Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

[GlimDropper]

ASD's Andy Bowoin received his sentence today, 78 months, the max he could get. And while Judge Collyer was cleaning up that little bit of ASD buisness she tied up another one. She dismissed Todd Disner and Dwight Owen Schweitzer's lawsuit against the government.

Hey, now Todd can focus on his lawsuit against the SEC without further distraction.

[wserra]

The basis for the dismissal of the Disner suit over ASD:

Plaintiffs insist that ASD held property that belonged to them, but they have not alleged any facts to support this claim. Plaintiffs were not officers, shareholders, or employees of ASD, and there is no showing that ASD held their property at its offices. Plaintiffs were victims of fraud who voluntarily transferred funds to ASD. When they transferred monies to ASD, they did not retain ownership. Plaintiffs are unsecured creditors of ASD who may claim a portion of the forfeited funds, but they do not have standing to challenge the search and seizure of ASD property.

Emphasis supplied.

Exactly what will happen to any suit against the govt over Zeek - assuming it is not dismissed first as a violation of Judge Mullen's order.

[GlimDropper]

For anyone with enough interest here's a recording of a recent confrence call which Mr. Craddock participated in. I'll have time later to give some more detailed comment but at about the 17 mark Robbert tries to tell people that the receiver will NEVER give any refunds. He has NEVER seen a situation when a reciever has returned money. Some expert.

More later.,..

[notorial dissent]

You mean some liar. But then we already kinda sorta knew that didn't we?

[Gregg]

The purpose of appointing a receiver is to recover assets to return to victims. It is the NORMAL way a receivership ends. And if this bozo knew anything about enfocement actions he'd know that. I'm working on actual figures but I'd be surprised if the percentage of times the SEC took over a business with assets and didn't return all the assets left over to the victims was less than 95% of the time. They indeed have no authority to keep any assets beyond the fine, and it's not unusual for them to not get the fine if victims are not repaid.

ETA: An SEC appointed receiver by law MUST return remaining assets to victims of a fraud. The extra money setting unclaimed in the ASD case would in fact be a quite a problem had the court appointed a receiver in that case. (they did not, BTW, that ponzi was shut down by the Secret Service and not the SEC and no receiver was appointed, the excess funds, if not depleted by restitution will go into a DOJ fund for victims of crime)

Tell the dipshit to read this....http://www.turnaround.org/Publicatio...objectId=13592

Often the sheer number of investors involved creates a need for a receiver to handle the flood of investor calls, evaluate claims, and return proceeds, all of which can be incredibly time-consuming and costly. And given that one of the main purposes of a receivership is to return money to investors and other creditors, it is reasonable for the costs of the receivership to be borne by those who benefit from it and not by taxpayers at large. Because he or she is paid from the estate, a receiver’s appointment shifts the cost from the taxpayer to the estate.
Put differently, the SEC’s job is one of enforcement and regulation, not running down assets on behalf of investors who may have been aggrieved. So, when it is either necessary to displace management of a defendant-company or when faced with a massive fraud involving numerous victims, the SEC often recommends one or more individuals to a judge as possible candidates to be appointed as a receiver.

[notorial dissent]

What it comes down to is that Craddock is either a liar of the first water, or so incredibly ill informed that he has no business being involved in this. Guess which one I'm betting on? It is in his interests to keep the little fish stirred up and confused, and I would say from current evidence, that is exactly what he is doing.

The only time a receiver for the SEC or SIPC or whatever the bank fund is calling itself this week doesn't return everything they can, is when there isn't anything to return, and I've seen estates where there really wasn't much at all left. In this case, owing to the large numbers involved, and the fact that it has been going on so long, and that so much of it is really long gone, I will be surprised if the "victims" get more than pennies on the dollar, and it will depend on how they determine who is eligible in the end how it will be split out. On the plus side, there is at least a corpus to distribute, which is more than can be said for a lot of these things. The main problem, is that it is really just the current money from the current crop of suckers.

[GlimDropper]

Mr. Craddock strongly implies that the attorney who was representing Paul Burks was somehow less than qualified. Here's a link to Martindale.com's listing for him. Could someone explain what AV Rated and Preeminent might mean in Martindale's peer rating system?

Oh Robbert, you're in so far over your head and it only gets deeper from here.

[Gregg]

In his latest fundraising letter, Craddock says...

Robert Craddock will have a website up in the next few days that will allow every Zeek Rewards affiliate that has donated to the law firm fight to enter their details that they my have missed when making their donation so the law firm will have all the data they need. Also, to clarify any rumors that are going around the Internet, yes, if you make a donation to Fun Club USA, you are a plaintiff in the lawsuit and in the group protected by SNR Denton. You do not need and should not contact the law firm directly. Contacting the law firm will result in more billable hours charged and hinder the work that they are trying to do on our behalf to get our company back.

Of course,to cover their own ass, I'm sure SNR Denton made him post this disclaimer on his donation website...

SNR Denton US LLP represents Fun Club USA and all inquiries about this representation should be directed to Fun Club USA at zeeklegal@gmail.com. SNR Denton’s legal representation is limited to Fun Club USA; SNR Denton does not represent and does not have an attorney-client relationship with affiliates of Zeek, Zeek Rewards, Rex Venture Group LLC or with any individual or party that chooses to provide funds to Fun Club USA.

So, Robert,which one is it? Wait, don't bother answering that. You see, since you're apparently a lying scumbag, I wouldn't trust your answer anyhow. In fact, if you were to tell me at midnight it was dark outside, I'd look out the window first before I believed it. I'll be calling SNR Denton to ask them to clarify this, as I really don't care how many billable hours you run up by lying to people. Just to make sure, I'll ask the North Carolina Attorney general to help me figure it out.

[Gregg]

Just out of idle curiosity, for the lawyers here, is there some way I can formally ask the Judge in this case about this? Well, not so much ask as advise them in some official way that this garbage is going on? Can a regular citizen who is not a party to the case file an Amicus Curie just to inform the Judge? If so, how would I go about doing that?

[wserra]

So, Robert,which one is it?

They are pretty much exact opposites, aren't they? I think the odds are overwhelming that you're right - someone at Denton got wind of what they were doing, and made them post it. Not to cover Craddock et al, but to cover Denton.

is there some way I can formally ask the Judge in this case about this?

Not really, as you're not a party. You can, however, inform the AUSA and the receiver. They have ready access to the court.

[Gregg]

My query to the partners mentioned as handling this case...

Greggory Brian Evans


September 1, 2012
Gene R. Besen
Partner
SNR Denton
2000 McKinney Avenue
Suite 1900
Dallas, TX 75201-1858
Dear Mr. Besen:

I am an online journalist researching matters related to Rex Venture Group and Zeek Rewards and their current troubles with among others, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
As you are aware, a group of Zeek Rewards affiliates have apparently retained you as their attorney in regards to this case. My question is, I would like some clarification on exactly who you represent. A Mr. Robert Craddock has been saying that you have been retained on behalf of all affiliates who contribute to this effort through a website he has set up to accept contributions. In a letter to potential donors dated today, Mr. Craddock states

“Also, to clarify any rumors that are going around the Internet, yes, if you make a donation to Fun Club USA, you are a plaintiff in the lawsuit and in the group protected by SNR Denton. “

I find this statement hard to believe, as in this case the court appointed receiver has indicated he intends to pursue clawbacks of ill gotten gains and while Mr. Craddock and the members of his group are net winners in this scheme and the people from whom he is soliciting donations are very likely net losers. If your representation goals are to protect your clients from clawback actions, those interests would be in direct conflict of those who would benefit from the receiver maximizing the amounts he recovers from ill gotten profits.
All the communications I have found in regards to this eventually point to Fun Club USA, a site and company controlled by Mr. Craddock. They have the site set up to collect donations for their legal fund, with a disclaimer I am guessing your firm has insisted upon.
More in line with what I expect is the statement that Fun Club USA has on their website, to wit:
“SNR Denton US LLP represents Fun Club USA and all inquiries about this representation should be directed to Fun Club USA at zeeklegal@gmail.com. SNR Denton’s legal representation is limited to Fun Club USA; SNR Denton does not represent and does not have an attorney-client relationship with affiliates of Zeek, Zeek Rewards, Rex Venture Group LLC or with any individual or party that chooses to provide funds to Fun Club USA.”

As a writer covering a story I’d like some clarification on just exactly who you and your firm represent. As a concerned citizen, I’d like to ask you to clarify to your client the same question and urge them to not confuse the issue.
I realize I’m not exactly The New York Times but I still think it would be in everyone’s interest that you and your clients clarified these issues. I intend to cover it and I’m sure other, more mainstream publications will, too.


Sincerely,
Greggory Brian Evans, PhD

[notorial dissent]

....apparently...

????? Apparently, when SNR comes right out and makes them say that they are ONLY representing ????FUN CLUB????, and he is "apparently" lying????

And when did this latest incarnation pop out from under its rock? Latest among the magic collection of names that is/was Zeek.

I realize that what is going on here is probably too obvious for the dim and bewildered Zeeksters, after all, they are used to being fed it by the shovelful, but you'd think at least a few of them would twig to this latest reaming. Or maybe not, considering they are Zeeksters after all.

I like your letter by the way, and definitely think the AUSA and receiver ought to share in the further joy that is Zeekdum.

[kschang]

This brings up a different question regarding the law and consent forms.

I was reading the file "Consent for Paul Burks" (ZeekDoc7 on Don's document archive) and No. 16 says specifically that Burks may not claim in public to be innocent (or something like that, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak law). Presumably this explains his silence.

This brings up a question or two...

1) Does this "no public proclamation of innocence" apply only to Burks / RVG? Or does it apply to RVG employees as well? Sounds like only to Burks / RVG.

2) If it does apply to employees (which I doubt), can be it argued that Craddock is an employee of RVG, and thus, violated the consent?

[wserra]

I was reading the file "Consent for Paul Burks" (ZeekDoc7 on Don's document archive) and No. 16 says specifically that Burks may not claim in public to be innocent (or something like that, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak law). Presumably this explains his silence.

It's actually ¶ 13. For those interested, here is a copy of Burks' consent that doesn't require a visit to a different site.

This brings up a question or two...

1) Does this "no public proclamation of innocence" apply only to Burks / RVG? Or does it apply to RVG employees as well? Sounds like only to Burks / RVG.

The definition of "Defendant" is in ¶ 1: RVG, Zeek and related businesses. Although it doesn't specifically list Burks, I'm sure a judge would interpret it to include him. Burks' agreement doesn't (and couldn't) bind anyone else.

2) If it does apply to employees (which I doubt), can be it argued that Craddock is an employee of RVG, and thus, violated the consent?

See above.

[wserra]

My query to the partners mentioned as handling this case...

On the money, Gregg - but I predict that you will not receive an answer. The point of writing it was to put them on undeniable notice.

[Gregg]

Call me a dreamer but I was quietly hoping they'd tell the 12 to pay their own legal bills, or even better, to go get another lawyer.

If it was the kind of day that I should buy a lottery ticket on, they might have made the 12 despicable disciples publish the engagement letter which would disclose how much of "working to get Zeek back online better than ever" as opposed to how much "working to protect the assets of the clients from clawback actions"

Just a point of disclosure, on Wednesday night I suffered a moderate/severe head injury and I've been off and somewhat medicated for a few days, please excuse the typos and even more heartless commentary.

Now, back to taking over the world, enslaving the masses, toying with the interns and any other tasks my Illuminat masters deem worthy of my efforts...

[kschang]

I was reading the file "Consent for Paul Burks" (ZeekDoc7 on Don's document archive) and No. 16 says specifically that Burks may not claim in public to be innocent (or something like that, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak law). Presumably this explains his silence.

It's actually ¶ 13. For those interested, here is a copy of Burks' consent that doesn't require a visit to a different site.

Actually I was reading that OTHER consent decree for Burks personally. That explains the difference. I was reading the wrong document!

The definition of "Defendant" is in ¶ 1: RVG, Zeek and related businesses. Although it doesn't specifically list Burks, I'm sure a judge would interpret it to include him. Burks' agreement doesn't (and couldn't) bind anyone else.

Figures. Thanks for the clarification.

[ashlynne39]

Call me a dreamer but I was quietly hoping they'd tell the 12 to pay their own legal bills, or even better, to go get another lawyer.

If it was the kind of day that I should buy a lottery ticket on, they might have made the 12 despicable disciples publish the engagement letter which would disclose how much of "working to get Zeek back online better than ever" as opposed to how much "working to protect the assets of the clients from clawback actions"

Just a point of disclosure, on Wednesday night I suffered a moderate/severe head injury and I've been off and somewhat medicated for a few days, please excuse the typos and even more heartless commentary.

Now, back to taking over the world, enslaving the masses, toying with the interns and any other tasks my Illuminat masters deem worthy of my efforts...

I hope you are okay Gregg. I thought your letter was very good. It made me wonder though, with everyone on this board, is there not someone with contacts in the traditional media that could pass along Gregg's letter or the details of this case to get some real publicity going about what Craddock is up to. I also wondered, since Craddock is an attorney (at least I think I read that on here somewhere), could he not be reported to the bar association in his state. What he is doing is shady and there must be some sort of violation in what he's up to.

[Gregg]

Thank you. I fell on a slippery floor in a car plant, there was an audience of dozens and I feel very Gerry Ford. Night in the hospital with a morphine drip, which was inspiring, and now all my food tastes like chicken, except the KFC someone brought over.

I'm going to live, and I'll be back to my plan of World Domination on Tuesday.

[wserra]

I'm going to live, and I'll be back to my plan of World Domination on Tuesday.

Good. We were planning to replace you on Wednesday. World Domination waits for no one.