Tag Archives: Ponzi

BREAKING NEWS -TelexFree: Merrill to Plead GUILTY on Monday….

from the Boston Globe 2 hours ago:

Former TelexFree CEO to plead guilty in $3b pyramid scheme


17fraud - ***warning: image lo res, do not use for more than 1.25 columns *** James Merrill (telex media)
James Merrill.

James Merrill, the former chief executive of TelexFree Inc., an alleged $3 billion global pyramid scheme, is pleading guilty to fraud and other charges in a case that has ensnared more victims than any other in history, the US Attorney in Boston said Friday.

TelexFree started in Brazil and was run from Marlborough from 2013 until April 2014, when federal agents raided the offices and the company filed for federal bankrutpcy protection.

Beth Healy can be reached at beth.healy@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @HealyBeth.

There is no word yet on which or how many of the 17 counts he will plead to; this comes from the Docket itself:
10/21/2016 313 ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF HEARING as to James Matthew Merrill. Rule 11 Hearing set for 10/24/2016 at 2:30PM in Courtroom 2 – Worcester before District Judge Timothy S Hillman.Counsel is to contact U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services as soon as possible http://www.map.uscourts.gov/psi-interview-schedule to determine scheduling of the presentence interview. (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
 For more info on what a Rule 11 Hearing is, follow this link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11
 Our thanks to PatrickPretty.com for the information!

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Replies to Class Defendants

zeekrewardsJust filed today, Kenneth Bell has replied to the Class Defendant’s (Rhonda Gates, Innovation Marketing, LLC, Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, and Durant Brockett) response to his initial Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment against the Net Winner Class. It seems that Jerry Napier, Darren Miller, T. Le Mont Silver, Global Internet Formula, Inc., Karen Silver, and Dave and Mary Kettner did not respond to the Receiver’s motion.

Under “Summary of Argument”, the Reply states that after more than a year and considerable cost to the Receivership engaging a defense expert to investigate the question of whether or not Zeek operated as a Ponzi that the

Defendants have conceded—without a single reference to their own expert—that ZeekRewards was a Ponzi scheme which intentionally defrauded hundreds of thousands of victims out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Indeed, since the filing of the Receiver’s motion Paul Burks, the mastermind of the ZeekRewards scheme, has been found guilty by a Federal court jury of three counts of securities fraud and one count of tax fraud related to the Ponzi scheme. So, the fact that ZeekRewards was a Ponzi scheme has now been established as a matter of undisputed facts and law.

Despite this concession that Zeek was a Ponzi, the Defendants argue that they can avoid returning their “net winnings” based upon the TOS (Terms of Service) which

can limit the Receiver’s rights to assert claims and that they should be given credit for recruiting victims to the scheme. Defendants still act as if Zeek was a legitimate business and Defendants were “internet marketing specialists” entitled to be paid as employees rather than investors in the scheme, all of which is of course pure fiction.

The Court should resist Defendants’ invitation to create the dangerous loophole of allowing a fraudster to use the terms implementing a Ponzi scheme to limit the right of a subsequently appointed Receiver to recover funds paid to the winners of the fraudulent scheme. While such a rule would be a great recruiting tool for future Ponzi scheme operators, it is surely an unacceptable legal rule and public policy.

The Defendants urge the Court to rule that purchasing bids, posting online advertisements (which only took 5 minutes a day) and recruiting thousands of victims somehow means they provided “reasonable equivalent value” such that they get to keep the victim’s money.

Bell goes on to eviscerate the Defendant’s attempt to legitimize their actions:

In other words, Defendants claim that those Defendants who spent the most time successfully promoting the scheme and multiplying the number of its victims should be given the most credit against the Receiver’s claims to recover their fraudulently transferred winnings. In fact, in arguing that they were supposedly rightly paid for their “services,” Defendants stretch to compare themselves to the utility company, which among many other differences does not invest money in their customers’ businesses hoping to share in compounding profits of 125% every ninety days. Whether or not innocent third-party trade creditors of a Ponzi scheme could be subject to a clawback action is not at issue in this case. Here, Defendants—all active participants and investors in the scheme—provided no value to ZeekRewards as a matter of law and fact; instead, as a result of their efforts the company became liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in losses incurred by the victims they recruited to the scheme.

You can read the full Response, the Zeek Terms Of Service and the Purchase/Subscription Agreement here.

Zeek Rewards: Opening Day in Burks Trial

This comes from The Dispatch in Lexington N.C.

Burks, 69, is the founder of an alleged Ponzi scheme called ZeekRewards that took $939 million from its “affiliates,” or people who paid into the company in hopes to see a return on their money. He is on trial for four counts of fraud, and Burks has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 65 years in prison and pay a fine of $1 million.

The prosecution made its opening statement:

Corey Ellis, First Assistant United States Attorney, spoke and began his address by simply stating how the prosecution viewed this case.

“This case is about the defendant telling lies in order to get money, it is as simple as that,” Ellis said. “Every fraud has a fairy tale, and this one started with a penny auction site.”



Ellis went on to explain why prosecutors believe they have a case against Burks. Among the reasons listed was the fact that the prosecution could not find any ledgers or accounting books that kept records of the money ZeekRewards was rapidly accumulating.

According to the prosecution, these affiliates bought the bids under the promise that they would see 125 percent returns on their money, money that was allegedly up to 50 percent of the daily profits from the penny auction site Zeekler. However, they allege Burks used the money to pay the older affiliates or investors.




“Our purpose is not to demonize or villainize anyone. … He is on trial for his actions,” Ellis said.

Then we have Noell Tin, Burks’ long time attorney:

Burks’ defense lawyer, Noell Tin, led the defense’s approximately 45-minute opening statement. Tin used his time to strip the history of Burks and his company to what he referred to as “the bare bones.”

He touched on Burks’ personal and professional history before describing in great detail how ZeekRewards was meant to work.



Tin explained Burks created the ZeekRewards website as a way to generate traffic for Zeekler. He said ZeekRewards acted as a multi-level marketing branch of the business, allowing anyone to buy bids and post ads to bring more people to the auctions.



The defense repeatedly contested the use of the word “investor” during the trial, and said those who paid money in were buying nonrefundable bids that had no monetary value on their own.

Tin disputed the allegations that Burks had no books to account for the money coming in and out of his business. He said Burks had over a terabyte’s worth of company data online.



Tin also explained Burks and his company always planned to “make good on their promise.”

“Even on the day (ZeekRewards) closed it had enough money to fill its obligations,” Tin said.



“Paul Burks’ dream was that everyone wins …” Tin said. “Everyone has things clearly explained to them and were not lied to.”

Then there were 4 witnesses called:

After opening statements, the jury heard from three separate witnesses called by the prosecution. The first two, Wilma Gray and Thomas Harding, were affiliates who had put in $10,000 and approximately $8,000, respectively, into ZeekRewards and saw none of their promised returns.

The third was Lisa Christensen, a former NewBridge Bank employee who filed three separate suspicious activity reports, or SARS, regarding Burks after he began depositing substantial sums into his account. Burks had an account with NewBridge until April 18, 2014.

“We didn’t know where the money was coming from,” Christensen said. “… We like for our customers to have money, but we have to make sure there is no illegal or suspect activity.”



The day ended with the fourth and final witness, Dan Olivares. Olivares is indicated as a coconspirator in the case. He has pleaded guilty to investment fraud conspiracy and taken a plea deal that involved his honest testimony in the Burks trial. Olivares was the software developer for both Zeekler and ZeekRewards.

He was able to give a brief history of how ZeekRewards was created as an advertising avenue for Zeekler because the site, according to Olivares, was not doing well at the end of 2010.



Court will resume Thursday morning with the rest of Olivares’ testimony and cross examination by the defense.

Our thanks to The Dispatch and Julia Hudgins for keeping up informed about the Burks trial.

Zeek Rewards: Jury Selected, Opening Arguments Today

According to an article yesterday from The-Dispatch, Davidson County:zeekler

A jury was selected Tuesday to determine the guilt or innocence of the creator of what prosecutors allege was one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

Paul Burks, 69, is the founder of ZeekRewards, a company created in Lexington five years ago. His company is accused of being a Ponzi scheme that, according to court documents, took $939 million from investors who were promised a 125 percent return on their investments. Over 1,500 of these supposed victims were from the Charlotte area.

In the article by Julia Hudgins, she noted that:

The court made a substantial effort to eliminate any juror with preconceived notions about Burks and ZeekRewards. Many jurors were excused because they had already established either the guilt or innocence of Burks because of what they had learned from media outlets.

Before adjourning, both the defense and prosecution teams discussed witnesses set to speak in the trial. The defense argued that the prosecution presented eight or nine new witnesses without giving the defense ample time to prepare. The prosecution’s Jenny Sugar explained that these “new affiliates” were in the discovery process.

In the end, Tin and Sussman said they would still be prepared for opening statements but requested to wait and bring the new affiliates into court later in the trial in order give them enough “breathing space” to prepare meaningful questions.



Opening statements will begin Wednesday morning, and the trial is estimated to last three weeks.

Zeek Rewards: Burks Criminal Trial Starts Today

The long awaited criminal trial of alleged RVG/Zeek Rewards mastermind, Paul Burks, starts today. Here’s the entry from the Court’s website:

U.S. District Court
Western District of North Carolina
NCWD Calendar Set For 07/05/2016

Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr, Presiding

09:30 AM
3:14-cr-00208-MOC-DSC-1 USA v. Burks
Benjamin Bain-Creed and Corey F. Ellis and Jenny Grus Sugar representing USA (Plaintiff)
C. Melissa Owen and Jacob H. Sussman and Noell P. Tin representing Paul Burks (Defendant)
Hearing in CHARLOTTE Courtroom 2-1
**** Jury Trial ***

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Asks for Summary Judgment Against Class of “Net Winners”

Filed on the virtual eve of the Burks criminal trial which begins on July 5th, the Receiver has filed a ZeekMotion for Summary Judgment in Bell v Disner, et al, along with a supporting memorandum of Law and a group of Exhibits.  The Motion lists the “Named Defendants” like this:

The named defendants in this action are among the largest net winners of the ZeekRewards scheme, with winnings for each reaching as high as $1,875,000. The Court already has entered Judgments against several of these named defendants – who either failed to answer or cooperate in the action. See supra at n.1 and Doc. Nos. 76, 93, 95 and 119. Two defendants, Lori Jean Webber and P.A.W.S. Capital Management LLC, have reached a settlement with the Receiver.



The remaining named defendants are: Jerry Napier (Owosso, Michigan; a “net winner” of more than $1,745,000); Durant Brockett (Las Vegas, Nevada; a “net winner” of more than $1,720,000); Darren Miller (Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; a “net winner” of more than $1,635,000); Rhonda Gates (Nashville, Tennessee; a “net winner” of more than $1,425,000); T. Le Mont Silver Sr. (Orlando, Florida / Dominican Republic; a “net winner” of more than $773,000; Mr. Silver also used Global Internet Formula, Inc., which is, upon information and belief, incorporated in Florida, as a shell company through which he was a ZeekRewards “net winner” of more than $943,000); Karen Silver (T. Le Mont Silver’s wife; a “net winner” of more than $600,000); Aaron and Shara Andrews (Lake Worth, Florida; the Andrews used Innovation Marketing LLC, a Florida shell company to win more than $1,000,000) and David and Mary Kettner (Peoria, Arizona; “net winners” of more than $930,000 using the shell companies named Desert Oasis International Marketing, LLC and Kettner & Associates, LLC as nominal payees). See Exhibit C (Expert Report of David S. Turner) (hereinafter “Turner Report”)at Ex. F.

Default judgments have already been ordered against:

    • Michael Van Leeuwen – $1,617,444.99
    • Todd Disner – $2,079,757.88
    • David Sorrells – 1,197,241.12
    • Trudy Gilmond – $2,129,522.27


Also listed are the “net Winner Class” which was already certified by the Court.

On September 14, 2015, the Court appointed Kevin Edmundson as class counsel and subsequently the Court authorized the defendant class to engage an expert witness,
Berkeley Research Group (“BRG”), at the primary expense of the Receivership. See
Doc. Nos. 117, 125.

Their own expert witness, BRG concluded the following:

In its initial report dated January 18, 2016, BRG agreed that it was able to “replicate the exhibits in the Turner Report, within a reasonable margin of difference.” Then, in its “Phase II” report, BRG reached two conclusions (bolded in the report):
a) [B]ased upon a preliminary analysis, it does not appear that the magnitude
of profit from the auction business would materially impact the assessment of
whether or not the business, taken as a whole, operated as a Ponzi scheme.
b) As a result of our testing in Phase II, we have not found evidence that
definitively disproves that the business as a whole operated as a Ponzi scheme.

Addressing the Burks and his not so successful endeavors, the receiver had this to say:

Beginning at least as far back as 2000, Paul Burks operated a number of generally
unsuccessful multi-level marketing businesses through Rex Venture Group, LLC (and
related entities) with names such as Go-Go Hub, Free Store Club, My Bid Shack, New
Net Mail and Signed and Numbered International. See, e.g., Bell Aff. at Ex. 2, 3;
Douglas Dep. at pp. 50, 54-55, 71, 78; Exhibit D (Excerpt of Durant Brockett Deposition)
(hereinafter “Brockett Dep.”) at pp.18-19, 30. In 2010, RVG launched Zeekler.com, a
so-called “penny auction” website where items ranging from personal electronics to cash
were auctioned to bidders. See id.


However, bids bought through ZeekRewards rather than as retail bids were more valuable because purchasing those bids gave the affiliates “points” that supposedly entitled Affiliates to a portion of the profits from the business. This was the real (and only) reason Affiliates would pay $1 for auction bids they could buy for $.65. See Brockett Dep. at 77-78. As one Affiliate told Burks, “I know how the system works mathematically and you know I know. Whether you call the bids bids or hamburgers makes no difference. People are not joining Zeek to get hamburgers, orauction bids; they are joining Zeek to make money….” Bell Aff. at Ex. 6.

Also mentioned are the Wright-Olivares and how they knew what they were doing:

From the beginning, RVG intended to use “bids” in ZeekRewards not as a product but as a proxy for money deposited into the program. Dawn Wright-Olivares was very clear about the plan, telling Danny Olivares on January 21, 2011: “We’re just going to use bids as currency.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 9(a). On another occasion, Dawn Wright-Olivares referred to the compounding bids as “Monopoly money.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 9(b). Quickly, RVG’s focus changed from Zeekler to ZeekRewards, which was the source of nearly all the company’s income. Relative to ZeekRewards, little or no money was made in the Zeekler “penny auction” business.

Burks and the other Insiders were aware that the payouts to Affiliates would be funded by new participants rather than retail profits from the penny auctions. Dawn Wright-Olivares excitedly told Burks early in the scheme, “I think we can blow this OUT together- we’ve already attracted a great many big fishes.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 4.

As you go farther down the Memorandum, it details the “Compensation Plan”, the “Compounder” and how the money magically multiplied. And it seems everyone at the top knew all along that it was not exactly above board and could not really explain the voodoo behind the ROI and how it was calculated:

Burks deliberately evaded affiliate questions asking how the RPP was calculated. In a Skype chat with an affiliate, he said: “[a] proprietary system is used to determine the amount of profit sharing that is done each day. We do not divulge the details of how those numbers are determined. Our stated target of minimum of 1% weekdays (Mon-Thur) and .5% weekends (Fri-Sun) has always been met and exceeded. It is clearly not directly tied to the number of auctions in a particular day. It is the overall average that counts.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 9(d).

Behind the scenes, the Insiders were not even subtle about the fake earnings numbers. Often, the company simply used the previous week’s daily RPP percentages. For example, on one occasion, Danny Olivares sent a text message to multiple insiders stating, “Need a % for rpp when you can.” Dawn Wright-Olivares responded, “Do whatever was last Monday.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 40. Or, from Paul Burks: “Hey Dan. Sorry about last night. What percent did you use?” Danny Olivares: “Same as last Friday. 0.009.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 23.

There are a ton more revelations in this filing, too many to detail here. You can click here to look at the 139 page filing, including all of the Exhibits.

Zeek Rewards: Paul Burks Files Jury Instructions and Trial Brief

zeeklerOn the 24th, Burks filed his Proposed Jury Instructions which has such topics listed as:

  • Sympathy
  • Jury to consider only this defendant
  • Witness credibility
  • Bias and hostility
  • Interest in outcome
  • Government Witness – Not proper to consider guilty plea
  • Indifference or lack of concern
  • Mismanagement not the issue
  • Using motive for intent
  • The indictment is not the evidence
  • Good faith reliance upon advice of counsel and/or experts

Each of the topics, and others, has a page listing the instructions proposed to give the jury. I have uploaded a copy onto the Files website, (14-cr-208, Doc 84) as it is a bit lengthy to go into here.


And today, Burks filed his Trial Brief, the beginning of which states:

A. Paying What He Promised
B. Bid Sales Were Final
C. Mr. Burks Made Changes to the Program in Good Faith Based on the Advice of Experts
D. Dealing with the Challenges of Explosive Growth
E. The Issuance of Forms 1099 Was Based on Sound Legal Advice—and Was Anything But Evidence of “Lulling”

Next, we have a list of the proposed “Experts” expected to be called by Burks:

  • Jose L. Valasquez, Jr. – explaining the contents of the RVG SQL database and flow of money in and out, Director of Forensic Accounting at Thatcher and Assoc.
  • John White – expert in accounting and fraud investigation
  • Morris Aaron – will testify that RVG maintained a sufficient accounting system to calculate daily profits
  • Curtis Elliot- expert in tax law and litigating federal tax controversies.

Included in the brief is a paragraph stating that “Evidence Regarding “Follow Me 1×2” Should Be Excluded”, as “Mr. Burks was not in favor of it and thought the concept was a “straight pyramid”. OK, so he knows what a pyramid scam looks like.

Additionally, they want to exclude any evidence related to ASD, and want any reference to be barred. In essence they want virtually anything that shows the Burks knew all along what he was doing barred from the case.

Good luck with that.

I have uploaded this filing onto the Files website, Doc 86.

Zeek Rewards: USA Gets Ready for Criminal Trial

ZeekYesterday, United States Attorney Jill Westmoreland Rose filed a Motion in Limine regarding the authenticity of certain records.

The parties executed an exhibit exchange agreement, subject to which the Government provided the defense with their draft exhibit list and exhibits four weeks before trial on June 6, 2016; in exchange, the defense agreed to provide “written notice of any objection to the admission of any exhibit, and a detailed statement of any and all bases for any such objection” by June 17, 2016. Further, per the agreement, “Absent such specific written notice by Defendant, the exhibits may be admitted, without objection, at the start of trial.” Defendant subsequently notified the Government of its specific objections to the exhibits on the draft exhibit list.

A large volume of emails were obtained by subpoena issued to Rex Venture Group with Burks as the custodian of records and was prepared with Burks’ current counsel and Burks appeared before the Grand Jury as custodian of records and authenticated the documents.

However, the Defendant strangely makes a Rule 901 objection to numerous other exhibits that were obtained from the exact same source: the Defendant, as custodian of records for Rex Venture Group. Defendant makes this objection despite the fact that all of these exhibits – just like those to which he interposes no authenticity objection – were authenticated by the Defendant and his current counsel who assisted with the subpoena production.



“In the interest of judicial economy and to save time for all the parties involved, the government will move to admit all of these exhibits at the beginning of the trial”

Sounds like Burks has sour grapes and some of this stuff will come back to bite him.

And filed today, we have a 49 page document entitled Government’s Trail Brief, “to aid the Court in presiding over the upcoming trial of United States v. Paul Burks.”  The first 3 pages contain the Table of Contents, wherein they lay out most of their case against Burks.

The foregoing is a summary of some of the points that the Government anticipates are likely to arise at trial. Should any legal issues arise that are not covered in this trial brief, the Government respectfully requests leave to submit further memoranda as necessary to assist the Court.

You can find all filings in the USA v Burks criminal case on the Files Website, click here.

Zeek Rewards: Burks 2 Motions in Criminal Case Are Denied!

ZeekPaul Burks had filed two Motions, one to Dismiss Count Four of the indictment and another for a Hearing.

Here’s what the Judge said about the Dismissal Motion:

Review of Count Four reveals that the United States has alleged each element of the offense. Further, whether or not the government’s evidence will prove those elements is a matter for resolution at trial. Finally, defendant’s theory of constructive receipt is a defense and not a bar to the government bringing such charge. While of little moment at this point inasmuch as the Grand Jury has found probable cause, the government has forecast evidence which, if proved at trial, could support a finding by a jury that defendant conspired to impede the IRS by providing false FORMS 1099 for tax year 2011. The government’s responsive proffer indicates that as part of the scheme to defraud affiliates, defendant and others encouraged affiliates not to draw out “earnings” that they believed they had earned, but which earnings did not in fact exist. The government contends that defendant and others issued 1099s to affiliates in 2011 of approximately $96 million, when in fact the company earnings were only $37 million. Thus, the government appears to contend that the scheme’s use and issuance of the 1099s not only perpetuated the fraud on the affiliates, it also impeded the operations of the IRS. The government further argues that defendant’s constructive receipt theory is defective as not only can defendant not show that the money was “set apart” for each affiliate, as defendant could not set apart funds that were never received.
A motion to dismiss is governed by Rule 12(b)(3)(B), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That rule provides that the court may dismiss a count where the indictment “fails to invoke the court’s jurisdiction or to state an offense.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(B). An indictment is defective if it alleges a violation of an unconstitutional statute, or if the “allegations therein, even if true, would not state an offense.” United States v. Thomas, 367 F.3d 194, 197 (4th Cir. 2004). Here, the court finds no reason to dismiss Count Four. The motion will be denied and defendant may renew the motion at the conclusion of the government’s evidence.

Next, comes the “Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and Appropriate Relief Related to the Government’s Seizure and Handling of Confidential and Privileged Communications.”  The Judge responded:

Defendant, in reviewing the discovery, discovered that 148 privileged emails were in the government’s possession. The government contends that it did not know such were in its production and that no member of the prosecution team, including attorneys and agents, has reviewed any of those emails.

In essence, Burks was asking for a Kastigar Hearing, tthe definition of which is:

In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the Supreme Court held that, where a witness who has invoked the Fifth Amendment is nevertheless compelled to testify by court order, the protection to insure that the prosecutors do not improperly benefit from the compelled testimony is a hearing in which the prosecutors must prove that its case will not be based on that evidence.

It looks like Burks did not provide sufficient grounds for such a hearing:

Here, defendant has made no showing that any member of the prosecution team has reviewed any of 148 emails at issue. Further, the government has stated that no member of the prosecution team ever reviewed the emails stating as follows: “the United States took careful steps to have the computer filter out all potentially privileged emails, went further to ensure all reviewing agents did the same in case the computer missed anything, and then put all such emails aside without anyone reviewing them.”




Absent some suggestion that the government prosecution team actually reviewed any of the emails, defendant has not made the threshold showing necessary to order a Kastigar hearing.

Based upon this, the Judge denied the Motion.


Zeek Rewards: Government Opposes Burks’ Motion for Bill of Particulars

zeeklerThe government has filed an Opposition to Paul Burks’ request for a Bill of Particulars and for Brady Materials. The AUSA states in this Opposition:

On October 24, 2014, a federal Grand Jury indicted Defendant Burks on four charges related to his role as leader of ZeekRewards. Defendant is charged with, among other things, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 and 1349) and conspiracy to commit tax fraud (18 U.S.C.
§371). (Doc. 1). The Indictment sets out the fraud scheme in great deal over six single-spaced pages that include introductory language, a section on relevant entities and individuals, and
numerous pages devoted to the details of the scheme. Despite the detail set forth in the speaking indictment, the Defendant now asserts that he has insufficient notice of the allegations against him in order to prepare his defense.

In May 2015, this Court granted a continuance in this case until May 2016. Two months before the peremptory trial setting and approximately seventeen months after the Indictment, Defendant Paul Burks filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, seeking among other things the definition of Ponzi scheme1 and a detailed forecast of the Government’s trial evidence. Additionally, Defendant filed a Motion for Brady materials theoretically held by third parties. These motions are both baseless and untimely and should be denied.

The Assistant US Attorney points out that a motion for a bill of particulars is barred procedurally if not filed within 14 days of arraignment. Burks was arraigned in November of 2014.

Specifically Defendant alleges that he cannot determine: (1) who his alleged co-conspirators are; (2) what a Ponzi scheme is; (3) what conduct was in furtherance of the scheme; (4) what automated programs were used in the scheme; and (5) where Zeekler and Zeek Rewards maintained offices. (Doc. 40,
pgs 5-7).

I have uploaded this filing onto the Files website, USA v Burks

1 2 3 38