Posted by Don on January 19th, 2013
|Date Filed||#||Docket Text|
|01/18/2013||118||RESPONSE in Support re 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. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kellie King, # 2 Declaration of Trudy Gilmond)(Sorkin, Ira) (Entered: 01/18/2013)|
The new filing starts out with this:
The Receiver’s Subpoenas & Threatening Letter
On November 3, 2012 and November 5, 2012, Kellie King and Trudy Gilmond, respectively, received a subpoena dated October 30, 2012 from Receiver Kenneth Bell. In a cover letter to the subpoena, Mr. Bell, citing the caption for this case, advised King and Gilmond that on August 17, 2012, “the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina appointed [him] as the Receiver for and over the assets, rights, and all other interests of the estate of Rex Ventures Group, LLC . . . d/b/a ZeekRewards.com and any related companies or businesses.” Id. Mr. Bell further advised King and Gilmond that he is “specifically authorized by the court to issue subpoenas for documents and testimony” in connection with his investigation, and that each of them is required to produce documents “concerning ZeekRewards/Zeekler.com and certain personal financial information” by November 16, 2012. Id. 1
1 Although Gilmond and King did not respond to the October 30, 2012 subpoena on counsel’s advice that it was
defective and improperly served, undersigned counsel has since accepted a narrower subpoena on behalf of Gilmond and King.
Mr. Bell’s cover letter further informed King and Gilmond that, “ZeekRewards was an unlawful Ponzi and pyramid scheme that used money from later participants to pay ‘profits’ . . . to earlier participants and/or those higher up on the pyramid.” Id. Mr. Bell’s goal, as he explained, was “to recover these unlawful ‘winnings’ from the alleged scheme for the benefit of the hundreds of thousands of victims who lost money.” Id. Mr. Bell threatened Gilmond that based on the “preliminary” records reviewed, Gilmond “received $1,367,850.10 from ZeekRewards but paid in only $3,105.00″ and therefore was required to return “$1,364,745.10 of the money lost by victims . . . to the Receivership estate.”
This is the problem that I have, statements that Bell “threatened” people. Nope, he told them what he would or could do if they chose to keep profits from the scam. I am fairly certain that as Receiver’s themselves, Sorkin, Quilling and Alexander have done exactly the same thing in recovering receivership assets, and yet they feign displeasure. But, they dance with the one that brought them, their clients. It is all an exercise in loquacious litigation.
The document continues with just how much effort that Gilmond and King put into the program, the back-breaking work of placing ads and recruiting people. (The self-admitted ASD Ponzi did exactly that and their owner is in prison). The Arguments continue with these subjects:
- THE SEC’S ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY THE PROPOSED INTERVENORS FAIL TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF FED. R. CIV. P. 24 ARE PREMISED ON A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH PROPOSED INTERVENORS SEEK TO INTERVENE
- The Motion to Intervene was Timely Filed Because the Receiver is Presently Using the Order Appointing Receiver to Issue Subpoenas and Threaten Clawback Suits
- Proposed Intervenors Have an Interest in this Litigation because it is this Court’s Order Appointing Receiver which Proposed Intervenors Seek to Dissolve
- Proposed Intervenors’ Interests would be Impaired if Not Permitted to Intervene
- The SEC Does Not Credibly Challenge that No Party Currently Represents the Proposed Intervenors’ Interests
- The SEC’s Argument as to Why Permissive Intervention is Not Permitted Ignores that Intervention Would Promote the Goals of Judicial Economy
- THE SEC EFFECTIVELY CONCEDES THAT SECTION 21(G) DOES NOT REQUIRE THIS COURT TO DENY THE MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ITS ARGUMENT THAT INTERVENTION IS DISFAVORED IN SEC
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IS NOT DISPOSITIVE
- THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PERMIT DISCOVERY TO GATHER ALL ESSENTIAL FACTS BEFORE ADDRESSING WHETHER THE RETAIL PROFIT POOL OR MATRIX INVOLVE INVESTMENT CONTRACTS
- THE SEC’S ARGUMENT THAT THE RETAIL PROFIT POOL AND MATRIX AMOUNT TO SECURITIES IS PREMISED ON A SELECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT FACTS
As far as I can tell, the only “impairment” these women would have is the loss of money they made in an alleged Ponzi. Not hard to imagine or understand, but rather self-centered in that they claim to be looking out for everyone, but the names on the filings are only their names; this can also be said of Fun Club, the Kettners, Sorrels and Craddock. I have always had a problem with groups of people who ask for donations to litigate for you and protect only their stuff. It is not the first time this ever happened nor will it be the last. The least they could do is admit they are only out for their own protection and stop asking for donations.
If Gilmond and King’s motivation is to keep their hard-earned Zeek money, then let them spend it in legal fees. Why should others foot their bill??