Zeek Rewards: Receiver Files Replies In Support of Default Judgements

On today’s docket for “Bell v. Disner, et al”, we have two filings, one aimed at David Sorrells and the other at long time serial promoter, Todd Disner.




The Court should grant the Receiver’s Motion for Default Judgment for several reasons. First, Defendant Sorrells has not moved to have the default set aside. And, even if his opposition to the entry of the default judgment is considered to be such an effort, he has not offered any valid or sufficient reason not to affirm the default or grant default judgment. Mr. Sorrells failed to file an answer despite having personally received the Complaint nearly three months ago. He has not proffered an excuse or even suggested legitimate circumstances that might constitute good cause for this failure to file a responsive pleading. Instead, he has submitted a document which focuses on the amount of the default judgment requested rather than the default itself and which is a near-identical copy of Defendant Todd Disner’s objection to the motion for default against Disner (see Doc. No. 55). And, this objection is little more than a general denial objecting to the Receiver’s calculation of his net winnings, without any statement of any different amount Mr. Sorrells believes is correct and the evidentiary basis for his alleged belief.


Finally, there are no proper grounds for the Court to strike the affidavit offered by one of the Receiver’s financial expert that describes in detail the amount of money that Sorrells won in the scheme. Whether or not Sorrells agrees with the substance of the affidavit (and he has suggested no other amount of net winnings) is not a basis to strike the affidavit, which clearly supports the amount of the Default Judgment that should be entered.

The filing goes on with Statements of Facts, a legal Argument, and Concludes thus:

The Clerk should grant the Receiver’s Motion for Default Judgment. Mr. Sorrells was required to comply with the Court’s more than fair rules and schedule, and there is no good cause for his failure to do so. For the reasons set forth above, the Court should deny his request to delay this matter further. The Receiver requests that the Court deny the Motion to Strike and that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of the Receiver as formally requested in the Receiver’s Motion for Default Judgment.

The second filing relative to Todd Disner is shorter by about 7 pages, and it goes something like this:


The Court should grant the Receiver’s Motion for Default Judgment. In his response, Mr. Disner raises no new arguments as to why he believes default should be set aside, and he has not refuted any of the well-established justifications for default the Receiver provided in response to Disner’s Motion to Set Aside Default. See (Doc. No. 66). Instead, Mr. Disner’s most recent filing focuses the amount of the default judgment requested, offering only a general denial disputing the Receiver’s calculation of his net winnings without providing any statement of any different amount Mr. Disner believes is correct or any evidentiary basis for his alleged belief. If he had documentary or other substantive evidence to present to the Court, then Mr. Disner should have provided it. He has not, and the motion to strike should be denied and default judgment entered.


The facts underlying the circumstances leading up to the entry of default against Mr. Disner are set forth in the Receiver’s Response in Opposition to Mr. Disner’s Motion to Set Aside Default. (Doc. No. 66). Mr. Disner’s Response brief, characterized as “Defendants [sic] Verified Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ [sic] Affidavit and Objection to Their [sic] Motion Requesting the Entry of a Default Judgment,” contains a general statement asking that both the Receiver’s Motion for Default Judgment and affidavit in support be “stricken.”

These vague and conclusory statements fall well short of refuting the Receiver’s Motion for Default Judgment and provide no basis for striking the Receiver’s affidavit. The first two arguments are not defenses to liability at all, but only general objections to the amount of net winnings. And, the final statement is irrelevant because the Receiver’s claims are based on the fact that ZeekRewards was a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, not upon any finding regarding Mr. Disner’s view of why he did or didn’t do something in connection with the scheme.
Thus, these arguments do not provide good cause for setting aside Disner’s default. Disner has failed to act with reasonable promptness, has not provided a meritorious defense, and no other consideration supports his position. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the Receiver’s response in opposition to the Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. No. 66), Disner’s motion to strike should be denied, and the Clerk should enter default judgment against him.

The closing part of the “ARGUMENT” is this: (emphasis added by me)

If Mr. Disner disagrees with the Receiver’s well-supported calculation of his net winnings, the proper response would be to provide facts that refute the Receiver’s assertions (which he has not done), not to move to strike the affidavit. Thus, there is no basis for striking the Busen Affidavit, and the Court should deny the motion to strike.

The problem for Mr. Disner and the other “net winners” is they cannot refute anything; I doubt they ever kept any records. Why should they? It was going to be continuous money forever, right?

Perhaps the serial promoters started believing their own platitudinous bullshit.

ASDUpdates Blog Reaches Its 1,111th Post!

I suppose it is a sort of milestone, 1, 111 posts since I started the Blog to detail the events in the ASD/AdSurfDaily  Ponzi scam. Since that time, there seems to be a proliferation of crooks and scams resulting in literal piles of money leaving the victims and ending up in the bank accounts of serial scam artists and promoters.

Until the worldwide public realizes that no legitimate program can pay them an RIO 100’s of time greater than any other method is nothing but a scam, these “opportunities” will continue to pillage the public and separate them from their money.


Judge Signs Final Order Of Forfeiture In Leaming Case

On November 22, 2013,  US District Judge Ronald B. Leighton signed the Final Order of Forfeiture regarding all items seized during an FBI Terrorism Task Force raid in November of 2011 on Kenneth “Keny” Wayne Leaming’s home in Spanaway, Washington.  The list of items seized and forfeited include:

a. One (1) Norinco SKS 7.62x39mm semiautomatic rifle, bearing Serial No.  215590;
b. One (1) Astra model A-100 .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol, bearing Serial  No. 0865B;
c. One (1) Ruger model Vaquero, .45 caliber revolver, bearing Serial No. 57-49390;
d. One (1) Remington model 870 Express 12 gauge shotgun, bearing Serial No. X298121M;
e. One (1) Winchester model 94 .30-.30 caliber lever-action rifle, bearing Serial No. 4793736;
f. One (1) Winchester model 94 .32 caliber lever-action rifle, bearing Serial No. 1238347;
g. All badges, credentials, law enforcement identification documents, and other law enforcement equipment, including but not limited to light bars, crime scene tape, vests, handcuffs, nightsticks, and other similar items;
h. All documents related to defendant’s performance of legal services for third parties, including “client” files, counterfeit instruments, and similar materials;  and
i. All digital devices, including computers, external hard drives, and other storage media.

Leaming was subsequently convicted of the following:

  • 2 Counts of Retaliating Against A Federal Judge or Law Enforcement Officer by a False Claim
  • 1 Count of Concealing a Person from Arrest
  • 1 Count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm

Leaming is serving his sentence in  the Terre Haute Federal Corrections Institution and is scheduled for release on February 13, 2019. A Federal Felon conviction in 2005 was for Piloting an Aircraft Without a License and Piloting an Unregistered Aircraft, which made it illegal for him to possess any firearm.

I have uploaded Doc 285 onto the Files website.

Washington District Files Motion For Final Order Of Forfeiture In Leaming Case

US Attorney Jenny Durkin has filed a Motion in the Western District of Washington for a Final Order of Forfeiture for the seized property of Kenneth “Keny” Wayne Leaming, self-proclaimed lawyer that never went to any law school. Leaming is also purported to be a “sovereign citizen” and is a Charter Member of the “Arbys Indians”.

You can read the full filing here.   Doc284




Kenneth Wayne Leaming Gets Another Motion Denied

It appears that Leaming’s attempt to stay the Forfeiture of his “property” has not met with favor.  Here’s what Judge Leighton had to say:

No. 12-cr-5039-RBL
(Dkt. #269)

Defendant “directs” the Court to stay forfeiture of his property pending appeal (because he is quite certain that there are “fundamental jurisdictional issues” concerning whether a federal court has the authority to hear federal criminal trials). The property at issue is Defendants’ firearms and regalia related to his sovereign citizen club, including pretend law enforcement badges. Defendant, already a felon before this conviction, offers no reason to stay forfeiture.

Well, that answers that. I really like Judge Leighton, he doesn’t mince words.

USA Files Sentencing Memorandum For Kenneth Wayne Leaming

Added to the docket file today is the government’s Sentencing memorandum related to Kenneth Wayne Leaming and his recent conviction on multiple felonies.  Here is the first part of the Memorandum:


The United States of America respectfully recommends the Court impose a total sentence of 120 months in custody, to be followed by three years of supervised release, structured as follows: 120 months (the statutory maximum) for the false lien counts; six months for the harboring count; and 60 months for the felon in possession count, all to run concurrently.

Overwhelming evidence during the trial shows that Defendant is a determined, persistent offender who will never stop retaliating against government officials for the exercise of their duly appointed duties. Defendant has no remorse for any of his actions, and fully intends to continue to pursue the same course of conduct – this is clear from the defense he presented at trial, and in his filings since trial.

Equally important, Defendant illegally possessed a small arsenal of dangerous firearms, including a “street sweeper” style shotgun and an assault rifle, together with badges and other police-style equipment. During trial, the Defendant repeatedly made thinly veiled threats to engage in violence if he was punished for his actions in filing the liens. Given his anti-government views, Defendant’s possession of firearms is troubling.

In short, the most important of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) appears to be the need to protect the public from future crimes of the Defendant, and the government recommends that the Court sentence Defendant accordingly.

I have uploaded the complete document onto the Files website.

Kenneth Wayne Leaming Makes “Special Offer” To Reduce What Feds “Owe” Him

Previously, I posted an “Invoice” from Kenneth Wayne Leaming claiming that the Sea-Tac Detention facility owed him 208,000 ounces of 99.9% pure Silver for “operating a slavery system, unlawful detention, unlawful restraint, enforcing judgement of a ‘court’, and enforcing an instrument of foreclosed entity”.  Leaming defined his terms as “Net 15 days”.

He then filed this next document as ‘Changes to terms and Conditions’, and is asking for more Silver.



Yes, you read that correctly; Leaming has made a “Special Offer”, he will take only 300 ounces of Silver if they restore his “liberty and property” by tomorrow, May 15th. Kind of defeats the purpose of filing all these other meaningless meanderings he is famous for filing.  But then, that is what makes him “Keny Wayne, of the family Leaming”.

2 New Zeek Rewards Case Filings

We have 2 new filings on the SEC v Zeek Rewards docket file, originating from Johnny Belsome, who was part of a Class Action brought against Rex Ventures Group some time ago. it seems they are opposing the approval of the Claims process, or some such thing.

I have added these to the Files website.

Date Filed # Docket Text
04/22/2013 140 NOTICE of Appearance by James W. Kilbourne, Jr on behalf of Johnny Belsome, et. al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-List of Interested Parties and Potential Claimiants)(Kilbourne, James) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
04/22/2013 141 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 138 MOTION Objection to Motion for Order Seeking Approval of (1) Claims Process, (2) Setting of Bar Date, and (3) Certain Notice Procedures by Johnny Belsome, et. al.. Replies due by 5/2/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Michaud letter to Bell concerning potential claimants, # 2 Exhibit B-Bell letter to Michaud re potential claimants)(Kilbourne, James) (Entered: 04/22/2013)


Kenneth Wayne Leaming Continues to File Documents in Felony Criminal Case

The case docket for the recent Criminal case against Kenneth Wayne Leaming shows us a few new additions, most of which are not worthy of discussion. Below is part of an ORDER issued relative to an Appeal of Judge Leighton not recusing himself from the case, despite repeated attempts from Leaming.

This ORDER comes from Marsha J. Pechman, United States Chief District Judge:

Before this Court is Defendant Leaming’s motion for recusal (Dkt. No. 199) and Judge Leighton’s order declining to recuse himself. Dkt. No. 202. The motion has been transferred to this Court for review in accordance with Local Rule GR 8(c).
Upon consideration of the motion and all relevant documents in this matter, the Court affirms Judge Leighton and DENIES the motion to recuse.

The second ORDER from Judge Leighton is short and to the point:

Mr. Leaming’s recently-filed motions are frivolous and are DENIED.

I have added these two documents to the Files website.