Cases

Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge In this civil enforcement action, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "the Commission") alleges that TelexFree, Inc. and TelexFree, LLC (collectively, "TelexFree") and eight individual defendants operated and promoted an illegal pyramid and Ponzi scheme, raising more than $300 million through a fraudulent and unregistered offering of securities since at least November,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER GORTON, District Judge. This is a civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) against TelexFree, Inc. and TelexFree, LLC (collectively, “TelexFree”) and eight individual defendants (who, together -with TelexFree, are collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly operating and promoting an illegal pyramid and Ponzi scheme. Pending before the Court i

MEMORANDUM & ORDER GORTON, United States District Judge I. Background On April 15, 2014 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed this civil enforcement action against five corporate defendants and eight individual defendants who were allegedly involved in a pyramid scheme. The scheme defrauded consumers who believed they were investing in a “Voice over Internet Pro

On Petition for Rehearing. A petition for a rehearing was filed by the appellant. In support thereof appellant cited additional cases, In re Cross'Estate, 152 Wn. 459, 278 P. 414; In re Wanzel's Estate,295 Pa. 419, 145 A. 512; In re Meisenhelter's Estate, 297 Pa. 292<

Barthold, P. J., This is a petition filed by the Department of Revenue of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for an order directing the guardian of the estate of Andrew M. Szakovics, an incompetent veteran, to reimburse the Commonwealth for the cost of the care and maintenance of the incompetent at the Allentown State Hospital. The facts are uncontroverted and may be summarized as follows: Andrew

The question involved in this appeal is the ownership of the commuted value of war risk insurance. The heirs of the beneficiary named in the policy claim it through intestacy as direct heirs of the deceased soldier and as assignees of the remaindermen named in the will. The court below awarded the fund to the soldier's aunts, the remaindermen named in the will. Benjamin Fisher was killed in battle in 1918. He had previously taken out war risk insurance wherein his brother George was de

Campbell, P. J., — John Hollobaugh (hereinafter called the soldier), a soldier in the United States Army, died in the service in the month of April, 1918, intestate, unmarried and without issue, leaving to survive him as his heirs at law his parents, Jacob E. Hollobaugh and Ada Hollobaugh. At the time of his death the soldier was insured under a war risk insurance policy in the sum of $10,000, in which his mother, Ada Hollobaugh

1 Reported in 229 N.W. 781. Certiorari to review an order of the probate court adjudging that no inheritance tax be imposed upon a fund in the hands of the administrator of the estate of Harry H. Harris, deceased. Harris, a resident of this state, was a soldier in the late war. He died while in the service in November, 1919. He held a war risk insurance policy for $10,000, in wh

Gangloff, P. J., Upon the death of William Buechley, Jr., in October 1935, the Union Central Life Insurance Company paid to Frank S. Buechley, administrator of the estate of Letitia S. Buechley, deceased wife of William Buechley, Jr., deceased, the sum of $14,508.79, representing the proceeds of two life insurance policies issued by that company to William Buechley, Jr., as the insured, in each of which the beneficiary was identic

Russell, C. J. (After stating the foregoing facts.) If the question proposed for solution in this case were whether the State alone is empowered to levy taxes upon the property of its citizens, it should of course be answered in the affirmative. But the general rule as to taxation, like every other general rule, is subject to exceptions. In a broad sense, Federal regulations as to direct taxation upon tangible property are not pe

This case involves the title and method of distribution of the remaining proceeds of a war insurance policy after the death of the beneficiary named in said policy who died before the annual payments absorbed the fund. Ernest E. Forester, the soldier and insured, died in 1919, having designated J. D. Forester, his father, as beneficiary. The said father and beneficiary died in 1928, and there was left a net balance on said policy of $5,664.14. The question is: Should this balance be di

The question of subrogation and preference as to funds in a state bank in the process of liquidation is presented by this bill in equity. *Page 300 It is averred that R. F. Grizzle was theretofore duly appointed and qualified as the guardian of John W. Grizzle, a non compos mentis; that on January 6, 1931, "the said R. F. Grizzle as guardian of John W. Grizzle * * * had on deposit the sum of $2,776.74"; that said "ward was a World War veteran," and

Will Hunter, a World War soldier, died August 15, 1918, while still in the military service of the United States. His father, Robert Hunter, was the sole beneficiary in a war risk insurance policy issued by the government upon the life of Will Hunter in the sum of $10,000. The father died in 1927, but before his death the insurance money due under the policy had been considerably reduced by monthly payments to the father. Upon the death of the father, James R. McDaniel was duly appointed admi