Two New attorneys filing Pro Hac Vice and a more “Intervenors”

A cursory check of the Zeek rewards docket file gives us the new docket entries below. Most notable is the appearance request for Ira Sorkin, one of Bernie Madoff’s attorneys. In addition, there is a Motion to remove the Receiver and another opposing the appointment of an Examiner for the affiliates. The games begin anew!!!

Date Filed # Docket Text
12/14/2012 82 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ira Lee Sorkin Filing fee $ 276, receipt number 0419-1869024. by Trudy Gilmond, Kellie King. (Terpening, William) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
12/14/2012 83 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Amit Sondhi Filing fee $ 276, receipt number 0419-1869030. by Trudy Gilmond, Kellie King. (DeAntonio, Matthew) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
12/14/2012 84 MOTION to Intervene and for an Order Dissolving the Appointment of a Temporary Receiver and Memorandum in Support Thereof by Trudy Gilmond, Kellie King.Responses due by 1/2/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A – King Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B – Gilmond Declaration)(DeAntonio, Matthew) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
12/14/2012 85 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 77 MOTION to Appoint Attorney ad Litem /Examiner for Affiliates by Trudy Gilmond, Kellie King. Replies due by 12/26/2012 (DeAntonio, Matthew) (Entered: 12/14/2012)

 


I can see why Trudy Gilmond is a bit upset, when one sees this:

The preliminary ZeekRewards records that we have reviewed show that you received $1,367,850.10 from ZeekRewards but paid in only $3,105.00. Therefore, you received $1,364,745.10 of the money lost by victims that must be returned to the Receivership estate.

The Proposed Intervenors are “net winners” as that term is defined by the Receiver, and each has received notice from the Receiver that she likely will be subject to a “clawback” action. Gilmond Decl. and King Decl.

She also mentions a defective subpoena, indicating she has not paid much attention to the fact that the Receiver is more than happy to reissue the Subpoena and send it several ways.  The amount of money she made in Zeek may well be why she is trying to get the Receiver “un-appointed” because she figured out Bell is not playing when it comes to clawbacks.

I have uploaded these new documents onto the Files website. They are worth a read.

m4s0n501

5 comments

  • Hoss

    When the Court takes up the Gilmond/King Motions: Motion to Deny Appointment of Examiner will be approved. Motion to Dissolve Receivership will be denied. The Motion to Intervene will be hotly contested but ultimately denied because Gilmond and King’s arguments are at their most basic an assertion that they expended time and energy promoting what they thought was a legal business opportunity. In the interest of justice and fairness to the millions of investors who lost all while Ms. Gilmond profited to the tune of $1.4 Million in four months the court will rule that she can not intervene to argue the legality of the scheme because that has already been determined. Any other outcome other than that and this will become a circus event.

    • Don

      Hoss,

      Apparently none of these people learn from previous events. Similar arguments were made in the ASD case, over 100 people tried to Intervene and were shot down by Judge Collyer. The issue, as you well know, is one of Standing. I do like that they are opposing the Examiner. At least they have some redeeming qualities.

  • Hoss

    Burks (and the senior affiliates) could have litigated and proven to the Court and the SEC that the business was legitimate. Instead they surrendered. Now they send King and Gilmond in to ask for their weapons back. Not going to happen.

    • Don

      I doubt that this is an effort to help Burks or anyone but the two ladies that filed. They want to keep their money, money that they worked hard for by recruiting others into the matrix and sucking them dry like a parasite. Placing ads every day doesn’t rise to manual labor for most reasonable people.

      I hope these two get what they and all the top Zeek winners deserve, clawbacks, heavy fines and some jail time. Only then will the pyramid pimps and Ponzi whores realize their end is upon them.

  • Hoss

    There is no reason to rule out coordinated legal action here. Burks would not be the object of the efforts but a potential indirect beneficiary. The strategies are designed to help the net winner affiliates. That may be accomplished through the appointment of an examiner, or by a sucessful intervenor and the removal of the Reciever. Both possibilities are now in front of the court.

    Quilling and Alexander could not make motion for both since they argued that the Examiner was needed because their clients could NOT intervene.

    I think they are working together. There is too much money at stake here not to and though some of the affiliates may be imbeciles their attorneys probably are not.

Leave a Reply