Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

[notorial dissent]

The fantasy just keeps on coming, and the taking from those who can least afford itjust keeps on happening.

Our goals are simple, first protect everyone one of us by first proving that Zeek was not a ponzi scheme, second by assisting Paul Burke to re-open Zeek Rewards allowing all of us to continue making money. And last to prevent the government from keeping all the money that we used to purchase bids with and the money we have received or is pending in one of the e-wallets.

Like their legal team is:

1. 1) ever be able to prove Zeek was not a ponzi scheme
   2) ever going to reopenZeek Rewards
   3) or prevent the receiver from carrying out his duties
   4) even remotely interested in the lower end of the pool

I would be willing to bet, that if you got a look at the "entitled" to speak to list, they WOULD be the law firm's actual and only clients, and they are the only ones that the firm will be looking out for and what we have here is an opportunity for the lower end of this to hand over some more money to their upstream.

[GlimDropper]

From ZTeambiz dot com:

Home
BREAKING NEWS… WE ARE WORKING NOW TO GET ZEEK REWARDS AND ZEEKLER BACK OPEN!

Important notice: we are getting emails from the law firm of SNR Denton about a large number of calls being placed to the firm and directly to them. This action is disruptive and will cost this group more in legal costs do the interruptions.

We have asked the firm to provide us the names of the individuals that are calling; we will refund your donation and will remove you from the group to be represented if you call. The law firm is only going to discuss the case with the 12 leaders and we will put out the information to the entire group on this site.

As we understand and realize your concern regarding your personal situation, please understand the firm cannot take over 1,000,000 separate calls. We cannot let a few cost the entire group the opportunity to have this representation, please have a little patience and do not call there will not be any further warning!

Hey, at least there's a way to get a refund. I wonder if they will ever reveal who the 12 clients, scratch that, Leaders are. I can guess who more than half of them are but I'd like to make sure that the rest of them get all the credit they so richly deserve. Oh well, it's a puzzle,

and I do like puzzles.,..


(BTW, I sorta think ZTeamBiz is Robert Craddock's site. IF you look quick you'll see the Google Cache pages still listed on a site:ZTeambiz.com search (crappy small screen shot available here). I don't ~think~ it was used as such but it was set up to be (yet another) we'll sell you Zeek Rewards Customers website. Wait a minute, Craddock was buddy buddy with Captain Compliance Gregg Caldwell. But selling imaginary customers to fill out the comp plan is out of compliance with all but the Zeek Rewards definition of the term "compliance." So many cookie jars and so many crummy hands.)

[kschang]

They'll cut Bessoni out of the game, and Bessoni may blow the whole thing open.

FYI, Bessoni is head of ZCustomers.com, supposedly former "customer lead supplier", and formerly runs the "5cc" program in Zeek. Many long suspected he just dumps a bunch of (firstname)(3digitnumber) customer names into Zeek's system so people can have a "target" to give bids to. The question is does he have access to Zeek's backend for that, or he just scripts the entries.

AdSmartz do something similar: posts the ads for the affilaites.

How ironic, helping to cheat a scam! But then, there always have been bottom feeders... USHBB is still around... having helped Andy Bowdoin with his video pitches... Heck, they helped Zeek too.

[kschang]

Found the Google Cache of Zteambiz.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... ns&strip=1

[wserra]

From ZTeambiz dot com:

The law firm is only going to discuss the case with the 12 leaders

If that is true, we now know that part of the alleged retainer: twelve clients. It's the next part of the retainer that's more interesting, though: what is Denton going to do for those twelve? Traditionally, of course, a lawyer is retained to look out for the clients' personal interests. Of course, these great ponzi-scheme--running humanitarians may have demanded a retainer that requires Denton to maximize the gains for the greatest number of people, even if that meant clawbacks from those who signed it. Of course, they also have bridges to sell you.

I realize that rank-and-file Zeeksters are likely not the brightest bunch in the world, or they wouldn't be where they are. Still, before giving a dime for the "legal team", they are nuts not to demand to see the retainer. As I pointed out above, they may well be paying lawyers to act against their own interest. For that matter, why don't the guys who hired the lawyers publish the retainer on their own?

Sorry. Rhetorical question.

[Gregg]

If the twelve are the only clients, how does the law firm involved not have to make some type of statement about a very obvious conflict of interest? And beyond that, if the money is sent to the twelve and not the law firm (even if it was I'd think) then all money collected would be taxable income to the recipients. I'm so gonna report them to the IRS, afterall, the government gives rewards for catching tax cheats.

[Gregg]

Hey Wes, hate to impose and I know you're not a semi retired car guy like me with lots of free time, but if you can take a bit I'd like to suggest you write something about the implications discussed here for Patrick Pretty's Blog. It has a wider audience of the victims in the scam, and it might save a few people from what looks to me like paying the other guy's lawyer to make sure you get less from the settlement.

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree, that I think it is the height of chutzpah, not to mention contempt, for "the 12" to be further conning the rank and file in to paying for their legal fees, all the while telling them they are doing it for them, and you know darn good and well, that is exactly what is happening here. This crowd does not go in for selfless, compassionate gestures for anyone. I was going to say I wondered how long it would take for the rank and file to figure they were being taken, yet again, but then I momentarily forgot who I was thinking about.

[GlimDropper]

Hey Wes, hate to impose and I know you're not a semi retired car guy like me with lots of free time, but if you can take a bit I'd like to suggest you write something about the implications discussed here for Patrick Pretty's Blog. It has a wider audience of the victims in the scam, and it might save a few people from what looks to me like paying the other guy's lawyer to make sure you get less from the settlement.

I would second this request. Thank you for making it Gregg and please consider it Wes.

Dave Kettner's daily missive:

Hello Fellow Zeek Rewards Team,

Anyone that has been associated with Zeek Rewards for any duration of time knows that not only was the SEC indictment inaccurate, but it was so inaccurate that they were able to turn a viable company into a Ponzi scheme. Since we believe this statement to be true, we sought out legal advice in defense of what we believe to be a major injustice to all of us affiliates.

The SEC has tried to make us all believe that Zeek Rewards was an "investment" and a Ponzi scheme. All the pages that were submitted by the protective order by the SEC that froze the assets of Rex Venture Group, LLC. has all been one sided and what we believe to be a misrepresentation of the truth and facts of what Zeek Rewards was as a viable and legal business. The SEC mislead the judge in its claim against Zeek Rewards convincing him that emergency action needed to be made against Zeek to shut them down before they collapsed in their words saving the affiliates from losing everything and they did this without even having to provide the judge proof. Therefore, we needed to get the facts and real numbers to defend against these accusations.

Over this past week, we have sought out to get the proof that was needed to prove that Zeek Rewards was not a Ponzi scheme and not an investment but rather a legal viable business that was thriving and paying out its affiliates daily profit sharing from the proceeds from the Zeekler auctions and Free Store Club and not that of the proceeds from purchasing of sample VIP bids by its affiliates. We now have the proof that we need to defend Zeek Rewards against the protective order by the SEC that froze the assets of Rex Venture Group, LLC. and to bring this proof before the courts to defend Zeek Rewards and all of our independent businesses as per our legal rights of due process.

We have set up a website to unify our collaborative actions together as one united legal front to fight for our due process rights as independent Zeek Rewards affiliates. We also have set up a PayPal button to accept donations from as many Zeek Rewards affiliates as possible to protect each of you legally moving forward allowing us to be a protected group with legal council secured by Fun Club USA. These funds will be used to obtain the retainer needed to petition the courts to remove the emergency injunction by the SEC against Rex Venture Group and Zeek Rewards and demand that the SEC provide us (the united Zeek Rewards represented affiliates) with proof for the indictment filed on August 16, 2012.

Furthermore, we will petition the court to allow us to provide the legal proof that we have attained from the corporate office of Zeek Rewards, legal statements of Zeek Rewards corporate officials, and accounting records which will disprove ALL accusations by the SEC to be false and severely misrepresented.

We have also been advised by legal counsel that if these SEC accusations are not challenged, that all Zeek Rewards affiliates will be impacted most likely in a negative way for both affiliates who made profits and by those affiliates who are expecting to be refunded. Therefore we all lose if we sit back and do nothing and be led like sheep to the slaughter. We cannot allow our legal rights to justice be taken away by our government, and so I ask you all to STAND UP AND FIGHT with us!

If you would like more information and have further questions, an email has been set up by Robert Craddock at zeeklegal@gmail.com. He will be addressing all questions and comments into further announcements on the site at http://zteambiz.com.

There is finally hope for our business and justice to be done! I am now cautiously optimistic that this fight will lead one day to Zeek Rewards being proven that it is a legal viable business and be back in operation if due process is followed and we are allowed to prove our case to the courts.

Thank you all and God Bless!

Dave Kettner

I do have a question, in addition to Todd DIsner's "lawsuit to Nowhere" fund raising drive there has been a class action suit filed:

Affiliates file class-action lawsuit against Zeek, Burks

By Nash Dunn
The Dispatch
Published: Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 11:03 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 11:03 a.m.

Nearly 100 Zeek affiliates have filed a class-action lawsuit against Rex Venture Group, Zeek Rewards and chief executive officer Paul Burks, claiming damages from the company's “fraudulent, unfair, deceptive and illegal acts.”

The state court action, filed in Davidson County Superior Court about 4 Wednesday afternoon, seeks damages for all affiliates and demands a jury trial.

The lawsuit is being brought by about 82 named affiliates. Numerous other unnamed individuals could be inserted into the lawsuit at a later date, the filing said.

(More at the link above)

But when I read the order appointing the temporary receiver (PDF Link) we have section 7 (page 14 of that file) entitled "Injunction Against Interference with Reviver" and section 8 "Stay of Litigation." I'm sorry I can't seem to copy and paste from that file or I'd quote form it here.

Here's a Scribd copy of the class action lawsuit complaint. How could that action get past the language in the order appointing the receiver which seems to preclude exactly what they are trying to do? Or has Lionel Hutz risen from the grave to represent ponzi victims?

And a late edit to add a link to Forbes dot com's coverage of yesterdays press confrence with Ken Bell, the acting receiver. From which I quote:

Mr. Bell was also asked to address the recent news that some investors had filed class-action lawsuits against Zeek and Burks. While Mr. Bell indicated that he had not been provided with copies of the lawsuits, he did give his opinion that, under the order appointing him as receiver, any and all litigation brought against Zeek or its subsidiaries would be stayed and prevented from moving forward. Ultimately, he said, the court would have to provide guidance.

And just previous to that, something which warms my jaded heart:

In moving forward, Mr. Bell stressed that his job was to locate and lock down all assets both in Zeek’s possession and from “anyone who ought not to have it”. When asked if he was alluding to the possibility of “clawback” litigation against investors who withdrew more than their initial investment, Mr. Bell stuck to his message that he would pursue “every dollar” from those in wrongful possession of the funds. More details will likely emerge in Mr. Bell’s report to the court following his initial investigation.

You better get that fund raising snow machine into high gear Mr. Disner, you might be needing that money to live on very soon.

And as if on queue, Dave releases an update:

Update From Receiver and Reaction

From:
Dave Kettner <zeeksamurai@gmail.com>
To:
xxxxxxxxxx@yyyyy.zzz
Date:
Tue, 28 Aug 2012 3:29 PM (1 hour 52 minutes ago)


Hey Zeek Samurai Kazoku!

There was a press conference with the SEC appointed receiver Mr. Kenneth Bell yesterday and you can access the details from here: http://budurl.com/h8vv.

I think you will see really quickly when reading this press release that the SEC and Kenneth Bell are NOT out for the best interest of the so call Zeek Rewards “victims” as it was announced that all of the uncashed checks that the receiver has in their possession WILL be cashed in order to get the funds to be able to pay back the “victims” at a later time. Huh? So they are cashing the “victims” checks instead of sending them back directly to the “victims” making them wait much longer? You tell me if this sounds right?

Troy Dooly states in his recent update that as previously thought, the liquid assets and income would be closer to double what is in the SEC complaint. You can see Troy’s update here: http://budurl.com/e2rg. Hmmm, as I have been saying from the very beginning that Zeek was making a tremendous amount of money from the PAID Zeekler auctions and the Free Store Club that were not even mentioned in the SEC complaint. This information will further prove that Zeek was not a Ponzi scheme as they were able to pay its affiliates from the commissions from customers, not from the affiliate bid purchases.

Bell also made it clear that it would be a “long time” before any refunds are issued. Part of this is based on the amount of information he and his team must uncover. As we stated before, the Receiver and the government will try to milk as much as they can from the “victims” funds.

The other question highlights the fact that the receiver may use the federal clawback laws to collect all profits that were made by all Zeek Affiliates which will further delay the process of getting the funds back to the “victims” and get more funds into the SEC and Receivers hands.

Again, as with everything that has happened since the SEC illegally shut down our Zeek Rewards business, we are all VICTIMS of what the SEC has wrongfully and criminally done and continues to do. This is why we ALL (US, international, affiliates who made profits, affiliates who lost money) Zeek Rewards affiliates need to fight back for our legal rights by banning together and joining the law suit that we have put together through SNR Denton.

We need everyone’s support and you can join the protected group of unified Zeek affiliates by making as little as a $20 donation at http://ZTeamBiz.com. Protected group means that you are legally protected by our law firm SNR Denton and will be part of the plaintiff group against the SEC.

SNR Denton was fully retained by us on Monday August 27, 2012 and all funds raised will continue to go into the fund to pay for the law suit. Please DO NOT CALL SNR Denton or our attorneys directly as they are only allowed to speak directly to Robert Craddock and a few others from our core group who begun this process. A press release will be coming soon with the process of everything moving forward.

Also, a website is being set up for all affiliates who donated money for the cause to include all of your needed information especially if it was not all submitted through PayPal correctly. So look for that to be announced soon as well.

Please be sure that you are signed up at http://budurl.com/zeeksamurai for all newsletter updates. You can also find lots of information on our Facebook page at: http://budurl.com/7444, please like the page and participate in the conversation. Also, please send ALL of your questions directly to Robert at zeeklegal@gmail.com. Please be patient as he is receiving tons of emails daily, but all emails will be addressed and answered.

I have included below what someone wrote to me last night and I think you will enjoy hearing his thoughts on the press release by Kenneth Bell that was released yesterday.

Chat soon and God Bless!

Dave Kettner



Do your research and you will see that as has been the case from the very beginning with the SEC, none of this seems right.

Well, so much for cashier's checks that had not been "cashed" yet being cancelled. Mr. Bell considers that his money to "lock down".

"Mr. Bell indicated that all cashier’s checks in his possession would be considered assets of Zeek Rewards and would be deposited and added to the pool of funds currently being amassed for victims."

So, let me get this straight: The guy that just sent his money in who's cashier's check is getting "locked down" isn't considered a victim.

But, someone sent in money a year ago. They are considered a victim, so the guy that sent in money two weeks ago gets his check cashed to pay the guy that sent in money a year ago.

Oh wait, that sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me. Someone should notify the SEC that Mr. Bell is running the receivership like a Ponzi scheme.

And what about those wonderful people who have decided to "jump on the band wagon" and file suit against Paul Burks: (ummm, sorry, not going to happen)

"any and all litigation brought against Zeek or its subsidiaries would be stayed and prevented from moving forward"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmagli ... ort-ahead/.

It appears as though there is only ONE HOPE of a positive outcome for all Zeek people and that is http://zteambiz.com.

This is important to read and share with anyone you know who received "net gains" from Zeek.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmagli ... clawbacks/.

"it is almost certain that they will be the target of “clawback” lawsuits seeking the return of those profits"

“it would typically be inequitable to leave net winners from Ponzi schemes with their profits"

"By recovering these “false profits” from net winners, the receiver is able to increase the total amount of assets available for distribution."

"victims with nominal amounts of gains may escape prosecution due to the cost of litigation, investors with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in gains may not be so lucky"

I would think that anyone who profited from Zeek should certainly take an active role in any litigation to prove the SEC's allegations to be incorrect - rather than just running to the next BIG DEAL.

http://ZTeamBiz.com

(Bolding mine) Why can't they do both? I'm sure Todd is.

[wserra]

I would second this request. Thank you for making it Gregg and please consider it Wes.

Thank you, guys. Everyone likes to be appreciated, and I'll think about it. But I have a family and a busy law practice. I long ago made a deal with myself: I'll spend far more time than I should on Q, and will not under any circumstances get involved beyond a quick comment or two anywhere else. Gregg is part of the reason, and I hope GlimDropper will become another part. Quatloos is in my experience unique: a community of very smart people of disparate backgrounds and beliefs who by and large respect and get along with each other. Not only do I feel I can contribute here, I enjoy the place. But thanks.

BTW, if it seems that I have been posting somewhat more than usual over the last two weeks, it's because I've been on vacation in the Great North Woods. Hiking, canoeing/kayaking, serious non-law reading, hanging out with family - and posting.

Dave Kettner's daily missive:

Hello Fellow Zeek Rewards Team,

Hi, Dave!

[Redact recycled crapola. We've seen and commented on all this before, and repeating it doesn't make it any truer. Let's see something new. The retainer, for example. And it's not an indictment and it is legal counsel, you moron.]

How could that action get past the language in the order appointing the receiver which seems to preclude exactly what they are trying to do?

I don't think it does. The order is pretty clear: existing actions stayed, new actions enjoined.

I actually have one new point to make. Judge Mullen has signed a consent judgment - "consent" because it was based on the written, executed consent of Paul Burks, who has the unquestioned ability to consent on behalf of Zeek. Among other things, it provides that Zeek will "pay disgorgement of any and all ill-gotten gains", with pre-judgment interest. When the SEC finds and goes after such gains, the consent order provides that Zeek (1) cannot argue that it didn't violate the securities laws, (2) can't contest the validity of its consent, (3) agrees that the allegations of the SEC complaint are true, and (4) agrees that the Court may decide the issues on documents only.

This means that any issues as to Zeek are over. Zeek is no more. It has ceased to be. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. It is an ex-Zeek. Ahem. The only remaining issue is how much the receiver can seize from Zeek accounts and claw from the big guys to distribute to the little guys. I wonder why the former want lawyers. And I really wonder why the latter should pay for them.

[notorial dissent]

WES, did you forget and leave your rhetorical mode on again???

I think it will be interesting to see who "the 12" actually are, I'm pretty sure GlimDropper pretty well knows who they are, and it really isn't much of a stretch to just flat out guess.

What would really be interesting would be to see what that fine old firm was actually retained for, and I'm betting it has nothing to do with the interests of the rank and file, in any way shape or form.

[Gregg]

Is there some client-attorney privilege issue that would prevent the attorney from disclosing who is and specifically who is not their client?
Is there some general ethical reason they would not be willing to talk to purported clients, but only the so called leaders of a group if they indeed consider themselves to be representing them all?

I think it's critical at this moment for it to be clear who is included in the retainer agreement (I somewhere else had a flashback to when I was an accountant and called it an engagement agreement). This is big time money, and I'm almost certain that the goal of this legal action is to prevent clawbacks from the net winners here, which would be at the disadvantage of the net losers, and if there's a way that this is legal, it sure as hell stinks.

I'll compromise with you Wes, I'll write it if you'll proofread it to prevent me from making a mistake in legal technicalities....and of course, it's still up to Patrick if he wants to publish it.

[Kestrel]

[Redact recycled crapola. We've seen and commented on all this before, and repeating it doesn't make it any truer. Let's see something new. The retainer, for example. And it's not an indictment and it is legal counsel, you moron.]

Oh I've got to wonder about the "legal council" bit. He may have used the term correctly. It seems our friend does indeed have a legal "council" [an assembly of people meeting for discussion, consultation or advice].

His legal council just seems to be bereft of any competent, ethical legal counsel.

[notorial dissent]

..... and I'm almost certain that the goal of this legal action is to prevent clawbacks from the net winners here, which would be at the disadvantage of the net losers, and if there's a way that this is legal, it sure as hell stinks.

And the man wins a prize.

I am still of the opinion that some of them ought to be looking for a criminal defense attorny before this is all over with, as the clawbacks could be the least of their concerns in the not too distant future.

And I quite agree with your summation of the whole thing. I think the screwers are getting ready to give the scewees another one.

[wserra]

Is there some client-attorney privilege issue that would prevent the attorney from disclosing who is and specifically who is not their client?

In general, the identity of a client is not privileged. That doesn't mean that anyone short of a court can compel a lawyer to reveal it.

Is there some general ethical reason they would not be willing to talk to purported clients, but only the so called leaders of a group if they indeed consider themselves to be representing them all?

In this circumstance, I don't see how ethical lawyers could "indeed consider themselves to be representing them all". The interests of the big guys and the little guys are obviously conflicted, in ways we've discussed. I would bet that - if these scammers have retained Denton at all - the retainer doesn't mention anyone other than the twelve disciples. And that it in no way compels Denton to violate Judge Mullen's order by filing suit. A point that I made before but may have been lost in the shuffle by now - these guys have no standing in the main action. The one who does - Burks - consented to the order.

I think it's critical at this moment for it to be clear who is included in the retainer agreement (I somewhere else had a flashback to when I was an accountant and called it an engagement agreement). This is big time money, and I'm almost certain that the goal of this legal action is to prevent clawbacks from the net winners here, which would be at the disadvantage of the net losers, and if there's a way that this is legal, it sure as hell stinks.

One hundred percent. Quibble: it is surely legal to retain counsel to protect your interests, even if your interests are those of greedy scammers everywhere. Want to play hardball? Write the two named Denton partners - registered, return receipt - enclosing copies of the solicitations to the little guys to give money for counsel. Then Denton can't claim ignorance, and will have an ethical duty to stop their clients from obtaining legal fees from people against whose interests those fees will be used.

[notorial dissent]

..... these guys have no standing in the main action. The one who does - Burks - consented to the order.

The thing is, that that little quibble has gotten entirely lost in the, as you say, shuffle at the Zeek sites, unintentionally, I don't think. It doesn't appear that the little fish have either figured it out, been told, or get, that the big fish folded and effectively admitted to everything, and as you say, there is no going back, and that they have basically been hung out to dry.

I like the idea about sending the notice to the partners, nice touch.

[Gregg]

Want to play hardball? Write the two named Denton partners - registered, return receipt - enclosing copies of the solicitations to the little guys to give money for counsel. Then Denton can't claim ignorance, and will have an ethical duty to stop their clients from obtaining legal fees from people against whose interests those fees will be used.

I am going to do just that. Good Idea.

[Gregg]

You know, jokes aside I generally have a good opinion of Attorneys, the ones I personally know are to a man (and woman) upright ethical people. Most of them are pretty smart,too.

But having just read my own column (shameless plug http://www.patrickpretty.com/2012/08/29 ... is-anyway/) it occurred to me that some lawyers who I do not know personally as much as I know of, may not be so virtuous.

Can Denton, by forcing the 12 to accept all the donations be shielding themselves from the obvious conflict here? Could this be a case where they'll take the money no questions asked. I can think of a few lawyers in Mario Puzo novels like that.
Could that be another good reason that they're not accepting calls, good old plausible deniability?

I hope not. It would not be good for my worldview. Part of me being able to accept and indeed respect people with whom I have some serious disagreement is the genuine belief that they mean well and they may be right and I wrong. I think society needs to have that attitude in order to function. I think lack of that attitude in politics is absolutely destroying our government. When you get right down to it, the most dangerous thing to society may well be people who are really smart, but don't mean well.

[wserra]

Can Denton, by forcing the 12 to accept all the donations be shielding themselves from the obvious conflict here?

I don't think Denton is behind that. I think it much more likely that scammers-by-the-dozen are behind that. It may well be that one of the reasons for it is to prevent Denton from learning where the money's coming from - or at least, as you say, to give them plausible deniability, in hopes that if they find out they'll look the other way. Hence my suggestion for registered letters (and send them to the partners Disner named, not to the firm in general).

Could that be another good reason that they're not accepting calls, good old plausible deniability?

I also doubt that. In fact, that makes perfect sense for a lawyer who is retained to defend against clawbacks. I don't need to speak to all those people. Once I get the lay of the land, I might ask my client to give me a few names of folks who lost, so I might call them to say, "Even though I lost, I understood the risk, and your client Joe Winner is a great guy even though he won".

[kschang]

Did Kevin Thompson read this forum? He also questioned who is SNR Denton really represetning.

http://mlmhelpdesk.com/zeek-rewards-new ... t429057667