Jul 10

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Files Another Motion for Default Judgement

This “MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY CLERK OF COURT” is for Darryle Douglas: (emphasis added)

The Clerk entered default against Defendant Douglas on July 3, 2014. See Doc. No. 33.
As the attorney affidavit from the Receiver’s Application for Entry of Default states, Defendant
Douglas is neither a minor nor an incompetent person, nor is he a member of the Armed Forces
of the United States of America or any of its Allies. See Doc. No. 32-1 at ¶ 2.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 55(b)(1)’s directive, the Receiver respectfully requests that
the Clerk of Court enter judgment against Defendant Douglas for $1,971,374.27 plus interest at
the North Carolina statutory rate from the date of the last transfer (August 15, 2012) to the
present in the amount of $299,864.93. Accordingly, default judgment should be entered against Defendant Douglas for the total sum of $2,271,239.20.

Jul 09

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Files Motions For Default Judgements by Clerk

After 3 days of inactivity, we have these three filings from Kenneth Bell, Zeek Rewards’ Receiver, Motions for Default Judgements by the Clerk for the following defendants: (emphasis added)

  • Todd Disner
    • The Clerk entered default against Defendant Disner on July 3, 2014. See Doc. No. 42.
      As the attorney affidavit from the Receiver’s Application for Entry of Default states, Defendant Disner is neither a minor nor an incompetent person, nor is he a member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America or any of its Allies. See Doc. No. 39-1 at ¶ 3.
    • Therefore, pursuant to Rule 55(b)(1)’s directive, the Receiver respectfully requests that the Clerk of Court enter judgment against Defendant Disner for $1,800,037.06 plus interest at the North Carolina statutory rate from the date of the last transfer (July 30, 2012) to the present in the amount of $279,720.82. Accordingly, default judgment should be entered against Defendant Disner for the total sum of $2,079,757.88.
  • David Sorrells
    • The Clerk entered default against Defendant Sorrells on July 3, 2014. See Doc. No. 42.
      As the attorney affidavit from the Receiver’s Application for Entry of Default states, Defendant Sorrells is neither a minor nor an incompetent person, nor is he a member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America or any of its Allies. See Doc. No. 39-1 at ¶ 3.
    • Therefore, pursuant to Rule 55(b)(1)’s directive, the Receiver respectfully requests that
      the Clerk of Court enter judgment against Defendant Sorrells for $1,039,568.49 plus interest at the North Carolina statutory rate from the date of the last transfer (August 16, 2012) to the present in the amount of $157,672.63. Accordingly, default judgment should be entered against Defendant Sorrells for the total sum of $1,197,241.12.
  • Michael Van Leeuwen
    • The Clerk entered default against Defendant Van Leeuwen on July 3, 2014. See Doc.
      No. 42. As the attorney affidavit from the Receiver’s Application for Entry of Default states, Defendant Van Leeuwen is neither a minor nor an incompetent person, nor is he a member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America or any of its Allies. See Doc. No. 39-1 at ¶ 3.
    • Therefore, pursuant to Rule 55(b)(1)’s directive, the Receiver respectfully requests that
      the Clerk of Court enter judgment against Defendant Van Leeuwen for $1,404,432.92 plus interest at the North Carolina statutory rate from the date of the last transfer (August 16, 2012) to the present in the amount of $213,012.07. Accordingly, default judgment should be entered against Defendant Van Leeuwen for the total sum of $1,617,444.99.

 

Jul 04

Zeek Rewards: More on Bell’s Class Action Suits and Recent Defaults

The case I am writing about today is the Class Action suit brought by Zeek Receiver, Kenneth D. Bell,  against what have been termed the “Net Winners”. While there have been some “Entry of Default” filings in the case, from what I can find, there still needs to be a Jury Trial to determine what monetary values these defaults actually end up being.  I suppose there must be some method in their madness in failing to file a response to the Complaint before the deadline of June 30, 2014.

Many of us who follow these scams and schemes thought the ASD/AdSurfDaily would set some form of “precedence” and be the poster child for how to prosecute and/or curtail the exponential increase of individuals and “opportunities” to separate you from your money, all the while telling you how they can double or triple it with some amazing, heretofore unknown business model that even they do not understand. There are unmistakeable similarities between ASD, Zeek Rewards, and other still operating scams.

No one makes lots of money reading or placing ads on a website, people!!

 


 

In the Bell v. Disner et al Civil Class Action original Complaint, and to refresh our memories of the allegations, we have the following defendants whose names and alleged amounts are taken from this Complaint:

  • Todd Disner, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,875,000
  • Trudy Gilmond, former “field liaison” and “net winner” of more than $1,750,000
  • Jerry Napier, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,745,000
  • Durant Brockett, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,720,000
  • Rhonda Gates, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,425,000
  • Michael Van Leeuwen,  a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and  a “net winner” of more than $1,400,000
  • David Sorrells, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,000,000
  • T. Le Mont Silver Sr., a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $773,000
  • Aaron and Shara Andrews,  ZeekRewards “net winners” of more than $1,000,000
  • David and Mary Kettner, former ZeekRewards “affiliates” and “net winners” of more
    than $930,000
  • Lori Jean Weber, a ZeekRewards “net winner” of more than $1,940,000

 

Jul 03

Zeek Rewards: More Clerk’s “Entry of Default”

The US District Court Clerk has issued an Entry of Default for these three Defendants in this Civil case Bell v. Disner, et al  (14-cv-00091-GCM):

  • David Sorrells
  • Michael Van Leeuwen
  • Todd Disner

All three Defaults were due to the Affidavits in Support, which contained this:

More than twenty one (21) days have elapsed since the Defendant was served, and the Defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In addition, the Court’s June 30, 2014 deadline in this case for filing a responsive pleading has also passed, and the Defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Jul 03

Zeek Rewards: Clerk’s Entry of Default Against Darryle Douglas

Bell v. Burks, et al  (14-cv-00089-GCM)

ENTRY OF DEFAULT

It appearing that the Complaint was filed in this case on February 28, 2014; that the Summons and Complaint were duly served upon the Defendant, Darryle Douglas, and no answer or other pleading has been filed by said Defendant as required by law;

Therefore, upon request of the Plaintiff, default is hereby entered against the Defendant, Darryle Douglas, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).

Signed: July 3, 2014

Jul 02

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Files Motions for Default Judgements

In the civil cases entitled Bell v. Burks et al and Bell v. Disner et al, the receiver is asking for the following:

Bell v. Burks, et al  (14-cv-00089-GCM)

  • MOTION for Entry of Default against Darryle Douglas (Docs 31 and 32)

Bell v. Disner, et al  (14-cv-00091-GCM)

  • MOTION for Entry of Default against David Sorrells  (Doc 39)
  • MOTION for Entry of Default against Michael Van Leeuwen  (Doc 40)
  • MOTION for Entry of Default against Todd Disner  (Doc 41)

I have uploaded these new filings onto the Files website.

Jul 02

Zeek Rewards: ORDER Issued on Belsome’s Motion for Clarification

Judge graham Mullen issued the following Order today, specifying that the receiver will not issue a distribution check to a law firm’s address: (emphasis added)

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Johnny Belsome, et al.’s (the “Belsome Plaintiffs”) Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration (Doc. No. 201). The Belsome Plaintiffs seek clarification and/or reconsideration of the Court’s Order issued on March 26, 2014 approving the Receiver’s proposed distribution procedures. (Doc. No. 199). Paragraph 33 of that Order includes the following language:

Delivery of Distributions in General. The Receiver shall make distributions solely to the holders of allowed Claims without regard to any Claim or interest asserted by any third party in such distributions. Distributions shall be made to the holders of allowed Claims at the addresses set forth in the Claims asserted by such holders, as amended by such holders on the Claims Portal.

The Belsome Plaintiffs have indicated that it is unclear whether the Court is endorsing the Receiver’s stated intention to not make distributions to attorneys’ addresses. The Court will clarify its Order as follows: The Receiver will not issue a distribution check to a law firm’s address. The claimant must amend the address on the Claim Portal to provide the claimant’s actual address. Until the amendment of a claimant’s address is made, no distribution will be made to such claimant.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that The Motion for Clarification is hereby GRANTED and the Court’s Order of March 26, 2014 is clarified as stated above.

Jul 02

Zeek Rewards: July 2nd Update from Receiver

UPDATE FROM THE RECEIVER – July 2, 2014

The Department of Justice has begun posting information related to victims’ rights in the criminal matter of United States v. Dawn Wright Olivares and Dan Olivares – Case No: 3:13-cr-335. Click here for information on that case.

Jun 30

Zeek Rewards: Zeek Affiliates respond to Complaint and File Counterclaims Against Receiver

In today’s Zeek Rewards filings, we have several Defendants/affiliates who have responded to the original Complaint and filed a Counterclaim against Kenneth Bell, the court-appointed Receiver.

The first of three (3) Counterclaims was filed by one Durant Brockett, in which he asserts the following five (5) Claims For Relief:

  • Breach of Contract
    • RVG and Brockett had an enforceable contract pursuant to which Brockett performed services for the benefit of RVG. In return, RVG was obligated to compensate Brockett as RVG had promised for the services Brockett performed.
    • The Receiver, acting as RVG, and by confiscating the funds in Brockett’s RVG NXpay account, has failed and refused to pay Brockett for the services that Brockett performed.
    • The conduct of the Receiver, acting as RVG, constitutes a breach of contract.  Brockett has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial for the Receiver’s/RVG’s breach of contract.
  • Tortious Interference
    • A valid contract existed between Brockett and NXpay relating to Brockett’s RVG NXpay account. That contract gave Brockett the exclusive right to withdraw funds from his RVG NXpay account.
    • On information and belief, the Receiver had knowledge of Brockett’s contractual relationship with NXpay.
    • The Receiver intentionally induced NXpay not to perform its contract with Brockett and, in violation of the contractual agreement between NXpay and Brockett, either (i) to deliver the funds in Brockett’s RVG NXpay account to the Receiver or (ii) not to pay the funds to Brockett as NXpay’s contract with Brockett obligated it to do.
    • The Receiver’s conduct described above was willful and undertaken on behalf of RVG. Brockett is entitled to punitive damages against the Receiver and RVG in accordance with N.C. GEN. STAT. § 1D-1, et seq.
  • Money Had and Received
    • The Receiver is in receipt of funds which do not in equity and good conscience belong to him.
    • Brockett is the rightful owner of the funds the Receiver received from Brockett’s RVG NXpay account.
    • Brockett is entitled to an order compelling the Receiver to turn over to Brockett all funds the Receiver received from Brockett’s RVG NXpay account.
  • Civil Action Pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983 for Deprivation of Constitutional Rights, or, Alternatively Common-Law Claim for Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights
    • The Receiver was acting under the color of law when he caused NXPay to refuse to honor the terms of its contract with Brockett and when he caused NXPay to turn over to the Receiver Brockett’s funds in his RVG NXpay account.
    • As a result of the Receiver’s conduct, Brockett has been wholly deprived of the value, use and benefit of the funds in his RVG NXpay account.
    • Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Receiver is liable to Brockett for redress for Brockett’s damages resulting from the loss of use of his funds.
  • Unfair Trade Practices
    • RVG’s and the Receiver’s conduct described above and in the Complaint constitutes unfair methods of competition, unfair trade practices, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1, et seq.
    • The conduct was illegal, offends public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and deceptive.
    • As a result of the conduct, Brockett has suffered damages.
    • The use by RVG and the Receiver of unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive trade practices entitles Brockett to recover (a) three times his actual damages and (b) attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-16.1.

The almost identical Counterclaims have been brought by Innovation Marketing LLC, Shara Andrews, Aaron Andrews and Rhonda Gates. Mr. Brockett is using noted legal mouthpiece Rodney Alexander.

As some of you will recall, Rodney Alexander was previously retained by Robert Craddock, of “Fun Club USA” and “Zteambiz” infamy, in a half-hearted and highly questionable attempt to intervene in the RVG case (it didn’t work out as he planned, of course). Craddock accepted donations of which no one is sure how or where they were used, similar to the “ASD Justice” group of Todd Disner and Dwight Schweitzer who gathered money for a legal bid to intervene in the ASD/AdSurfDaily federal civil case, which also amounted to absolutely nothing.

Mr. Alexander also filed a “Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim / MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction” for Defendants Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, Durant Brockett, Rhonda Gates, Trudy Gilmond, Innovation Marketing LLC, Darren Miller, Jerry Napier, and Trudy Gilmond, LLC. 

The other two “Answers to Complaint/Counterclaims” were filed by attorney James Edmundson on behalf of Defendants Innovation Marketing LLC, Shara Andrews, Aaron Andrews and Rhonda Gates.

I will keep an eye on these filings; it will be interesting to see how the Judge deals with them. Mr. Bell filed in every Federal District in the land so that he DID have jurisdiction to pursue clawbacks; how the Defendants now believe Bell does not have jurisdiction to sue them is likely just a matter of legal posturing and trying to get out of a bad situation.

Good luck with that, folks.