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:
- 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.