In an effort to get out of paying back the millions they collectively stole from Zeek Rewards victims, the scheme’s top profiteers filed a series of motions to dismiss mid 2014.

They then attempted to use the filing of these motions to
stop the Receivership performing discovery
(such as learning where they’d stashed their winnings).

A decision on that motion has been forthcoming, however with a recent ruling made on the filed motions to dismiss – it would now seem redundant.

Named as having filed respective motions to dismiss in the order are  Trudy Gilmond, Trudy Gilmond, LLC, Jerry Napier, Darren Miller, Durant Brockett, Rhonda Gates, Innovation Marketing LLC, Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, Global Internet Formula, Inc., T. Lemont Silver, and Karen Silver.

Summarized in the order is the gist of the net-winner’s reasons for filing their motions to dismiss:

Defendants argue that this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

The SEC Action, from which the Receiver derives his authority to file the instant lawsuit, is based upon violations by RVG of federal securities statutes.

The Defendants contend that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in this case because RVG was not involved in the sale or marketing of any “securities.”

Basically they argue Zeek didn’t offer securities, and as such the SEC action, by which the Receievership “derives his authority” from, is null and void.

As per the court order, here’s why that’s a load of horseshit:

Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act define a “security” to include an “investment contract.”

The Supreme Court has defined an “investment contract” as: (1) the investment of money; (2) in a common enterprise; (3) with an expectation of profits to be derived solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.

In the case of Zeek Rewards (a common enterprise), affiliates invested funds into VIP bids on the expectation of a 90 day ROI, funded by newly invested affiliate funds.

Quite clearly the participation of Zeek’s top pimps fits the definition of an “investment contract” described above.

The order continues;

The Howey test is a “flexible” principle “capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.”

The Supreme Court has explained that Congress intended the application of the Securities Act and Exchange Act “to turn on the economic realities underlying a transaction, and not on the name appended thereto.”

Enter the Howey test, designed to cut through the semantic bullshit we often see accompanying Ponzi schemes, by way of a series of prongs.

Courts have applied the Howey test to define a wide range of Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, and multi-level marketing schemes― including internet-based

schemes― as securities.

The same holds true even if not all aspects of a scheme constituted securities,

🤖 Quick Answer

What were the motions to dismiss filed by Zeek Rewards scheme profiteers in mid-2014?
Top beneficiaries of the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme filed motions to dismiss in mid-2014 to avoid repaying millions stolen from victims. These motions simultaneously attempted to obstruct the Receivership's discovery process, preventing investigation into where scheme participants had concealed their illicit earnings.

Who were the named defendants that filed motions to dismiss?
Named parties filing respective motions included Trudy Gilmond, Jerry Napier, Darren Miller, Durant Brockett, Rhonda Gates, Innovation Marketing LLC, Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, Global Internet Formula Inc., T. Lemont Silver, and Karen Silver.

What was the outcome of the motions to dismiss?
A recent ruling on the filed motions to dismiss rendered further decisions on

🔗 Related Articles

- Zeek’s top Ponzi pimps “delaying” victim payouts
- Zeek Receiver files for summary judgement against net-winners
- Zeek Rewards top Ponzi winners named & shamed
- Final judgement granted against all Zeek top net-winners
- Final judgement granted against three Zeek Rewards net-winners