Disner appeal denied, $2M dollar default judgement stands

In analyzing court filings by Ponzi investors, a common thread of assuming the judiciary and regulators involved in the case are complete morons can be observed.

Whether this stems from the bubble-world such investors live in, a carry-over from treating the everyone they encounter as gullible morons (critics of the schemes they invest in are also often treated with similar contempt), a simple lack of education – who knows. But it’s definitely there.

A recent example was Faith Sloan in the SEC’s TelexFree case. Named as a defendant in
the SEC’s civil case
, which alleges TelexFree to be a billion dollar Ponzi, Sloan was quick to
cry poor in court filings
.

Simultaneously, Sloan was also
openly advertising her qualification for thousands of dollars in recruitment commissions
on Facebook.

Today we take a look at another example, Zeek Rewards investor Todd Disner.

Disner was one of the top investors in Zeek Rewards, an $850 million dollar Ponzi scheme. Under multiple affiliate accounts under his control, Disner stole over $1.8 million dollars from Zeek’s victims.

March 2014 saw
clawback litigation filed against Disner
, which he chose to ignore.

This prompted the court-appointed Receiver to file for default judgement, which was granted against Disner in July.

After realizing that plugging his ears with his fingers wasn’t going to make the clawback litigation go away, Disner finally responded to the litigation later that month.

In his filing, Disner asked that the court set aside the default judgement against him because

he does not have access to electronic filings. He was unaware that the time within which he had to reply had arrived, as he had not received any responsive pleadings from his co-defendants.

Other excuses such as Disner’s inability to find counsel in the months, partly owing to him being unable to afford their services were also
trotted out
. Yes, the guy who stole $1.8 million from Zeek’s victims, like Faith Sloan, was also crying poor.

What is particularly amusing in Disner’s case, is that he’s no stranger to Ponzi litigation. Disner was a top investor in the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme, and this isn’t his first rodeo.

With that in mind, Judge Mullen’s ruling on Disner’s motion came with little surprise.

Passing an order yesterday, Judge Mullen denied Disner’s motion.

As Judge Mullen observed,

The Court finds that
Disner has failed to act with reasonable promptness.

He was personally served with the Summons and Complaint three months before he finally filed a substantive document in this lawsuit, which was a request to set aside the default.

Moreover, it is clear that he had notice of the action and claims against him and the knowledge to act on his own behalf because he filed a Notice of Appearance to appear pro se nearly a month before the answer was due. Disner states that he “had not received any responsive pleadings from any of his co-Defendants” as an excuse for his failure to file an answer.

He further s

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the outcome of Disner's appeal regarding the $2 million judgment?

How do Ponzi scheme investors typically approach legal proceedings?
Court filings reveal that Ponzi investors frequently underestimate judicial and regulatory authorities' competence. This pattern suggests investors dismiss judges and regulators as incompetent, mirroring their general contempt toward scheme critics and demonstrating limited understanding of legal processes and institutional integrity.

Who was Faith Sloan in the TelexFree case?
Faith Sloan was named as a defendant in the SEC's civil case alleging TelexFree operated as a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. She claimed

🔗 Related Articles

- TelexFree delay preliminary injunction hearing
- TelexFree insiders try to cut prelim injunction deals
- Faith Sloan quibbles over securities fraud, owes lawyer $50,000+
- SEC use Sloan’s post TelexFree activity against her
- De La Rosa & Crosby preliminary injunction granted