Sorry to see how this has played out. I agree, the follow-up posting from the "AG" is childish taunting, serves no purpose.

If Kevin has half a brain (no evidence of this) he will never ever say another thing publically about Skit B. If he is talking to a lawyer, it should be a bankruptcy lawyer at his point. Anything else is wasting the pre-buyers money. And a good bankruptcy lawyer would *not* advise him to issue refunds. Let the court sort out distribution of whatever is left over.

He files Chap 7, pre-buyers are listed as unsecured creditors (along with any potential outstanding claim by Fox) and whatever is left over gets distributed by the Trustee. Now - pre-buyers can always claim the debt exists as a result of fraud - which means it can't be discharged. But is it worth it to lawyer up and fight that? I don't know.

Best hope is that the Feds decide it's worth pursuing and get him in court (again, if this happens, no reason to hire a high-priced lawyer. You can't win in a trial against the Feds....). Feds enter a restitution order for payment in full to everybody. They *will* hound him for the rest of his life, and you get a check for 10 bucks or so every month for the next XX years.

The problem with that hope is that nobody (other than Kevin) will ever know the existence of a Fed investigation and/or plea negotiation. And it will take literally 2+ years to come to light. You could walk into the FBI today, confess to a white collar crime, and it could be months and months before they even call you again to have a follow-up interview. They move at their own pace.

I really hope he is stupid enough to start sending money out to the pre-buyers. But I'm not holding my breath.

That's great news and I hope it works out for everybody.

It's no evidence that there is actually any money in Skit B's paypal account, but at least it's a precedent that Paypal is going to roll over for appropriately documented chargeback claims and assume the risk of loss.

Most likely Kevin just failed to respond to requests from Paypal to challenge the chargeback (what Paypal would have claimed earlier as "working with Skit-B") and paypal was left with no choice but to stand down to the CC company.

It's actually also potentially favorable since the refund didn't come directly from Kevin, it may not be able to be challenged as a preferential payment if he runs to bankruptcy court. Good luck everybody.

Assuming you believe fraud was committed, it's clearly mail/wire fraud and a matter of Federal jurisdiction and the local guys would recognize that. They will probably bundle up the complaints and forward them on.

Just don't expect to hear any updates on the status of your complaint/investigation. It don't work that way.....

I'm assuming you used a credit card and paid through Paypal? (I'm also assuming Skit-B was never set up to accept credit cards in any other manner as that would involve credit approval, etc.).

If that were the case, it would be Paypal who is disputing the claim.

They could be doing it on behalf of and at the direction of Skit-B, or they could be doing it because they are losing their a** on this account and have decided to start fighting back, or it could be any number of other unknown reasons. It's probably not a good sign if Paypal is now putting up barriers.

I don't think you are giving him enough credit here. The "non-profit" BS he was spouting was calculated, and it was a lie designed to convince himself that he was operating within the fair use parameters that he was very much aware of.

Most likely his random contact at Fox told him "if you aren't making money off of it, we don't care".

And then he concocted a story that he could feed to everybody. I honestly doubt he did so in a blatant attempt to defraud people out of their money. But it was clearly a conscious attempt to defraud people about the existence (or lack thereof) of the license. Which begs the question - how many people would have sent him $ knowing it was an unlicensed project? Answer: very few.

In a credit card transaction, there are multiple parties (the Merchant, the Merchant Services Provider, the CC companies and the card holder). In this case, Paypal is the "Merchant". Whatever bank/company Paypal is processing credit card payments through is the "Merchant Services Provider". Then of course there is Visa, AmEx, etc.

There are legal agreements in place all along this transaction chain - and one of the obligations spelled out is who will do what/when in the event of a disputed transaction. You must follow those rules to remain active in the credit card acceptance game.

None of those rules/legal agreements exist in an ACH transaction. You authorize your bank to send money to someone. They do it. You get screwed, it's between you and "someone" and not really an issue for the bank. Sure, they may try to help, but they have no real teeth to get anything done. Good luck though.

sometimes I guess it's hard to detect sarcasm on a forum. The US Bankruptcy Court is designed to oversee the equitable distribution of assets to multiple creditors. If you guys really think he has a stash of money somewhere, force him in to involuntary bankruptcy. It only takes three of you that are fully paid up. Each of you send him a demand letter, give him 14 days to refund in full. If he fails to do so, file an involuntary bankruptcy petition. At that point, everybody files a claim as an unsecured creditor. The court will then make sure everybody gets their fair share.

If you think he's pissed it all away, then you should hope for federal prosecution and an order of restitution. The federal government is the most effective collection agency in the world. If he fails to pay, he'll go back to prison. He'll never see a tax refund the rest of his life. He'll be forced (under threat of imprisonment) to disclose all of his assets to the federal government on an annual basis. Many of you will unfortunately die before you get paid in full, but you'll at least know that he is living intimately with the consequences of his fraud for the rest of his life.

That would work fine.

Your non-USA status wouldn't be an issue. All that needs to be shown is that he owes you money.

You don't need to go through any of the steps actually. Just get three people together who are owed in total $13,475 or more. Fill out the form and file it. The demand letter (assuming it is unanswered) just gives you some more ammo.

I'm not suggesting this is the best course of action, just that it is a possible action. And keep in mind the actions of 3 people would suck everybody into the same place (I.e. dealing with the bankruptcy court). Some may feel the actions they are currently taking create a better chance for recovery. Tough call, good luck.

Couple issues to consider here: 1) A civil complaint will almost certainly result in a judgment being rendered against KK. A civil court will most likely pass no opinion as to if the funds were obtained under "false pretenses". They don't care as long as you can prove that a debt actually exists. They will simply conclude that KK owes you the money, has defaulted on his obligation to repay you, and order him to pay it. It's a positive outcome, but it doesn't address any of the issues you state above.

If/when he files bankruptcy, at that point you will have the opportunity to object to the discharge of your debt/judgment in the bankruptcy proceedings. That's when you would have to argue/make a case for your debt being non-dischargeable due to it being obtained through fraud.

Only criminal prosecution, and the entry of a restitution order by a judge, will result in a debt that is automatically non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Otherwise you are still probably going to have to argue fraud in the bankruptcy venue.

not a lawyer, but been around the block a few times....

It was reported earlier that the local detective had already forwarded the info on to the FBI. It takes google 2 seconds to tell you the nearest FBI field office is in Detroit. Call them and inquire. They aren't ones to confirm an active investigation, but if you let them know you are a victim you might get some information if you listen closely to what they say.

This was never going to be prosecuted at the local level, even if a Michigan resident makes a complaint. *Assuming* fraud has occurred,
- It involved interstate commerce
- It involved the use of the US mail system and forms of electronic communications
- 100+ victims, 100's of thousands of dollars of losses are alleged.

It's clearly a federal crime, if indeed a crime has been committed. If the Midland detective is using the words "not in his jurisdiction", it's not unreasonable to read something into that comment. Again, the wheels of federal justice grind very slowly - but they do keep grinding. I wouldn't consider KK out of the woods yet.

Search the Internet for "demand letter". Search the Internet for "involuntary bankruptcy".

Will all due respect to those immersed in this quagmire, Trekie is not asking any of the Plantiffs to disclose their legal strategy. Public court and records thereof (available to anybody w/ internet access) is not a venue that suggests secrecy. It took me 5 minutes to see the names of all the Plantiffs, the names of the multiple defendants named in the lawsuits, the motions filed by both parties, and the pending court dates. If I wanted to spend a few bucks (I don't) I could obtain copies of every piece of paper filed in connection with these lawsuits. I'm not living it, and I know it sucks for those that are and I feel for that, but I don't think Trekie crossed any line. Just MHO.

The VP Cabinets transfer of money stuff....I think it would be difficult to prove that was a fraudulent conveyance, given how long ago it occurred and also the fact that it occurred in the "normal" (well, at list Skit B 'normal') course of business. Unless the parties were in collusion long ago, it's hard to imagine that monies were paid to VP Cabinets in an attempt to hide or shield assets from other creditors.

Also worth noting there are multiple defendants in the lawsuit, as so far it appears only Kevin has filed bankruptcy. So that bears watching.

To earlier question, if Kevin owes you money and you did not receive a notice of the bankruptcy, that means he did not list you as a creditor. Contact the bankruptcy court and request information as to how to file a proof of claim. Good luck everybody.

KLUMP,AARON, DEFENDANT
KULEK,AMANDA,LYNN DEFENDANT ,
KULEK,KATHY, DEFENDANT
KULEK,KEVIN, DEFENDANT
SKITB PINBALL,, DEFENDANT

I don't know if any of these people have a pot to piss in, but Kevin's Chap 7 filing doesn't immediately bring the lawsuits to screeching halt. These other folks still need to defend.....

That would not be the main focus of the existing civil lawsuits, no. Some questions may be asked, and some information may come to light though.

If/when a monetary judgment is rendered for the plaintiffs (and assuming loser Kevin does not pay the judgment amounts) the plaintiffs would then have the option to pursue additional legal methods to discover Kevin's assets and ascertain his ability to pay the judgment amounts. That's when it would really be open season on seeing where the money went.

The same discovery of assets questions could come up in the bankruptcy hearing if enough creditors objected to the discharge of debts. Typically it does not happen though as that would mean he lied on his bankruptcy application....and that would be a federal offense....and of course nobody would do that, correct?

The thing is, the Bank Secrecy Act only covers cash transactions (and cash equivalents such as money orders, etc.). If these were truly checks written from his bank account, there was absolutely no reason to structure things in this way, as it would not have triggered anybody's suspicions from a banking perspective. I routinely deposit company checks > $10,000, as I'm sure many other people here do also.

Just goes to show what a criminal mastermind you all are dealing with here.

Best part to me, sitting on the sidelines (and I know there is no good part to those of you who lost money) is the fact that KK brought this on himself by running to the bankruptcy court for "protection". That really worked out well for him......

That's accurate Keith, as all of the instruments you mentioned are considered "cash equivalents". I was just pointing out that writing a check out of a personal credit union account (if that's what happened, I obviously have no idea) or a business account, payable to a specific business or person, would not be a cash equivalent and would not raise any eyebrows with a bank or a regulator even if it greatly exceeded $10,000. I'm guessing there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of such transactions that pass through the banking system each day.

Keep up the good fight.

Flood insurance, just like normal homeowners insurance , is only required if You have a mortgage on the property.

Prudent yes, required, no.

At $30k, I doubt there was much value assigned to the structures, probably mostly the land value.

Avid vs. avoid. Gotta love it.

Looks to me like Keith wrote "avid" in his initial filing.
In the response/counter claim, the cabinet company lawyer assumed it was a typo and Keith meant "avoid" and argued based upon that word.

Keith comes back in the supplemental memo and argues that he meant to use the word "avid" all along and the other guys are quoting him out of context and their legal argument holds no water as a result.

So what word did Keith intend to use in the original filing? Was it "avid" or was that a typo and he meant "avoid"?
I have my suspicions, but Keith's argument in the supplemental memo has got me rolling on the floor, LMAO. I can't wait to hear the oral arguments about this issue.

Keith has proven that he's no dummy, so I'm guessing this is the legal equivalent of thrusting a raised middle finger towards the opposing counsel for filing the defamation claim against Keith.

Kevin could've written a single company check for $99,000 to them, and nobody, including the IRS, would have blinked an eye.

He can write ten different $9,900 checks to them, and nobody, including the IRS, would blink an eye.

Personal or company checks, drawn on bank accounts, are not subject to the BSA (Bank Secrecy Act) reporting requirements.

The *only* reason this is any type of issue is that is shows a *misinformed* intent on their part to skirt the BSA reporting requirements. It is illegal to structure a transaction in order to circumvent the reporting requirements. However, since this transaction was not subject to the reporting requirements, there's nothing to circumvent.

They were just dumb, and it draws attention to something that could've been a non-issue. It's not illegal, there's been no laws broken, but, in my opinion only, it clearly shows that two ill-informed people conspired to circumvent a law that didn't apply to them anyway. But it begs the question that if this transaction was performed in "the normal course of business", why were they trying to keep it so "hush-hush"?