver standing in the shoes of rex, and trying to collect from netwinner affiliates, who agreed to nevada jurisdiction ?
Yeah, like Australia is going to stand in the way.
Get real
you are like floatsam, never going beneath the surface of anything.
forum clauses can be held void, if there was fraud in the inducement to agree to the clause, which leads to INJURY.
are the netwinners Injured Parties?
A Terms of Service agreement which is invalidated by the illegal nature of Zeeks’ activities.
They were victims of a fraud, so, yes, they fit the definition of an “injured party”
Thus “victims” of fraud are “injured parties”
If we start with the two others: “SEC isn’t an affiliate. DOJ isn’t an affiliate”. Then we have that part clear = ToS won’t make any sense for any of them.
The ToS is probably unenforceable after Zeek Reward was shut down as a Ponzi scheme. You can’t enforce fraudulent contracts through a court.
The only place where Nevada laws have been mentioned was for RVG’s internal affairs, in “Bell v. Howard Kaplan”.
That shouldn’t surprise anyone? That convention only has 5 parties.
Try this one:
NOLINK://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Service_Convention
Both Australia and the U.S. are signatories to the Hague Service Convention.
be careful, LRM , if you start calling netwinners ‘injured parties’, you cannot expect to collect from them. injured parties, can hardly be injured any further!
injured means physical, emotional, monetary injury of some sort, and if you look at the photo of bjerring above, it will be hard to fit him into this definition.
besides, forum clauses does not address the underlying fraudulence of the business. the inclusion of the clause itself, should be fraudulent, or not easily accessible, or hidden.
1] Under Delaware and Federal Law, a party cannot escape a valid forum selection clause,by arguing that the underlying contract was fraudulently induced or invalid for some reason ‘unrelated’ to the forum selection or arbitration clause itself.
2] Instead, the party must show that the forum selection clause itself is invalid.
3] An arbitration or forum-selection clause in a contract is not enforceable if the inclusion of that clause in the contract was the product of fraud or coercion.
4] The proper inquiry is whether the forum-selection clause is the result of fraud, in the inducement of the forum-selection clause itself.
but, since the US has different states using different versions of the laws, the interpretation of ‘legality of forum clauses’, may vary from state to state.
Thank you, Anjalitroll for “goodness knows whatever it is you just said”
Just another reason to stick with believing Mr Bell and real courts.
huh? when a non US citizen unknown internet blogger like me could understand the federal law about forum clauses, why cant you?
Forum clause laws I can understand, what it has to do with the subject at hand is the problem.
Fraud negates contracts.
The rest is nonsense
“Federal Law about forum clauses”? I don’t think that law exist. That’s why you understood it and others didn’t.
It sounded like you were cherry picking from Wikipedia, from something out of context with reality.
What’s the reality of the case, e.g. what type of law is the lawsuit based on?
that was not the matter at hand. the matter was whether the jurisdiction [nevada], agreed upon by affiliates of zeek , via the forum clauses, can stand OR are negated by the fraudulence of the zeek operation.
you are saying, zeek was illegal, and hence the entire agreement, and the jurisdiction of nevada are void.
i’m saying the underlying fraudulence or misrepresentation of the business does not affect the jurisdiction clause, unless the clause itself has been introduced by fraud.
if not ‘law’ shall we call it ‘federal rules governing enforce-ability of forum clauses?’
i found some material here:
jha.com/us/blog/?blogID=2712
caselaw.findlaw.com/tn-court-of-appeals/1172850.html
It matters not what you’re saying.
The case is now Federal and the ToS is invalid.
Here, nothing in the “clause itself” is fraudulent, unaccessible or hidden. It should be enforceable but that is not really the point. Jurisdiction is.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Zeek Rewards Terms of Service
JURISDICTION, VENUE and APPLICABLE LAW
The TOS along with the Privacy Policy and Purchase/Membership/Affiliate agreement constitute the entire agreement between you and Zeek Rewards and govern your use of the Service.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even if the agreements mentioned above are illegal and void…it takes a court to make such a declaration.
My view is that the Aussie Zeekers expressly submitted to US jurisdiction when they signed the TOS, and the court will use that to retain jurisdiction and rule on the validity of the contracts, forum selection, choice of law, and clawbacks.
Choice of forum is a dead issue. The forum is Fed District NC. The choice of Nevada law may have some relevance if Mullens finds that Zeek was not a ponzi…. otherwise the contracts will be declared void or illegal and the choice of which law governs them will become meaningless.
And of course the Receiver wouldn’t have known that before he instituted the action he did – MUCH
If only he had employed Anjalitroll before he got himself in the pickle he’s in.
Oh, wait…………………………….
The first one seemed to be about contract law, the second one seemed to be about contract law. And the reality (the clawback litigation) is about what?
That’s why you should identify the realities first. If clawbacks are based on Fraudulent Transfer, then you can’t apply contract law. You can’t extend a contract clause into other areas than what it initially covered.
Your logic could have worked if the net winners had been sued for “breach of contract”, e.g. if people had earned recruitment commissions based on false accounts (and RVG still was operational as a business).
The TOS was about how to handle certain types of disputes. You can’t apply it to ANY dispute.
The appointment of a temporary receiver automatically made those contracts unenforceable. You won’t need any declarations from a court about each and every detail, it should be enough if a court order has made the contracts unenforceable.
Trudy Gilmond referred to her contracts in Motion To Intervene, but there she failed to prove the validity of her claims. She has probably mentioned contract terms among her many defenses / counter claims too.
If the Aussies signed a TOS and concurrent agreements (“the contract”) then contract law applies and here it provides the rationale Bell needs to assert that the Aussies consented to in personem jurisdiction.
As I understand it Anjali argued only that the jurisdiction, venue and choice of law provisions of the TOS are not automatically fraudulent simply because RVG devised and carried out a fraudulent scheme. I agree. It does not have to be an all or nothing proposition.
IF the TOS/Agreements were bilateral contracts for illegal purposes BETWEEN two parties then the contract would be void at inception and entirely unenforceable by either party. That is where contract law would not apply, but that is not what we have here.
Neither the SEC or Bell has asserted the affiliates contracted for an illegal purpose but to the contrary that they were investor-victims.
Accordingly Bell will not argue that the contracts are illegal and void, but only voidable, meaning that there may be enforceable parts and unenforceable parts. This is what will permits him to show that affiliates consented to US jurisdiction.
Presumably Burks breached the contract which lead to many affiliates losing money and others receiving fraudulent transfers. That is why Burks is at risk from civil suits brought by investor-victims such as those represented by Patrick Miller LLC.
ridiculous
The validity of her claims have not been adjudicated. Bell will concede that the contracts were legal but that will not benefit Gilmond in the least because Bell will also argue that RVG breached the contract….which is why Gilmond is in receipt of over a million dollars in fraudulent transfers.
The appointment of a temporary receiver terminated most other contracts too. Please note that I’m referring to the realities, I’m not referring to any law theory.
“Unenforceable” doesn’t mean that people can’t dispute it, e.g. Trudy Gilmond could use the contract terms as part of her own counter claims.
Is it automatic or isn’t it? You just said it was…now you say it isn’t.
You are probably strongly focused on some constructed theory, but you have failed to see the reality. Almost all existing contracts were cancelled by the court when the receiver was appointed. The Receivership is about “winding them back”.
“Unenforceable” means that none of the parties have been bound by those contracts after August 17 2012, e.g. RVG could stop paying more money out to affiliates, affiliates didn’t need to post daily ads, etc.
“Unenforceable” doesn’t mean all disputes have been resolved.
I clearly specified that I was talking about the realities. I haven’t changed anything. It’s probably your own test methods that have failed here, e.g. you’re testing it against the wrong ideas.
The appointment of a temporary receiver made almost all contracts unenforceable, but it didn’t make them undisputable. Disputes can be settled out of court (e.g. the net winner settlements), or they can be resolved by the court (e.g. the clawback litigations).
So what you think is that the contracts (including the provisions concerning jurisdiction, venue and choice of law are “automatically” unenforceable by some self activating process…. which Gilmond may dispute.
Does this mean that the contracts could be found enforceable after all? Or what? Could some sections of the contracts be enforceable and not others?
Or what?
I haven’t mentioned any “self activating process”. Different parts of the Order Appointing Temporary Receiver made those contracts unenforceable by giving the contrary types of instructions.
The court automatically froze the enforcement of those contracts, e.g. an assets freeze instruction from the court (to be served to financial partners) will automatically over-rule existing contract terms allowing payments.
A major instruction can over-rule several minor contract terms, and thus making those contracts unenforceable.
You have probably focused on some very specific ideas, e.g. the idea that the court should look specifically at each and every contract and make decisions specifically about everyone of them?
Example: “Since the Order didn’t specifically mention the contract between RVG and Preferred Merchants Solutions LLC, that contract was probably enforceable”.
Currently we don’t know anything about the details, but I can’t see any rational reasons for Bell to argue contract terms against net winners? Contract terms are typically used in very specific types of disputes.
That idea had some major flaws. Parick Miller LLC failed to see the reality. That lawfirm focused on its own legal theories rather than on the realities of the case.
That idea could have worked if the reality had been different, e.g. if Zeek hadn’t been shut down before the lawsuit and had continued to operate a profitable business.
Patrick Miller LLC has been rather unsuccessful in its legal actions on behalf of the class members. All in all, it has been a costly but poor solution for the clients.
correct.
the position of the supreme court is that forum clauses have to be upheld, unless the forum clause itself has been introduced by fraud or is invalid. this is the bright line rule.
however different circuits and different states, use their own rules to decide forum clause cases. some circuits and states follow the bright line rule and other use a variety of tests to adjudge the enforce-ability of the forum clause. it’s a big bugger mess.
so, it’s simpler ,just to see what nevada says about the enforce-ability of forum clauses as our characters, rex and aussie winners, are subject to nevada jurisdiction.
the nevada supreme court, has advised its courts to relax the bright line rule and look at ‘intent’ of the parties vis a vis their position to the forum clause.
zeekrewards was incorporated in nevada, so for them to chose nevada as jurisdiction for any disputes is reasonable enough. they did not say we are incorporated in nevada, but jurisdiction will be in in hawaii.
the aussie net winners, received whatever zeek rewards offered them through their agreements. they got their bids and their commissions. they have not complained of breach of contract.
their refusal to recognize the jurisdiction of nevada, if it comes to that, will be mostly because, they want to avoid the clawback, by ‘artful pleading’. their ‘intent’ will be questionable, and on top of that, they have suffered no injury either.
so, the contracts stopped delivering after august 2012. but those contracts were solemnized under nevada jurisdiction . so any disputes arising from the halting of the contracts, ie redistribution of money exchanged during the the functioning of the contract, will be subject to the same jurisdiction, which was agreed upon, during the signing of the contract?
if a contract stops delivering, where should the jurisdiction go ?
Maybe you prefer Norway’s magical unenforceability process instead.
Auto matic. Greek autómat (os) self-moving
Sorry bunny.
A freeze is not the same as making a contract “automatically unenforceable.” First a freeze is by court order, it not automatic, and secondly a freeze only maintains the status quo with no finding that the contract is unenforceable.
So your brilliant conclusion is that because the Patrick Miller action was stayed that his clients have no possible cause of action against Burks or RVG? I think you have gone snow blind.
the clawback litigation is about fraudulent transfer.
to get foreign zeeklers to pay back these fraudulent transfers, bell has to establish that these foreign debtors are subject to the jurisdiction of the US court. [ it has been established in earlier posts that proving jurisdiction is a sticky point]
to prove US jurisdiction, an argument available to bell, is to show that these foreign zeeklers had agreed to nevada jurisdiction, when they joined zeek. zeek had been delivering it’s side of the agreement, and the foreign zeeklers were making their profits with no breach of contract and no injury.
so, when clawback is executed, what basis do the foreign zeeklers have to contest the jurisdiction, they previously agreed upon, without complaint?
That’s why I have pointed out several times that my comment was about the realities, not about constructed law theories.
The shutdown of RVG and the appointment of a receiver made most contracts unenforceable in reality. It doesn’t mean it resolved each and every legal dispute. It doesn’t mean that each and every contract was immediately terminated either, but most of the contracts we’re discussing here became immediately unenforceable.
That’s why I have pointed out several times that my comment was about the realities, not about constructed law theories.
The success of that lawsuit depended on a different reality. A lawsuit against a broke defendant makes very little sense. Fix your own snow blindness first before focusing on mine?
Then Bell will either need a settlement with each one of them, or he will need a valid and enforceable judgment against each one of them. Or he will need a combination of settlements and judgments.
He will need to show that those transfers are subject to U.S. laws, to NCUFTA or to Common Law fraudulent transfers. It will become too complicated if he will need to prove that the foreign debtors are subject to U.S. laws (other than indirectly).
Yes.
That is not what Bell will be arguing. His version should run along the lines of RVG-dba Zeekler fraudulently induced affiliates to invest money and then fraudulently transferred that money to earlier investors disquised as profit sharing.
Under this view the breach of contract was immediate and continuous.
I don’t think the contracts mentioned anything about how to handle clawbacks.
I don’t think it’s very important whether the amounts were related to a contract either.
From the Complaint:
Sorry I guess I missed the part where the RVG estate went “broke.” When did that happen? During the snowstorm?
You are COMPLETELY missing the point.
but but but, without showing that the foreign debtors are subject to US jurisdiction, how can bell get the australian court to enforce his default judgments? proving jurisdiction is Everything, when it comes to enforcing judgments abroad!
meanwhile, while we sit here and squabble over the agreements and jurisdiction in nevada, bell has Ignored Us [ 🙂 ], and taken a completely different route to proving jurisdiction over aussie winners!
in point 41 of his suit against australian netwinners bell says :
we got busted !! 🙂
drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YXNkdXBkYXRlcy5jb218ZmlsZXMtd2Vic2l0ZXxneDo0NjVjYTRlYWZjZjU1OGU2
“Belsome et al” has been stayed, so it will most likely be suing an empty shell when the stay finally can be lifted.
I have analysed the ideas as they have been presented. But that doesn’t mean I have accepted all those hypothetical theories.
From the Complaint:
Those hypothetical ideas for how to establish jurisdiction seemed to be rather irrelevant, “rather constructed”. If I missed a point there, I’m pretty sure I didn’t miss anything important. So I can probably live with that missing point.
most US state’s have long-arm statutes to determine whether a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
these statutes are based on showing that the defendant had ‘substantial connection’ to the plaintiff state.
these long arm statutes are often used in interstate matters of the US.
however, the ‘substantial connection’ test, is still not accepted in the case of foreign judgments. it has been encouraged at conventions like the hague, but is still not accepted.
in post#66, i mentioned that canada through action of it’s supreme court, started recognizing ‘substantial connection’, with regards to foreign judgments.
in countries like australia it is held that , if ‘substantial connection’, is to included in the enforcement of foreign judgements, then it should be a legislative process and not decided by the court system.
the common feeling is, that due to a world being connected on the net, the law is lagging behind, and the US and australia should start freely accepting the ‘substantial connection’ test for deciding jurisdiction in foreign judgments too.
So, according to Anjalitroll Mr Bell has apparently instituted the action against net winners without doing his research and without consulting Australian lawyers in the hope he can somehow sneak past the Australian authorities and intimidate Australian net winners into coughing up their ill gotten gains before they wake up to his trickery.
Nah, let’s continue to believe he knows what he’s doing.
this is from a study conducted by the australian attorney generals department:
long arm jurisdiction, as i have explained in a previous post, is exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, on the basis of ‘substantial connection’.
even paula huangs thesis [2013], recommends that US and australian law needs reform, to include the ‘real and substantial connection test’ as the new judicial basis for deciding jurisdiction in foreign judgments [page 4]
how do you know LRM? maybe the US and australia will add the substantial connection test, anytime now!
consult.govspace.gov.au/files/2012/11/Discussion-Paper-1-Reducing-legal-complexity-of-cross-border-transactions-and-relationships.pdf
eprints.qut.edu.au/61917/1/Paula_Huang_Thesis.pdf
Don’t mind me, Anjalitroll
Carry on regardless.
Watching the three of you second guessing people who really do know what they’re doing is seriously funny.
It’s way beyond the stage where you can do any harm to any of the victims, so, have at it.
Goodness knows the world needs more humour.
I don’t believe in exactly the same ideas as the Receiver does, but I believe it will be better to look at those ideas rather than at hypothetical ideas based on contract laws.
Wow! You mean their suit would become mooted by the estate’s lack of money? What a concept!!! Couldn’t the judge just “reverse the orders” and replenish the estate’s coffers?
Merry Christmas! Belsome et al.>>>
Whether the estate is an empty shell or not, the breach of contract claims (the causes of action) brought by Patrick Miller are justifiable. That Belsome may not be able to “get at” Burks and RVG due to the stay is a separate issue.
Not so fast.
1.Bell is arguing that Mullen has jurisdiction.
2. Mullen has not accepted jurisdiction yet.
3. Even if Mullen accepts jurisdiction (as he should) based on the Aussies’ interaction with North Carolina, that is not the same as the Aussies consenting to US jurisdiction. The Aussies’ did that in the TOS.
4. Whether or not Australia will permit enforcement of a US judgment will still be decided in Australia.
judge mullen can definitely accept jurisdiction, over the australian netwinners, based on the long arm statute of north carolina ie N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-75.4.
bell has Not Made a Single Reference to the Affiliate Agreements of the aussies/zeek, and to the Nevada Jurisdiction Clause, in his suit. why??
he could have said : defendants have conceded to nevada jurisdiction, voluntarily. moreover, due to N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-75.4, even this NC court has jurisdiction over the defendants.
whats the story there? why did bell not take formal note of the nevada jurisdiction agreement?
Yes you did.
Because Zeek Rewards was a fraudulent $850M Ponzi scheme.
what contract laws are you talking about?
enforcing a foreign judgment is based on jurisdiction , finality and validity of the case, and a claim for a definite calculable sum of money.
these preconditions are the same whether the foreign judgment arises from a failed contract, fraudulent contract, or any other fraud.
there is no separate process for enforcing payment on the basis of contract law or ponzi fraud.
They just might if current law is impotent to enforce foreign judgments in a situation like this. This won’t be the last time this comes up.
I still think the express consent to jurisdiction by a US Court within the TOS will turn the trick.
Because its not relevant to whether Mullen takes in personem jurisdiction in North Carolina. The choice of venue clause contained in the TOS has been overcome by events.
What’s the world coming to when an experienced judge gets things so wrong, yet Anjalitroll can spot the error in a flash ???
If only they’d come to you first, Eh, Anjalitroll
Because those contract clauses are not very relevant for the type of lawsuit. Forum clauses are relevant for disputes about the contracts, but you can’t extend clauses like that into other areas.
You can’t separate contract clauses from the contract itself. The scope of the contract will also limit the scope of the clauses, e.g. a contract between a lawfirm and a client will not be binding for any third party or for a court.
Patrick Miller LLC had an extended interpretation of contract clauses when it tried to get the distribution of funds sent directly to the lawfirm rather than to the clients. It had an extended interpretation in “Attorneys Charging Liens”. Both were denied by the court.
I didn’t post anything like that?
I focused on some realities, e.g. that a class action lawsuit against a broke defendant would be rather meaningless.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing here. From my point of view, “seeing the lawsuit to be about money”, the stay has heavily reduced the chances for a successful outcome. From that POV, the defendant’s ability to pay restitution can’t be separated from the lawsuit.
If you see lawsuits as some type of “personal entertainment” or “moral victory”, then the defendant’s ability to pay restitution may become less important, e.g. it may become “a separate issue”.
One of those two viewpoints will be more rational than the other.
Not very? Are they relevant or not?
What other areas?
Nobody is trying to do that.
Meaningless verbal garbage.
When the contract states the intention of the parties then it is proof of the parties’ intentions. Providing he executed the TOS there is proof that the Australian affiliate expressly intended to submit to the jurisdiction of a US Court in the event of a dispute between himself and RVG.
Well guess what….there IS a dispute between the affiliate and RVG and the Australian affiliate has agreed to US in personam jurisdiction to settle it. This simple straight forward “fact” of jurisdictional consent is what should permit a North Carolina judgement to be enforced in Australia… and its based on the contractual agreement between the affiliate and RVG as represented by the Receiver.
So, yeah. The contract matters.
Then why should the appellee’s ability to pay be separated from the appeal?
Whether its a lawsuit or an appeal, if the estate is “broke” there is no practical remedy the court can fashion even if the plaintiff-appellant prevailed. The boy is “broke” because he’s dead and the estate is “broke because it aint got no money.)
Either way the cow says the issues are moooooooot.
Here is where you’re supposed to say that it doesn’t matter because the judge can always reverse the distribution order and replenish the estate’s coffers if Belsome et al wins their lawsuit against RVG. Go ahead. Make my day.
@Hoss
Your posts #136 and #137 are mostly about meaningless BS. You can’t expect me to spend any time on anything like that.
yes, the hague convention, has failed to get a consensus on enforcement of foreign judgments since 1971, but they have resumed work in earnest on this issue since 2012. we can expect some results within a couple of years.
one of the problems is that technological advancement has led to the judiciary feeling a bit stumped. example; if two people make a deal on their mobile phones from different states, where does the jurisdiction lie?
if i send an email to zeek, it is addressed to an email address, which has no physical location, so did i address the email to north carolina, or just to an online presence, zeek?
the lack of consensus, is because countries have to be very very careful, before they open the lid of this pandora’s box.
What you call meaningless BS was a parody of your magical thinking. I am not suprised it sounded meaningless to you. My parrot didn’t get it either.
I think this is true. Reading lately, I have come to admire the wisdom of designing governments and judicial systems that slow decision making down.
Oz can probably delete post #136, #137, #138, #140 and this post, “to clean up the thread”. Then you can repost it if you have any relevant questions or comments.
1] bell hasn’t mentioned the TOS or nevada jurisdiction in his suit At All.
2] even if you consider, that aussie net winners agreed to a ‘choice of court agreement’ in their agreements with zeek, the chances of an australian court accepting the jurisdiction of the ‘choice of court’ are not very high , according to statistics [from the australian attorney generals depts study]:
what is required is a bilateral treaty for enforcement of foreign judgments, between the US and australia, because they such big trade partners. i wonder why they wont get off their ass.
@don of ASDupdates
a few canadian netwinners have responded to receiver bells suit, for clawback.
do you have access to their replies?
Unfortunately for you, Anjalitroll the fact you can’t find the information you seek doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or, indeed, you are even looking in the right places.
While you’re scrabbling around trying to prove your case, Mr Bell and his Australian counterparts have been quietly working away relying on common law principles for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
See that bit at the end: “you can save time and costs by developing your enforcement strategy at the beginning of a case”
If you’d been paying attention to what was being said, you would have realized by now that is exactly what Mr Bell said he was going to do and why it took as long as it did for the overseas claims to be raised.
IOW, he was getting his ducks in a row before moving and didn’t move until he was good and ready.
This is not clear. What is/is not being enforced? Choice of court agreements or foreign judgments? One may effect the other but I don’t view them as the same thing.
uh, i’m asking don, he has the bestest organized and mostest info about court documents about zeek. there isn’t a righter place to look for the info i’m seeking. so bugger off.
how does “preparation’ for a case,and saving time and money, affect the LAW?
will the LAW change if i address it early or later?
currently the LAW regarding in personam jurisdiction [australia] in foreign judgments is restricted to the defendant being present in the territory during the event, or agreeing to the jurisdiction of the foreign court voluntarily.
aussie winners agreed to nevada jurisdiction, but somehow that fact is not relevant to the north carolina proceedings. bell is going with the long arm ‘substantial connection’ argument, which is currently not recognized between the US and australia.
i’m sure bell has a reason, and it will come to light subsequently.
meanwhile, can we have access to the canadian netwinners response, if possible. their arguments will shine a light on how they are interpreting the ‘foreign judgment’ issue.
If the defendants wants to argue Nevada should be the venue they can do so, but considering the need for judicial economy its impossible to believe it would be approved.
The only value I see in the TOS is that when executed by an Australian citizen it illustrates intent to submit to US jurisdiction. That’s useful when trying to convince an Australian court to enforce a US judgment against the person.
Otherwise N.C is the proper venue. Not even the Great Sorkin contested that.
The law is in place, Mr Bell knows that and his Australian counterparts know that.
The fact you don’t know that makes absolutely no difference.
What you are discussing is your interpretation of what laws you think apply and you’re plain wrong.
But, it is funny watching you.
the Great Sorkin did not argue, the ‘choice of court’ argument, because his argument was based on a more ‘intrinsic’ question , of whether the SEC has any right at all, to address the zeek scheme under the ‘securities definition’ , in ANY COURT.
absolutely NOT. everything i’m saying is based on legal studies and opinions emanating from australia.
who the hell am i, to interpret Whole laws, of Whole countries, via my Opinions?
Zeek affiliates didn’t agree to ANY type of dispute being resolved under Nevada law. They agreed to resolve disputes arising from the contracts in the normal course of the business [as it was described in the contracts] under the laws of Nevada.
Note: I haven’t read the different Zeek Rewards contracts.
Contract disputes would have been relevant if Paul Burks had made significant changes to payments, work requirements, costs, privacy policy, etc.
The Receiver should normally argue that the contracts are completely null and void. Affiliates like Trudy Gilmond should normally argue that the contracts were and are valid and enforceable.
I’m pretty sure an action against a foreign national has to be brought in Federal Court and both Nevada and NC have them.
Correction, an action against a foreign national or a party from another State (other than North Carolina) MAY be brought in Federal Court providing the amount at issue is at least $75,000.
The choice of law is very clear….its Nevada….providing there is a contractual dispute, but I suspect the mainstay of the clawback action will be governed by North Carolina law due to the alleged violations of the North Carolina Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.
But then we’re very close to my “reality” Point of View = “the ToS clauses won’t be very relevant for this type of dispute”.
“The reality” was about many details, e.g. that the shutdown of RVG and the appointment of a receiver had made most contracts unenforceable, and that contract clauses can’t be extended to cover something they were not initially intended to cover when the contract was signed. It didn’t try to specifically cover any law theories.
You are arguing with yourself
++++++++
Again, concerning the TOS
in post 145, you have listed a condition for enforcement of a US judgment in australia.
then you propose that the ‘law’ is ‘in place’.
so, instead of making broad sweeping statements like ‘the law is in place’ [ so everything will be fine!], could you Exactly Explain, the law which describes “jurisdiction in the international sense as recognised by Australian courts”
don’t make silly ‘mommy will take care of it!’ arguments, mommy is not superman, except to a child.
in oct 2014, a canadian net winner, sandra gavel, wrote back to the clerk of the north carolina district court, in response to his summons in the civil action clawback, instituted by bell.
the letter cannot be copied, but it shortly and succinctly states, that she rejects the jurisdiction of north carolina or of any other US state, over herself.
she asks for evidence, that US jurisdiction applies to herself.
i guess, this will be the legal argument forwarded by all those foreign net winners that respond, to bells suit.
i wonder if gavel is aware, her supreme court, has recently started recognizing foreign jurisdiction, especially of the US, based on ‘real and substantial’ connection.
drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YXNkdXBkYXRlcy5jb218ZmlsZXMtd2Vic2l0ZXxneDozZTFhOWI2MmIzZWYwYTgz
“Your offer to contract is hereby rejected as unacceptable” in bold, black letters across the summons.
That response was better than no response. She wasn’t listed among the default judgments against Canadian net winners (December 18).
NOLINK://behindmlm.com/companies/zeek-rewards/receiver-files-default-judgements-against-canadian-net-winners/
is it a smart move or just a delay tactic?
her letter was received by the charlotte, NC, clerk on 24th,oct,2014.
why wont bell reply?!! please hurry mr bell, i’m dying to know, what your argument for jurisdiction is about, and how your’e going to back up the ‘real and substantial’ connection argument!
if bell replies to gavel, listing the reasons by which US jurisdiction is applicable to her, she cannot reply further by letter, but will have to argue the merits, in the north carolina district court.
so, after bell responds, and if she does not take the matter further, he can have a default judgement entered against her.
i’m thinking all her letter does, is delay the entry of a default judgment against her.
please answer this question norway:
how did zeek pay its foreign affiliates? were bankers cheques Ever sent to them, or were payment processors used Always?
… why is that?
Bell’s response will be to file a Motion for Default. Her response is legally inadequate. Ex parte communications, to the Clerk of the Court don’t cut it.
gavel’s letter was received by bell on oct 24th, 2014.
bell filed 8 motions for default on dec 18th, 2014. gavels name is not on that list.
if her response is legally inadequate, and of no consequence, why isn’t she on the default motion list?
gavel has followed the correct procedure by addressing her letter to the court clerk office.
this is called a pro se answer [ without help of an attorney], and such a letter is to be addressed to the court clerk.
Someone in the Receiver’s office will probably call or write this lady, let her know that her response, no matter how sincere, is legally inadequate and give her a few extra weeks to respond. That’s the fair way to go about it.
there are several ways to answer a summons, ie motion to quash, motion to change venue etc.
the kind of answer gavel has given is called a demurrer:
gavel is saying the allegations against her are not worthy of response, because there aren’t legally sufficient grounds for applying US jurisdiction on herself.
filing pro se letters is a good way of establishing your’e ‘broke’ from day one itself.
whaat your’e asking for clawback? you have no jurisdiction!
whaat you’ve entered a default judgment against me ? i’m so broke, i had to send you pro se letters!
Perhaps especially ex parte communications from a purported “natural person” who apparently has come to believe that a U.S. federal court clerk has offered her an opportunity to enter into a “contract” and that it somehow is legally prudent to “reject” this purported “contract” as “unacceptable.”
This same Canadian “natural person” also curiously seems to take issue with “United States Article II Judge[s]” and others.
@anjali
There is a chance that a so-called “sovereign citizen” or a person being influenced by a “sovereign citizen” is at work here.
For some background context on individuals who may call themselves “natural persons”:
NOLINK: lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2627
You also may gain some insight by following the U.S./Canada “sovereign citizen” threads at Quatloos.
Side note: Some of the ASDers came under the influence of “sovereign citizens.” The U.S. Feds seized the client files.
See USA v. Leaming et al
PPBlog
i think gavel called herself a ‘natural person’ as defined by law, and i don’t think she was necessarily subscribing to the freeman-on-the-land definition of a ‘natural person’. but, thanks for the laugh 🙂
natural person [legal meaning]:
a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.
Now that you mention it. Yes. Very familiar.
You may choose to laugh at a communication with a U.S. federal court clerk in which the uppercase words “YOUR OFFER TO CONTRACT IS HEREBY REJECTED AS UNACCEPTABLE” are scrawled across a summons, but I will not.
What I will do is point out that this action is consistent with a person who — innocently or not — is making a political statement instead of a cogent legal argument.
I’d also point out that the persons who do such things may not know it is consistent with the “sovereign citizens movement” or may not understand they are acting under the influence of a “sovereign citizen.”
“Sovereign citizens” can lead the unknowing into tremendous legal follies that affect pocketbooks and, in extreme cases, even freedom itself.
Of course, it’s also possible that a person who files such a document with a court clerk is fully knowing.
There is a reason Kenneth Wayne Leaming, a figure in the ASD story, is serving eight years in federal prison after his arrest by an FBI Terrorism Task Force and subsequent conviction.
What you’ve demonstrated in your most recent posts in this thread is that you do not even understand what you are cherry-picking.
PPBlog
I think your right Patrick. This bit is driven by ideology.
Not necessarily…. but characterizing a summons as an “offer to contract” has a very peculiar slant to it. Put the two element together.
Except nobody uses “natural person”. People say “John Doe, an individual” in court documents, as separate from “John Doe Inc, a corporation”.
The only people who use “natural person” nowadays are indeed the “sovereign citizens”, to make it “legal sounding”. Gullible people don’t know the difference.
Yes. She is in effect saying that, and she has a right to say it.
Your idea that she has filed a demurrer is a reasonable understanding of what she is TRYING to do but its very likely the the judge will require a straight answer to the complaint properly filed (not a letter containing interrogatories directed at the Clerk.)
As I said the Receiver will probably give her some extra time to file a proper Response to the Complaint, but she can only play the Canadian idealouge for so long before Bell files a Motion for Default…. and obtains one.
BS. Its a sure way of being defaulted. If she is serious about contesting jurisdiction she needs show up and argue the issue, not send half baked correspondence to the Clerk.
She was clearly referring to some theories similar to Sovereign Citizen or Freeman on the Land.
NOLINK://www.natural-person.ca/
Most people would have referred to “Canadian citizen” rather than to “natural person” in a dispute about personal jurisdiction.
A dispute like that could have worked, e.g. if it had been based on realities (like only a vague connection to the other country). But “natural person” theories will typically ignore realities and be based on a belief system.
I think its probably for a couple of reasons starting with the fact that her reply was eccentric. Its possible she replied in good faith and believes her response was adequate.
Bell will want to confirm she understands that it wasn’t and give her additional time to file a proper answer before proceeding.
Secondly, she may be more than eccentric. Bell will not ask for a Motion to Default until he is reasonably sure she is mentally competent.
I did not say it was of no consequence… only that it was legally inadequate.
She’s acknowledged receipt and demonstrated verbal skills adequate to understand and respond to the Summons. That’s on the record. She’s not doing herself any good here.
It establishes nothing of the kind and even if it did, so what? If she is found liable to repay the money…… then a judgment will be entered. Her “brokeness” is irrelevant at that point.
She can argue broke with the debt collector or the bankruptcy court when it actually matters.
OK, i’m not laughing any more, there’s some serious loony bin stuff going on there.
speedread of mary crofts natural-person book says:
it’s apparent sandra gavel feels, she can make ‘money’ from the system, but plead to be a ‘natural person’, if she is asked cooperate with the system!
so, natural persons can bleed the system and then not subscribe to it at all. how convenient!!
what does bell do now?
gavels demurrer to the district court’s clerk, is based on the idea that ‘The plaintiff does not have the legal capacity to sue’ [ because he has no jurisdiction ].
following this, three things may happen:
1] the Demurrer is overruled, and the defendant must file an answer to the original complaint within a time frame.
2] if the Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend the complaint, the plaintiff can correct the errors in the complaint, serve the defendant with an amended complaint, and the case will proceed.
3] if the Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend the complaint, the case is usually dismissed.
since the grounds of the demurrer are ‘frivolous’ [i’m a free soul and i will not contract with you], i think judge mullen will find some basis for overruling it, following which a default judgment will get entered against gavel.
It’s addressed directly to the court. Technically, she questioned the court’s jurisdiction over her as a natural person living in another country. She also questioned the jurisdiction of the laws involved.
The “natural person” idea isn’t something that can be recognized by a court as a legal issue. It’s about BELIEFS rather than about LAWS. So the only identifiable legal issue there is that she’s living in Canada, and U.S. laws don’t apply directly to Canadian citizens.
Bell will need to prove that U.S. laws can be applied to her ACTIONS, to the fact that she did business with a U.S. company on American soil. It shouldn’t be more difficult than that.
actually, bell has to prove, gavels actions were directed to north carolina, and hence the district court NC has jurisdiction over her.
there is no such thing as ‘general jurisdiction in american soil’.
some questions arise here, because zeek was an online business.
the question of ascertaining a states jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, has one important question which needs to be satisfied, ie, could the defendant have reasonably assumed to be summoned to that particular jurisdiction, and be sued there?
participants in zeek were communicating with the online, world wide, non physical presence of zeek. they were being paid through a worldwide, online, processor without regard to the physical location, from where the money paid to them. if they received cheques, then substantial connection is proved, but with online processors, it is difficult to show they were ‘directly’ receiving money from north carolina.
zeeklers agreed to a jurisdiction of nevada, while they worked with zeek. how could they reasonably expect to be hailed to the jurisdiction of north carolina, since they had no direct dealings with the physical office of Zeek, unless they visited it at some point?
the ‘substantial connection’ test over the internet, is a bit of a muddle, and is being developed [slowly] by case law, so who knows How Which Court Will rule?
a reverse argument to post#183, could be ;
zeeklers got their own personal ‘zeek stores’ which they uploaded from servers based in north carolina [if that is where zeeks servers were located] – this shows substantial connection, according to some case law.
the ‘zeek stores’ of the foreign defendants, were available for viewership and sales, to residents of north carolina [whether or not any business resulted] – thus the foreign defendants had ‘advertised’ to NC residents, and this is a substantial connection, according to some case law.
You were correct in that the personal jurisdiction is a little diffuse. It will become more diffuse if you apply too many theories.
Where the servers were located doesn’t seem to be of importance. Affiliates sent withdrawal requests to RVG, they didn’t send them to a server (it’s not about technical details but about the realities of the case).
Catherine Parker (as an example) had 6 transactions IN to RVG between April 28 2011 and July 3 2012 (more than a year), a total amount of $694.00. She had 55 weekly withdrawals between July 11 2011 and August 14 2012 (more than a year), a total amount of $180,351.05.
I would have pointed to activities like that rather than to theories about server locations, payment processor locations, “online business”, and so on and so forth.
Weekly withdrawals can easily be seen as an “ongoing activity over a significant period of time, involving substantial amounts of money”. It will be better to show something like that.
the problem is, courts have to look at many theories, and go to the bottom of the matter. they cannot make rulings based on ‘broad strokes’.
merely logging on to an online business and participating in it, cannot make you liable to being sued, in any jurisdiction in which the online business has offices, or warehouses etc. the world will become a bloody mess that way.
courts look for more substantial connections than that, ie you uploaded something from servers physically located in the jurisdiction, or used your online presence to transact some business with that jurisdiction directly.
cyberspace lawyers strongly advise online businesses to have forum clauses for choice of jurisdiction, to avoid confusion.
in the case of zeek, we are seeing that the forum clause has been ignored, and jurisdiction is being claimed on the physical presence of the company.
is it reasonable for participants to expect being sued, in a jurisdiction to which they never agreed, or never had any direct contact with?
any withdrawal requests, were addressed to the online company zeek, incorporated in nevada. how were they directed towards NC?
yeah well, gavels letter cannot become Invisible, it has to be dealt with Legally.
judge mullen will have to overrule her demurrer, before bell can progress further.
it will be interesting to see, on what grounds her ‘being a natural person, over whom US jurisdiction cannot apply, by any law, or statute, or blah’ is overruled.
t’will be fun 🙂
Why don’t you explain to the crowd how the court is going to apply Nevada law to allegations that RVG violated the North Carolina Uniform Transfer Act….but before you do that explain exactly why North Carolina is not a proper forum for bringing the action and why Mullen could not retain jurisdiction.
When you are finished there, please explain what contractual dispute you would like to have adjudicated under Nevada law?
This is one of the most important pieces of judicial reasoning on “sovereign” matters in Canada:
NO LINK: albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/Family/2012/2012abqb0571ed1.pdf
She’s had her own thread(s) at Quatloos for years.
If you want to understand the atmospherics, you’ll need to read up on David Icke, shape-shifting reptilian aliens and such.
PPBlog
uh, no one is going to apply nevada law to RVG/NC, so stop right there.
are you saying zeek did not violate the nevada fraudulent uniform transfer act, or similar acts in any of the other states? it’s not like only NC has a uniform transfer act.
zeek is being sued in NC, because it was the nerve center of the business. zeek/RVG has a clear and substantial connection to NC, by setting up offices and banking and servers, all to utilize the laws of NC, in order to propagate their business, and they offered their business to NC residents
the US supreme court has said that in resolving internet based ‘substantial connection/minimum contact’ questions, it is important that the foreign defendant ‘Purposefully’ directed his actions towards the forum state.
so how do foreign defendants have a substantial connection to NC, when they never ‘Purposefully’ addressed anything to NC? if zeek had 25 offices in different states, and money paid out from various banks across state lines, which office would the defendants have been ‘purposefully’ addressing?
common sense would say, that defendants were addressing the online zeek which was registered in nevada ? No?
so, how can they be dragged off to NC? if forum clauses are meaningless and offer no protection to foreign consumers, why have them at all?
if I participate with a US online business from india, feeling secure that a forum clause , provides Indian jurisdiction, in case of any problem, and then the US business becomes bankrupt,and the trustee says, screw your forum preference you’re getting sued in NC, because this is where the company is physically located. I’d be like HUH ??
Its not invisible. Its in the public record where everyone can see it…and ignore it.
no. it will be dealt with Legally, and even that will be on public record.
courts cannot Ignore any material addressed to them. they deal with it, and move on.
Have it your way. It will be properly and legally ignored.
I didn’t use “broad strokes”. I looked at the case itself and the evidence currently presented for one of the default judgments against one of the other defendants (Catherine Parker, 54-1.pdf).
That’s the type of substance a court will need to look at to be able to make a decision. It will need to be based on some material facts, e.g. transactions of money.
The clawback litigation is based on Fraudulent Transfer. That’s about transactions of money from one entity to another entity, with one of them having a fraudulent intent to “hinder, delay, defraud” other creditors.
None of your counter arguments are very relevant for this type of case.
* A server or an online business don’t make decisions, people do.
* A server or an online business don’t have intentions, people have.
Your arguments “I did business with the servers” or “I did business with the online representation of Zeek Rewards” will have too little substance for this type of case.
…RVG dba Zeekler was sued by the SEC because there were Federal questions and Zeek was conducting business out of NC.
What you don’t like is that RVG in Receivership is suing the affiliates under North Carolina law.
Doubtlessly the Receiver could have commenced a clawback suit in Las Vegas District Court but he did not have to because nowhere in the TOS does it say Nevada has “exclusive jurisdiction.” As such he filed in NC for purposes of judicial economy.
When the Disner v Bell suit commences in earnest the defendants can bring the jurisdiction issue up. Meanwhile, there have been multiple defaults and Gavel is in line to be another one based upon the court’s reasonable assumption that the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing.
No. According to your parameters the only substantial connection anybody had was with cyberspace.
When it comes down to jurisdiction, cyberspace is not available….However, North Carolina, where RVG had offices, a warehouse, employees + management is.
On the other hand Zeek spent $250 to register an LLC in Nevada but conducted no operations in Nevada (that I know of).
Is your slavish devotion to Nevada really appropriate under those circumstances.
You are like HUH.
Your description sounded more like being involved in a fraud than some type of consumer activity. And you guessed right, the forum clauses won’t protect you. They can be a part of the fraud, designed to make people feel more safe.
If you read the Canadian court’s opinion in #190 above, you’ll discover the “sovereign” was playing a “contract” angle and find an instance in which the judge rejected his documents in open court.
Note the “sovereign’s” use of the word “unacceptable”:
Some of the “sovereigns/tag-alongs” try the “contract” angle in reverse.
In 2008 and 2009, some of the ASDers hatched a certified-mail scheme by which they hoped to usurp the authority of the U.S. government and its Judicial Branch by seeking to trap prosecutors/investigators in a purported “contract.”
In essence, they demanded a litigation result from the government, reduced it to writing, put it in the mail and warned default would occur in (seven?) days if there was no response. The prosecution didn’t take the bait. The ASDers, of course, then declared default.
From this wholly manufactured “default” flowed preposterous claims that certain ASDers were owed by public officials sums ranging from $30 million to $120 million. There were companion claims that the judge was guilty of at least 60 felonies. (Side note: There was a “felony” claim against the Zeek receiver in the early days of the receivership, perhaps foreshadowing future events.)
With ASD, it was hard to tell who all the players were. But over time the situation evolved into a matter in which fraudulent liens were filed for hundreds of billions of dollars against certain government officials.
It quickly became apparent that a “sovereign” had declared himself eligible to practice law in the United States. Over time, it became clear that the “sovereign” — Kenneth Wayne Leaming — also was running interference for a federal prisoner (and former business colleague) in jail for a tax scheme.
A subplot emerged in which Leaming was recorded discussing a scheme by which he intended to use the young children of the Chief Justice of the United States as part of a plot to serve a writ on their father through the school they attended.
Leaming found himself behind bars not long after that.
PPBlog
I don’t think they mean much once a receiver is appointed.
It would seem that Burks put Nevada venue-law into the TOS in the belief that it afforded him (the owner of the company) the maximum protection from personal liability. This would be typical.
The choice of venue/law was not freely negotiated between affiliates and Burks. It was a precondition to participation in the Ponzi-Zeekler imposed by Burks. How much weight can you possibly give to that? My answer….not very much.
Secondly, and I am not sure where and how the line gets drawn, but Bell, as a Federal Receiver does not step into the shoes of RVG so much as he is “thrust into them.” As such, his responsibility is to the Receivership estate and its creditors.
If the net winners want to claim venue and jurisdiction is in Nevada they can, and Bell can contest it on the basis that jurisdiction in NC is in the best interest of the estate. I think Bell wins that argument.
yes the court has to look at transactions, BUT the court has to look at whether, the defendants “Purposefully” directed requests for these transfers to the forum state, NC.
the fact that zeek was paying out of the state of NC, does not mean participants were ‘purposefully’ requesting withdrawal from NC.
zeek could have paid them through ten different banks situated across the country, that was for zeek to decide, the defendants were not requesting their withdrawals from any particular bank or state or office.
you may look at the realities, norway, but you have to look at what the law says too.
this is what the law says:
a non-resident defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state if they
1) have direct contact with the state;
2) have a contract with a resident of the state;
3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state;
4) seek to serve residents of the forum state;
5)have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.
The banks didn’t pay investors, Zeek did and it is them who funds were requested from.
What banking arrangements Zeek had are irrelevant.
so, what you’re saying is that cyberspace businesses, should only have forum clause agreements about jurisdiction, limited to the place where they physically exist.
duh, i wonder why maximum companies flock to delaware and nevada, to register and select as their preferred jurisdiction, even when they have no physical presence there, but only registered agents. it must be meaningless system!
federal law and delaware law, even go so far as to suggest, that forum clauses should not be voidable based on the underlying fraudulence of the business, but only on the basis of fraudulent introduction of the forum clause.
is the law, here, there and everywhere!!?
I think you’ll find this is for anticipated plaintiff orientated litigation. And on the assumption that “maximum companies” aren’t $850M fraudulent Ponzi schemes.
Herbalife are registered out of the Cayman Islands but based out of the US. Nobody is going to waste their time suing them in the Cayman Islands.
Where you primarily conduct your business matters. Zeek primarily conducted its business in NC. End of story.
no, i was not describing participation in any fraud, but a simple US bankruptcy case, in which i am an alleged debtor from india, who had agreed upon the jurisdiction of india.
the US company goes into bankruptcy, and the trustee incorporates bankruptcy proceedings in the forum, where the company had its physical assest, and decided to sue me there. so, i have lost my forum rights, for no fault of mine.
The opposite idea will be what? “They purposefully directed their withdrawal requests to the servers located in Florida”, or “The 80/20 plan automatically sent withdrawal requests each week, without any interaction from the users”, or “They accidentally sent 55 withdrawal request in 57 weeks”?
I have used the logical idea that a withdrawal request will require a DECISION from the user. It isn’t something that will “just happen, out of the blue”.
A withdrawal request will require some decisions from the other party too, from Paul Burks or other key people in Zeek’s management. That doesn’t mean they had to make decisions for each and every withdrawal, but they did have to make some major decisions.
We can probably agree on that Gavel “purposefully” sent withdrawal requests, and that she actually had to make some decisions each week?
That will limit the question to “Did she knew the withdrawal requests were sent to RVG / Zeek in North Carolina, USA, or did she have reason to believe otherwise?”. And that question isn’t about what SHE believed, it’s about what a normal person reasonably can be expected to believe.
yes, we can agree that gavel, ‘purposefully’ sent withdrawal requests , through online contact, which is receivable anywhere in the world.
yes, the question is limited to whether she was ‘purposefully’ directing her withdrawal requests to the state of north carolina.
in the case of zeek it had One physical office. IF (Ozedit: Zeek only had one office. Irrelevant hypothetical removed).
to the best of her information, she was dealing with zeek, which was registered in nevada, and she had ‘contracted’ with zeek under the law of nevada, and she personally had no interest, or contact, or contract, with the physical zeek, in NC.
how could she know her payments were not coming out of nevada?
Because Zeek openly advertised their office in NC. They even offered check pickup/deposit to all their affiliates, specifically out of this office.
Claiming to not have known Zeek operated out of NC will just get laughed out of court.
Zeek had no operations in Nevada, what an affiliate knew or didn’t know (or to put it more accurately, now pretends to know or not know) is entirely irrelevant.
Withdrawal request is about decisions in the back office. It’s not about transactions of money in itself. It’s about telling the company how much you want to withdraw this week to one of your e-wallets (Zeek used more than one payment processor). It would first be executed after a 14 days delay.
thanx for that link, it’s nice to see judges use words like ‘gibberese’, ‘stupid’, ‘nonsense’ 🙂 . this para kind of sums up the sentiment of the court:
it’s sounds ‘a bit’ like parents dealing with teenage rebellion : you have no authority over me! and i will do as i like!
it never ends well !!
the herbalife parent international company is registered in caymans.
herbalife US is registered in nevada.
the distributor agreements are under the jurisdiction of california, and herbalife head office is in los angeles, california.
so, in this case , herbalife can be sued in california, and the distributors will be deemed to have minimum contact with the california forum, and hence haleable to california jurisdiction, because they have a ‘contract’ with a resident of the state.
And if you were going to, that’s exactly where you’d sue them. For no other reason than that’s where they are actually based in the US.
Any regulatory litigation will also be filed there for the same reason.
If you really need clarification on this, just go look at the TelexFree bankruptcy shenanigans. Otherwise this discussion about jurisdiction is over.
They can put Mars in the contract if they want to, but a judge still decides jurisdiction venue and law. I’m sorry if that is inconvenient for you, but law takes precedence over contract.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
They “flock” to Delaware because its laws make it difficult (though not impossible) to pierce the corporate veil. Management incorporates in Delaware to protect their own asses and Burks set up a Nevada LLC to protect himself from personal liability just the same.
There’s no contractual benefit to the affiliates in this, but the opposite. It was for the benefit of Burks. What the hell does Joe Schmo in India/Lebanon and Peoria know about the commercial laws of Nevada any way? Give me a break.
So….Yes the Zeekers have the contractual right to sue RVG in and under the laws of Nevada….which you should be happy to know, however, at this point, its a right devoid of any real meaning, since any suit brought against RVG in Nevada would immediately be referred back to the RVG Receivership action in North Carolina.
Happy now?
You misunderstand “answered” and “addressed” here. Gavel must file a response. If she elects to do it pro se she can mail her pro se Answer to the Clerk of the Court at the address provided on the Summons.
Answering the Complaint by addressing her remarks DIRECTLY TO THE CLERK is improper and legally inadequate.
She must address her remarks TO THE COURT (not the clerk) and this is generally done in substantially the same format as a professional attorney would do it except where the attorney’s name would appear in the pleading, Gavel would put her own name followed by (pro se)
That you are confused by this, illustrates the point that Gavel “could” have been confused and why Bell’s office will contact her before filing a Motion for Default.
I think she’s gaming the system, but Bell must give her the benefit of the doubt anyway. Letters to the Clerk are inadequate. She must file a proper pleading VIA the clerk at the address on the summons.
so, every joe schmo from kansas/indiana or peoria, will know about the commercial laws of nevada every way?
do not be territorial in this age of the internet, hoss, it’s not polite!
huh, who said zeeklers were going to sue RVG or anything? i said zeeklers have a ‘contract’ and ‘minimum contact’ with zeek, in the state of nevada, but not so in NC.
lets see if the canadian courts and australian courts, agree to the jurisdiction of NC over their citizens.
since every joe and schmo is connected via the net, we will all get the info in real time! even in india and lebanon!
According to which rules? The rules will need to match the type of dispute, i.e. you can’t just apply ANY rule.
The dispute is about whether U.S. laws (including the U.S. Constitution) can be applied. That dispute will need to be resolved before you can apply any rules from FRCP.
Go back to sleep. You sound like that Leaming guy.
No, they won’t…. which is the point.
These knuckleheads don’t know what they signed. Burks put a TOS in front of them that protected his interests and they executed it. Why you are hemhorraging about it baffles me.
The affiliates have the right to litigate differences with RVG per the contract. So Let them! They can find out what they signed.
If you want to dither over NC jurisdiction, read the Complaint because it lays the foundation for that.
I’m not very focused on legal theories. I will usually try to identify the realities first. You on the other hand will mostly argue rather constructed theories from time to time. That’s very close to how Sovereign Citizens do it. 🙂
The “constructed theory” I questioned was this one:
I asked about “Which rule?”, the relevant rule to apply for the type of dispute. It should be relatively easy to answer, but yet you tried to avoid it.
Do you know what a dba is?? “Doing Business As?” “This action is styled SEC v Burks and RVG d/b/a Zeek Rewards.com
Meaning? The SEC viewpoint is that Zeek was controlled or owned, or an alter ego of RVG. For you to insist that NC can not be the proper jurisdiction for an RVG clawback action because Zeek.com was registered as a Nevada LLC is nonsense if it was as the SEC alleges an alter ego company of RVG owned and managed by Burks.
Therefore anyone contracting with Zeek was ultimately contracting with RVG.
Minimum contact is easily satisfied considering that affiliates were in contact with both Zeekler.com and RVG at all times since they were in fact operated as a single company.
Its inadequate because it was an ex parte communication to the Clerk of the Court who is neither qualified or empowered to decide the issue of jurisdiction. The reply needs to be put to the Court not the clerk
Gavel is playing hide an seek. She wants to show compliance without actually complying, to answer without really answsering. The court will not tolerate this for very long and it will take jurisdiction because under US law it can.
She can then argue with the Canadian courts whether Mullen was right or wrong in doing so when Bell goes to enforce the judgment.
Had she hired an attorney and that attorney wrote a letter to the Clerk in the manner we have seen here the attorney could be held in contempt.
Anybody see Gavel’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction anywhere?
How about a Certificate of Service showing the plaintiffs were made aware of the Motion by the Pro se filer?
Hey Nor find me a RULE that permits answering a summons by a personal letter to the Clerk of the Court or the Bailiff, or the transcriptionist, or the janitor or, the parking lot attendant or anybody else you can think of and and then you can go back to sleep.
quite the incredible mountain from a mole hill being built here. lol
The clerk of the court had signed the summons. The reply letter rejecting the summons was addressed to the clerk of the court. That’s a relatively correct procedure.
The letter has also been registered as a case document.
FRCP was indirectly disputed, so you can’t directly apply that before the dispute has been resoved. Sandra Gavel is a Canadian citizen, so the dispute CAN be valid.
The Canadian judge was relatively clear on that the courts would need to identify potential valid arguments among the flawed ones.
You can’t reverse the burden of proof. I have only claimed it to be “relatively correct” based on the type of dispute. I haven’t claimed support in any rules, but rather the contrary = that the dispute about rules must be resolved first.
Here “relatively correct” = wrong.
“registered as a case document” = ex parte correspondence addressed to the Clerk of the Court which the Clerk entered into the record so that ALL parties have access to it.
Docketing confers no legitimacy to the correspondence what-so-ever. Gavel could have created toilet paper drawings in excrement and blood and if she sent it to the clerk they would have been entered into the record or as you say “registered as a case document.”
Relatively correct = relatively wrong… and here that means completely wrong. Don’t weasel word this. Man up and admit you have no idea what you’re talking about and then go back into hybernation.
You asked for the RULE and I gave you FRCP 12 (b) that shows that contesting jurisdiction requires a motion by the defendant.
NOW Show me where the FRCP states that a vexatious letter sent to the Clerk of the Court is deemed a legally adequate answer to a Complaint and don’t start up with your dumb “but it doesn’t say she can’t so it means she can crap.
FRCP 12 (b) tells us what IS required and Gavel has not met the mark by a mile.
It can be but that is not the point. Her METHOD of addressing the issue is what is wrong. If she wants to dispute jurisdiction she MUST file a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. If she is unwilling to do that then she will be defaulted. FRCP 12(b)
The good news (?) for Gavel is that once she is defaulted she will have the right to petition Mullen to set it aside.
Focus Norway, FOCUS. The current discussion involves a US Federal Court, Charlotte, North Carolina. What Canadian judge has to say is irrelevant here.
But that’s not a valid argument if FRCP already has been disputed. You can’t apply “random rules and laws” to realities. It will be meaningless to apply FRCP if the court doesn’t have the correct authority in the first place, e.g. if the lawsuit for some reason will need to be brought before a Canadian court.
The court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case as a whole. Sandra Gavel can only dispute her own part = the personal jurisdiction and the choice of laws.
That’s why I brought in the transactions as the most relevant evidence to prove a substantial and “purposefully” connection to North Carolina. Once that connection has been established, the personal jurisdiction can be established and the choice of law can be verified. First then can you apply FRCP.
Are you serious? The main point there was “the courts would need to identify potential valid arguments among the flawed ones”. It shouldn’t make much difference whether the judge making that statement comes from Canada or the U.S.
Norway just call it quits will you. A summons does not permit rejection. It demands an answer in a specific format within 21 days or the the person is subject to default.
This is not baby Norway court, but big boy court. Its US Federal Court and there are rules that big boys and girls must follow.
So you just felt the need to state the obvious? Thank you.
Courts need to indentify valid arguments. Got it.
Newsflash. Mullen will do that. He will also identify invalid arguments…..like yours.
did zeeklers have any contract with RVG d/b/a zeek, in NC ?
zeeklers ‘should have known’ this or that, does not fly, when you are trying to prove jurisdiction in a court of law.
you will have to prove ‘contract’.
you will have to prove ‘ direct contact’ [ sent or recd post, called on the phone, visited]. saying online communication/transactions was addressed to zeek online, and thus purposefully directed at NC, is not sufficient.
i’m pretty sure, that bell can easily convince judge mullen about the jurisdiction over foreign defendants, but the real test will be with the canadian and australian courts.
i cannot find any online business caselaw dealing specifically with the jurisdiction of foreign defendants, in a similar case. but the cases which are available, DO seem to require something to be established, beyond mere, ‘they should have known’, ‘it was obvious’.
Absolutely yes…if as the SEC alleges Zeek was an alter ego company.
Reality is a bitch. They took the money and whether they “knew” is not relevant. They recieved money from RVG dba Zeekler.
What do you think the affiliates were paid under if not a contract? I feel certain there are ample acknowledgments of the TOS to go around… all of which lead right back to RVG via Zeekler.com
See alter ego again.
I’ve never seen the contracts in question, so I don’t know how obvious it was.
For the type of dispute, clawback litigation based on Fraudulent Transfer, the transactions I mentioned should be the most relevant type of evidence to prove a substantial and “purposefully” contact with Zeek’s management in North Carolina.
I haven’t found any relevant cases to look at. I found some relevant logic in Walden v. Fiore. I have only read the undecided version from 2013, but I had a quick look at the final conclusion from the Supreme Court too.
NOLINK://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-574
NOLINK://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-574_8mj9.pdf
The district court denied personal jurisdiction, the appellate reversed that (based on some additional information), the Supreme Court reversed it back again.
RELEVANT LOGIC
* Whether people have initiated the contact themselves with the foreign state can be highly relevant.
* Whether they have maintained the contact can be relevant.
* “suit related conduct” by the defendant
You have 2 types of personal jurisdiction, case specific and general (e.g. SEC cases may have the general type, while clawback cases may have case specific type of personal jurisdiction). Those 3 points I mentioned are about case specific type.
great find norway, and an SC decision, no less!
this strengthens my belief that for a court to apply its jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, it is required that the defendant ‘purposefully’ initiated actions towards the forum.
some important sentences from this SC order are;
1] For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, that relationship must arise out of contacts that the “defendant himself” creates with the forum
2] and must be analyzed with regard to the defendant’s contacts with the forum itself, not with persons residing there, The plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum
3] No part of petitioner’s course of conduct occurred in XXXforum, and he formed no jurisdictionally relevant contacts with that forum
beautilicious !!
c’mon norway! making withdrawal requests has Nothing to do with “purposefully’ directed to NC.
the plaintiff used NC as the forum to address withdrawal requests does not mean that an online defendant necessarily directed his request there.
what do you mean by ‘alter ego’? RVG was the legal entity and ZeekRewards was the trade name.
so RVG d/b/a zeekrewards had a contract with affiliates under nevada law.
just because RVG was based out of NC, does not SHIFT the contract to that state. contracts are not snakes to slither off from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Did RVG d/b/a zeek rewards have a contract with affiliates in NC , or Not?
if you can agree there was no contract in NC , you can test the other points of post#201, and try to prove NC jurisdiction.
Interesting case involving TORTS. Are fraudulent transfers under the North Carolina UFTA considered to be torts? No.
Bell has not alleged that the net winners committed a wrongful act.
I would say effectively yes….but since I have never read the contracts or seen the legal agreements between the companies I could not say with assurance.
The behavior and assertions of the SEC indicates that they view dba Zeekler.com as an integral and inseparable from the Rex Ventures scheme.
Interesting case involving JURISDICTION. whether it is a contract or a tort or a fraud, to apply jurisdiction on a foreign defendant, the same RULES will APPLY.
the SEC is correct, that Zeekler.com/Zeek was integral and inseparable from the Rex Ventures scheme.
BUT where did the foreign defendants have a CONTRACT with these entities?
Which Forum did the defendants have a CONTRACT with?
Again I don’t know what your itch is here. Bell has brought suit in N.C. If the affiliates want to argue that’s improper…let them do so.
why will the defendants enter a jurisdiction, where they have no contact or contract, and make their case. this may make them subject to the jurisdiction . in such cases it is better to keep an arms length, and Not tie yourself up by replying.
the defendants will rely on the courts of their own country, to decide if the jurisdiction applies to them or not. they are safer with the courts of their home country, because comity or not, most countries try to protect their citizens ass.
Yes, because it was a single common enterprise but I don’t think it matters one way or the other.
The transfer of funds was directed by a company conducting business in North Carolina.
The North Carolina UFTA permits recovery of funds fraudulently transferred by companies conducting business in the State.
Bell filed a clawback suit in the State because North Carolina is the proper venue for recovering funds fraudulently transferred by a company doing business there.
Whether Burks offered affiliates a contract under Nevada law does not alter the fact that North Carolina is where the fraudulent transfers were directed from, which is why jurisdiction in NC is proper.
Alter Ego: A company that is set up to shield the owner/managers from liability to stockholders or member/investors or governmental actions.
If a company such as Zeekrewards.com is an alter ego of RVG, which is in turn the alter ego of Paul Burks then it follows that all three entities are part of a common enterprise directed by Burks. Thus the case caption is SEC v Rex Ventures Group LLC, d/b/a Zeekrewards.com and Paul R. Burks
Signing a contract with Zeekrewards.com is tantamount to signing a contract with Rex Ventures LLC.
Not at all. If there is no tort the element of whether the action was directed at the forum state is missing, which is to say that the worldwide recipients of fraudulent transfers need have “done” anything to fall under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina UFTA.
The simple fact that the person RECIEVED the money is what is determinative.
Good God, now you’re starting to sound like a peasant.
Look you want to take this line of reasoning and wipe it with toilet paper. It does not wash in the real world.
Replying with a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction does not imply in any way that the defendant has consented to the Court’s jurisdiction.
You need to stop this. If you do not recognize why, you lack the understanding even to be commenting in this thread.
PPBlog
Then you would be defaulted under US law.
I am not saying that taping your mouth shut and retreating to Fortress India is not a viable strategy to avoid paying a debt but if that’s what it comes down to then why pretend there’s anything more to it than that.
so, how many canadian net winners have replied? how many replied with motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction?
how many australian netwinners do you expect will reply with motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction?
are they all peasants, or following legal advice from lawyers of their countries?
this is happening in front of your eyes, and you want to behave like an ostrich [pheasant?]
what do you want me to say? canadian and australian netwinners will not converse with the NC court because they are idiots ?
get real, this is a court battle, both sides will wring the law, any which way they can.
either you have a stomach for it or you don’t, but please don’t faint at the first sight of blood.
ok, that sounded like it came from me, so i’ll rephrase it :
“maybe their lawyers are advising them, in such cases it is better to keep an arms length, and Not tie yourself up by replying.”
because it’s what’s happening, everybody is using whatever defenses they can whether it is kaplan, or grimes, or the foreign defendants.
that hurt.
ponzi/pyramid schemes propagate themselves on ideas of ‘community’ and ‘caring’ and ’emotional’ bases.
then critics propagate the illegality of these schemes, on ideas of ‘cheating’ and ‘morality’ and ’emotional’ bases…and bordering on hatred.
in between the ‘love’ and the ‘hatred’, is legal jurisdiction.
once a matter is before the judiciary, love and hatred, both should be renounced, in equal measure, and only the law should be reasoned.
once, law becomes the focus, do not be ashamed or dishonest, in addressing every issue.
we should watch carefully, how well our laws serve us….. no ostriches, no fainting spells.
when we weigh our systems, against what we want to resolve, we get a proper understanding, of how well we are served. so, weigh freely, without emotion.
only such indepth observation can show us what works and what doesn’t.
only the truth can set you free. expecting ‘love’ from ponziplayers or ‘hatred’ from nonponziplayers is just a mirror image of each other.
Both,
Either
It doesn’t matter.
The CLAWBACK action is properly brought under the NC UFTA in North Carolina.
Canadians?
None.
Australians?
None
Americans?
None
Indians?
None
Icelanders?
None
Saudi Arabians?
None
Chinese?
None
I have no idea what they are doing…watching themselves get defaulted for net winnings plus pre and post judgment interest so far. Whether that is a good strategy remains to be seen.
No, you have made it clear why they don’t. They have no credible response to the Complaint.
yes, most US states have UFTA, and the ‘full faith’ clause, means that default judgements can be implemented in all UFTA states by entering it with the local court clerk.
this resolves jurisdiction issues for all US based zeeklers.
but, how does UFTA have anything to do with foreign [canada and australian] zeeklers?
with these foreign defaulters, jurisdiction of an NC court is going to be an issue.
The REAL wisdom is in the method. It started with a factual description of the case itself, “a quick overview”.
Hypothetical theories not relevant for the case were handled like this:
They covered the hypothetical arguments briefly (in footnote 9), and why those arguments were irrelevant. But it was kept separated from more relevant arguments.
It’s because I’m primarily analysing the actual case rather than hypothetical disputes. Withdrawals will be much more relevant than contract clauses.
i agree. this particular case did not give the latitude to the SC to investigate jurisdiction based on ‘virtual contacts’.
this also tells us that there is no binding case law about jurisdiction based on ‘virtual contact’, which means the courts and ourselves, are all grappling with ‘indecisiveness’
bell has also give a very broad, vague, explanation of why the NC court has jurisdiction over the foreign defendants.
regarding your reliance on the ‘withdrawal transactions’ forming the basis of jurisdiction , i found this line in the order of Walden v. Fiore :
so, along with some transactions taking place, which the ‘defendant’ has not purposefully directed towards the forum state, there should be some other ‘contacts’ or ‘a contract’ too.
There are six paragraphs within the Complaint against the Canadian defendants that advance the reasons why the the Court has jurisdiction and Bell has standing. For example, the last entry is this:
The Complaint, if unanswered will result in a default judgment against the foreign nationals and no arguments will be heard.
Presumably then, the plethora of “issues” you raise here will only see the light of day IF the foreign debtor shows up to contest collection of a US judgment in his/her country of residence.
Is my understanding correct?
Do you expect a court in Sydney or Vancouver to retry whether jurisdiction was proper in North Carolina (?) or Nevada (?) or more broadly by any jurisdiction in the US at all if asked to rule on the enforceability of a US judgment?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the Complaint:
“44. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to N.C.Gen. Stat. §1-75.4 because, inter alia, this action relates to money or other things of value sent from North Carolina to Defendants at their order or direction. By voluntarily participating in the ZeekRewards scheme and purposely directing actions towards North Carolina, including numerous communications with RVG and/or meetings in North Carolina, the Defendants created a substantial connection to North Carolina such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them is fair and just.”
Bell seems to agree with Norway, and again the defendants have shown no willingness to answer and defend the allegations.
Another part of the wisdom is that the Supreme Court didn’t apply your “case law” theories. It looked at the relevance of the case law theories already applied (e.g. “relevant in Calder v. Jones, but not relevant here” method).
Compare it to your own logic in post #201, where you picked out 5 criteria from a not so relevant case?
Most of your rules were rather irrelevant for this type of case, yet you used them to over-rule a more sound logic. “More sound logic” was used in the meaning of “more similar to the methods used by the Supreme Court”.
Points #2, #3, #4 and #5 are clearly related to some type of commercial activity, e.g. a retailer, manufacturer or wholeseller. Those criteria might have been relevant in that case, but they’re not very relevant in this case (Bell v. Canadian / Australian net winners).
Of Course.
what a silly question!
bell, with help of attorneys in canada or australia, will approach the local courts to enforce his foreign default judgment and the court’s will use mostly these 3 criteria to decide [not retry] whether to enforce or not :
1]Jurisdiction
2]Finality and Validity of the case
3]Calculable Fixed debt amount
canada will use the ‘substantial connections’ test too , but australia wont.
when canada uses the ‘substantial connection test’ for deciding jurisdiction, over ‘virtual contacts’, it will be very interesting, because this area of law is pretty under developed.
I don’t think Irving M. Brenner will see it that way. “Bell v. Australian net winners” was filed in late December 2014, while my post was posted in early January 2015. 🙂
Your entitled to your opinion.
Again,no one has replied to the Complaint, though they could readily have Answered by contesting US jurisdiction, while denying the allegations. They did nothing
Somehow, someday I see a judge in a white wig asking.
Did you contest jurisdiction? No? Why not? Glurble
Did you contest the allegations? No? Why not? Wheez
Ms Gavel you surely understood that appearance in court does not imply consent to jurisdiction don’t you? Buzz treakle hum… I’m a natural citizen and I will not contract with this court!!
i will break down the points from bell’s complaint and hyphenate the phrases which seem vague and questionable.
1] this action relates to money or other things of value sent from North Carolina to Defendants “at their order or direction”. [ the defendants ordered things of value but not necessarily from NC, these were virtual orders].
2] By “voluntarily participating in the ZeekRewards” scheme and “purposely directing actions towards North Carolina” [again, voluntary participation was under contracts signed under nevada law not NC, any virtual contact was not necessarily directed at NC]
3]including “numerous communications with RVG” and/or “meetings in North Carolina” {if the communications were by tangible post or phone, then its valid, otherwise virtual communications are again not necessarily directed at NC. how many foreign defendants went for meetings to NC?, this is a very general vague implication.
bell, has naturally used an argument to suit his case. this argument has an equal response too. till we have a clearer idea about how jurisdiction is established with virtual contacts , this argument can go Any Which Way.
uh, norway, this was the reasoning given by the respondents which was OVERRULED by the SC. in response to the above analysis of the respondents this is what the SC said:
“Regardless of where a plaintiff lives or works, an injury is jurisdictionally relevant only insofar as it shows that the defendant has formed a contact with the forum State.
The proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way”
a-a-n-d how does a defendants conduct connect him to a forum? on the basis of the point’s i gave you which you have repeated in post#260. these points are not irrelevant at all, they are the established way of deciding jurisdiction.
My point was that it checked the relevance, e.g. “that logic was relevant enough in Calder v. Jones, but it will not be relevant in this case”.
My other argument was about relevance too. Your “the law says” argument wasn’t very relevant. Case law from one case can’t always be directly applied to a different type of case. That’s where the Appellate Court failed.
The most relevant connection to North Carolina is actually the withdrawals of net winnings. You can probably find other relevant factors too, but you can’t directly apply case law from a different type of case without checking the relevance first.
Could you please add something coherent here? Brenner is Bell’s attorney and you think Brenner won’t see it the same way as Bell.
Interesting theory Norv. Good grip on reality there.
Silly would have been in not asking. I couldn’t tell for sure which you were talking about.
This is a hyphen, –
These are brackets []
These are curly brackets or braces {}
These are parentheses ()
I just thought I would clarify that. No charge.
Maybe you could spell it out for me. Would this “approach” be done all at once at some central clearing house for foreign judgments or district by district, court by court,dounty by county or person by person?
Is the person summoned to attend a hearing on the matter or does the person merely and contest, say the placing of a lien on his property in his jurisdiction. Which is the cart and which is the horse? Who brings the issue in front of a tribunal?
Surely the affiliate can recontest every aspect of the jurisdictional questions you have just raised….can’t he? Or is there some short form of jurisdictional determination that applies?
I know it silly to ask. Soory
I totally agree. All the other elements coalesce right there. If there is anything solid in this squishy conversation its that. They asked to withdraw and they were paid.
Snap.
of course, every case is different. and of course every case is the same, in that, if it is a question of jurisdiction , the same ‘principles’ will be applied. the skeleton is the same you may apply the flesh, as the DNA specifically requests.
my point is, it is easy to see that the SC, requires ‘clear and specific’ contact with the forum and not just the plaintiff, and which is ‘purposefully’ directed at that forum, by the defendant.
the only question remaining to be resolved, is whether, virtual contact can be held as ‘purposeful’ direction to a particular forum.
you do not know the answer to this, neither do i, neither does bell, and neither does the SC, because they have said this question belongs to a day in the future.
so, we are both equally wrong, and equally right, but commonsense says that virtual communication should not be defined as ‘directed’ to a particular place.
whoops. soory.
get off your ass, and re-punctuate my post, and read it!
i’m not a fast food center.
sing for your dinner!
You mean virtual like when I use credit card?
Can we agree that if I shoot a virtual arrow into the sky its going to land somewhere? Yes. I am glad you agree. Well….Our “virtual” arrow landed in North Carolina, about hundred million times in a row. Coincidence? Or by direction?
Not necessarily? Cook me up some waffles.
He won’t accept the idea that HE has agreed with ME. He published HIS perspective first. 🙂
actually, the fact that they asked to withdraw and were paid, is the ‘Squishiest’ part.
they asked the god of the internet to give them money, and Voila! a payment processor stopped by, to push some money into their e-wallets.
ask and you shall receive, its up to god from where it wires the money!
OK. Now I get it.
Bell agrees with Brenner but Brenner doesn’t agree with you because Brenner agreed with Bell before you posted your thoughts. So does Bell agree with you or not?
It means that your theory about “God of Internet” isn’t very relevant, other than in a hypothetical discussion. It may become relevant later, e.g. if some of the defendants bring it in as a part of a defense argument or a counter claim.
That was the true wisdom of the Supreme Court. It didn’t bring in any of its own hypothetical theories. It shot down some, e.g. by pointing out that “Respondents would have experienced this same lack of access in California, Mississippi, or wherever else they might have traveled and found themselves wanting more money”.
oooh testy and just when your deus ex machina was supposed to pull your fanny from the fire….Voila! we have an unraveling.
I read your hyphenated (?) post and responded already, so pull yourself together.
The first paragraph is correctly quoted from SC’s opinion.
The second paragraph is incorrect logic, the use of “THE established way”
It assumes that there is ONE “correct set of rules” that can be applied to ANY case, regardless of type of underlying dispute. If it had been true, we wouldn’t need decisions from the Supreme Court (it could simply have distributed those 5 rules as a “doctrine for how to determine personal jurisdiction and minimum connection to a forum state”).
The fact that some rules have been relevant in ONE case doesn’t mean the same rules will be relevant in ANY case. They may be relevant in SOME cases.
BTW, Calder v. Jones used a different set of rules. And Walden v. Fiore et al didn’t even mention your rules.
there are ‘rules’ and then there is ‘interpretation’ of those rules.
the plaintiff and the defendant, both try to ‘fit’ the ‘rules’ to suit their argument.
the district court, then the appeals court, and then the SC, studies the ‘interpretations’ and decides which fits best.
so, even if there are ‘rules’ or basic ‘principles’ available for solving certain legal questions, there is enough space, and legal argument, for disputes based on interpretation.
if there is a half glass of water, you can say it’s half full, and i can say it’s half empty, and we can take it all the way to the SC, who may reserve the question for another day 🙂
uh, court orders do not ‘list out rules’ and then explain them point by point, since they are not an educational institution.
calder vs jones –bottomline – the defendants formed ‘direct contact’ with the forum—-jurisdiction allowed
walden vs fiore—bottomline—the defendant did not form ‘direct contact’ with the forum—–jurisdiction denied
in both cases the plaintiff, resided and had strong contact with the forum. but, this was not the ‘principle’ used to decide the jurisdiction .ONLY the ‘defendants purposeful contacts’, with the forum, were used to decide the case, in both cases.
yeah, kindof.
when you use your credit card do you say a small prayer : this credit request is directed to the head office of my credit company located in charlotte, NC?
the shop attendant will look at you funny, hoss.
In Calder v. Jones, the SC actually analysed how closely the defendants’ actions were related to the underlying lawsuit and to the forum state, in that particular order. It did the same in Walden v. Fiore.
The underlying lawsuit seems to be highly relevant.
yes, in calder, the court analysed that the journalists conducted research in the forum state, and circulated their magazine there. these actions were related to the underlying case, and showed the defendants had directed contact at the forum state.
yes, in walden, the court found that though plaintiff and defendant had contact in georgia, this contact did not spillover to the defendant having contact with the plaintiff, in nevada, just because the plaintiff resided there.
the defendant did not direct any contact to nevada. thus by studying the facts of the underlying case, the court decided the defendant has not established any direct contact with the forum.
in zeek, an affiliate had contact with the online business, in his home country. he had a contract with zeek, in nevada. he did not directly, purposefully, contact zeek in charlotte, NC, or had any other contact with that forum. so, this matter is a tad more complex than ‘calder’ or ‘walden’.
a virtual contact is not a virtual arrow. an arrow is singular,and can land only in One Place.
a virtual contact is a thought relay, which is infinite, and can reach Every Place at the Same Time.
i am not responsible for where thought receptors have been set up to assimilate my virtual contact, and act on it. that is the convenience of the receptor, i have not purposefully directed my virtual contact to that particular point.
this is the problem with virtual contact, and courts need to step on this question fast, because, this is how the brave new world functions.
Then the same rule can be applied to Trudy Gilmond et al. They can’t be sued in North Carolina, because they only had online contact with Zeek Reward from their own home state. 🙂
I believe my business ideas are more realistic than yours. I have identified the withdrawal of money to be highly relevant
but, most states have UFTA laws and then there is the ‘full faith and credit clause:
once, zeek is proved as a ponzi scheme, its highly probable that all states will enforce default judgments against their intrastate net winners. of course some net winners will do some arm flailing, and throw tantrums in their local courts, but the system will be against them, because it is a system based on ‘full faith and credit’.
canada and australia will not have the same sentiment towards default judgments arising in the US. they are not sworn into brotherhood with the US.
entirely possible.
however courts look at the ‘principles’ behind ideas, which can be used again and again, to deliver justice.
to solve one case, a weak rule cannot be established, which can hurt innocent citizens in any other matter.
The Walden decision as you stated it, reaffirmed that jurisdiction is proper where actions are directed, and by implication, improper where actions are not directed.
Since Zeekler-RVG directed it efforts to contacting, and did in fact contact and contract with persons worldwide, any person alleging damage at the hands of Zeek can reasonably expect (per Walden)that his native State or country has jurisdiction to hear a suit brought against Zeekler-RVG.
Now, lets flip that over…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is self evident that Zeekler-RVG could not contract with itself, nor could it contract with an inanimate object (such as the internet.) It could only contract with a person.
On that basis the court must consider if persons (wherever situated) are the contracting counter parties to whom RVG was releasing funds.
This question can be answered by identifying persons who, electronically or otherwise, submitted withdrawal requests and received funds on the order of RVG.
This request/payment arrangement demonstrates a contractual relationship, contact with North Carolina and jurisdiction in accordance with Walden v Fiore.
This is getting a little gaseous. Do you have any other way of making your point??
….which is to say a DE FACTO relationship with North Carolina. Jurists all over the world understand de facto. Do you?
How??
if you can promise to reduce the ether and ‘virtual contact’ into a tangible, situationally addressable matter, i promise to ‘cool down’ from a gaseous state to a lower state, and address dumb arguments.
meanwhile, physics will do what it has to do, and we have to find methods to keep up with it.
In the HYIP sphere, there’s also often a subtext of “Stick It To The Evildoers” — the government, the Fed, the bankers, etc.
The overriding issue is national/international security and infrastructure protection, in my view. It is why the U.S. Secret Service was involved in the Zeek and the ASD probes and why ICE/HSI, like the Secret Service an arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is involved in the TelexFree probe.
It also why the FBI was involved in the Liberty Reserve probe and any number of HYIP investigations. The scammers, of course, now are trying to evolve by finding ways to wrap Bitcoin into their scams.
PPBlog
I have no idea what you’re talking about there and how it can be seen as relevant?
Affiliates usually used fully addressable computers, e.g. from their home, to access fully addressable servers via the internet (in a traceable route between home computer and RVG’s server), to access their fully addressable back offices.
Computer technology and internet are PRIMARILY about addresses. There’s nothing “random” when you access something via the internet or internally on your computer.
so, has this happened? has any other country asked burks to fly in, and be prosecuted? international internet law is a jumble, no one is quite clear on how jurisdiction in cyberspace works.
some countries like germany and malaysia have passed laws which makes any website viewable in their countries, liable for prosecution, if any laws of their country are violated
the US supreme court has not yet commented on the issue of personal jurisdiction in cyberspace, and lower courts have judgments which are wholly opposite in their view. this things going to take some time to clear up.
in zeek, personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants, on the basis of virtual contact, is a completely ‘Grey Area’. there is no settled law, and barely any relevant caselaw. maybe, this will be the opportunity to clearup this issue.
this is a nice article about internet jurisdiction:
cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/domain/Betsy.html
yes, the internet is primarily about addresses. these are electronic addresses not connected to a physical location.
if i send a email to (Ozedit: removed), i am sending an electronic message to john smith the online personality, without any idea of his physical location.
emails are contacts between two online entities and NOT two physical locations.
If I had been a foreign country net winner, I would most likely have disputed some points “for practical reasons, and for the purpose of getting a better position to negotiate a settlement” (I have psychologically accepted a 60% settlement as a fair deal).
THE PRACTICAL REASONS
The Amended Complaint against the Australian net winners have focused very onesided on how the scheme operated in the U.S., and many of the details may be impossible to identify, understand or verify.
Example: How “Coach Van” marketed Zeek Rewards locally in the U.S. may have very little relevance for the Australian affiliates. Whole sections of the complaint may have very little relevance for affiliates in other countries.
Conflict of laws? (A quick look at Norwegian laws)
1. Duplicative claims. The plaintiff has presented similar claims both under NCUFTA and Common Law Fraudulent Transfer.
2. Constructive Trust isn’t even recognizable in a Civil Law court system (or at least I wasn’t able to find any remedies like that in Norway). If it isn’t recognizable it can’t be enforced either.
3. Plain money claims may require a different procedure than the current, e.g. the creditor will first need to present his claim directly to the debtor, then follow up with yet another claim after 14 days “if you don’t pay, the claim will be sent to court”. A creditor can’t bring a claim before a court before it actually has been any disputes about it (e.g. lack of response from the debtor).
4. The procedure in point 3 above is required for pre-judgment interests. Interests on a claim will first start to run 30 days after the claim has been presented to the debtor. If the creditor haven’t presented any claims, he will not be entitled to any interests either.
5. Points 3 and 4 have a significant function, in that they will “punish” a creditor for unreasonable delays and “unexpected sneak attacks on a debtor”. Those points work together with a 3 year statutory limit for commercial claims. Commercial claims older than 3 years can reasonably be believed to have been voluntarily abandoned by the creditor.
6. The opposite system, where a creditor can delay presenting the claim for as long as possible, presenting it directly through a court, and then claim pre-judgment interests for his own delays, will heavily favorise the creditor (in conflict with equitable principles, e.g. laches).
7. The injunction can’t be enforced either (other than through a local court, if the plaintiff can prove good reason).
After that quick look, I could potentially have adjusted my own fair deal range from 60% down to a more flexible range, e.g. “from 40% to 60% of the net winnings”.
They clearly are physical addresses, e.g. the address to a specific computer connected to the internet via a specific router / specific ISP. It doesn’t mean all addresses are physical, but some are.
* You can use geolocation tools to identify the geographical area for a specific computer.
* You can use “Traceroute” to trace the route between one computer and another computer, e.g. the whole route from one country to another country.
People are not separated into different “personalities”. It will be the physical John Smith who will have to read your e-mail, not his “online personality”. The fact that you don’t know his physical location doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any.
I can agree to that affiliates in Canada or Australia didn’t specifically intend to do any business with North Carolina, i.e. that the choice of law / choice of venue / personal jurisdiction is relatively vague. But they did in fact do business with RVG in North Carolina (via the internet), not with an “online entity”.
there, there, it’s over now.
no specific intention or purposeful direction = no personal jurisdiction.
it dat simple.
I never suggested that persons would be clammoring to sue Zeekler-RVG in their respective jurisdictions, but ONLY that based on Walden v Fiore’s “direction and contact” criteria for jurisdiction, they could.
The lesson of Walden that you fail to understand is that “contact and direction” is a two way street. Once a contract is entered into, contact comes from both directions. There are mutual promises. Its bilateral and both or either party has a claim to jurisdiction.
This is why jurisdiction clauses are inserted into contracts in the first place and why Burks chose a US venue in Nevada instead of New Delhi, but don’t be dazzled by the TOS since its almost certainly not binding anyway.
In any event Bell has chosen to bring RVG’s suit in North Carolina which is consistent with the criteria explicated in Walden v Fiore.
Looking at this from afar, I see no reason why a sympathetic foreign tribunal would deny North Carolina had jurisdiction.
Agreed.
fully agreed and how!!
good learning curve!!
aww, there you go and drop the ball again! RVG was doing it’s business from north carolina. the foreign defendants were doing business with online zeek, located neither here nor there, but for legal purposes, located in nevada.
it is important to remember that bell is not targeting norwegian net winners.
bell is targeting canadian and australian net winners and both those countries have the remedy of ‘constructive trust’ [unjust enrichment] in civil law.
in walden there was no contact, or not sufficient contact to allow jurisdiction.
so i don’t know what you’re trying to flip over, and what you’re trying to say. you flipped walden over and created a gobbledygook mess. try again.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Exactly my point. You don’t get it.
As I told you before that is because Walden v Fiore was a tort case. Tort: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability. UNI-Directional
Zeek RVG is a contract case. BI – directional.
Nod your head when you get this.
exactly my point. you dint flip walden right. always practice first with omelettes, i say.
where is the contract? there is no personal jurisdiction based on the idea of ‘de facto’ contracts so don’t try to swing that ball.
kick yourself, if you don’t get this.
Evidence (example) = 54-1.pdf (Catherine Parker).
A fact finder (judge or jury) will most likely find that the evidence proves that Catherine Parker in fact did business with RVG in North Carolina on a regular basis for more than a year.
It’s one list of payments in from Catherine Parker to RVG, and one list of payments out from RVG to Catherine Parker.
I’m sorry I do not want to be impatient but this is not “gobbledygook”.
The Nevada man could not sue the tortfeasor in Nevada because there was nothing connecting the tort that allegedly took place in Atlanta, to Nevada. The plaintiff’s residency was not determinative.
This outcome can hardly be surprising since the alleged tortfeasor (defendant) was a government agent who may/or may not have committed a tort in the line of duty. So no, said the Court, the plaintiff (an alleged “drug dealer”) could not force the government agent to defend his actions in Nevada .
Why? The Court said the agent did not direct his actions at Nevada. This was a tort action not contract action.
Flip side:
Did Burks direct his actions at the affiliates? Yes.
Did the affliliates direct their actions at RVG? Yes.
How do we know?
Because the parties entered a contract, where each directed their intentions at one another wherever they were physically located. It was reciprocal.
Burks did not know or care where the affiliates were, and apparently they did not care where he was. There was consideration, mutual promises, withdrawal requests and payments. Jurisdiction is therefore justified where Burks was or where an affiliate was but there is no question that the affiliates directed their actions towards Zeekler-RVG and RVG-Burks was in North Carolina.
Error…. Baloney Alert
Nobody was “doing business” with a domain name. They were “doing business with the person, business or organization that owned or registered the domain name and what you call “online zeek” was the business run by Paul Burks from North Carolina.
Both Zeekler.com and ZeekRewards.com were domain names registered by Paul Burks of Registrant Organization Rex Ventures Group LLC. Both domains…. Zeekler.com and ZeekRewards.com used the email (Ozedit: removed)
….. because the alleged tortious act took place outside of the jurisdiction where the plaintiff filed suit, which is unlike Bell v Parker where an express or implied bilateral contract between the Parties establishes sufficient contact in BOTH the State or country of affiliate residence and North Carolina where RVG conducted business.
Parker demonstrated sufficient contact with North Carolina when she contracted with RVG for North Carolina to retain personal jurisdiction over her.
1] exhibit 54-1.pdf is a record from RVG’s data base. there is no mention of ‘north carolina’. it does not say parker transferred funds to RVG, north carolina. it does not say RVG, north carolina sent funds to parker.
2] everyone knows parker and RVG did business.everyone knows that RVG did it’s business from NC. the sticking point as we all know by rote now, is whether parkers business was directed purposefully to NC.
3] this a case of a default judgment, there is no jury involved here. any court asked to enforce this judgment will have to decide whether parkers virtual contact with RVG, is equivalent to a direct contact purposefully toward NC.
4] you can keep saying parker did business with RVG in NC, till the cows come home and regurgitate, but unless you show me US, canadian or australian case law to this effect, i don’t fall for your ‘constructed’ explanation.
5] around 4 years back the EU equivalent of the supreme court, made the decision, that in the case of internet jurisdiction, the place of injury would have jurisdiction, no matter whether the defendant has purposefully directed any actions to that forum.
6] i can see the US taking this same road , but RIGHT NOW, personal jurisdiction in cyberspace is still based on ‘purposeful directed actions’.
7] where is LRM. has my trolliness pushed him over the edge of his sanity?/the earth? never fear trolls, cause trolls are people too 🙂
individual lay citizens, will never be expected by any judge or jury to do whois searches, unless the US court orders some dictate, that every citizen has to be compulsorily computer literate and cannot feign ignorance of how the internet works.
neither are common lay citizens expected to use geolocation tools and tracerroutes, as suggested by norway, every time they use the internet.
lets keep it real, hmmm?
1] parker had no contract with RVG in NC. 2] parker had no purposeful directed contact with NC.
no matter how you flip which case, the two facts i have given above remain unchanged.
Does it need to say that?
If it doesn’t, then your ideas are rather irrelevant. You have constructed a hypothetical problem that doesn’t really exist in reality.
54-1.pdf should be the exhibit supporting a default judgment by the clerk against Catherine Parker.
You must look at the realities, e.g. the exact rules the court will follow, rather than your own ideas. “An affidavit showing the amount due” doesn’t mention anything about “and must specifically mention North Carolina”.
The court can’t resolve hypothetical disputes that potentially may arise in the future. If Catherine Parker wishes to object to the missing “North Carolina” sometimes in the future, then the court will resolve that dispute then when it has become reality.
I’m simply trying to bring you back to reality. 🙂
But people are not expected to believe in “God of Internet” and “online personalities” either. So if you wish to keep it real, make sure you’re able to separate between fiction and realities.
“Traceroute” or “tracert” was something you could google, not something you were expected to use. It would bring up search results like photos, screenshots, drawings, articles = more than enough to give you an idea of how contact between computers are addressed via internet.
A quick look at the screenshots or drawings would have told you that “God of Internet” doesn’t exist.
1] first you said a judge or jury would find 54-1.pdf to be evidence that parker did business with RVG in North Carolina for over an year.
2] then you say 54-1.pdf is expected to show the reality, and exact rules, ie the ‘amount due’, and need not mention anything about North Carolina.
3] so what you’re saying is that, 54-1.pdf, while not providing ANY evidence that parker was purposefully contacting North Carolina, will somehow convince a jury, that she was in fact contacting North Carolina.
4] bravo.
You jumped on Walden v Fiore because it hinged on lack of contact with the proposed forum State. Other than that the case has no relevance to the Zeeker action.
The Bell v Disner defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was NOT based on lack of contact (they argued only that there were no securities.)
The Bell v Parker defendants did NOT raise it.
The Bell v Bjerring defendants have not answered.
You are the only person who has raised it and now you present it as fact? Ho Ho Ho.
Did I imply that a judge would expect affiliate’s to check whois? No.
Would it be prudent to conduct due diligence before investing money via the internet? Yes
Did the affiliates intend to contract? Yes
Did the affiliates voluntarily participate in the ZeekRewards scheme? Yes.
Did the affiliates request withdrawals and receive them on order of RVG? Yes
Did the affiliate’s IN FACT transact business and contract with Paul Burks and RVG in North Carolina. Yes
In summary, your arguments look like excuses and your excuses look exceedingly thin.
um, what are we discussing?
1] default judgments that will be entered against australian/canadian foreign net winners.
2] these judgments have to be enforced in australia/canada.
3] australian and canadian courts will enforce these judgments only if the issue of jurisdiction is satisfied.
4] jurisdiction requires that the defendant made purposeful contact with the forum
5] in internet jurisdiction it is difficult to show contact was purposeful, national laws are under development and international laws are pretty much absent.
6] walden vs fiore, is a recent US supreme court decision about personal jurisdiction, and tells us that the US is still looking at purposeful contact as the basis for jurisdiction, and further that the SC has refused comment on internet based jurisdiction. canada and australia are in the same boat law wise.
7] so yes, walden is worth being plated up, because it is the freshest, hottest, off the frying pan, information.
8] so yes, walden is very relevant in understanding bells position vis a vis foreign defendants, and what the possibilities are.
Some circuits, however, have perceived in the Supreme Court’s case law a doctrinal difference in specific jurisdiction enquiries between tort and contract cases, and have formally distinguished the two.
The distinction was captured in the Ninth Circuit’s most recent summation of its jurisdiction law:
We have typically treated “purposeful availment” somewhat differently in tort and contract cases. In tort cases, we typically inquire whether a defendant “purposefully direct[s] his activities”at the forum state, applying an “effects” test that focuses on the forum in which the defendant’s actions were felt, whether or not the actions themselves occurred within the forum. –[{{ E.G., WALDER v FIORE type situations }}]–
By contrast, in contract cases, we typically inquire whether a defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities” or “consummate[s] a transaction” in the forum, focusing on activities such as delivering goods or executing a contract. –[{{ E.G., Bell v Disner, Parker, Bjerring, et al type situations}}]]–
Nolink /www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ecm_pro_064616.pdf
And ….. In one opinion…”if a defendant never wishes to have any connection with Illinois , it ought to be possible for him to structure his life and his business to avoid such contacts and, therefore, to never be subject to jurisdiction in an Illinois court
in summary, your arguments are trying to avoid the law, and base themselves on ‘expectations’,’defacto contracts’and ‘unprovable purposeful contacts’, and dreamology.
your excuses look exceedingly irrelevant.
They certainly did, as you point out. A sampling of the direct evidence:
* An agreement with Preferred Merchants executed by Paul Burks from NC. The application includes three NC phone numbers for Zeek and other info that associates Zeek/Burks/Rex with NC, including Burks’ NC drivers-license number.
* An assertion by Preferred that it processed “approximately $200,000,000 in checks” for Zeek.
* An assertion by Preferred that it traveled to NC and left NC with “6-8 mail bins of checks, worth approximately $85 million.”
* A January lawsuit against NC’s Four Oaks Banks, one of Zeek’s vendors, by the U.S. government.
* Statements by Zeek about other NC vendors. (It is possible that one or more Zeek vendors in NC filed Suspicious Activity Reports and/or booted Zeek, triggering an internal crisis. In short, the ASD problem: what to do with all the cash or cash equivalents?)
* Photo by The Dispatch newspaper in Lexington showing folks lined up an Zeek, apparently for the exciting opportunity to thrown down some money.
* Complaints to the NC attorney general about Zeek, showing the complainants knew Zeek was in NC.
* Complaints about Zeek filed with agencies outside NC that were forwarded to NC, establishing Zeek’s financial base.
* Red Carpet” events in NC. Various photos of such events.
* The cancellation of the August 2012 Red Carpet Event in NC.
* Dawn Wright-Olivares’s travel records.
* The travel records of Red Carpet attendees, including figures prominent in Zeek.
* The auction held by the receiver in NC.
PPBlog
This kind of rules out willful blindness.
Nolink /www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ecm_pro_064616.pdf–hoss
from the same article:
we know there were ‘repeated’ transmissions and transactions over the internet, between RGV and foreign defendants. we do not know that those transactions were ‘knowingly’ directed at NC, by the foreign defendants. lastly there was no ‘contract’ between foreign defendants and RGV in NC.
if the foreign defendants have sent or received cheques, or visited NC, or established a downline in NC, then of course jurisdiction can be established.
PPblogs detailed post is very interesting.
it shows how well entrenched RVG was in NC, and hence NC has general jurisdiction over RVG d/b/a zeekrewards.
it shows vendors like preferred merchants or four oaks bank, cannot raise any questions about NC jurisdiction over them.
it however does nothing to show that foreign defendants were purposefully directing actions to NC.from the article hoss linked:
defendants responded to zeek’s websites which were made available to them, in their home countries. defendants, by themselves did not approach NC for any business.
That’s BS. You’re constructing a hypothetical problem that doesn’t really exist. I didn’t say 54-1.pdf would be the ONLY evidence in the case. I clearly said it was an example, and I have said it several times.
Here’s that part of my post:
I was trying to bring you back to reality, where you could look at facts rather than hypothetical ideas.
The link between ZeekRewards.com and Rex Ventures could not be any clearer. If a person signed a contract with Zeek Rewards they were in business with RVG Paul Burks because the companies were operated as a single enterprise directed by Burks in North Carolina.
This is not a tort action, and therefore the net winners/defendants may be deemed to have “purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities” or “consummating a transaction” in the forum, by executing a contract.”
They executed the contract. They’re toast.
All of which is why the foreign affiliates have tucked tail and defaulted and why the Sorkinistas are arguing lack of jurisdiction based on securities law rather than lack of purposeful availment.
well, the ONLY evidence you provided is not STRONG enough. so, i assume any other evidence you provide, will be weaker than this.
i wish i could create ‘hypothetical’ problems, but the truth is that Law itself has not conclusively addressed all the hypothetical problems arising out of internet related jurisdiction. its a ‘case by case’ basis, decided in lower courts, with the SC not-yet-ready to give final guidance.
so, we have several ‘examples’ from lower courts, but no finality.
in these circumstances, you have no basis for choking on your bugle, and desperately insisting you are right. You Don’t Know.
huh?
where. when. howso.
This item you quoted from the article simply says that the plaintiff/affiliates can sue RVG/the defendant in the plaintiff/affiliates home jurisdiction if RVG directed contact there.
Nothing new here, and it says nothing about the purposeful availment that may be construed upon the affiliates entering a contract with RVG dba Zeek rewards once RVG contacted the affiliates.
You are only considering HALF of the equation. The contract is bi lateral…. two way….. Yes the affiliates can sue in their forum, but by virtue of the contract, jurisdiction is ALSO proper in the jurisdiction where RVG conducted the business.
Nod Please.
Not determinative….they do not have to initiate the contact.
They executed a contract with a business operating from North Carolina. That constitues purposeful availment and the should permit NC jurisdiction.
By the way. The article I quoted from is written in such a way that RVG would be the defendant in all the cases discussed except the Burger King case. You seem to confuse that.
The affiliates would be the plaintiffs in the cited cases though they are the defendants in this case.
When did we start to identify “Bell v. Parker et al” as a contract case?
It could hypothetically have been a dispute arising out of a contract, but in reality it isn’t. Contracts have only been mentioned in the MTI (Gilmond) and in some counter claims.
I think it the proper way of looking at it to address the jurisdiction issue. Its not a tort case or there would be an allegation of wrongdoing.
What else could it be? Administrative doesn’t sound right. A case brought under the ancillary jurisdiction conferred on the Reciever as a result of the SEC v Burks suit? It’s that of course but that begs the question of what kind it is.
Quasi-contractual might be accurate since the fraudulent transfers derived from what the SEC alleges were investment contracts.
If you have something better?
Investment contracts = contract case? Why not.
What is it then… in reality?
The normal way to look at a case is to look at the primary issue, not the secondary ones. The case itself is a clawback litigation based on Fraudulent Transfer (NCUFTA). We don’t know anything about whether jurisdiction issues will be relevant at all (or to which degree it might be relevant).
If you make that become your primary focus then you will need to ignore the realities of the case (what the complaint is based on). The existence of a contract somewhere doesn’t mean the complaint is based on that or can be used as an argument.
A clawback litigation based on Fraudulent Transfer. That’s the primary part of the case.
But, its an action derived from agreements, the subject matter of which is the nature of the contracts. Were they investment contracts as the SEC alleges or are they valid independent contractor contracts as Gilmond maintains?
Either way the subject matter is contract and if it goes one way the affiliates throw a party and if it goes the other they throw up.
Or it may be irrelevant?
The primary issue in “Bell v. Disner et al” is Fraudulent Transfer. Counter claims and defenses may become irrelevant if other elements of the case have been decided.
A court can decide not to rule, e.g. like the SC did in “Walden v. Fiore” about those hypothetical issues, or like the District Court did in Motion To Intervene about the hypothetical jurisdiction issue.
“Walden v. Fiore” was relatively clear. “This case doesn’t involve any elements like that, we can leave it to another day to analyse and decide the jurisdiction for virtual contacts with a forum state”.
What are you quoting from? Walden v Fiore has nothing to do with virtual contacts…besides virtual contacts are an urban myth. Behind the curtain lies a human being, robots not yet being able to devise and implement a ponzi scheme.
The first issue that must be decided in Bell v Disner is whether the SEC has jurisdiction. To do that the Court must decide if RVG was offering investment contracts or not. If RVG was offering investment contracts then the SEC has jurisdiction and the Court will as requested in the SEC v Burks Prayer 6 (?) retain subject matter jurisdiction.
Once the Court has retained jurisdiction Bell’s ancillary jurisdiction kicks in and his authority to pursue clawbacks under a theory of fraudulent transfer is confirmed. He will have to prove by accounting methods that Zeek was a ponzi.
Determining personal jurisdiction is “more of an art than a science, ” but based on the investment required, implied ROIs, and contractual inducements to promote Zeek’s investment offerings I have little doubt the court will find that the affiliates, consented to personal jurisdiction based on their intent, the contracts they signed and the money they recieved from RVG dba Zeekrewards.com.
Having contracted proves purposeful availment in my view. I am not willing to adopt Anjali’s pernicious interpretation of the law.
Its more than that. There are several steps required to reach a finding of Fraudulent Transfer under the UFTA. Bell can not go from here to there directly.
Until robotic cyborgs are capable of devising a ponzi scheme and promoting it to the public virtual contacts are an urban myth. Peel back the layers and you will find a person.
Fraudulent transfer is a theory of recovery and its not primary. Bell will have no basis to assert fraudulent transfer until the fraud is proved. That is done by 1.) proving the the SEC has jurisdiction because Zeek dba RVG was offering securities (investment CONTRACTS) 2.) Showing it was a ponzi 3.) all the rest.
No reason to get into the details.
Wrong logic. The subject matter jurisdiction will either be about an underlying issue or about the primary issue.
“Bell v. Disner et al” didn’t arise from a contract dispute between Trudy Gilmond and SEC, e.g. about the nature of those contracts. That scenario doesn’t reflect the realities of the case.
Bell v Disner is an ancillary action You want to make it the main event.
You have never understood this and I do not expect you will learn now.
You have to do better than that. You use “realities” to describe everything from your current fecal load to the harmony of Nirvana as you envision it. Throw the word away, you have bludgeoned it into absolute meaningless.
Realities as you use it is merely your unsupported opinion. Prove yourself or remain silent.
And which case were you talking about?
It won’t become more meaningful if you were talking about “SEC v. Paul Burks et al” either, or about the Australian or the Canadian net winners. Since neither of those cases arises from a dispute about the nature of contracts, my “wrong logic” comment should be valid anyway.
so, the defendants contracted in nevada and set off to purposefully avail in NC?
how can that even make sense, unless you’re swinging from the ropes going booyah.
if the contract in nevada is useless now, it follows that there is NO contract between RGV and defendants anywhere in the US.
that leaves you only with the question of ‘purposeful contacts’ and your arguments for that are all ‘maybe’, ‘should be’ and ‘i don’t doubt’.
you are right, that in all the cases including burger king, RGV would be the defendant and the zeeklers would be the plaintiffs. the opposite kind of cases are not to be found anywhere?
Your theory is based on elements from multiple parts of the case (as a whole). Some have probably been resolved already, some seem to be hypothetical.
The court HAS retained jurisdiction. We can establish that as a fact. “Bell’s ancillary jurisdiction” is a constructed idea (not very understandable without further explanation). “Bell’s authority to pursue clawbacks” doesn’t derive from your constructed scenario but from the appointment of a receiver. “Fraudulent transfer” is based on NCUFTA, not on a theory.
“Bell will need to prove something” is correct, but I’m not sure about the correctness for WHAT and HOW.
Yes, because Zeekler and RVG were operated as a single enterprise. If you remember the analogy of the hunter standing in the US and shooting at a deer in Canada you might recall that missing the deer and hitting a man left the shooter subject to Canadian jurisdiction.
The reason: The shooter purposely availed himself of the protections of Canadian law when he hit the man even if that was not his intention.
I hope to find some.
Yes, there are lots of parts because of the related cases.
That is still subject to overturn. The contract issue will decide it. If there is no investment contract then the SEC had no authority to bring suit in the first place.
It is the basis of his authority and conferred by his appointment. Read any of the Complaints Bell has filed under the heading “Jurisdiction” and you will see he refers to it.
Theory and statute have merged. The point being that early in this process Bell informed the court he was going to pursue recoveries under the theory of fraudulent transfer.
He could have relied on other theories but as an experienced practitioner he knew that fraudulent transfer was the best alternative…. no doubt because North Carolina has a UFTA that can be applied to the situation.
I am relying on the concept of purposeful availment, which as I understand it means that a person by his/her actions has taken advantage of the protections afford by law in a specific jurisdiction. The protection being due process.
As in the case of the hunter shooting into Canada, taking the shot can lead to purposeful availment depending on if he hits something….or not… and it goes without saying that a person who accidentally shoots another would desire the protection of due process.
Analogously, the foreign Zeekers “shot” into the US and hit RVG. It does not matter whether they intended to or not, the fact is they did.
That’s probably more expansive than you are willing to accept but I gather the 9th circuit and some others are taking up this line of reasoning.
unfortunately there is no law which is willing to embrace the above ^^^ expansive explanation you have provided.
in fact caselaw in internet jurisdiction makes an opposite finding :
the idea that foreign defendants were purposefully availing or directing action at NC, is an idea that seems artificial and stretched. on the other hand, an idea that it is convenient for the receivership to establish itself in NC, and is in the interests of the state of NC, is highly more acceptable.
that’s a lot more expansive idea, than i can accept, so no , thankyou.
bfvlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fink-Personal-Jurisdiction.pdf
….and applying it to contract cases, when a defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities” or “consummate[s] a transaction” in the forum” focusing on activities such as….executing a contract.
hunters, deers, killed people all seem to fall under criminal law, and i suppose law allows more expansive jurisdiction,and different standards, in such matters. the other day, i read about a US court, which awarded a 20 year sentence to man, who mistakenly fired a shot which entered a neighbors house, without causing harm. so, lets not bring standards of criminal law into this because that is a different ball game.
BUT, in internet jurisdiction cases, after a lot of reading , it all seems to come back, to ‘purposeful directed actions’.
so either you dig up a case to support your expansive theories ORRR…..
You think the deer and a dead person seem to fall under criminal law? Well that’s worth a laugh.
err, is it a civil tort?, was the deer and killed person ‘insulted, defamed’ in being killed– aww you killed me and hurt my feelings!!
is it a civil contract? — aww you entered a contract to kill deers and people, and you deserve jurisdiction!!
or is it ‘criminal’ —-how dare you kill deers and people, you non civil criminal!!
educate me hoss, why laugh alone? share your joie de vivre!!
He’s referring to the court’s ancillary jurisdiction over the case, not to his own. Bell doesn’t have any jurisdiction, so that part of your theory is flawed.
He has “some sort of jurisdiction” deriving from the order appointing him as a receiver, but that is of a different type.
* When he’s analysing jurisdiction and venue, it will be the court’s jurisdiction.
* When he’s analysing legal standing as a receiver, it will be his own “jurisdiction”.
The problem is that you build up a complicated set of theories built almost solely on other theories, without testing whether they can be wrong. Some of them are based on rather vague theories, e.g. you have very vague theories about jurisdiction.
Here’s the part I tried to analyse:
That scenario have 8 elements / sub elements. All of them are theories based on other theories.
You initially (another thread) had 2 theories about “missing parts”, Prayer I and Prayer VI:
Prayer I has already been discussed. It will be obsolete when the defendant consents to the judgment, it will only be required if the defendant plans to dispute anything.
The court has probably already retained that jurisdiction in Prayer VI, but in a different way than you have theorized (e.g. it can be a step-by-step procedure, reflected in the Order appointing the receiver).
You can have failed to see solutions like that. You have mostly used the “pattern recognizing part of the brain” to identify elements of the case and put them into a more complicated theory.
You will need to verify your own theories. Bring in some facts. The only thing you’re doing now is to repeat old theories and build new ones.
@Hoss
Here’s one test for you. What exactly can you expect to be the outcome of Prayer VI, when a court is responding to that prayer?
The outcome CAN have been included in the Order Appointing Temporary Receiver, e.g. as a step-by-step procedure (or as paragraph #1 in that Order).
If that was the court’s response to Prayer VI, then the theory about “missing Prayer VI” will fail. There’s nothing in the court documents indicating that your theory was correct in the first place.
The Florida Bar Journal identified the Prayer for jurisdiction like this:
It also noted that courts are generally reluctant to retain jurisdiction like that. The article I found wasn’t clear enough, so I will need to find another source.
The purpose of Prayer VI was to make sure that the court should retain and maintain jurisdiction over the case as a whole for as long as it would take.
I found something about how to determine “the nerve center of a business”, the correct jurisdiction:
A court can use BOTH tests, or use relevant elements from both.
Thanks. OK. The idea is to Retain jurisdiction indefinitely because of the settlement. I note that jurisdiction may be questioned at any time, which is exactly what the Sorkinistas are doing and if they are successful there would be no jurisdiction to retain.
Never mind that’s not true. Burks has already conceded jurisdiction in his case.
You are right Bell does not have jurisdiction, He has standing to act on behalf of the estate because he was appointed Reciever based on the court’s ancillary jurisdiction over matters related to the SEC v Burks case.
That being said, Bells standing to act on behalf of the estate because he was appointed Reciever based on the court’s ancillary jurisdiction over matters related to the SEC v Burks case is being contested by the Sorkinistas.
It was an analogy and you took it literally. Enough said.
You can’t “give” a court subject matter jurisdiction by agreeing to it. The court must HAVE it, or else it must dismiss the case.
Your theories about the “missing Prayer 6” have serious flaws. It’s not missing, it has just changed form between the Complaint and the different orders. I have already mentioned Doc 4. Here are 2 of the others:
They can’t be copied, so I only tell you where to find it.
The answer to that one is that it can come out in many shapes and forms, depending on what the Order is about. A complaint will usually use a standard version, but the outcome (the Order) will often need to use a more specific version.
A few examples for different outcomes:
I said conceded jurisdiction…..not given (or granted) it. There’s quite a difference.
Burks agreed not to dispute the jurisdiction. Please do not put quote marks around things you assert that I said unless I actually said them. Thank You.
Did you look at the other parts of that post? I pointed to ZeekDoc6.pdf and ZeekDoc8.pdf, the judgments against Paul Burks and Rex Venture Group LLC.
The court retained jurisdiction in both those judgments, so you can correct your scenario accordingly (post #341). SEC’s jurisdiction may belong in a theory, but it didn’t belong in that one.
There is no dispute there, but both those judgments relied on Burks’ consent to jurisdiction and his agreement not to dispute the allegations. The same is not true of the net winners who Bell has sued. They ARE disputing SEC jurisdiction and may do so because Burks’ consent did not bind them.
I leave it up to you to figure out the ramifications of a finding that no securities were being offered by RVG. Lets just say it would turn everything on its head.
The SEC jurisdiction dispute currently has very low relevance. It must first be backed up by solid evidence showing that affiliates legally received profit from the auctions and payments for the work they did. Theories will not be enough, e.g. Ira Sorkin’s theories had too little substance to be relevant.
“Bell v. Disner et al” will need to go to trial.
“Bell v. Parker et al” (Canadian net winners). Too little information available, but raising the same jurisdiction dispute there will not be very relevant. Personal jurisdiction may be an issue.
“Bell v. Bjerring et al” (Australian net winners). Too little information available (defendants must respond to the lawsuit first before we can guess anything). Default judgments may be a problem to enforce before they have become final.
“Bell v. other foreign net winners” (currently hypothetical). Personal jurisdiction may be an issue, people will have many defense arguments against that, e.g. “language barrier”, “conflict of laws”, “enforceability of judgments”.
guys, if you keep it simple, you wont need 10 posts to entangle your thoughts!
RGV/burks settled and agreed to the jurisdiction of the SEC and the federal district court of NC.
the court checked that it had jurisdiction over subject matter and accepted the case.
this jurisdiction of the court is final,settled, and the receiver has been empowered, to control the assets of the RGV estate, and collect from debtors and pay to creditors.
a gaggle of debtors [the net winners], have questioned the jurisdiction of the SEC, and hence the court, and hence the power of the receiver to collect from them.
if these sorkinistas [nice terminology hoss],turn out to be that singular snowflake in hell, they will prove that zeek was Not selling securities, and the case against them will melt away.
the question which will remain standing, in that case, is that what happens to RGV/burks settlement with the SEC.
RGV/burks agreement with the SEC clearly states that securities or no securities, RGV/burks cannot contest the agreement.
can RGV/burks appeal against a settlement in the circuit courts, even after consenting to Not Contest.
Since the counter claims already have been dismissed, there’s very few defense arguments left in that case.
NOLINK://behindmlm.com/companies/zeek-rewards/zeek-ponzi-pimp-troll-counter-claims-dismissed/
“SEC jurisdiction” and “Breach of Contract” were based on the same ideas about legitimate contracts / no Ponzi / no securities.
i disagree.
the SEC jurisdiction dispute has the HIGHEST relevance in this whole saga. the whole case turns at this point, and no one will pay any money in till it is resolved [if they can help it].
norway, this has already been discussed, and hopefully agreed upon, that what needs to be proved is that zeek was not selling ‘securities’. the question about legal or illegal profits is secondary.
this is a ‘howey’ matter, it’s not about the mechanics of the scheme.
seeing, that the sorkinistas, now have access to money, by court order, they will fight this matter all the way UP [appeals].
burks criminal trial is running concurrently. if he gets a good deal, he could plead guilty, and the civil case of the sorkinistas, will lose the wind beneath its wings.
who’s wagering that burks will get a good deal, to put an end to issues about ‘proving securities’ all the way up to the SC?
also, there was some talk about the burks criminal trial taking off in january 2015, what happened about that? if this criminal case can get wrapped up with a sweet deal in 6 months or so, it will all be OVER.
The rest of your theories were based on that idea, “if they turn out to be the singular snowflake in hell”. So we look for signs of singular snowflake in hell.
You believed Ira Sorkin was that “singular snowflake in hell” factor, if I remember correctly? 🙂
of course, ira sorkin, is that singular snowflake in hell.
never underestimate the power of a single snowflake!
howey’s raging fire could be squelched by ira’s single snowflake!!
howey could put put putter out! 🙂
Is a counter claim considered a defense in North Carolina?
That would be the interesting part.
The criminal case is a separate case. Bell can’t use anything from that case to support his own cases.
I believe he already has made some very good deals, e.g. $25,000 bail (compared to James Merrill’s $900,000 bail). The criminal trial may be part of a deal too (a deal can be about many things).
Some deals may not look so good, e.g. the $4 million fine / lost his business doesn’t sound like a “good deal” for most people. But it has actually managed to keep him out of jail for 2 years, and has kept tax authorities away from him (Bell is handling that problem). It has kept other creditors, “eager to fight”, at a distance, e.g. “Belsome et al”. 🙂
Nope, but the primary defense arguments and the counter claims shared some factors, e.g. they were both based on the idea of valid contracts (“work, not investment”).
NOLINK://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway#Name
He might be interested in that “Gods-expedition”.
nice!!
we now know that hell CAN be frozen over. yay!!
which means, sorkin’s snowflake definitely has a chance in hell!! double yay!!
Here you go
The linked article has citations if you want to find the cases. NOlink://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_contacts
+
“A non-resident defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state if they … have a CONTRACT with a resident of the state”
Case: McGee v International Life (“The Court continued its trend towards a greater expansion of personal jurisdiction that falls within the Constitutional limits of due process.”)
+
“CONSENT and WAIVER
Because the need for minimum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction…a party can explicitly or implicitly waive their right to object to the court hearing the case.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party who wishes to object to the court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction must do so at the beginning of legal proceedings, or lose the ability to raise such an objection. Furthermore, a court may request that a party provide evidence that its contacts do not rise to the level which would allow the court to have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that if a party refuses to comply with such a request, the court can deem them to have waived their right to object to jurisdiction.[7]”
Case: Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee
1] again, this is about corporate going to a single consumer, and not the other way around. it is generally not considered ‘fair and reasonable’ for a single consumer to have to fight his case in the forum of the corporate, unless specified in an agreement. in zeek, foreign defendants are being summoned to NC, with no contract binding them to do so.
2] this case is not about internet contact, but actual tangible ‘mail contact’ which is specifically addressed from one state to another. thus the contact is ‘purposefully directed’ at the forum. we have already established that with internet contact, it is difficult to say whether parties were ‘purposefully directing’ the contact to a particular forum.
3] in McGee, the parties had a contract in texas, where the corporation was based. there is no evidence that this contract was entered into, in some third state. in McGee the contract was mailed directly from texas to california. in zeek, the contract was entered into under nevada law, there was no contract within the NC state limits.
4] in McGee the plaintiff mailed payments to texas, at the corporate address. so ‘purposefulness’ is established. in zeek, online transactions may not have been purposefully targeted at NC.
5] another point that helped this particular McGee case, was that california has a long arm statute which enabled the state courts to have jurisdiction over out of state insurance companies who held policies with in state residents.
i had seen McGee before, hoss, but i found it does not match zeek vs foreign defendants, by a long shot.
Yes, but as you have already demonstrated, you are fully capable of reading the case law backwards, misidentifying who the plaintiff is or would be.
The cases you rely on are almost exclusively concerned with whether websites and the level of interactivity they provide constitutes purposeful direction by the web owner at the target group.
The question of law was, is a web owner who puts up a website “purposely directing” actions at the target group’s jurisdiction or not? As you should know the Courts look to Zippo case and considering the level of interactivity the website had.
That’s fine as far as it goes but its not very relevant here. The affiliate’s are not trying sue RVG in thier respective jurisdictions….its just the opposite…..RVG is suing them. Your examples are not on point.
I directed you to Burger King because, it illustrates that a contract made between a Florida company having no contact other than contractual can sue a Michigan franchisee (affiliate) in Florida. This is directly on point.
So you say. I say the conduct of the parties clearly demonstrates that a contract did in fact exist. You on the other hand would have the court believe in the god of the internet. Bell by a knockout.
The contract proves they were in contact with the forum and thus under contract theory they purposely availed themselves of the protection of North Carolina law.
In fact if any of them had the balls to show up they would find out they had all the protections guaranteed by due process in North Carolina.
Meaningless. The contract was in fact with RVG in North Carolina no matter what they thought or were told.
Pure sophistry. The court will look to the underlying reality. The affiliates were paid on the order of RVG based in North Carolina.
I assumed you had. It points the way.
The cases you rely on never took up the issue of whether the defendants could be sued by the web site owner, only the other way around. Take Zippo for example, which you quoted and spin it around.
Had RVG put up a passive website, there is no possible cause for RVG to sue the affiliates in NC since viewing a passive website creates no relationship. Would RVG sue them for viewing a passive website? No. Ridiculous.
Skipping the middle tier…
What RVG did is put up an intensely interactive website that invited active participation in such a way that people could enter contracts with RVG via Zeekler.com. Those same people received fraudulent transfers as a result of accepting the offer.
Its open and shut. They contracted. They expected to receive benefits under the contract (the Sorkinistas are proving this point) but the benefits they did receive were fraudulent transfers under the law.
Alas, since none of the foreign defendants have objected to personal jurisdiction on any basis and the Sorkinistas have only objected on the basis of securities law its very likely that your “purposeful direction” thesis will never be tested. The defendant’s will have waivered their ability to object.
Zeek Rewards wasn’t about “internet contact”? It was about investments in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. The clawback cases deriving from it are about fraudulent transfers.
You must sort the different elements after how relevant they are. Zeek Rewards wasn’t shut down because of its “internet contact”, it was shut down because of the fraudulent investments.
You can’t seriously claim that the internet contact was the most relevant element?
From my POV, the fraudulent investments were the most relevant factor in Zeek Rewards. Whether those fraudulent investments involved any contracts or the use of internet will be less important.
I use many types of communication methods (mail, e-mail, phone, personal contact, etc.). I don’t think “which communication method” should be seen as a highly relevant factor. Internet is simply one way to communicate (or to do transactions), it’s just as normal as any other method.
I don’t think the contracts should be seen as highly relevant either. The counter claims have been dismissed, so there’s very little “contract dispute” left in the case.
The interpretation of laws will become meaningless if 2 investors with similar investments will be treated differently because of unimportant details like communication methods, or if 2 schemes will be treated differently because of the existence / non-existence of contracts.
Both those factors seem to be rather unimportant for WHY people invested in Zeek Rewards (the purposefulness of that activity).
Where Zeek Rewards was located doesn’t seem to be important either. It wouldn’t have made much difference if it had been organized from Florida or California.
It means that whether people willfully directed the activity towards a specific state won’t be very important. One state will be just as relevant as any other.
If a factor isn’t very relevant for the underlying case, it will also have less relevance for the personal jurisdiction / choice of forum.
That logic, “it wouldn’t have made much difference”, is supported by how the Supreme Court saw it in Walden v. Fiore.
I’m not applying the logic on the same type of issue, the main point is that it wouldn’t have made any difference for the investors if Zeek Rewards and RVG had been located in a different state. The primary aspect was the investments, not WHERE the business was located.
If it wouldn’t have made any difference then the factor isn’t very important.
A court will need to look at the relevance of the facts, i.e. the facts that are most relevant to all investors and could have made any difference.
Are you kidding?
The Court denied jurisdiction in Nevada in Walden v Fiore. What does that tell you??
YOu seem to think that the case stands for the proposition that jurisdiction can be anywhere and it does not matter where a litigant chooses. Well? If so then why not Nevada.
Why not?
Nope, I’m using a relevant legal method, “identify the relevant facts first, the main issue (ignore the less important issues until they become relevant)”.
You use the opposite method = “look for rules on the internet matching the most current issue, then try to bend the facts to match the rules you have found”.
I have identified Zeek Rewards to be a Ponzi scheme, a fraudulent investment scheme. The contracts didn’t play a major role in the investment scheme, other than to give the false impression of a legitimate business.
If you had removed or replaced those contracts, then Zeek Rewards would still have been a fraudulent investment scheme. So they didn’t make any significant difference.
It tells me that Walden v. Fiore was a different type of case. We can probably identify SOME relevant parts, but we cannot blindly apply logic from that case and expect it to become meaningful.
The Supreme Court identified the facts first (just like I have done). Then it looked at legal sources. It analysed the logic applied in those cases, and decided whether it could be applied to the current case.
So its primary focus was on the relevance, it didn’t blindly try to apply the rules it found.
What did it tell you? I have answered my part.
My comment there was about something different, about Anjali’s “purposefully directed at a specific state” argument. It may be relevant in some cases, but it isn’t very relevant here.
Tort cases and commercial cases will apply different rules for the “minimum contact with the forum state”. You can’t blindly apply rules from one type of case to the other type.
You can’t blindly apply rules from those two types of cases to a third type. You must correctly identify the facts first (in the current case) to be able to see whether a rule can be relevant.
In this case, which state isn’t a major factor. It wouldn’t have made much difference for the investors (as a group) if Zeek had been organized in and had operated from a different state. Zeek Rewards would still have been a fraudulent investment scheme.
It will make some difference for individual investors, but that’s a different issue. You must first identify the factors that are relevant for the whole group before you can look at individual factors.
Sounds like bs.
What does Walden v Fiore have to do with any of that?
so, what are you saying norway, if a scheme is a fraudulent scheme, then law has to be brushed aside, and the court and receiver can initiate a ‘free for all’ attitude, against the defendants?
court&receiver: you ponzi players are not entitled to law! we have jurisdiction over you, because we say so! put your hands up, and come on out with your loot!
have you been watching too many wild wild west movies, norway?
the fraudulent transfers, occurred in a ponzi scheme. this is one part of the law.
to retrieve the fraudulent transfers, jurisdiction has to be established. this is the second part of the law.
to establish jurisdiction in an internet contact case, is a hell of a problem. there’s hardly any relevant case law to guide us. this third part of the law, is the blind curve the first two parts are driving up to.
so, the question of ‘purposeful directed contact’ is the place where the parties can drive into a jam up. as this is the question which determines jurisdiction, i cannot see why you find it ‘unimportant’ or ‘irrelevant’.
Well if its a different kind of case, then why do you keep citing it? You read the decision, you quoted it. What is the relevance? None? Some? You don’t have a clue?
similarly, just because RGV conducted business from NC, does not mean, foreign defendants were purposefully directing contact toward NC.
if RGV had been located in california or florida what difference would that have made? the question has no relevance because there is no direct contact with the forum in any other way.
jurisdiction was denied by the SC in walden, based on an idea , similar, but not exact, to zeek.
The only person that seems to be blindly (and thoughtlessly) applying anything here is you.
Nothing, as far as I can see?
Walden v. Fiore wasn’t even mentioned in that post.
Oh. Let’s get real stupid shall we. You never quoted Walden v Fiore either. It must have been a dream. Forget it Norway. Go back to sleep.
No. I don’t think I said any of that, or anything close to that?
The first half of your comment seems to be completely unrelated to the part you quoted. The second half would have made some sense if it had been stand alone.
You have already got the “No” answer. I won’t reply to a comment that doesn’t make much sense in the first half.
this is what you said:
what i take from this comment, is that because a scheme is fraudulent, the question of whether there were contracts or contacts , are unimportant.
yes, till the question of ‘fraudulent investments’ and ‘fraudulent transfers’ are being discussed, the part about ‘contracts’ and ‘contacts’ are less important.
but, when it comes to enforcing the default judgments arising out of the ‘fraudulent transfers’, everything else [ie fraudulence etc] will recede to the background and ONLY jurisdiction based on ‘contract’ or ‘contact’ will be of any relevance.
so, different ideas have different levels of importance, at different stages of the case.
now does it make better sense?
I quoted Walden v. Fiore in post #387.
You got one answer related to that in post #391:
And then you got an answer about something different in post #392:
Your question in post #393 was rather meaningless, but I gave you an answer anyway to prevent confusion about it.
I’m focusing on the facts first (the main ones).
I don’t mix in any rules or theories there, e.g. I’m not trying to make Zeek Rewards fit a description that will match a theory. I’m not trying to describe it as “internet contact based business” to match a rule found on the internet.
Zeek Rewards was a Ponzi scheme, a fraudulent investment scheme. That’s the most relevant factual description of what it really was.
It will cover why people paid money in, how it operated, why it was shut down by SEC, and why net winners are being sued in clawback litigations. It will cover more than that, but I only focused on some main factors.
It will become much vaguer if we try to identify it as “internet based business” or anything like that. The internet activity was a secondary function, not the primary one. The primary function was the fraudulent investment scheme.
“Those other factors”
When the main facts have been established, then we can look at those other factors. We can test how true your idea of “internet contact” is, but it will need to be supported by some factual info.
You can post all your main arguments for why Zeek Rewards was based on “online contacts”, and why that is relevant. You haven’t managed to convince me about that idea.
Those factors are secondary. Almost all opportunities reviewed here are internet based. “Internet based” was a relevant factor 15 years ago, but today most businesses have some online activity.
You must prove that Zeek Rewards’ “online contact” actually have some relevance (I didn’t accept your “God of internet” theories).
A primary rule will need to cover the whole group, all the people in that group. If it doesn’t cover all then it can’t be a primary rule either.
“Internet contact” doesn’t cover the whole group. Zeek Rewards used many different types of interactions with the investors. Most payments from new investors were actually sent by mail as Cashier’s Checks or personal checks (to avoid credit card chargebacks).
People also met up personally at the Zeek HQ to invest:
NOLINK://www.wral.com/nc-company-accused-of-swindling-customers-yet-no-charges-filed/12126733/
The “internet contact” was simply one of many methods, all completely normal business methods. It will make some of the rules from Supreme Court become rather irrelevant to apply in this case.
that’s a good description, norway, and will certainly look pretty on paper, but how are you going to ACT on it?
if you want to retrieve fraudulent transfers which occurred, due to the factual description you have provided, you have to put some ‘laws’ into Action.
can bell stroll into to an canadian court and say, zeek was a ponzi based on fraudulent investment, hence ask your citizens to pay up now. the judge may like his Beautiful Factual Description, but he will remain Unmoved. the judge will ask bell, on what basis he is trying to implement a law of his country, in another sovereign nation.
at this point, the judge will start looking into the laws about ‘contracts’ and ‘internet contacts’ to decide whether he wants to turn his citizens into bell’s NC jurisdiction.
that’s the endgame. we may write factual descriptions and even make drawings of them, but it is all just a trudge to the endgame.
of course, “internet contact” doesn’t cover the whole group.
we have not been discussing jurisdiction over american citizens, but only about foreign netwinners in canada and australia.
these foreign defendants are not a ‘class’, claims against them have to be handled individually, against each defendant in his/her local court. that will be a case by case analysis.
if any of them have sent and received cheques or visited NC, then they will probably be held liable. if their contact with zeek was only via ‘internet contact’ and ‘payment processors’, they may not be found liable at all.
The laws have already been decided, e.g. NCUFTA.
You wish to add some additional laws?
Personal jurisdiction and forum state (venue) must be established by the NC District Court. You will need to focus on that court first. Any Canadian or Australian courts will first become relevant in the future.
If you lose the middle part of the game because of flawed legal logic, the endgame will be in North Carolina. It will end where it started, there won’t be any need for Canadian or Australian judges.
canada and australia also have some UFTA in civil law.
so, they have grounds ‘to consider’ bells default judgments arising from NC, USA.
just because canada and australia have UFTA, will they enforce bells judgments?
NO.
canada and australia will check jurisdiction laws.
UFTA or NCUFTA or their daddy, will not help bell, unless he can prove his credentials under Jurisdiction Laws.
so, yes norway, i’m seeking to add ‘jurisdiction laws’ as necessary in enforcing foreign judgments. you may ignore facts about ‘contracts’ and ‘nature of contacts’, and their affects on deciding jurisdiction, at your own peril of a daft!alert!
What does Walden v Fiore have to do with this
personal jurisdiction and forum state (venue) HAS ALREADY BEEN established by the NC district court.
summons have been sent to foreign defendants because the NC court has assumed jurisdiction.
default judgments have been entered against a few foreign defendants, because the NC court has assumed jurisdiction.
it has NEVER been a question, whether or not, the NC court will establish it’s jurisdiction. under RGV/burks/SEC agreement, the court has jurisdiction over all RGV estate debtors.
now than canadian net winners have barely replied to bells summons, and aussie winners seem to be on the same trip, what will happen next, norway?
default judgments will be meted out, and bell has to start the process of enforcing them in canada and australia.
what do you mean by ‘Any Canadian or Australian courts will first become relevant in the future’? we have been discussing past, present, and future, all in the same breath. why build timezone barricades now?
Yeah! WHY?
Nugatory man. Totally nugatory!
The reason why I ignore contract theories is because those contracts are not mentioned in the lawsuit. The lawsuit is a Ponzi scheme clawback based on fraudulent transfer. It’s not a dispute about the contracts.
Case specific personal jurisdiction will require some meaningful minimum contact with the forum state related to the lawsuit.
The transactions and the withdrawal requests are the most relevant factors related to the lawsuit. Those withdrawals have been initiated by the defendants themselves “purposefully”.
Other types of contact with the state are less relevant. That’s also why I have ignored the “internet contact” theory. It wasn’t very relevant, i.e. the lawsuit isn’t about that type of activity.
I have also ignored “purposeful contact with the state itself“, because I believe that is a misinterpretion of one of the legal sources.
From my POV, 55 weekly withdrawals during 1 year, a total of $180,000, is both meaningful, “purposeful” and substantial contact – directly related to the lawsuit. All those other factors have been much more hypothetical.
From one internet source (general rules):
Remove the contracts and there is no TOS or compensation plan. Without the compensation plan there is no inducement to invest. With no investment there is no money. With no money Paul Burks can not run a ponzi and the North Carolina UFTA never comes into play.
Without the contracts being construed as investment contracts per Howey, there would be no securities and without securities there would be no SEC jurisdiction, and without SEC jurisdiction there would be no SEC v RVG, Burks.
Is there anything you would like to add? .
BULLoney The SEC v Burks Complaint alleges that Zeekler was offering investment contracts (A/K/A the compensation plan.) Its the source of the SEC’s jurisdiction for crap sakes and all other ancillary actions that Bell has undertaken.
The compensation plan would still be there? The rest of your theory will fail.
A contract isn’t some type of “master switch”, “the ON/OFF switch for the scheme itself”.
Actually, the compensation plan could be removed too. It wasn’t a vital component other than for communication purposes (to help people understand what the opportunity was about).
Those contracts were construed as commercial contracts, selling bids to the affiliates. Profits derived from the penny auction, partly based on the collective marketing efforts from the affiliates, would or could have been completely legitimate commercial activity.
That’s what the defendants in “Bell v. Disner et al” have based their defenses and counter claims on.
When Bell is talking about investment contracts, he’s talking about the Profit Pool and the VIP Points. That will answer your next post too.
Oh? The compensation plan would still be there? Where?
Its all tied together.
That is your fantasy. Nowhere, anywhere does the SEC allege anything other than investment contracts. This is not pigeon king and pigeon king was a ponzi too.
This is too stupid to continue.
I don’t give a rip about what the defendants say. Their defense is crap.
The complaint in “SEC v. Paul Burks et al”:
The Complaint is repeating which specific parts of the program, (via the Retail Profit Pool and the Matrix), to remove all doubts. And since SEC probably knew that you would still believe it was those other contracts, it described them in detail in paragraphs 20 through 52. 🙂
If it had been about those other contracts, it would have been specified, e.g. “ZeekRewards were offering investment contracts through its Purchase / Membership / Affiliate agreement”.
* ZeekRewards Terms of Service
* Privacy Policy
* Purchase/Membership/Affiliate agreement
It was based on your own theories
by omitting ‘one important word’ you have Conveniently Altered the requirements, for proving jurisdiction of a forum over a defendant.
the word is ‘Directed’.
don’t say ‘Purposeful’, say ‘Purposefully Directed’
do you see the clear and present difference now?
so, yes the foreign defendants were requesting withdrawals, which were meaningful, “purposeful” and substantial contact.
but, WHERE were these requests Directed. just because your theories come unstuck at a point, you cannot remove a legally important word from definitions! not done!
from walden vs fiore we know, merely residence of a party does not conclude jurisdiction, in the parties favor. whether defendants purposefully directed any action towards the parties forum, is the crux of the matter.
in walden, the party could have been located in florida or california, instead of nevada, it would make NO difference to the defendant, because his actions were not directed at a particular state at all. so it cannot be said that the defendant was ‘purposefully directing’ or ‘purposefully availing’ of the laws of any particular state.
this idea can be applied, in the case of zeek vs foreign defendants too.
The contracts you were talking about can be found in ZeekDoc113-1.pdf, Affidavit attaching true copy of ZeekRewards website, in the second half of the file. It’s an attachment to PLAINTIFF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE.
They don’t exactly look like investment contracts. That’s probably why SEC decided to specify which parts of the program it was talking about.
i agree with you.
the case about whether zeek was a ponzi scheme based on fraudulent transfers, does NOT mention the ‘contracts'[A], of the affiliates with zeekrewards. the SEC and bell, have totally ignored contract A as being irrelevant to the ponziness of zeek.
the SEC and bell have only addressed the howeys ‘investment contracts'[B], to explain why zeek was selling securities.
here’s where i disagree with you.
when it comes to enforcing foreign judgments, arising out of default judgments, arising out of fraudulent transfers, the foreign courts, will consider the value of ‘contract A’, to decide whether allowing jurisdiction is proper.
the foreign court will not consider ‘contract B’ at all, as their job is not to challenge the basis of the case, or retry it, but merely to check for jurisdiction.
so, please do not entangle the two different contracts, that play a role in zeek, and end up as certifiable muddleheads.
I said the Agreements (TOS and the Comp Plan + inclusions) were contracts. Within, are the elements that SEC identified as investment contracts. This is reflected in the Complaint.
I was referring to the reason the SEC had jurisdiction and was taking action all the rest of the material you quoted is a description of how the scheme worked. Its all based on the Comp Plan and the Comp plan is at the core of the Agreement (contract) between affiliates and
RVG.
If you and the Sorkinistas want to argue there were “commercial contracts” mixed into the pyramid and ponzi hybrid aspects of the scheme ….well….its your breath. As far as the SEC looks at it, it was a ponzi and what is actionable from the SEC point of view is that the contracts offered a return on investment.
Whatever monkey motion bedazzles you and makes Zeek look and feel like a real business to you is immaterial.
Your insistance that the SEC Complaint had to specifically say the words “ZeekRewards were offering investment contracts through its Purchase / Membership / Affiliate agreement” is nonsense. How else would the have offered to sell investment contracts?
In a different section of the website (of course). The contracts were stand alone documents, not parts of the main website.
The contracts could easily be removed, and it wouldn’t have affected the program itself. It wouldn’t have affected the compensation plan either.
o! so now, ‘contracts’ can be established merely by ‘conduct’.
law citation please. let’s not be pulling buggery from our ass.
besides there is no provable ‘conduct’ of the parties to show they were insistent on doing business with zeek, ONLY in north carolina.
1] where is the ‘middle part of the game’?
2] how can the endgame be in north carolina, if bell has to enforce judgments in canada and australia ?
3] what’re you talking about, norway?
That’s not surprising since the whole scheme was designed to look like easy work. Presumably that is why the complaint contains so much explanatory information (i.e. factual allegations) of how the scheme actually functioned.
All of the material in 113-1 (which I am not going to read) and perhaps more, would comprise the contract between the affiliates and RVG. There may even have been implied terms or oral promises that are not in evidence. Somewhere in all of that crapola is the fact that RVG was promising a return on money invested.
Is the SEC v Burks about contract LAW? No its about the offer of investment contracts in furtherance of a ponzi/pyramid scheme.
Is the Bell v Disner case about contracts. Yes as far as the Sorkinistas are concerned. Gilmond say’s the Zeeky contract was for services, which she asserts that she provided, and commissions and profit sharing which she claims she was rightfully paid.
In contrast Bell says no. He derives his his authority from the SEC v Burks case which alleges that Zeek was offering investment contracts. He may argue that the Zeeker’s contracts were illusory and void.
If nobody was signing a contract and sending in consideration as required by the contract I can not see how that would not have affected the program itself. The program ran on new investment. How do you remove that component and not be affected?
That would have made sense for a commercial type of activity, e.g. “purposefully directed its sale” (customers in general in a state). It would also make sense in libel / defamation lawsuits, e.g. “purposefully directed the slanderous story towards the plaintiff’s home state”.
It won’t make the same sense here. The inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant “focuses on ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.”
It doesn’t have the same relevance, the lawsuit isn’t about the type of activity you have looked at. You must identify the relevant facts before you can find and apply any rules. You can’t blindly apply the same rule to a different set of facts.
In reality, you will probably need to look at both facts and rules at the same time, but the idea is that you should have a relatively unbiased point of view when trying to identify the relevant facts. If you’re too influenced by “favorite ideas”, you will probably fail to identify the realities correctly.
You have been too influenced by your own ideas, e.g. when you described ZeekRewards as “internet based” to match some rules you had found, and made “internet contact” become the primary factor. You failed to check how true that “internet based” idea was. You failed to check how relevant it was (other than how well it matched your other ideas).
1] in reality, the fact is that zeek was an internet based business. in reality, there are NO SEPARATE RULES, that decide jurisdiction in commercial type of activity, or ponzi schemes. if you have found some different rules, please do share.
2] ‘purposefully directed contact’, is something the standing law of the US relies on, for deciding jurisdiction in all matters, whether, it is a tort, commercial or anything else. my views are based on the law, these are not my ‘biased ideas’ that i’m trotting out.
3] you want to buttkick the word ‘directed’ out of the equation, to fit the law on the matter, by some deft pulling and stretching.
4] you are ‘making up’ law to suit your biased arguments.
5] ha, try again.
I didn’t say anything about “sending in consideration”?
The payments of money from new investors were of course highly relevant. I have been specific about important parts for a long time.
You have gradually adjusted your ideas, e.g. “I meant the contracts AND the compensation plan AND the payments from investors AND all other relevant factors that made the Ponzi scheme work”. 🙂
That’s why I said that you had been too influenced by your own ideas, and had failed to check the realities.
You identified one set of rules in post #201:
It changed to a different set of rules when I introduced Walden v. Fiore. So now I have shared that there actually are different sets of rules, you can’t blindly apply one set to a case without testing the relevance first.
The types of rules you have looked at are not primary rules, they’re the result of some primary rules after they have been applied to an actual case. They can then be applied to similar cases involving the same factors.
Here’s some primary rules:
Because of all the different types of cases, it would have been meaningless to have specific rules like the ones you quoted in post #201. They would only have made sense if they had been applied to relatively similar cases.
If applied to Walden v. Fiore, they wouldn’t have made any sense at all. They wouldn’t have been relevant for that type of case.
The net winners did have “purposefully directed contacts” in the withdrawal requests. It’s clearly directed to the company itself and its management.
I haven’t ignored the “directed” factor, only the “directed at a specific state“. I believe the last one is a misinterpretation, since it doesn’t make much sense in most cases.
Here’s how the complaint against the Australian net winners describes the personal jurisdiction:
I wouldn’t have used exactly the same description, but I have only looked at Catherine Parker’s transactions. There may be a reason for the vague description used in the complaint.
The string N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-75.4 can be googled, but it will only bring up rather vague rules. You will need to check multiple sources to find out that “other things of value” actually includes MONEY.
the rules you have provided as ‘primary rules’ are actually a detailed subdivision of factors to be considered under the heading ‘have direct contact with the state’.
the rule i have provided is the primary rule ie ‘have direct contact with the state”
the factors you have provided are a deeper guidance into understanding ‘direct contact with the state’ ie, 1) quantity of the contacts, (2) nature and quality of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action to the contacts, (4) the interest of the forum state, and (5) convenience to the parties.
BUT your argument stops at my Primary Point Number 1 [ there is no need to go into the detailed rules you have provided]:
1] “Have Direct Contact With The State”
please deal with the word ‘Direct’ norway, and save yourself some pain.
the word ‘Direct’ cannot be shooed away norway, at least the US, canada and australia, have, as on date, not dumped this word. who are you, to shove it aside?
uh, stop right there , norway, and consider what you said.
‘directed to the company’ means nothing, nobody is arguing, that a ‘company’ can have jurisdiction over its clients.
‘directed at the state’ means everything, everybody is arguing whether the ‘State of NC’has jurisdiction, or not.
you cannot pay attention/ignore factors according to your convenience.
is the law a meat shop, where you can pick and choose the best cuts, at will?
That “Try again” won’t make much sense. It’s much easier to define you as a “True Believer” and ignore most of your ideas. 🙂
I’m not “making up laws”. I have used the same logic the Supreme Court used in Walden v. Fiore.
It identified the relevant facts first (the case itself, the decisions in the lower courts, the legal issue to be decided). Then it identified some primary rules (its own rules). Then it looked at the arguments (the different case laws), “how it was in that case / how it is in this case”, the most relevant arguments first. Then it came to a conclusion.
It didn’t happen exactly that way. Several parts had to be revisited a couple of times. But it certainly didn’t blindly apply some rules it had found on the internet, “one set of rules will fit all cases”. It didn’t cherry pick either without carefully testing the relevance.
Since the Supreme Court neither cherry picked nor blindly applied rules, I can’t see any rational reason for why we should do it either? The idea it used was rational enough for me.
1] ‘this action relates to money or other things of value sent from North Carolina’ — there’s no argument about this. money is a thing of value, which was sent out from north carolina, maybe by cheques, maybe via payment processors. no problem here.
2] ‘sent from North Carolina to Defendants at their order or direction’ —- hmm, bell does not clarify that the ‘order or direction’ was directed to NC, only that the money was directed ‘out’ of NC. this a vague incomplete sentence.
since this case is going to take time, bell can probably hope that, some internet jurisdiction laws will get cleared up, to help his case later.
For heavens sakes look up implied contract and compare it with an express contracts. Nixlink://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract_implied_in_fact
Apparently you do not know what consideration is. I am talking about the money that a founder or new affiliate injected into the system.
Based on mutual promises and money tendered a contract was entered between a person and RVG. Take away the money and you have no ponzi scheme.
Anjali…
If you have not done so read this, its apparently what Norway is relying (be nice if he would cite his reference) but it supports his argument….your arguments…. and mine.
If you like Rorschach tests you will love this.
Nolink://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_north_carolina_jurisdiction_significant_contact.htm
Sure there is. They, in fact, tendered thousands of withdrawal requests to, and were paid on the order of RVG from North Carolina. In doing so they purposely availed themselves of the protections offered by NC law.
Parker withdrew multiple times and must have been aware that others were doing the same. For her to argue that her purpose was to contact the god of the internet is thin and squishy.
In addition:
No I have not adjusted my ideas. I have tried to explain myself further so that YOU would understand what I meant.
nice!! when you run out of arguments, just start calling people names!
i can call names too. i could define you as a ‘True Confuserlizer’. like that? 🙂
in walden vs fiore, the supreme court wore it’s glasses, picked up its forceps, and Cherry Picked and Applied the Rule about – “purposefully directed contact”.
this is the Truth, the rest is your meandering hypotheticals about XYZ.
for heavens sakes , please read up what you ask people to read, and avoid being thrown under the wheels of your own car.
from your link:
err, hoss, zeekrewards and affiliates had a proper legal contract about the same subject matter [comp plan/commissions etc], duly registered under nevada law.
you cant run off to another state and say : woohoo, we will ignore your legal contract in another state, and just pretend your ‘conduct’ creates a ‘contract’ in this state, without your permission.
thanks hoss.
but nothing new there, that we haven’t already thrashed to death, with our great wisdom and expertise. 🙂
He won’t need such airy determinations to prevail.
Nearly every one of the precedents cited, and tests that are used to determine jurisdiction provide Mullen with discretion to decide what is fair and in…
Considering there are a buttload of real people/net losers in and out of North Carolina it hardly seems “fair” or in the interest of the forum state to decide that the internet received money on order of RVG, rather than a real people/net winners such as Parker.
It is not unfair to demand she pay back money received if whe received them through fraudulent transfers by a NC company. She had an opportunity to settle or argue jurisdicition but did not.
The court will weigh these and other factors as provided by law…. and take in personem jurisdiction. It need not wait for any further clarification.
I guess I should have said a Canadian Court will see that Mullen complied with US law when he determined North Carolina had in personem jurisdiction over Parker.
Nobody is pretending. Conduct creates the contract even where there is an express contract that is at variance. The court does not need permission to rule on the conduct of the parties nor the implied relationship that existed between them.
Parker contracted with RVG and the behavior of the parties proves it. God in the internet theories don’t wash.
Lets not pretend even for the sake of argument that those contracts are going to be enforceable against the RVG estate. If Zeek was, as alleged, a ponzi, then the Mullen can easily find that the Nevada contracts were illusory and to no effect.
All I can see here is an adjustment from separated contracts (in all posts up to #414), to “investment contracts (A/K/A compensation plan)” in post #415, to “It’s all tied together” in post #417.
SEC used the opposite logic. It clearly identified specific components, the “Retail Profit Pool” and the “Matrix”, and described how they worked.
I don’t see any problem in adjustments as long as they are meaningful. Grouping all elements together should normally make it become a whole, e.g. “the whole Ponzi scheme”.
So your point in post #414 was “If you had removed the whole Ponzi scheme, then ZeekRewards would no longer have been a fraudulent investment scheme”. That makes sense. 🙂
Whatever blows up your skirt, Norway. If it takes a redundant statement like If you removed the ponzi scheme, then ZeekRewards would no longer have been a ponzi scheme to make sense to you then enjoy the merry-go-round.
All elements did act together. They were integrated into a scheme. Like any house of cards you may be able to remove one or two cards and nothing will happen but there is one card that the structure rests upon and without which the house can not be built or if removed will cause the house to fall.
In Zeek the single card was the agreements for without the money they brought in the ponzi could not have existed.
I believe the complaint was written by Irving M. Brenner. He’s often vague about details. The court seems to accept it.
The description “money or other things of value” seems to be a modification of one of the sub-rules in N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-75.4, e.g. 5(d).
That sub-rule is clearly about “shipped from NC by the plaintiff” + “to the defendant on his order or direction”. The order or direction doesn’t need to be directed specifically at NC.
That’s what the statutory law says. Case law will find “other things of value” to include money. So people will need to use multiple sources to understand the rules.
The rules will first protect the plaintiff’s interests to sue in his home state. Then it will offer rules to protect the defendant from being haled into a foreign court, e.g. Walden got the case dismissed in Nevada because of lack of personal jurisdiction.
He matched the Complaint to the statute. Wouldn’t that be good draftsmanship?
Huh? Didn’t you just say…
There is no such thing as “duly registering” a contract in a specific State, so read up or live longer, or hang out with different people, or just pay attention to what I am saying.
There was a contract. Period.
By its terms, venue, law, and jurisdiction was designated as Nevada because Dawn Olivares or Burks or Gerald Nehra or some other asshole put Nevada in the contract.
There was no negotiation and the zeekers were clueless or were only in it for a quick buck at other’s expense. . A contract can not be “registered.” Sex offenders can be registered.
ZeekRewards was incorporated in Nevada…a process that cost $250 and takes five minutes. That is the sum total of the nexus between the affiliates and Nevada.
On the other hand nearly a billion dollars flowed through accounts owned an controlled by Paul Burks and RVG in Carolina. Its a no-brainer. Carolina has jurisdiction.
1] none of the precedents we have discussed allows forum jurisdiction ‘unless and until’ a defendant has purposefully directed contact at the state. you and norway, are trying to gloss over this, and start some parallel nonsensical arguments about ‘imaginary contracts’, ‘realities of the case’ and ‘hogwash’. you may run, but you cant hide!
2] i have said this before, and i’ll say it again. due to the physical presence of activities of RVG/zeek in NC, and in the interests of the state, the district court of judge mullen is well within it’s rights to assume jurisdiction of the case.
3] but, this is not reason enough for a foreign court to allow jurisdiction over its citizens. the foreign court will look more specifically at what ‘exactly’ it’s citizen did, what was his role, what were his contacts, what were his contracts. we may not like it, but countries don’t handover their citizens very easily. to top it off, there’s barely any international laws regarding internet jurisdiction.
Implied not imaginary.
Imaginary would be properly be called an illusory contract, perhaps like the ones executed between the affiliates and Zeekrewards.
Norway has conclusively shown that per the NC UTMA receiving funds from a North Carolina person subjects the recipient to jurisdiction in the State. Purposeful direction is not required for in personem jurisdiction. Parker et al will have judgement entered against them (the US debt)
I asked you before and you did not properly answer so I will try again. How is a US debt collected in Sydney and then tell me why Bell would even care.
He used his own words, “money or other things of value sent from North Carolina to Defendants at their order or direction”, and he didn’t identify the exact sub-rule.
I didn’t have any problem with that one (before I tried to check the exact rules). Yet I must recognize Anjali’s argument about vagueness. I simply replied with “It IS vague (he often is), but the court seems to accept it”.
I believe you have interpreted something out of context, e.g. from 2 different posts about 2 different issues.
One of them seems to be about relevance, e.g. “Which relevance does that criterion have?”, e.g. “Did people withdraw money BECAUSE ZeekRewards was located in North Carolina or did they withdraw money because they wanted the money?”.
Actions directed at a specific state can have some relevance in commercial cases, e.g. a company can specifically market its products towards the markets in specific states. That will create a stronger contact with the forum state than more random activity.
It may be less relevant in other types of cases. The withdrawal requests were not directed at a specific state, but to a specific company residing in that state.
Anali’s strict interpretation “directed at North Carolina” isn’t very relevant for “Bell v. Bjerring et al”.
GS 175-4 d. Relates to goods, documents of title, or other things of value shipped from this State by the plaintiff to the defendant on his order or direction.
The phrase “inter alia” is particularly apt. There are several different ways per 1-75-4 that Zeekers could potentially fall under the UFTA and become subject to NC personal jurisdiction.
I have pointed out that there’s more than one precedent here. We have looked at 2 of them. You presented one set of rues in post #201 (reposted by me in post #433), claiming “This is the law!”. Then we found some different rules in Walden v. Fiore, and now those have been included in the same type of argument.
So “the law” seems to be about “the rules Anjali currently have found”, or “the rules she’s currently focusing on”, i.e they have been personalized to fit the specific viewpoint of a single person.
Precedent is about “the same rule should be applied to similar cases”, ensuring some consistency in judgments from the same court, the same circuit of courts, etc. (meaning that the Supreme Court will need to look at its previous decisions from similar cases, and not rule against its own decisions).
“Similar cases” is about:
1. The main issue
2. The current issue
From my POV, you have failed to look at the main issue. A commercial case will not necessarily be similar to a tort case. They may require different sets of criteria.
Post #201 and Walden v. Fiore (Calder v. Jones) prove that they actually do need different sets of criteria. It would have been rather irrelevant to apply the rules found in post #201 to Calder v. Jones. The main issues in those 2 cases were simply too different. Those cases were not similar enough.
“Bell v. bjerring et al”
1. Similar enough?
You will need to prove that the main issue in that case is similar enough to your other sources. A precedent may be irrelevant if the cases are too different.
2. Meaningful result?
The other way to prove relevance is to prove that it actually gives a meaningful result, regardless of any differences between the cases.
3. Main issue not important?
The third way to prove something is to prove that the main issue isn’t important, e.g. “a court will only look at the current jurisdiction issue, it will not look at the underlying case”.
Walden v. Fiore / Calder v. Jones show that there may be too much differences even between 2 tort cases. “Calder logic” could be applied to “Walden”, but the court couldn’t draw the same conclusion. The Supreme Court needed to analyse the relevant facts in both cases and look at the differences.
OF course one makes a request with a company residing in the state. What else would it mean? The State of North Carolina has a population of 9,848,060 and covers 48,617.91 Square miles. How do you direct a request at that?
I didn’t have any problem with it before I tried to google it. Anjali’s argument about vagueness was valid enough. She was probably trying to identify the exact rule, e.g. to test it against her own rules.
In that context, Irving M. Brenner’s description was rather vague. It didn’t cite the exact rule, only the relevant meaning of it.
If you haven’t figured it out by now, let me invite you to the party.
Anjali mixes domestic and foreign questions up all the time but what she is actually saying is that a court in Sydney, or Toronto, or Timbuktu will require MORE than is required under US law.
She is convinced that in order to enforce a judgment against Parker in Australia that Bell must be able to prove strict, clear and unequivocal proof that Parker knew and intended to specifically invest and withdraw funds from the building in North Carolina where Burks conducted business and that she expressly consented to US jurisdiction in some manner shape or form.
Nothing less will suffice.
That’s exactly what I have been arguing against Anjali’s strict interpretation “directed at North Carolina (the state itself)”.
Withdrawal requests and transactions are highly relevant factors for the clawback litigation. It will be meaningless to apply rules from a different type of case where other factors were more relevant.
Frequent withdrawal requests (orders from the defendant “send me money”), followed by transactions from the plaintiff (represented inter alia), should be enough to establish more than enough minimum contact with the forum state.
It will be ridiculous to theorize that those withdrawal requests should have been purposefully directed at the general population of North Carolina (“the state itself”), or that the defendant should have had some other activities purposefully directed at the state itself.
I have argued that Anjali’s strict interpretation most likely is a misinterpretation. It won’t make much sense in some cases if you try to apply her rules to an actual case, the result may become rather meaningless.
I have focused on the current case(s). The enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia was discussed very early in the thread. I recognized SOME difficulties, e.g. default judgments are not really final (not really enforceable).
From my POV, many of Anjali’s arguments are about hypothetical scenarios, where she has both constructed the problem and the solution herself.
It will first become relevant for me to look at them if she brings in some factual information from external sources (I don’t need to be updated on hypothetical theories).
Since the type of personal jurisdiction is defined to be about “case specific jurisdiction and venue”, it means that the underlying case will be relevant.
Some rules are general and can be applied to ANY case. That doesn’t mean all rules will be general and that they can be applied to any case. We must separate between those two types of rules.
“Walden v. Fiore” – elements
1. The current legal issue (the jurisdiction issue)
———- I
2. Factual background
3. Procedural history.
– the lawsuit (the main issue)
– District Court dismissal
– “On appeal, a divided panel …”
– “We granted certioari …”
———- II A
4. “Federal courts ordinarily follow state law”
5. “the limits imposed by federal due process” (main rule)
———- B 1
6. “The Due Process Clause …”
7. “This case addresses the “minimum contacts” …”
– “For a State to exercise jurisdiction …”
8. Identifying some general principles.
———- 2
9. “These same principles apply when …” (type of case)
10. “Calder v. Jones illustrates the application …”
———- III
11. “Applying the foregoing principles”
12. Some additional arguments.
———- * * *
13. Conclusion (summary).
A main principle (7. “This case addresses …):
The Supreme Court didn’t blindly apply case law. It was clearly case specific.
has the SEC or bell, used the actual nevada contract , or the ‘implied contract’ [you have created out of thin air], anywhere in their arguments?
NO.
so, Drop That Idea. It’s Irrelevant.
bell is assuming NC states jurisdiction, over american and foreign defendants, based on the Long Arm Statutes, NCUFTA, and the physical presence of RGV/zeek in NC.
that’s it. do not remain confused.
Of course he has dumass. You’re the one who keeps crapping on about how Bell will never be able to enforce the judgments in New Delhi because these dipshits signed contracts that were “duly registered” in Nevada.
Yo Get it.
yo
looks like i’ll have to repeat myself ad nauseum, till certain dum’asses get this.
whatever ‘convenient’ factors bell assigns to assuming the courts jurisdiction in NC, will not not necessarily Fly in a Foreign court. a foreign court will look at the ‘exact’ contacts and contracts of its citizens with NC.
you said it yourself: ‘Anjali mixes domestic and foreign questions up all the time but what she is actually saying is that a court in Sydney, or Toronto, or Timbuktu will require MORE than is required under US law’
i am not mixing up domestic and foreign questions, they follow linearly. yes, a court in toronto, will not have a bleeding heart for bell, or the state of NC, but will look towards ‘current international law’ to decide internet jurisdiction. and, that law is currently non existent. will this case create some new caselaw? maybe, good!
one more repeat of an ancient idea, i have stuck with through this thread – the US and canada and australia All Three, still use the principal of ‘purposefully directed contacts’ in deciding jurisdiction. that ain’t changed yet, when it changes, we can discuss the new scenario.
In International Shoe v. Washington, the “purposefully directed at the forum State itself“ was highly relevant. Int’l Shoe had 11-13 sales people working on commission (as independent agents), selling shoes to the general population of the State.
The lawsuit was arising from that activity, from the fact that the company didn’t pay unemployment taxes to the State’s unemployment fund (as it normally would need to do if it had been physically present with an office in that State).
The fact that “at the forum State itself” was relevant in that case doesn’t mean it will be relevant in all cases. Case specific issues will need to be based on the case itself. If a rule doesn’t have relevance then it can’t be applied either.
SOME DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES
For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State.
Due process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State.
using your inquiry on zeek vs foreign defendants:
1] focuses on ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’———there is a relationship between the defendant and the litigation. there is a relationship between the forum and the litigation. missing piece of the puzzle: defendants relation to the forum.
2] ‘the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State.’———–norway , which ‘conduct’ of the defendants created ‘substantial connections’ with the forum state.
if the forum state had been california instead of NC, can you point out how the defendants conduct would change, or how anything else would change from the POV of the defendants sending withdrawal requests?
norway, you have quoted the SC in walden, the quote clearly establishes that defendant needs to have substantial connection to the Forum State .
for substantial connection to exist , the defendant must purposefully or ‘knowingly’ [in internet cases] direct actions, to the forum state.
the SC is not a dumbass to apply case law blindly. it studied the underlying case [walden] and studied how properly the fundamental principle of ‘purposefully directed contact’ fit into this particular case.
in internet cases, developing case law [US], is mainly centered around the zippo test,and tests quality and quantity of internet contacts, AND THEN, wants ‘something more’ to show the defendant has knowingly directed actions to the forum state.
this ‘something more’ could be advertising, phone calls, visits, contracts, transactions with other citizens of the forum, etc.
so, whether you start your arguments from space, the air, the earth or the rabbit hole, you will come smack up with ‘purposefully directed’, at the end of your journey. there’s just no escaping it.
note:’ HIS OWN AFFILIATION’
note: ‘RANDOM, FORTUITOUS CONTACTS”
the defendants transactions with NC were random and fortuitous, they could have been equally directed at florida or california or new delhi.
you keep saying it all, and then tripping over yourself norway!
The SEC and BEll haven’t “used the actual nevada contract because they do not find them relevant.
Their viewpoint…It was a ponzi running out of North Carolina, and the court has personal jurisdiction per the UTMA. Simple, straightforward, and effective. Bell and the SEC are making their case not yours.
ONLY YOU have argued that the “duly registered” Nevada contracts are relevant. ONLY YOU have argued that minimal contact is missing.
The actual defendant’s have not and Bell and the SEC sure as hell aren’t going to be arguing against themselves.
If someone in India, Canada, Australia attempts to avoid enforcement of judgments IN THOSE countries then it might require counter arguments… in those countries.
I have suggested a few ideas based on US contract law that might satisfy a foreign court, but please…if you think Bell is going to bring any of those arguments up on his own, in the absence of need, at this stage of the proceedings, then you are not just a dumass but a complete dumass.
He is going to stay on message until someone challenges him…and NO ONE has.
They are far more than “convenient” factors if they make the case under the UFTA and US law. How a provincial court in India might look at any of this is of no present concern.
….and they have applied the concept of purposeful availment to it. The future is already here.
Look at the UFTA it does not even require a showing of purposeful direct contact. A defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Norht Carolina by virtue of having received goods and service and money from a resident of the State.
The law here is way ahead of you.
in other words, foreign defendants are jus’ ignorin’ bell’s summons and default judgments, because, they know he will have to hop into their lair, with no international internet jurisdiction laws, to tie them up with. right?
ufffff!
UFTA helps in ‘interstate’ US matters.
UFTA cannot be used against foreign defendants in canada and australia.
UFTA as a remedy in civil law, is used in canada and australia, which means they have a comparable law and can ‘consider a case’ from the US, based on recognizable law. bell cannot take an UFTA case to Norway, as norway has told us, there is no UFTA there.
of course not. however previously ‘provincial’ courts are now state courts and all follow the same laws, which are enforceable anywhere in the country, and the SC takes up all questions addressed to it.
this just makes things easier, but there’s a longaways to go, here too.
NO. You are applying the wrong concepts. Bell v Disner is a case about receiving stolen goods.
If Paul Burks was arrested for stealing cars in North Carolina and shipping them to Delhi would the person in Delhi be subject to North Carolina law (even if he used an intermediary in Las Vegas to correspond with Burks?) Yes because he is in possession of stolen goods.
By taking possession of stolen cars shipped from North Carolina the person in Delhi has purposely availed himself of the protection of North Carolina law. A person who has not received cars has not.
Dicta: If you do not want to come under the jurisdiction of North Carolina law, then you must order your affairs in such a way that you do not avail yourself of North Carolina law.
the court in delhi, would check if NC has grounds for applying jurisdiction over a delhi resident, based on the principles for applying jurisdiction. there is no special law to deal with stealing, ponzi, or commercial cases. loss of money, is loss of money, whatever the underlying cause.
the court will check if there are any reciprocity agreements with the US for enforcing each other’s judgments.
if there is a ‘dicta’ that – if you do not want to come under the ‘jurisdiction of North Carolina law’, then you must order your affairs in such a way that you do not avail yourself of North Carolina law, then a foreign court could well reply, that if you have any litigation to pursue, with our resident, you can come and do it in our jurisdiction.
‘dicta’ is not agreed, signed, ‘international law’. everybody can have a dicta or two. where’s the harm?
Then……Let Delhi take care of itself and quit wasting your breath with Zippo and Walden and Fiore.
North Carolina has personal jurisdiction because by statute it has personal jurisdiction. This is State law under a Federal system. If you don’t like it appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, and then after they turn you down take it to the US Supreme Court.
In the meantime Delhi can decide if it wants to protect people who are in possession of stolen goods…which also includes goods stolen from other people in Delhi.
assuming jurisdiction, is a matter of ‘law’ not of ‘right’.
jurisdiction can be challenged from state to state , country to country. country to country jurisdiction is a maze of uncertainty, and internet jurisdiction, ain’t not yet arrived.
of course, delhi is old enough to decide. let’s leave it to delhi then.
meanwhile, stop pouting, this whole total mess, is not of our creation, we’re merely cogs in the Big Wheel.
Ignoring a summons is not unique to the foreign defendants is it? The fact of the matter is that it probably took about $300 of additional legal work to obtain default judgments totaling several million dollars against the Canadian and Australian defendants.
Bell can probably sell the judgments for $200,000 once they are final. The estate is way ahead.
The foriegn debtors are not only accruing interst but they will be paying legal fees to contest the collectibility of the debt in their own country and and their adversary will not be Bell but a native debt collection company that not only knows the law but also the system in the local country.
I pointed out some potential “conflict of laws”, but I haven’t really analysed it. It was only a quick look.
If used as a defense, I would have pointed out that the receiver has made absolutely no efforts to collect the claim “in a normal way”, e.g. by presenting his claim as a bill, invoice, “notice of wrongful payment” or other method recognizable by a debtor as a claim. There hasn’t been any previous dispute about the amount.
And then, after putting up a vaguely described theory, I would carefully have checked the substance.
THE PROBLEM
People are not dealing with an ordinary creditor here, so normal creditor / debtor logic may be the wrong type of legal logic.
If the New Delhi resident executed a TOS then it would seem pretty clear that the New Delhi resident consented to US jurisdiction whether in Nevada as expected or in North Carolina which claims jurisdiction by statute.
businessdictionary.com/definition/statute-law.html#ixzz3PI04hp8D
The use of constructive trusts seems to be well established in England (Canada, Australia and India?)
In any event its a blockbuster remedy as it lays a proprietary claim on the principal amount + interest as well as to any increased value that use of the money generates.
In other words if Parker used the money to buy a house for $100K and today its worth $150K the profit is also claimed by the beneficiary (the RVG estate)
I will probably find “something” in Norway too. Post #297 was based on a quick look, not on an extensive research.
The problem is that the lawsuit may be difficult to understand for people living in foreign countries, e.g. due to lack of meaningful information.
The Receivership website has the following FAQs / other info:
* Claims FAQs (wrong type of FAQ)
* General FAQs (wrong type of FAQ)
* Subpoena FAQ (wrong type of FAQ, 2 relevant points)
* Case documents (mostly wrong type of information)
* Receiver updates (wrong type of information)
* Contact Us (the general “info” contact address)
It looks like the Receiver sent some settlement emails in early April 2013 to some of the net winners. “Most recently, after consulting with SEC counsel, the Receiver sent an email on April 2, 2013 to all those who won over $1,000 notifying them of the upcoming litigation and offering to discuss settlement of the claims against them on or before May 31, 2013”. (2nd quarterly report 2013, page 16).
The problem with that method, the first part of it, is that it starts from my own theory about “failed to correctly inform the debtors” rather than from the realities of the case.
The reality of the case is that the net winners are not dealing with an ordinary creditor here. Some factors have already been decided in the primary case “SEC v. Paul Burks et al”, e.g. the Court has already decided to accept that “cost effective procedure” of only sending emails one time (in April 2013).
“SEC v. Paul Burks et al” is the primary case. “Bell v. any net winners, wherever they are located” will be ancillary cases to the primary one, arising from instructions in the primary case, filed to aid the primary case.
That’s one of the most important realities of the case. It will make many defense theories fail.