Page 1 of 14

Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:07 am
by GlimDropper
Zeek Rewards is the latest and greatest of the internet "revenue sharing" programs, they are paying out an approximate 1.5% daily compounding ROI on the program's "VIP Points" and they insist they are doing it 100% legally. How legally? I could get kicked out of the program when I post things like "ROI," "Compounding" or near any synonym for "Investing" in reference to the company or their pay plan. They also hired Gerry Nehra and Keith Laggos (both of Ad Surf Daily fame) and Kevin Grimes (from BurnLounge) to tell everyone how legal and "compliant" Zeek Rewards (ZR) is.

It also seems that ZR doesn't cotton much to critics. A gentleman who posts under the screen name of K. Chang writes the "A MLM Sceptic" blog recently has seen his "Hub Page" blog about ZR removed by a take down notice from someone claiming to be a representative of ZR and informed that ZR's legal council (Kevin Grimes) would "want to weigh in" on this situation.
Link to a PDF copy of the complaint send by the ZR representative to the owners of Hub Pages (Rex Ventures Group being the parent company to ZR)

Seems fairly vague and farcical but HubPages took the page down without any investigation. A copy of an e-mail sent by the self identified ZR representative to Mr. Chang:

Robert Craddock (
To (

I'm following up about the content you published on HubPages, regarding Zeek Rewards and companies connected with or believed to be connected with.

If you would respond with a number so I can discuss this matter with you


Robert Craddock
Rex Venture Group LLC

I think he was just fishing for personally identifiable contact info. Mr. Chang's reply:

Mr. Craddock,

Care to provide your bonafides first? I'm not releasing my phone number to anyone over the Internet
just because they *claim* to be from a particular business. Not to mention you're using a free webmail
address same as I am, one that never appeared on Google, and your name is not listed among Zeek
employees or RVG that I can see.

If you believe I have made a factual mistake in my hub, you are welcome to provide the proper facts,
and I'll gladly update them and analyze those facts.

As you have responded promptly, I believe you should have no problem in providing me with a list of
content RVG seem to have a problem with, within say, 48 hours. As this is over the weekend, I expect
to see a list by coming Monday by noon.

If I do not see one, I will then assume that you have no real objections to my hub, and request that
it be republished as soon as possible.

And this entire conversation via e-mail will be added to the hub itself, of course. (with addresses
redacted, if you wish)


Mr. Craddock's response:

I can understand that I'm not listed in the RVG pages, but I'm a consultant for Zeek and I'm the person that contacted Hub Pages. As I stated, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the impact your posting has generated. As you are aware of, the posting is quite large and will take some time to go over the entire site but, if needed, I will start now and let you know in detail all our concerns. I do not expect to have it completed by Monday as Kevin Grimes, RVG corporate attorney will also want to weigh in on this discussion if that is what it takes to keep your posting from being re-published on Hub Pages or anywhere else, as we believe and know this story contains false information and is disruptive to our affiliates.

if you desire is to post a story about Zeek I'm willing to go over it with you or I can just make notes that are of concern on your posting, as I saved it in a PDF and get it back to you. This way everyone should be happy, but again that will take longer than just this weekend.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed as of now, this was a friendly request and no future action was planned.

Robert Craddock

I am told that Lynn Edgington of Eagle Research Associates will be republishing Mr. Chang's information in full as soon as possible so the content will be available to the public and for review by good people like the ones here. In my in no way professional opinion this is shaping up to be a classic SLAPP suit. When a company like Zeek Rewards starts throwing their high priced legal weight around in hopes of sweeping their critics under a rug I think it's time to get the word out about it. If they could beat us with facts they would, but they can't so plan B is trying to shut us up. :lol:

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:49 am
by notorial dissent
I would say the claims, the people involved, and the tactics, pretty well speak for themselves in this.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:01 pm
by co-shoot
Well shoot, ahh what the heck its free to join, I think i will go on this scam and see first hand if it works ,opps i mean how many more years life it has. :roll:

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:05 pm
by wserra
That threatening letter to HubPages GD linked to (I gave it a more permanent home here) is a hoot. Obviously the work of pros. First of all, the subject "Re: Copyright, Trademark infringement": I haven't seen the blog post, but I strongly doubt it's copyright infringement, and would bet the farm it's not trademark infringement. Any parts of the Zeek site that Chang reproduced for the purpose of commenting on it very likely constitutes fair use - especially since Chang's use was non-commercial. And trademark infringement only exists when the infringer uses a similar name for the purpose of confusing another product with that of the trademark holder - obviously not something going on here. Anyone can write the names they claim as trademarks - Zeekler, Zeek Rewards, Shopping Daisy - as often as s/he wants without infringing, so long as s/he is not promoting a product. Here you go, guys:

Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy;Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy
Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy;Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy
Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy;Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy
Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy;Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy
Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy;Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy
Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy;Zeekler; Zeek Rewards; Shopping Daisy

Sue me. And it's not "tortuous" interference, you morons, it's "tortious". I would think your lawyers would know that. 'Course, Chang didn't do either one. But "infringement" scares site owners more than does "libel".

Speaking of their lawyers, as GD notes, Nehra didn't do so well with Ad Surf Daily. Moreover, what a lot of people don't know: Nehra actually testified on behalf of ASD/Bowdoin. Did them a lot of good, right? In one of the most genteel critical comments I've ever seen from a judge, Judge Collyer characterized Nehra as "demonstrat[ing] the fallibilities of the professional expert witness". Not only did she (over Nehra's testimony) find ASD a ponzi, but Bowdoin is now in jail.

One other thing: take a look at Zeek's 2011 income statement. They wipe out a substantial chunk of their membership by playing the usual "active" game, only including distributors who recruit at least two suckers during the year. Their own stats: the average annual income was $1076.24 - and the median was $0.00. That's right, 66% - two of three - U.S. distributors made nothing at all. Moreover, they don't tell you how much these poor schmucks were out of pocket buying "bids".

Such a deal. And litigious assholes, to boot.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:47 pm
by GlimDropper
Thank you for weighing in Wes. We've been laughing at the "tortuous" interference over at RS for a bit now.

A few quick points, the person who wrote the "take down" letter isn't an attorney, he claims to be some sort of independent consultant for Zeek Rewards/Rex Ventures Group. His name is Robert Craddock and his recently deleted Linkedin profile mentioned a previous affiliation with Fortune High Tech Marketing. He did threaten K. Chang that Kevin Grimes, one of ZR/RVG's attorneys will be addressing this situation.

One interesting development, Patrick Pretty's blog has a recent post revealing that the trademarks listed in the take down notice are not owned by Zeek rewards or by Rex Ventures Group but rather by a printing company in Florida which supplies ZR with bumper stickers, buisness cards and all manner of ZR promotional items. I've just started to do a little digging into that company and they may well be worthy of a forum post somewhere but that's a separate issue.

It is less than clear if Mr. Craddock had the authority to issue any formal notice on ZR/RVG's behalf and it's also unclear if ZR/RVG has the legal authority to even make a claim of infringement (however invalid) on trademarks it doesn't own. But what is clear is that getting Mr.Chang's Hub Page offline and intimidating him into not republishing his information is Mr. Craddock's objective. He got the Hub page taken down but that may not be permanent and even if Hub Pages wont publish the info, at least one other website will. As for intimidating him, Mr. Chang is a smart and savvy man, he wont fold to a bluff and I doubt Kevin Grimes is foolish enough to escalate this beyond an e-mail pissing match.

wserra wrote:One other thing: take a look at Zeek's 2011 income statement. They wipe out a substantial chunk of their membership by playing the usual "active" game, only including distributors who recruit at least two suckers during the year. Their own stats: the average annual income was $1076.24 - and the median was $0.00. That's right, 66% - two of three - U.S. distributors made nothing at all. Moreover, they don't tell you how much these poor schmucks were out of pocket buying "bids".

Zeek rewards is almost impervious to mathematical analysis. You do not earn "VIP Points" from buying bids, you earn them from buying bids and then and giving them away to "customers." There are rumors that changes are on the way for some aspects of the program but a "customer" is pretty much an affiliate who doesn't pay the monthly fee required to earn "rewards." There is a limit of the total number of bids you can give to any one "customer," for every 1,000 bids you give away you need a new customer.

ZR used to sell customers to you but they all had user names like Joe175 and Mary284 and it seemed like none of them responded to e-mails or ever purchased bids on their own. Why it was almost like they were "virtual" customers who's only provable existence was a free email address and a ZR membership account. Back in March of this year one of ZR's "compliance attorneys" must have told them that selling fake customers to make imaginary "sales" might not be viewed favorably by the FTC so they stopped doing it (to new affiliates, the old ones were grandfathered in and still get "leads" provided by the company). Now there are third party companies selling ZR affiliates their imaginary customers.

It does actually get worse than that, I could spend $1,000 to buy 1,000 VIP bids either to give away to my "customers" (to earn VIP points) or use in the auctions. Or, I could get a free email account and use it to create my own fake customer, have that account buy 1,000 VIP bids and as my own sponsor, I'd receive a 20% commission off the top AND 1,000 VIP points and my second account would still have 1,000 VIP bids to play the auctions with.

Every day you'll see Zeekler auction results where the total cost of the bids used to win the auction exceeds the value of the prize. But the final purchase price is still lower than the prize value and since you can opt for the cash value instead of what ever the prize was, the over bidding makes sense. The bids themselves actually cost less than nothing (as long as the 1.5% compounding daily ROI on VIP points lasts) so if you need to use 250 $1 bids to win an auction prize worth $100 you still come out ahead when you factor the cash value of the prize.

The most recent boast is that there are 1.2 million ZR affiliates on the planet but it's impossible to know how many of them are empty email accounts or accounts made to game the pay plan.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:55 am
by kschang
FYI, my hub is back online, thanks for concerns by everyone.

Apparently Hubpages is just slow as heck processing my counter-takedown request.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:28 pm
by wserra
kschang wrote:FYI, my hub is back online, thanks for concerns by everyone.

Apparently Hubpages is just slow as heck processing my counter-takedown request.

Welcome to Quatloos, kschang.

Especially since you are now posting here, I have been looking forward to reading your piece. However, if your page is, it is either still or again not online. Our colleague GlimDropper wrote that Lynn was publishing it, but Lynn's page on Zeek has only the non-functional link.

I'm not sure how long your piece is, but you should feel free to summarize your findings here.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:59 am
by GlimDropper
I am pleased to say that Mr. Chang's Hub Page is back up and available at the link in Wes's post above. I've taken the further precaution of taking a webcite snap shot of the page as it exists today.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:16 am
by EagleOne
Well, Zeek has been shut down. The problems began the beginning of the week when Zeek announced that their would be no training classes for the week. Then they announced next week's red carpet event was cancelled with no explanation and no questions were allowed. Then their website, blogs and forum went down saying they were closed until further notice. Then it was reported that the office had been closed and would not re-open for the remainder of this week. Later it was announced that the office locks had been changed and someone saw an employee leaving with a box of office supplies. Signs were posted in the windows of the office telling of the office closure.

MLM Lawyer posted on Google that it is over and Zeek is no more, and that all the employees were terminated this afternoon. Not sure where he got the information.

Zeek was under a CID from the NC AG, and it is not clear if the AG was the one doing the closure of everything, or if there was a federal agency also involved. A lot of rumors and speculation as to who did the closing and for how long.

This is still a developing story, and I am sure tomorrow will be quite an interesting day on the forums. Well, at least not on MMG unless they open the forum back up. They locked it down tonight.

Reminds me of ASD when it was shut down and it was August of 08 when that happened. Maybe Andy will have a new bunk mate in his future?

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:48 pm
by Gregg
The Secret Service locked the doors. This one is done.

This really looks more like an ASD sequel every day. I even see the genesis of another "Andy's Army of Idiots" starting to show.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:50 pm
by wserra
Yep, it's over. The SEC complaint and press release confirm what anyone not blinded by greed (or, of course, anyone who was a part of the scam) knew: that Zeek was selling unregistered securities, and was a "classic Ponzi scheme" in any event. From the complaint: "Approximately 98% of ZeekRewards’ total revenues, and correspondingly the purported share of 'net profits' paid to current investors, are comprised of funds received from new investors" (emphasis supplied).

There are lots of schemes like this. After all, Zeek was a DSA member - Direct Selling Association, the supposed industry watchdog. As we discussed above, Jerry Nehra and Kevin Grimes - two of the lawyers who supposedly ensure that MLMs comply with legal requirements - represented them.

As a matter of fact, Zeek is still listed as a client on Grimes' client page. I'd take that down, Kevin. It's a little embarrassing.

If anyone associated with MLMs were capable of embarrassment.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:03 am
by GlimDropper
The Lexington Dispatch article about the SEC charges.

SEC shuts down Zeek, calls it pyramid and Ponzi scheme
Published: Friday, August 17, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, August 17, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.

WASHINGTON, D.C. | The Securities and Exchange Commission announced Friday fraud charges and an emergency asset freeze to halt a $600 million Ponzi scheme on the verge of collapse. The emergency action assures that victims can recoup more of their money and potentially avoid devastating losses.

The SEC Press release which includes a link to the complaint.

I do have a question. From the press release:

Burks has agreed to settle the SEC’s charges against him without admitting or denying the allegations, and agreed to cooperate with a court-appointed receiver.

According to the SEC’s complaint, ZeekRewards has paid out nearly $375 million to investors to date and holds approximately $225 million in investor funds in 15 foreign and domestic financial institutions. Those funds will be frozen under the emergency asset freeze granted by the court at the SEC’s request. Meanwhile, Burks has personally siphoned several million dollars of investors’ funds while operating Rex Venture and ZeekRewards, and he distributed at least $1 million to family members. Burks has agreed to relinquish his interest in the company and its assets plus pay a $4 million penalty. Additionally, the court has appointed a receiver to collect, marshal, manage and distribute remaining assets for return to harmed investors.

Bolding mine. So Paul Burks settled his SEC charges but I've read the complaint, I can think of several issues not addressed therein. Credit card "factoring" for one, ZR lost their merchant account early this year and had been using offshore third party companies to process their credit card transactions and that's perhaps not the worst of it.

The North Carolina AG filed a Civil Investigation Demand on July 6th but it wasn't disclosed publicly till last weekend. In ZR you can chose to reinvest some or all of your VIP points or to cash them in. It seems somewhere between possible to certain that in the (aprox) six weeks from when the CID was filed and when it was disclosed anyone who knew about it would have elected to cash out 100% while perhaps still encouraging the people not in the know to reinvest and build their point totals. Since this is an SEC issue, might that be insider trading?

Would I be wrong in suspecting that Mr. Burks can not be charged with any of the issues included in the existing SEC complaint but he could still face charges on issues not included there?


And a fast edit to add a link to MLM Attorney Kevin Thompson's reaction to the zeek debacle:

It’s official. Zeek Rewards has recently closed its doors. Literally. In fact, the SEC and U.S. Secret Service are now involved. This is what we know: the doors are locked and the website is down. It’s not looking good. Was this done voluntarily? Were they required to do this by the SEC? This all has occurred recently after the North Carolina AG’s office expressed “concern” over the Zeek model.

I’ve got mixed emotions.

I’m both angry and relieved.
Why am I angry?

I really think we lost our minds with this model. The MLM community took the bait and walked off a cliff like a herd of lemmings. Do you want to know what happened? I’m going to be candid:

Powerful words, which would carry much more weight if Mr. Thompson wasn't representing the current largest Zeek Rewards clone, Bidify.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:11 am
by GlimDropper
Zeek Rewards Recovery

Noted MLM attorney Kevin Thompson is offering his services and those of his firm to help Zeek Rewards affiliates get their money back from the court appointed receiver. [Link]

.,... Due to the volume of investors in Zeek, which is projected to be close to one million, we’re not sure how the receiver is going to effectively communicate with the class of investors. In an article on, the author put it into perspective when he wrote:

“While investor losses pale in comparison to those experienced by Madoff or Stanford investors, the sheer number of Zeek investors is on a magnitude that has never been dealt with before in a receivership or bankruptcy context. To illustrate, assuming Zeek had one million investors, a simple 1-page summary for each investor summarizing contributions and withdrawals, stacked together, would be 101.3 meters high, or roughly 300 feet. The staggering number of victims suggests that investigation of the fraud and establishment of a distribution process will likely be a drawn-out process involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people.”

Given my expertise in dealing with MLM law, and my partner’s experience with receiverships, our firm is uniquely positioned to communicate with the receiver on behalf of Zeek victims. Instead of getting lost in the stack, we can build numbers and collectively get a seat at the table.

Is that last sentence true? That an attorney can elbow you somehow into the front of the refund line?

When Ad Surf Daily went down some bozo named Bob and an attorney friend of his made similar claims and pocketed north of a hundred and thirty grand before failing to accomplish anything at all for the people who gave them their money. Now granted Bob was a bozo and it would be an insult to toxic sludge if I called the lawyer friend that so maybe it was just a money grab and they never intended to render any services.

But, could an attorney attract a crowd of Zeek victims and "get a seat" at the receiver's "table"?

I think the "one million affiliates" number is greatly inflated. One of the best ways to game the system was to sign up multiple accounts and "be your own downline" which Mr. Thompson acknowledges on his application form when he asks:

Were you enrolled in multiple positions? If so, under what name(s)?

Details like this are hazy but my best guess for total number of real, individual ZR affiliates in the USA would be under 200K and I wont hazard a guess as to the total global number.

But as I understand (and accept my cheerful thanks for any correction) the total affiliate base isn't the consideration for the receiver, they make every reasonable effort to contact all interested parties so they can file an application for a refund by what is generally a fairly generous deadline. It's those people, not the total affiliate base which might then be eligible for a refund. That would be a far more manageable number of people with very little risk of anyone "getting lost in the stack."

Am I the only one with suspicions that Mr. Thompson's "action plan" is to blow enough smoke that folks will thank him for getting their money back from the receiver at the same time and same proportion as everyone else and with only a small deduction to cover his fee? Or do I owe him an apology?

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:08 pm
by co-shoot
OK, not this time... :oops: ... r=Business

Scheme, AP, Zeekrewards, Business News RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Federal securities regulators have filed fraud charges and an emergency order to freeze the assets of a North Carolina company officials say operated a $600 million Ponzi scheme that is on the verge of collapse.

The action by the Securities and Exchange Commission Friday is intended to help investors recoup money and avoid devastating losses.

Online marketer Paul Burks of Lexington, N.C., is accused in a federal complaint of raising money from more than 1 million customers through, a website in operation less than two years.

Burks could not immediately be reached for comment Friday and the website has been taken down.

Clifton Jolley, a Texas-based communications consultant representing the website's parent company, Rex Venture Group, said Burks had agreed to settle the SEC charges but that he has neither admitted nor denied the allegations against him. Jolley said Burks will cooperate with federal officials and a court-appointed receiver.

ZeekRewards customers were offered several ways to earn money through the site, including buying unregistered investment contracts that promised a share the company's profits through rewards points that could be traded for cash payouts.

However, federal investigators say claims the company was extremely profitable were false and that money from new investors was paid to the older investors as in a classic Ponzi scheme.

The SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Charlotte on Friday, alleged the scheme is teetering on collapse. Federal investigators said ZeekRewards brought in approximately $162 million last month while paying out about $160 million. If customers continue to increasingly elect to receive cash payouts rather than reinvesting their money, ZeekRewards' cash outflows would exceed its total revenue, according to the complaint.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 am
by notorial dissent
Another article about Zeek off the Dow Jones Newswire.
Dow Jones article

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:11 pm
by wserra
GlimDropper wrote:Am I the only one with suspicions that Mr. Thompson's "action plan" is to blow enough smoke that folks will thank him for getting their money back from the receiver at the same time and same proportion as everyone else and with only a small deduction to cover his fee? Or do I owe him an apology?

I'd say it's a mixed bag. Thompson clearly overstates his prospects by claiming the ability to get "a seat at the table". If he represents a bunch of claimants, it's certainly possible that the receiver will take his calls before those of a single, unrepresented claimant. However, his calls will only get for his clients the same percentage of their investment (yes, Zeek, that's what it was) as anyone else, minus his fee. For anyone who has their records in good order, Thompson is unlikely to be able to recover anything more than s/he could get unrepresented (and, of course, there's that fee to consider). He may be able to help someone whose records are not together, by aiding in the preparation and presentation.

I have a suggestion for anyone considering hiring Thompson. Tell him you won't agree to a flat fee of 25% or 33% of the recovery, the standard numbers. Tell him you'll agree to a higher percentage (say 50%) of what he gets you on the amount above the percentage that those unrepresented get. That seems fair, and I bet he won't take you up on it.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:26 pm
by wserra
Our friend and colleague Gregg wrote a column on the Patrick Pretty blog which focusses on how people who supposedly know what they're talking about could describe things like Zeek and ASD as anything but ponzis. While I agree with everything he says, I think I could sum it up in a few words:

They're pimps, Gregg.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:08 am
by Cathulhu
I love it when you cut to the chase, Wes. 8)

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:52 am
by notorial dissent
Agreed, I think WES very succinctly and soundly hit the nail on the head.

I have to admit that I am among those who question what Thompson is doing. I mean ethically, should he even be doing something like this since he actually represents these type of enterprises as a business? I do think he is basically screwing the, and I really really hate to use the term here, "victims" of the con yet again.

Unless the receivers in something like this are vastly different from of the ones I used to regularly run in to in the financial industry, and I'm betting they aren't, and in fact I'll bet they'll be a whole lot tougher, they won't give a rat's a** one way or another whether he is an attorney or how many victims/suckers he is representing. The only thing they will care about, 1) can they prove a claim and prove who they are, 2) do they look like they were involved in anything hinky, and 3) how much money there is to return, and that will pretty much be it in that order, and lawyer or no lawyer, those are the three things the receiver will look at first..

As to how they will contact them, they'll do it the old fashioned way, by mail, and from the sounds of it, lots and lots of mail, and that mail and clerical expense will eat in to the amount left over, just like the receiver and attendant legal fees will. I have no idea what the actual return will be, but I think it is a safe bet it will be a mere fraction of what actually went in to that rat hole originally or what each of them put in to it individually. In the final analysis, the receiver will look at what is left over once all the expenses are pulled out of it, distribute on an equal basis whatever is left, which probably won't be a whole lot, and ever one of the claimants will get the same pro rated share of the remainder, lawyer or no lawyer.

Re: Zeek Rewards and Internet Censorship

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:59 am
by GlimDropper
I'd like to thank Wes and N.D. for their considered replies. I think I ~might have~ accidentally been included in Mr. Thompson's e-mail list and will forward any information that seems interesting.

And for any Zeek Rewards affiliates who happen upon this thread, you can find all the information of developments in the ZR court cases and everything you need to know about getting a refund (without paying anyone a cut) from the official court appointed receiver website:

And something I take as a very encouraging development in the battle against these sorts of money games. This is a copy of an e-mail received by a ZR affiliate who had money in their account with the online eWallet NXPay:

Direct from NX Pay

To Our Valued Customer:

As you may be aware the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has commenced an investigation into Rex Venture Group, LLC, d/b/a ZEEKREWARDS.COM (“Rex Ventures”) and filed a complaint in U.S. District Court. The investigation and complaint has led to the closing of Rex Ventures.

NxSystems Inc. is in no way affiliated with this closing. However, as of August 17, 2012, we have been given a directive from the United States District Court to freeze all assets affiliated with Rex Ventures (Zeek Rewards).

We are in direct contact with the appointed trustee from the United States District Court and are currently pulling reports and reconciling each account. This reconciliation will assist with the investigation and determine all funds that belong to the NxPay account holders versus funds that belonged to Rex Ventures. Due to the court order and during this investigation period you will not have the ability to move any funds in or out of your NxPay account. We hope to have the reconciliation completed within a couple of weeks.

We ask at this time for your patience and understanding as we are under a direct court order and the task at hand is very large. We will continue with our communication as we have new updates regarding your account and when funds can again be moved. Keep in mind, this reconciliation is our highest priority as well as maintaining communication with the customers.

If you have any questions feel free to contact NxSystems, Inc. In the interim we thank you for your patience and cooperation in this matter.

Best regards,

NxSystems, Inc. Support Department.

So, if you took more money out of ZR than you put in AND had cash in NXPay, you don't have that cash any more. A very good if somewhat small step in the right direction. There are reports that ZR affiliates are having problems withdrawing from other processors as well.

And, more for humor than information, and to bring this thread full circle in a way, I give you this PDF link. Now that's just (yet another) effort to rip off scam victims this time in the form of passing the collection plate to fund a lawsuit to force the government to reopen Zeek. The ultimate spearhead of the effort is Todd Disner and Dwight Owen Schweitzer who tried the same thing with Ad Surf Daily. But the person acting as the designated information contact is none other than Robert Craddock, the self same Robert Craddock who sent the dubious "take down request" which started this thread.

Small world.

And does anyone have access to North Carolina court records? From the Lexington Dispatch:

Affiliates file class-action lawsuit against Zeek, Burks

By Nash Dunn
The Dispatch
Published: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 at 5:29 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 at 8:32 p.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 also aimed at upper-level affiliates who, over time, solicited others to join the program, knowing it was a Ponzi scheme all along, according to the filing. Those upper-level affiliates, who were not named in the lawsuit, allegedly received significant sums of cash from Zeek Rewards in the weeks and months leading up to the SEC action.

Link to the rest of the article.

Rex Ventures Group no longer exists, there is only Rex Ventures Estates (nestled in the rolling hills of the North Carolina heartland) which is the property of the court appointed receiver. Correct me if I'm wrong but they don't really have a case. Now the upper level affiliates however, that could be interesting. But is it possible there's a case here to be had?