According to court-filed documents, Mary Ann Kettner withdrew $465,866 of her fellow Zeek affiliate’s money off an initial investment of $1495. For her part in receiving a 31,161% ROI and refusing to pay it back to the victims she effectively stole from, the Zeek Receiver yesterday named and shamed Kettner as a top Zeek Ponzi profiteer.
“What a laugh”.
Well I am listed as a net winner. What a laugh… its not because of the amount but because i stuck out my neck to defend what we were doing as a business and got a big old target on my back…
I didn’t even earn half a million in the year and a half that we were doing the penny auction business..and because it was a business I was running I paid my taxes…which was just over 50 % of what my company earned.
We paid state, federal, and employee type taxes… Add in expenses, cost of business, travel and training of my team…and there is very little left…and alot of that went to lawyers when Zeek went down….
M’aw… didn’t earn half a million so you should be able to keep your Ponzi proceeds? Poor diddums.
The rest of Kettner’s rant goes equally well with a tune struck up on the world’s smallest violin.
As the Receiver’s filing clearly states, Kettner is listed as a top Zeek winner based purely on the amount she illegally obtained through the scheme. Receiving $400,000+ puts her well above the vast majority of Zeek Rewards affiliates, of which a significant amount of their money wound up in Kettner’s bank account.
As for taxes, you were in a Ponzi scheme. Instead of refusing to negotiate with the Receivership and hold onto your stolen money, surely what you’d paid in taxes would have been considered had you of approached the Receiver.
Meanwhile the icing on the cake has to be Kettner crying foul over her lawyer fees.
In an attempt to thwart the return of money to Zeek Rewards victims, Kettner filed a lawsuit late 2012 to ask that an “Examiner” be appointed to protect the interests of Zeek’s top profiteers.
Kettner felt that the Receiver asking her and other Zeek profiteers to pay back the money they took from net losers, clearly demonstrated their best interests weren’t being represented. As such, Kettner felt an “Examiner” (their personal lawyer no less) should be appointed to represent the interests of Kettner and her fellow winners.
And by “interests” we of course mean the keeping of their Ponzi profits.
In February 2013 Kettner’s motion was denied, with Judge Mullen remarking
First of all, it is readily apparent to the Court that such an examiner would be unable represent the interests of both the net winner and net loser affiliates, two groups with inherently adverse interests,” Mullen said in an order dated today.
“Secondly, the Court is of the opinion that appointing an examiner would cause unnecessary and significant depletion of the assets of the receivership.
You participated in a Ponzi scheme, ripped off thousands of people and then, when the scheme was busted, wholly decided on your own merit to instigate expensive legal action to preserve said profits… and now you’ve got the (metaphorical) balls to whine about your legal fees?
Oh the crocodile tears on this one!