Page 10 of 14

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:45 pm
by wserra
Combining answers: First, absent an agreement or order to the contrary, a non-party subpoena must be served personally. Rule 45(b)(1), FRCvP. There is no exception for "I need to serve 500 of these", because the point is to make sure that the subject of the subpoena actually receives it. A court can order otherwise, but AFAIK that hasn't happened here.

Second, as Arthur Rubin wrote, someone who is responding to process in a foreign jurisdiction is immune from service while so doing. Permitting such service would make the rule requiring personal service in the foreign jurisdiction almost meaningless - all the server would need to do is intentionally serve improperly, then wait for the appearance in the local courthouse on the motion to quash (as Gregg says).

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:38 pm
by GlimDropper
It isn't all that uncommon on internet forums to respond to an overtly humorous post by claiming that it caused you to spray something you were drinking over your keyboard. I'd never actually done that, till this morning.

Mary Schapiro, the Chairman of the SEC will be stepping down from that position next month. That isn't the funny part. Dave Kettner posted the following on the Fun Club private facebook page:

Dave Kettner

Just got word from a solid source that the head of the SEC has been forced to resign due to the major pressure that the SEC is dealing with now in the wake of over 1700 lawsuits fighting against the SEC wrongful allegations against Zeek. I wonder if the SEC will now find a way to end this sooner rather then later and give us our company back.

Is there no lie too ridiculous that it will not be believed by the "Zeek loyal affiliates"?

(And for those who were concerned, my keyboard will be just fine.)

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:45 pm
by AndyK
It has been a convention of Q, in the past, to preface such posts with "Keyboard Warning" of "Cover your keyboard"

Failure to do so will result in your account being assessed a sufficient amount to replace / clean all damaged keyboards.

Collection of all assessments will be enforced by rabid ferrets.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:24 am
by GlimDropper
Might I submit that perhaps the first two sentences of my previous post may in fact be construed as constructive notice of a keyboard warning but of course I'll submit to the judgment of the Illuminated (just please, no ferrets).

Not wishing to push my luck any further, while not equal on a humor scale the following is a summery of last nights Craddock call penned by a true believer. Cups down, etc..,.

Summary of tonight's call: Phase (1) Kenneth Bell has put it in writing that he is only interested in the assets of Rex Venture Group and our attorneys have been told to contact the ewallet companies individually to release the money that is frozen. Our attorneys are starting to do that. It is believed that this will happen this year.

Phase (2) Our attorneys will go after the money that was requested from our cash available but never made it to the ewallets. For most people this will represent two more weekly checks. This will require a motion before the court coupled with arguments as to why Zeek is not a Ponzi, Pyramid scheme or unregistered security.

Phase (3) Paul Burkes joins us in the fight and the case gets dismissed. Last Wednesday at 4:00 PM Robert Craddock received a phone call from someone who is in direct contact with Paul Burkes and this person informed Robert that if we win the ewallet money that Paul Burkes would reevaluate his position and join us in the fight.

Robert also mentioned that checks cashed after August 16 were deposited by Kenneth Bell and this should not have happened. End of Summary

If all goes well and the case is dismissed. I would estimate that Zeek Rewards would need another 2 months to get organized again and reopen. Personally I am hearing the best news I have ever heard about Zeek Rewards. Robert said there is a 99% chance that we will complete phase 1 this year. This should brighten everyone's Christmas.

Robert in fact said there was a 99.9% chance that the Zeek money in the e-wallets would be released and his explanation is that the money in those accounts belongs to the affiliates and are not assets of Rex Ventures Group (Zeek). I think he's playing a few games here.

First off it's starting to look like they are starting to clear some of the backlog of paperwork regarding these e-wallet accounts. Initially any e-wallet account that sent funds to or received them from Zeek were frozen. But now reports are being seen of some but by no means all of these accounts being released. My best guess is that if you only used an account to send funds to but didn't receive money from Zeek (and if you are also owed money from the estate) then it makes sense that your account would be released. I find it somewhat impossible to believe that Robert Craddock would let the simple fact that he had nothing to do with this from keeping him from claiming credit for it happening.

On yesterday's call Robert came dangerously close to admitting a truth, that being that unless they can convince Paul Burks to violate his consent agreement and actually fight the SEC's allegations there really isn't all that much he and the Fun Club can do. But of course he's enthusiastic for that possibility. You see it all get's down to those e-wallets. If they can prove to a judge that the money in those accounts really does belong to the affiliates and not to Rex Ventures then that will be the first domino to fall unraveling the whole "ponzi scheme" argument the SEC mislead the judge into believing.

But of course there's the small matter of having legal standing to make such an argument which Robert seems to gloss over. Which is why, if my surmise about some e-wallet accounts being unfrozen is correct AND Robert's claim that if they can gain traction on the e-wallet front then maybe Paul Burks will find the courage to put up the fight he backed down from last August. In the first instance he's taking credit for something he didn't do and for the second he's got someone to blame when the plan falls apart. And best of all he has weeks to perhaps months of productive fund raising before true believers lose faith.

It's a win win for Fun Club.

(And a late edit to avoid a double post)

OK, this is where it get's strange.,...

Burks denies allegations from Zeek class-action suit

By Nash Dunn
The Dispatch
Published: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 4:10 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 4:10 p.m.

Former Zeek Chief Executive Officer Paul Burks said he denies allegations that his company was a large Ponzi and pyramid scheme.

In a formal response filed Monday in North Carolina Business Court, Burks addressed a class-action lawsuit filed against him and his company in Davidson County in August. Going through the complaint paragraph by paragraph, Burks largely denied allegations that he defrauded millions throughout the world through unregistered offers and sales of securities through Zeek Rewards and penny auction site


The complaint Burks is now responding to is a separate class-action lawsuit filed by about 82 local Zeek Rewards affiliates on Aug. 22. The lawsuit, targeted at Burks, Zeek Rewards, the program's parent company, Rex Venture Group, and profiting investors, seeks damages for all affiliates and demands a jury trial. The lawsuit was originally filed in Davidson County Superior Court but was transferred to North Carolina Business Court in October.


In his response filed Monday, Burks denied nearly the entire original complaint. The only things he admitted to included that he is a citizen of Davidson County, that his former company was shut down by the SEC, that started in 2010 and allowed participants to purchase "bids," and that Zeek Rewards was created in 2011 and that affiliates were able to join, among other things.


"Mr. Burks' response to the lawsuit against him is to hide behind the receiver and blame the victims," said Lexington attorney Cal Cunningham, who represents the affiliates who filed the class-action lawsuit. "We are prepared to prove our case and have proposed a cooperative arrangement with the receiver to do so. We look forward to a lift of the stay that allows us to go forward."

[Link to the Dispatch article]

OK, I'm not sure why Paul is even responding to a class action suit, it was just about sure to be stayed by the receiver anyway. I haven't seen what Paul filed yet but will post as soon as (Don) makes it available. But section 16 of the consent agreement Paul signed with the SEC made it clear that Paul was not permitted to "consent to a judgement or order that imposes sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings." So if he's denying the allegations in a class action suit he must be treading a fairly fine line with his agreement with the SEC. Again, we have yet to see what he's filed.

It will be interesting to see how Robert spins this, I mean of course it's a victory for Fun Club, that goes without saying. But on the other hand, per the above linked article:

Burks requested to the court that the affiliates "have and recover nothing," and that their complaint and claims be "dismissed with prejudice," according to the response. He also requested to the court that he recover his costs incurred in the lawsuit and that those costs and attorney's fees be taxed to the affiliate claimants.

So it almost seems like Paul's position is in some ways antagonistic to the affiliates. But then again, any affiliate who would sue Paul Burks isn't a loyal Zeek affiliate to begin with.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:03 am
by notorial dissent
I think Craddy is being disingenuous at the very least. If the ewallets were tied to Rex, they I am quite sure that Bell is interested in them, and all it should take is a check of the financial transaction logs at Zeek to determine that. I think he is playing very fast and loose with what was actually said here. Certainly misrepresenting it at the very least, actually misrepresenting it a great deal in my opinion.

Not being familiar with the internal mechanics of how Zeek worked I’m not sure what (2) really means, but based on the rest of the statement, I seriously doubt it, particular as the “Zeek isn’t a Ponzi, Pyramid scheme or unregistered security” bell has already been rung, rung loudly and with finality, and isn’t going to be unrung.

And (3), not very likely at all, I don’t see Burkes coming out from under his rock and running the risk of full bore prosecution, which is exactly what will happen if he so much as peeps at this point, and it wouldn’t be getting the case dismissed in any event, he would have to appeal as he has already admitted the charges, and then all bets are off. A lot of ifs that aren’t likely to come to pass in any event.

I think the business about the checks is pure wishful thinking on Craddy’s part, as they were in hand when Zeek was shut down, so I’m pretty sure those qualify as assets of the estate, Craddy’s wishful thinking aside.

I think you analysis of what is happening with the ewallets is spot on. I would suspect that it has taken them this long to do an audit of the outgoing transactions and identify the accounts that funds went in to, and since those would have been estate assets, they would have wanted those frozen, the ones that had nothing going in to them wouldn’t have been of interest, but it was probably easier to freeze them all and sort it out later than not and lose what was there to be gotten.

Again, spot on about Burks, I really don’t see him risking it all just to please Craddy’s ego and vanity/fantasy. He would have to appeal the judgement at this point, and that would violate his agreement, and I am betting he isn’t that big of a gambler, at least not when it comes to his own freedom and finances.

I think Craddy would like to believe, or at least have the pluckees believe, his ewallet claims, but I think that the only thing he can honestly make any claims to or for are the ones he, and by definition, Fun Club, have an actual interest in, and they would still have to prove that the funds therein were not from Zeek, otherwise, I certainly don’t see how they could possibly have any kind of standing to challenge anything. At this point they can only take action with reference to themselves, and I am not even sure how much latitude they have there, and we certainly haven’t so far seen anything much coming from their legal quarter.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:11 pm
by wserra
GlimDropper wrote:OK, this is where it get's strange.,...

Burks denies allegations from Zeek class-action suit
In a formal response filed Monday in North Carolina Business Court, Burks addressed a class-action lawsuit filed against him and his company in Davidson County in August. Going through the complaint paragraph by paragraph, Burks largely denied allegations that he defrauded millions throughout the world through unregistered offers and sales of securities through Zeek Rewards and penny auction site

In other words, Burks did what every defendant in every civil lawsuit does all the time: deny everything except facts of record. So he exists, Zeek existed until the SEC shut it down, and everything else is denied.

No one should believe that this has any special meaning whatsoever.

So if he's denying the allegations in a class action suit he must be treading a fairly fine line with his agreement with the SEC.

Not really, because he's not really denying it. It's a legal pleading in a proceeding which (as you say) Bell will surely stay. In fact, bringing the suit seems to violate Judge Mullen's order in the first place.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:23 pm
by notorial dissent
Unless I have misread the information on the class action suit, that is in state court, and so would be unrelated to the SEC matter. I would suspect he could pretty well do whatever he needs to to defend against the civil suit without upsetting the agreement with the SEC, since he isn't trying to change anything on it. I also think WES is right in that Bell will go for a stay on it, so it probably won't go anywhere, at least for the time being.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:49 pm
by wserra
As I thought, the Burks answer to the NC state court suit is a perfectly standard civil pleading. Nothing in it implies that Burks is contemplating anything other than going along with the program. And Bell intervened and moved for a stay over two months ago. The NC court just hasn't ruled yet.

But it will.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:16 pm
by GlimDropper
Well, it seems the subpoena crisis is over. In a complete lack of surprise they served Mr. Woods with a new one.

On to other bull crap:

Hello Kettner Team Members,

Mary and I hope you are all having an awesome week! There are a lot of positive things that continue to happen on the Zeek front as well as other businesses that we are building together. Here is what we have for you...

Zeek Rewards Update

Robert Craddock has posted several updates on his site. One of them is a recording from a call he did on Monday night that we were not even aware of as the call was with a different team not related to us. Here is the recording from it if you would like to hear the current updates:

Update Call from November 26, 2012
Dial 1 (805) 399-1299 Pin 593670#

Here are the major updates from Robert...It is a done deal that the ewallets that have been frozen since the SEC stepped in, will be released. There are just a few formalities that need to process until this happens. When this is done, you will be able to log into your ewallets and obtain any funds that you have had sitting in there either from Zeek Rewards commissions and/or your own funds that have just been frozen. The receiver, Kenneth Bell, actually never did freeze these and it was the ewallets themselves that took it upon them to freeze our funds.

We have been taking heat from the "talking heads" on the Internet for having not filed the motion for freeing up the ewallets. But in all reality, the reason why the motion has not been filed is because Bell agreed that the ewallets where not frozen by him and Bell was not going to stop the ewallets from being unfrozen. So please let these bone heads online that have no idea what they are talking about know that we have succeeded with our lawyers to open up these ewallets for all Zeek affiliates. Believe me, if it was not for our fight, this would not have happened. Congratulations to our lawyers for another victory!

The next phase is filing the motion with the courts to have all of the pending Zeek Rewards commissions that were processing to be paid to us for the work that we already did. All of these phases are building blocks needed to move forward in the process of winning this fight by proving that Zeek Rewards was not a Ponzi or an investment but rather a very profitable legitimate business.

Last week Robert received information from a trusted source that told him that as we continue to move forward with this fight, Paul Burks may be willing to join the fight. He feels that there is a good possibility that Paul may want to move in the direction of correcting some of the decisions that he made prior under duress that hurt our case and to fight back.

For Zeek Members that would like to send their support for us to fight this battle and challenge the actions of the US Government and get the funds due to you released, please use the Fun Club USA Solid Trust Pay Account to send your donations. The username is ( funclubusa ). Again we want to thank you for all the help you have given. You can also submit check details on the site listed under donations.

Building Other Businesses

We are happy to finally announce another company that we have fully researched and now feel good in where they are heading as a company. Since Zeek Rewards went down, we have cautioned everyone on our team about working with another penny auction company until things between Zeek and the SEC could give us a better understanding of where this industry was going to head. Now that we see things positively moving forward with our Zeek fight, we feel comfortable now building the company Bids That Give.

(sales pitch for the new penny auction ponzi deleted)

OK, the e-wallets specifically NXPay had tens if not hundreds of thousand accounts frozen by the receiver, a copy of the email sent by NX Systems to the affected affiliates can be found here. From which I quote:

..,.Once reconciliation has been completed we will send out email notifications confirming the end of this process. This will be followed by instructions on releasing account holder’s funds that were loaded to NxPay® account, but never committed to Zeek Rewards. Any funds that were dispersed or committed to Zeek Rewards or deemed to be payouts by Zeek Rewards to account holders NxPay® wallet will be held in compliance with our directive from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and will thus be surrendered to the SEC for redistribution by the appointed Receiver of the SEC investigation.

Well it looks like that reconciliation process is just about done and the receiver is getting ready to release ewallet accounts it has no claim to. But Robert and Dave are crowing that ALL the ewallet accounts are going to be released (including the $450k the Kettners and Mr. Sorrells were fixing to fight for). It's difficult to decide if they are that stupid or if they just think their loyal affiliates are (but it could be both).

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:25 pm
by notorial dissent
GlimDropper wrote:It's difficult to decide if they(1) are that stupid or if they just think their loyal (2)affiliates are (but it could be both).

I don't know about (1), but I will definitely give you good odds on (2) as a dead certainty.

I thought Craddy was gilding the lily again when he was going on about the ewallets being released, nice to see it was as I suspected.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:52 am
by GlimDropper
Well what do you know, the Fun Club finally filed something, or two somethings. No pdf links as of yet, just Google docs but I give you:

Motion to Appoint Representative for Affiliates and

Brief in Support of Motion to Appoint Representative for Affiliates

It sounds as if they want one of the Fun Club lawyers appointed as the representative for all of Zeek affiliates and they want that attorney to be paid by the receivership estate. As I mentioned above, for the moment I only have copies of the Google docs and can not copy and paste from them or I'd highlight some relevant portions. But there seems to be no acknowledgement of any difference between the affiliates who are owed money from the estate and those who owe money to it. The supporting brief mentions the potential distress that many people receiving subpoenas are experiencing but mentions nothing about the people who put more money than the could afford to lose into the program but never took out a dime. How could one representative or "examiner" serve both the winners and losers?

So, does this have any chance of flying?

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:18 pm
by wserra
pdfs of the motion and the supporting memo of law. You want to read the latter.

My take on the situation: This is a motion for the appointment of an examiner. Usually used in bankruptcy proceedings, the function of an examiner depends on the particular case, but generally speaking is to act as an impartial investigator to lay out facts for the Court. Although this is not a bankruptcy, I think there is little question that a District Court has the power to make such an appointment in the appropriate case. The issues are whether this is such a case and, if so, who it should be.

First of all, in this situation the receiver's mandate includes the functions of an "examiner". It's Bell's job to canvas who owes and who is owed, report it to the Court, and as best as possible to collect and disburse. There is no need for an examiner here, and (since s/he would be paid from what is left of Zeek funds) one's appointment would further diminish the amount recouped. These guys never specify what an "examiner" would do that Bell isn't - other, of course, than to try to block him from recouping ill-gotten gains.

The only response from Quilling et al to this fairly obvious point is in ¶8 of the memo: it is in fact the Receiver who is trying to clawback funds from these "hard-working Affiliates". Well, yeah. That's part of what the Court appointed him to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get an "examiner". You don't like it, you go to Court and argue on behalf of those who retained you. On their dime, not the dimes of those already ripped off by Zeek. As GD notes, the large issue of the conflicts between the ripping-off and ripped-off affiliates is completely unaddressed.

Finally, to me the best of all: when a court appoints an examiner, the court chooses who it will be. An examiner is to be impartial, not an advocate. If a District Court, the DJ will frequently direct the assigned M-J to issue a "Report and Recommendation". Quilling et al want the Court to appoint him as the examiner, and then pay him - the person making the application - from receivership funds. Not only is that not the way it works, it comes well within my definition of chutzpah.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:46 pm
by notorial dissent
WES, very good points here, the Receiver is basically supposed to be an independent, of the SEC, and impartial manager of the estate and its assets to the benefit of all those affected by the estate. Now if in that administration it happens to require getting money back from "affiliates" who hadn't done anything to earn it, then he is just doing his job. There is no reason for a second impartial manager, and I question how Quilling et al could be considered impartial since they are in fact representing people with an interest in the outcome.

I still don't see how Quilling could possibly represent both the rest of the affiliates and Fund Club at the same time.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:10 pm
by GlimDropper
Thanks (again) to both of you. There are some areas where law and common sense diverge but this doesn't seem to be one of them. Jordan Maglich runs the Ponzi tracker blog and has posted an update on the recent Fun Club related activities:

Zeek Rewards Update: Subpoenas Challenged, Affiliates Want 'Examiner' Appointed (And Paid) By Receivership

A few select quotes:

The Motion to Appoint Examiner

The next notable development was the Friday filing by Michael Quilling, who represents 'victims' group Fun Club USA, seeking the appointment of himself as an "Examiner" that would act as a representative on behalf of all "affiliates" (the "Examiner Motion"). As stated by Mr. Quilling,

The Affiliates need representation of their interests in this case and Movants request that the Court appoint Michael J Quilling as Examiner in these proceedings to represent the collective interests of the Affiliates and all creditors of the receivership estate and that the Examiner and his counsel be compensated out of the receivership estate.

Not suprisingly, the Examiner Motion, along with a brief filed in support, is nearly devoid of legal support. Mr. Quilling is only able to cite two cases, including one in which Mr. Quilling himself previously served as Receiver and recommended the appointment of an examiner. In that case, the examiner received nearly $1 million for serving as a "voice" for investors. Instead, the Motion appeals to the "equitable" powers of the Court, the emotional toll on victims, and delivers a passionate plea that "these people deserve a voice before the court."


Indeed, in the Stanford case cited as an example in the Examiner Motion, the examiner appointed was required to first file an affidavit disclosing whether any grounds existed that prevented his appointment as judged under the statute governing the disqualification of a judge, justice, or magistrate judge in a proceeding. That statute, 28 U.S.C. 455, not only encourages disqualification where "impartiality may be questioned", but also in the following circumstance:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

Here, the nominated Examiner, Michael Quilling, not only currently serves as a lawyer in the matter in controversy for a particular victim group as described in subsection (2), but could also be characterized as having a "personal bias" or "personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding" stemming from his attorney-client relationship with Fun Club. At least one of the reputed Fun Club members is an individual who delivers regular updates to certain victims and who also disclosed that he was the target of an SEC subpoena concerning his relationship with Zeek.

The rest of the very well written article is available at the link above.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:22 pm
by Wizzard7
I can hardly wait for the call tonight... :mouthshut:

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:24 pm
by Lambkin ... ase-status
The receiver for the alleged Ponzi scheme, Zeek Rewards, filed case documents in more than 60 federal court districts this week, hinting at where receivership property may be located.

Charlotte attorney Kenneth Bell, originally appointed receiver in mid-August, was reappointed Dec. 4. In his consent motion to the court, Bell said reappointment was necessary to fully comply with federal codes that give him jurisdiction in parts of the nation where receivership property may be located.
Bell mailed out 1,200 subpoenas to the top profiteers, most who made more than $100,000, in late October. He said he's received a "mixed bag" of responses.

"Some have objected to the subpoenas and have not provided anything so far," Bell said. "We've had scores of people who have been very cooperative in providing documents and have entered into settlement negotiations."

He added that others have responded by asking for more time to review the subpoenas, telling Bell they intend to cooperate in the future. The receivership team has re-issued subpoenas to those who have objected to the original documents sent out via U.S. Mail, he said.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:58 pm
by Lambkin
Conference call details in the article. ... Conference
According to Kenneth D. Bell, the appointed receiver of Rex Venture Group/LLC (d/b/a, he will hold a web conference call on December 17th, 2012 at 5:00PM.

During the call, Bell says that he will answer individual questions about the process that is taking place, the progress, next steps, estimated timeline, and rumors regarding receivership.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 am
by Lambkin
Long article describing the recent conference call ... /312179980
Most victims of the alleged Ponzi scheme, Zeek Rewards, will not be made 100 percent whole, the case's court-appointed receiver said Monday.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:50 am
by GlimDropper
I'm afraid I've been busier than a one armed paper hanger with the rickets lately and as such have failed to document the ever ongoing bull crap of Mr. Craddock. Which is a shame because stuff is happening. It seems that excerpts of his conference calls have found their way into the public record and by an amazing coincidence those calls have become both less frequent and more clandestine. It's so cute that Robert thinks this will help him.

Anyway, sorta last week but Robert and no one other than Robert and the people who look to him for information were shocked, shocked I tell you to discover that money sent from Zeek Rewards to affiliates "ewallets" were actually assets of the receivership and were impounded as such. Fun Club's attorneys filed a strongly worded motion questioning this action and a brief in support of that motion (and 12 evidenciary filings which can be found at Wizzard7's file site under ZeekDoc 81.1-12).

More recently, not only did receiver Ken Bell file his objection to the Fun Club's motion to appoint a "representative for the affiliates" but the SEC did as well. Never a man to shut his lie hole when it seems a prudent thing to do, Robert replied today:


December 18, 2012

Greetings Good People,

We just want to see an end to this ongoing extortion of this group by Kenneth Bell, as do you. Rodney and Michael our attorneys are crystal clear, no one should in anyway hand over any funds to Kenneth Bell, and he knows and has acknowledged he does not have the ability to win in a crawl back action. Read the filings

Attention needs to be brought to the court about Kenneth Bell’s ongoing intimidation tactics against this group.

It’s obvious to me as I’m sure it is to others, that Kenneth Bell is using his position not to protect a victim(s), as he clearly knows there was none, until He was appointed as receiver, and took millions of dollars in checks and cashed them. But to use the US government as his personal agency, to steal and extort good honest business people out of their hard earned money. I know these are hard words, but people just look at the facts.

Because I and others have stood up to say this is not right, Kenneth Bell has sent me and others requests for information, knowing full well, he has access to all the information he is seeking with the database that once belonged to Rex Venture Group.

Kenneth Bell has full knowledge that my involvement was minor and the net gain as he would say was just $200.00 so for Kenneth Bell to waste money for an amount that is a small percentage of what he is spending is criminal in my opinion. How can the court allow someone being so reckless, with the truth and the funds he is in trusted with to continue?

Kenneth Bell in my opinion is unwilling to listen to any evidence of how we all worked to build and promote a legal penny auction, every breath coming from Kenneth mouth is saying we invested and we all know we bought bids. And last when he discusses the case he uses statements like big winners and losers. This is all design to pit people against each other, that jointly worked together to build a future for their families and friends.

Has anyone truly looked at Kenneth Bell's Motivation for not wanting to allow the truth to come out about this case? Could it be that it would financially impact him and the law firm he is with, if he was simply honest, with the court about the true facts involving Rex Venture Group (Zeek Rewards).

Kenneth only hope is to scare and intimidate the people in hopes they would simply, give him their money, knowing once he received the funds, none of it will go to anyone in the Zeek Affiliated family, don’t allow him to confuse and mislead you.


Robert's under a bit of pressure, the natives are getting restless. It seems that some of Zeek's true believers harbor some misgivings about Robert (et al) beginning to actively promote other (hence lesser) ponzi schemes. There are rumors, as of yet unconfirmed that the core vanguard of the "loyal affiliates" have even established an even more secretive and private facebook group to plan and make strategy without the possibly disloyal Robert. Oh, but who could they look to for a new hero?

Well, Ira Sorkin fits the bill and when someone like Trudy Gilmond racks up a 1.3 million dollar profit in Zeek she can afford his retainer.


Declaration of Trudy Gilmond in Support of Motion to Intervene

Declaration of Kellie King in Support of Motion to Intervene

I'm not one of you law talking guys so will not address the veracity of his arguments but as far as style points go Mr. Sorkin makes Mike Quilling look like a punk. Trudy Gilmond is a cash gifting princess and serial scammer who in my humble opinion should be serving bowls of soup to homeless people as penance only being fed herself after the legitimately needy have been provided for. But she has a million plus in ill gotten gains and a top flight attorney helping her to keep them. For the love of God and of Justice I hope Mr. Sorkin is burning Trudy's billable hours in every bit as much of a feel good, go no where puppet show as the Fun Club attorneys are.

Jordan Maglich has been doing his usual good work with update on his PonziTracker blog, his remarks on Sorkin's motions and Ken Bell's recent conference call. And Don (Wizzard7) Ryan has been much more diligent in updates on this case than i have been of late and he as always has my continued thanks for making the court documents available to all interested parties.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:28 pm
by notorial dissent
I'm sure there are a lot of things that shock our good buddy Robert, the fact that the courts are going to not only expect, but require that that money that came from Zeek belongs to the estate, and that he might have to not only pay some, but a lot of it back. I suspect our poor delicate flower is due for some more serious shcoks to his delicate widdle system.

Seriously, for a moment, I am confused about how he could only have a couple of hundred dollars involved in this thing if he is getting so hot and bothered about it. He very much reminds me of someone I knew from the bad old days of the Penny Market, who on paper and to all appearances had little if any contact in that world, yet low and behold, one of his pet brokerages went down they found files in his nominee name that went right back to him, and the more they looked the more they found, and suddenly he wasn't to innocent and sincere about his concern for the "poor investors".

There is just very little reason for there to be money going in to an ewallet account from Zeek that wasn't really money coming from Zeek, so that line rings real false.

More than anything, I want him to quit using the term "crawl back" it is just so wrong, and so covers this whole thing.

Just who is he trying to make Bell out to be? He is the conservator of the estate appointed by the SEC and the court at the end of the legal actions, he isn't some outside interest antagonistic to the "valid" Zeek claims, although is going to be the sticking point here I think, when that comes down to the nitty gritty, we can pretty well bet that Bobby will disagree strenuously with whatever the receiver comes up with.

Again, truth about what case? The Rex Ventures case is a litigated, closed, dead, decided item, and so far there haven't been any other legal actions issuing.

Ah well, the comedy just keeps right on flowing.