Page 14 of 14

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:35 am
by Lambkin
http://www.wxii12.com/news/zeek-rewards ... e/29325082
A federal grand jury in Charlotte on Friday indicted Paul Burks, the 67-year-old president of ZeekRewards and the online penny auction site Zeekler.com.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:00 am
by notorial dissent
Doesn't sound like things are going too well for Paul at all. Wonder if any of his investment buddies will be joining him sometime soon in the dock? I'll bet he/they thought they'd bought their way out of this, maybe not.

I thought his justification was about as pitiful as anything I've seen.


Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:30 am
by EagleOne
I think that Paul is going to have a lot more company in the coming weeks and months. How many is not known, but if I had to guess there are at least 5-6 more that could have criminal charges filed against them, and could go as high as 10. Some may be charged with obstruction of justice, which they deserve.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:35 am
by JamesVincent
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - The president of ZeekRewards, Paul Burks, has been indicted on federal charges for operating an Internet Ponzi scheme that took in more than $850 million dollars, announced Anne M. Tompkins, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. The criminal indictment was returned today by a federal grand jury sitting in Charlotte, charging Burks, 67, of Lexington, N.C., with wire and mail fraud conspiracy, wire and mail fraud, and tax fraud conspiracy.


http://www.npros.com/press/2014/10/28/3307/zeekrewards-president-indicted-on-federal-charges.htm

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:15 pm
by notorial dissent
Bet thar be palpitations a plenty amongst Burke's old crew.

Can't help wondering who all and for how much they'll go after. Gonna get fun, gonna need extra popcorn.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:02 am
by EagleOne
When the Zeek Rewards Receivership was accepting claims from victims, a group of victims of Zeek was contacted by Patrick Miller LLC for representation not realizing the Receiver was acting on their behalf.

The law firm set up the “zeekrewardsclassaction.com” website and began soliciting its own claims from Zeek Rewards affiliates. The reason Patrick Miller LLC didn’t want Zeek victims filing their own claims is because they then wouldn’t get a cut of the claims paid out by the Receiver if paid directly to their clients.

All in all some 739 Zeek investors filed claims through Patrick Miller LLC. The firm put their own address on the submitted claims, with the intention that the Receivership send them victim’s checks. They had hoped to collect as much as 25% of the victim’s payouts in legal fees, but the Receivership refused to deal with them.

After legal filings back and forth between the Receiver and Patrick Miller, LLC, Judge Mullen made a ruling on the dispute yesterday. The Judge ruled: The Receiver’s Objection to Counsel’s Notice of Attorney’s Charging Lien and Request for Order in Aid of Distribution is SUSTAINED and GRANTED. Plaintiff Jonny Belsome, et al.’s Notice of Attorney’s Charging Lien (Doc. No. 258) is hereby DENIED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.

Patrick Miller, LLC must now provide all their clients information to the Receiver so he can pay the funds directly to them. Patrick Miller, LLC must now try to collect their fees from their clients.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:52 pm
by JamesVincent
EagleOne wrote: When the Zeek Rewards Receivership was accepting claims from victims, a group of victims of Zeek was contacted by Patrick Miller LLC for representation not realizing the Receiver was acting on their behalf.

The law firm set up the “zeekrewardsclassaction.com” website and began soliciting its own claims from Zeek Rewards affiliates. The reason Patrick Miller LLC didn’t want Zeek victims filing their own claims is because they then wouldn’t get a cut of the claims paid out by the Receiver if paid directly to their clients.

All in all some 739 Zeek investors filed claims through Patrick Miller LLC. The firm put their own address on the submitted claims, with the intention that the Receivership send them victim’s checks. They had hoped to collect as much as 25% of the victim’s payouts in legal fees, but the Receivership refused to deal with them.

After legal filings back and forth between the Receiver and Patrick Miller, LLC, Judge Mullen made a ruling on the dispute yesterday. The Judge ruled: The Receiver’s Objection to Counsel’s Notice of Attorney’s Charging Lien and Request for Order in Aid of Distribution is SUSTAINED and GRANTED. Plaintiff Jonny Belsome, et al.’s Notice of Attorney’s Charging Lien (Doc. No. 258) is hereby DENIED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.

Patrick Miller, LLC must now provide all their clients information to the Receiver so he can pay the funds directly to them. Patrick Miller, LLC must now try to collect their fees from their clients.


Good news for an endless spring. Love seeing ambulance chasers get shot in the foot.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:33 pm
by notorial dissent
Then there was the one set up by a handful of the net winners who wanted to set up essentially a second receivership to guard the fairness towards the affected class, the net winners, and they were trying to get the net losers to pay for it, charming bunch and that didn't go very far either.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:11 pm
by EagleOne
Seems Patrick Miller, LLC does not like the word "NO." They have appealed the judge's order they cannot receive payments for their clients. I guess they don't trust their clients to pay them if they don't get paid directly from the Receiver.

Also the Receiver has put up a new website for all those who were experiencing payment issues so they could be resolved.

It will be interesting to see how the appeals court rules, or refuses to take the case.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:22 am
by EagleOne
Well, it seems the law firm is not the only one who doesn't like to be told NO by the Receiver and the court. Now NxPay is fighting the order to return over $9 Million Dollars to the Receiver they are holding. They have until 12/22 to file their reasons why they shouldn't give it to the Receiver. I guess they think if they hold off long enough, they will earn enough interest they wouldn't be giving up that much money.

If they think they are going to win, I can't wait to hear how they claim they are entitled to keep money from a Ponzi and not have to pay it back. Really looking forward to watching both of these scenarios play out. Anyone bringing popcorn? I'm buying the Big Gulps. :lol:

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:57 am
by notorial dissent
I knew NxPay was involved there towards the end, I just didn't realize they had their hands in quite that deep, and I'm sure they would like to keep what really isn't theirs, but I don't see it happening with this Receiver. I should hope he thinks to ask for the accrued interest as well, since it really isn't theirs either.

You're right, this could get really entertaining. Definitely popcorn time.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:30 am
by EagleOne
On December 29, Kenneth Bell filed a Federal lawsuit entitled "Bell v. Bjerring et al". The case has been assigned to Senior District Judge Graham Mullen, who also presides on the many other Zeek cases.

The named defendants are:

Gert Bjerring of Queensland, Australia, $826,801.73 under one or more usernames
David Mitchell of New South Wales, Australia, $298,802.10 under one or more usernames
Nicola Holloway of Queensland, Australia, $273,009.36 under one or more usernames
Sam Fawahl of Victoria, Australia, $232,564.55 under one or more usernames
Warren Hickey of Queensland, Australia, $159,757.73 under one or more usernames
Lars Frederiksen of Western Australia, $139,365.49 under one or more usernames
Paul Mandelt of Western Australia, $128,913.02 under one or more usernames,
Kelvian Hansen of Queensland, Australia, $111,799.43 under one or more usernames
Anni Thompson of Queensland, Australia, $95,566.00 under one or more usernames
Ann Audrey Hickey of Queensland, Australia, $83,487.05 under one or more usernames
R&J Thumm Family P/L as Trustee for Thumm Investment Trust, Australia, $80,130.26 under one or more usernames
David Cane of Queensland, Australia, $77,296.57 under one or more usernames
Donna Walton of Queensland, Australia, $76,730.36 under one or more usernames
Michael Georghiou of Victoria, Australia, $74,968.93 under one or more usernames
Thomas von Eitzen of Queensland, Australia, $74,854.07 under one or more usernames
Bradley Ferries of Queensland, Australia, $72,325.96 under one or more usernames
Robin Reid of Queensland, Australia, $61,114.41 under one or more usernames
Linda Welch of Queensland, Australia, $60,274.22 under one or more usernames,
Maureen Fisher of Queensland, Australia, $55,797.49 under one or more usernames
Barry Goodsell of Western Australia, $53,650.26 under one or more usernames
David Joseph of Western Australia, $52,581.70 under one or more usernames
Birthe Seaton of New South Wales, Australia, $52,477.31 under one or more usernames

Guess they wish now they had settled when they had the chance. Some never learn. Can't wait to see who is on the next foreign list of winners to be sued. You know it is coming. 2015 is going to be a very interesting year for all the "winners" in Zeek.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:19 am
by EagleOne
In an interesting twist, Kevin Thompson announced that Kevin Grimes was joining KT's law firm. I would have thought he would have waited to see the outcome of Keving Grimes legal issues with Kenneth Bell before bringing him on board. Also makes me wonder if KT will be KG's legal counsel in the Receivers case.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:44 am
by EagleOne
Judge Mullen has ordered that all the US Winners in Zeek will be tried in a class-action lawsuit. Something that the major winners did not want to happen and fought to no avail.

The Receiver has also filed lawsuits against the Canadians, New Zealanders, British Virgin Islanders, Norwegians as well as the previously reported Aussies who did not settle with him. I think there are a lot of foreign winners who now realize they are next if they don't settle before he files. The only question is which country/countries is/are next on the list of winners?

Can't wait for the results of all these lawsuits to see just how much money he wins. Of course most are going to claim they spent it all as they believed Zeek was a real company and business and were entitled to the money. Or at least they will try. I'm sure the Receiver will work out a payment plan for them....at least I hope so.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:28 pm
by Arthur Rubin
I'd never heard of a "class-action" lawsuit with a class of defendants. Or possibly the judge means something different by "class-action lawsuit" than a "class action" lawsuit.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:17 pm
by wserra
Arthur Rubin wrote:I'd never heard of a "class-action" lawsuit with a class of defendants. Or possibly the judge means something different by "class-action lawsuit" than a "class action" lawsuit.


FRCvP 23 wrote:Class Actions

(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

(b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:

(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:
Emphasis supplied.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:00 pm
by Arthur Rubin
My apologies. I knew a real lawyer would have something useful to say. However, I'm not sure (a)(4) could actually be met. (It might be the case that (a)(1) could not be met; it seems traditional to add "Doe"s 1 through 100 in lawsuits, and I'm not sure there are 100 net winners. But I'm not sure who would have an interest in arguing that point.)

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:07 pm
by EagleOne
Arthur Rubin wrote:My apologies. I knew a real lawyer would have something useful to say. However, I'm not sure (a)(4) could actually be met. (It might be the case that (a)(1) could not be met; it seems traditional to add "Doe"s 1 through 100 in lawsuits, and I'm not sure there are 100 net winners. But I'm not sure who would have an interest in arguing that point.)


There are 9100+ net winners in Zeek from the U.S. that did not settle with the Receiver thus the designation of the class. I think they meet the threshold and then some to be considered as a class. My error in putting a hyphen in Class Action.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:15 am
by EagleOne
The latest group to be sued by the Receiver:

The UK residents believed to be "Net Winners":

12. Shaun Smith is, upon information and belief, a resident of Bridgnorth, United Kingdom. Smith is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $262,900.31 under one or more usernames, including “topincometeam.”

13. Peter William Bennett is, upon information and belief, a resident of Wokingham, United Kingdom. Bennett is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $257,573.30 under one or more usernames, including “orchard.”

14. Mark Anthony Ferrie is, upon information and belief, a resident of Abergavenny, United Kingdom. Ferrie is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $212,072.60 under one or more usernames, including “maferrie.”

15. Gary Bryan Morris is, upon information and belief, a resident of Abergavenny, United Kingdom. Morris is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $342,405.01 under one or more usernames, including “everychance.”

16. Kalpesh Patel is, upon information and belief, a resident of Newham, London, United Kingdom. Patel is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $140,842.47 under one or more usernames, including “international.”

17. Parvis Parvizi is, upon information and belief, a resident of Macclesfield, United Kingdom. Parvizi is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $90,518.83 under one or more usernames, including “globalpartners.”

18. Cathal Lambe is, upon information and belief, a resident of Omagh, United Kingdom. Lambe is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $90,311.21 under one or more usernames, including “luckoftheirish.”

19. Adrian John Hibbert is, upon information and belief, a resident of Sully, United Kingdom. Hibbert is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $82,103.51 under one or more usernames, including “ade.”

20. John Noakes is, upon information and belief, a resident of Croydon, London, United Kingdon. Noakes is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $59,850.62 under one or more usernames, including “syfgroup.”

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:25 pm
by Gregg
19. Adrian John Hibbert is, upon information and belief, a resident of Sully, United Kingdom. Hibbert is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $82,103.51 under one or more usernames, including “ade.”


I'm glad to see this one. Adrian is /was Honeynotvinegar in another scam (I can't keep track of them all anymore) who just grated on me for being first, one of thoese mods who deletes anything not all kittens and unicorns positive about a program, and second, an especially annoying twit when he bragged about how much "I got paid" this week in the scams he was in. Sort of like a prototype of Symon Stepsys without the pointing finger....

Image


By the way, the 100 Quatloos Reward I once offered for anyone who could prove to me that they had broken his index finger on either hand still stands....