Thursday, November 22, 2012

Thanksgiving... But Scammers Do Not Rest, Neither Does Justice

It is now Thanksgiving Holiday in the US, and both the just and the scam are still working. There are two updates to keep in mind.

Pigeon King International fraud trial still ongoing

Dave "Scambusters Now" Thornton, has an update on Pigeon King Ponzi in Canada.

Dave Thronton was one of the earliest to raise the alarm about this ingenious (nefarious?) Ponzi scheme that literally used pigeons to trick farmers into buying million dollars in pigeons (and spending even more in facilities and equipment). This trial is still ongoing in Canada, and apparently the judge had issued a gag order so there's a media blackout on the trial. The actual trial likely won't reach Canadian court until early 2013.

[ Read Scam Study: Pigeon King here on A MLM Skeptic ]

Canadian report on this scam: the perp still insist he's innocent.

Zeek Rewards affiliate who profited filed response, called Receiver a criminal

The saga of Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme continues. Despite months of promise that whoever's behind the Zeek Defense effort is going to sue SEC, and somehow clear Zeek's name, NOTHING has been filed other than names of two attorneys. Instead, someone else from Florida sent the judge on the case claiming receiver  misconduct. Basically, this guy (who's NOT an attorney), just accused an attorney of not knowing the law.

Hilarious, isn't it? Let's take a closer look.

If you want to see the actual response filed, along with the subpoena itself (which says this "Nathaniel Woods" took out almost 500K and put in nothing from Zeek), click here and see the file on the ASDUpdates website.

Sounds impressive, but unfortunately this Nathaniel Wood has reading comprehension problems.

I'll show a couple screenshots from his arguments, and I'll explain why can't read.

Let's start with 6 and 7... (slightly edited for layout)

But what does the rule actually say? Here's a link to Cornell Law School, but here's the relevant portion:

(b) Service.(1) By Whom; Tendering Fees; Serving a Copy of Certain Subpoenas. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that person's attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law. Fees and mileage need not be tendered when the subpoena issues on behalf of the United States or any of its officers or agencies. If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served, a notice must be served on each party.
(2) Service in the United States. Subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii), a subpoena may be served at any place:
(A) within the district of the issuing court;
(B) outside that district but within 100 miles of the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection;
(C) within the state of the issuing court if a state statute or court rule allows service at that place of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection; or
(D) that the court authorizes on motion and for good cause, if a federal statute so provides.

Okay, so what does that mean? What is "notice serviced on each party"? Who are the parties? Well, it's SEC and the Receiver himself, of course. Receiver serve a copy on himself, ha-ha. SEC don't need to know what sort of subpoenas are sent either.

Does it say that it must be served person to person? No, it does not. But This Wood guy's claim is "I didn't get it delivered properly". By filing a response, the recipient has CONFIRMED that he had received it.

See how hilarious this is?

But there's more! On this specific issue:

He claims that HE is a party, he wasn't served a notice.

But what was Mr. Wood's own motion say?

That's right, he says he is non-party. Therefore, he just destroyed his own argument! He says he's non-party, then he claimed he is a party and he wasn't served properly.


Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment