Thread: Zeek Rewards !! How to get to $3K a month, starting as a free member !

Just for fun, I forwarded the file and the e-mail exchange to Troy Dooly. ;)

Troy Dooly got back to me: apparently RVG does have a Mr. Craddock as an independent consultant. However, it's not clear whether he has the power to issue takedown notices.

Troy had forwarded the takedown notice to the COO and we'll see how THEY deal with this can of worms.

Putting the legal ramifications aside for one moment, does anyone REALLY believe Zeek Rewards and/or Paul Burks wants to intentionally bring itself into public scrutiny ???

Hypothetically, of course, just how long could a company offering 1 or 2% per DAY survive being outed in the mainstream media ??

IM(very)HO, the fraudsters behind Zeek must be choking on their Cornflakes at the possibility this not-so-subtle attempt at silencing criticism becomes mainstream or gets picked up by search spiders.

FWIW, there's a top level shuffle at Zeek. Dawn moved over to CMO and they hired a new COO. This was at the Red Carpet Event.

I think we should get Okosh to frame a betting market offering odds on what, if any of this Zeek stuff in any way resembles the truth.

IM(very)HO, all this CEO, CFO, COO nonsense will turn out to be just that, Nonsense with a capital B/S.

There's a handful of people on the inside and a squillion shills on the outside.

Substitute "Andy Bowdoin" for "Paul Burks" and "AdSurf Daily" with "Zeek Rewards" and what practical difference is there ??

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Putting the legal ramifications aside for one moment, does anyone REALLY believe Zeek Rewards and/or Paul Burks wants to intentionally bring itself into public scrutiny ???

Hypothetically, of course, just how long could a company offering 1 or 2% per DAY survive being outed in the mainstream media ??

IM(very)HO, the fraudsters behind Zeek must be choking on their Cornflakes at the possibility this not-so-subtle attempt at silencing criticism becomes mainstream or gets picked up by search spiders.

If they don't want Zeek to be in the glare of investigators doing DD on it, they could ask Scamlanders to stop advertising it. When it is quite openly advertised by Mary Evelyn Simpson (Scamland's Pillager of The Year) it is as good as painting Investigat me on your tee shirt. I will have to try and make a list of people in Scaamland going mad advertising Zeek in all their most suspect Biz-Opps forums.

Mary Evelyn Simpson's Zeek Rewards Advertisemnts. Scroll down the page to see Mary Evelyn's sig files with Zeel and other dubious opportunities.

Zeek is now between the rock and the hard place that which every one of these "next big thing" HYIPs eventually arrives.

They CANNOT afford to get into the mainstream media and MUST remain under the radar of the regulatory authorities.

Even the most reluctant investigator will be forced to act should questions begin being asked outside of the usual suspect HYIP areas and forums.

On the other hand, there are a great many "true believers" who fully expect Zeek to react like any legitimate business would do when facing the kind of accusations Paul Burks and Zeek are so desperately attempting to stifle.

Put simply, all Burks and Zeek can do is threaten.

They simply CANNOT afford to have this progress past threatening letters from lawyers and/or takedown of some blogs.

Stop and consider for one minute the ramifications of Zeek and/or Burks and/or their legal representative having to:

* Sue across borders AND international borders
* Prove IN COURT how it is possible to offer 2% per day WITHOUT being a ponzi.
* Prove every single "fact" he and they have published is true and accurate, Oh, and that would be in front of the entire media and 'net world as well as a judge. Because, rest assured, there wouldn't be a media organization, blogger or anti HYIP ponzi forum which wouldn't have been made aware of what Burks, Zeek and their "legal representatives" are attempting to do.

I've said before, this is not TV.

The law may well be an ass at times, but it is NOT as easy to manipulate as outright internet criminals and bullies like Burks and Zeek.

One step into the public arena and Zeek is as good as dead and Burks may as well reserve the cell next to Bowdoin.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Putting the legal ramifications aside for one moment, does anyone REALLY believe Zeek Rewards and/or Paul Burks wants to intentionally bring itself into public scrutiny ???

Hypothetically, of course, just how long could a company offering 1 or 2% per DAY survive being outed in the mainstream media ??

IM(very)HO, the fraudsters behind Zeek must be choking on their Cornflakes at the possibility this not-so-subtle attempt at silencing criticism becomes mainstream or gets picked up by search spiders.

I'm inclined to agree but this presupposes that ZR will or can think rationally about this. The greatest likelihood is that they already have most of what they wanted, Kasey's Hub Page is down and now all they want is to intimidate him into not getting it back up. The question becomes what (if anything) will they do when those pages do go back online? (Hell, we'll post them here if no better option presents)

That's when things get a bit dicey. IF they are smart ZR will do nothing, they stand to lose a lot more than they have to gain. At best they can nit pick at a few minor errors but in doing so they'll highlight the oh so many damaging facts that Kasey documented accurately.

The problem being that (for the moment) ZR has a lot of their affiliates money and might believe their own lies. If this situation escalates past the e-mail pissing match phase I'd invite Mr. Change to read the following link from the California Anti-Slapp Project's website.

Considering none of it is a 'business', I agree

Originally Posted by Glimdropper

I'm inclined to agree but this presupposes that ZR will or can think rationally about this.

IM(very)HO, it doesn't matter WHAT Zeek thinks or does.

The very worst they can do is have Kaseys' blog taken offline temporarily.

A lawyers' letter is just that, a letter. In practical terms it means nothing.

HOWEVER, I can guarantee you that 5 minutes after Zeek does ANYTHING untoward it will be spread so far over the internet both Zeek and Burks will be pulling out barbs from their as**s for years to come.

In fact, it's probably the best thing that could happen in terms of outcomes for those who despise fraud.

Think Bowdoins' empty threats, think Salty Droids' exposure of Steven Pierces' posturing, thinkCharles Gregoire de Rothschilds' threatened actions, think Property Wikias' successes at intimidating other forums, but it's total lack of success with attempting the same tactics on REALSCAM.com

It simply CANNOT proceed past bullying, AND, whatever happens it will be carried out in full, SEO enhanced public view.

Is Mr Burks REALLY stupid enough to let that happen ???

Likewise for his "crack legal team"

The hints are coming thick and fast:

Technically it's not even from a lawyer, but a consultant working for RVG.

Originally Posted by kschang

Technically it's not even from a lawyer, but a consultant working for RVG.

EXACTLY.

Getting blogs taken down is relatively easy. It's certainly annoying, but, otherwise harmless.

Finding a "lawyer" to send an official looking threatening letter is also relatively easy.

The next step, however, puts the complainant right in the cross hairs of both he/she AND their operation being exposed for what they are.

Reduce the situation to what "is" and not what "could be"

This is NOT someone suing McDonalds because their coffee was too hot or suing a retailer because they slipped on a grape or one of the many horror stories which have been misreported and sensationalized in the media.

This is a third party who "claims to be" a "consultant" to an illegal HYIP ponzi attempting to use the law as a weapon of mass bullying.

Originally Posted by laidback

Errr, I presume he meant tortious, not "tortuous". I tend to get suspicious of people trying to exert legal pressure when they cannot spell the term they are using. You also apparently have another fellow that is assuming that opinion is actionable.

Good pick up, laidback.

You are indeed correct:

tor·tu·ous/ˈtôrCHo͞oəs/

Adjective:

Full of twists and turns. Excessively lengthy and complex: "a tortuous argument"

vs

tor·tious/ˈtôrSHəs/

Adjective:

Constituting a tort; wrongful.

Originally Posted by laidback

Errr, I presume he meant tortious, not "tortuous". I tend to get suspicious of people trying to exert legal pressure when they cannot spell the term they are using. You also apparently have another fellow that is assuming that opinion is actionable.

Good pick up, laidback.

You are indeed correct:

tor·tu·ous/ˈtôrCHo͞oəs/

Adjective:

Full of twists and turns. Excessively lengthy and complex: "a tortuous argument"

vs

tor·tious/ˈtôrSHəs/

Adjective:

Constituting a tort; wrongful.

You forgot the most important one:

HeHe, now THAT'S funny.

BTW, did anyone else pick up on the "1.2 million independent advertising reps" B/S in the same letter ??

Originally Posted by littleroundman

HeHe, now THAT'S funny.

BTW, did anyone else pick up on the "1.2 million independent advertising reps" B/S in the same letter ??

Umm, suckers, errr members, by any other name....!

Patrick weighs in on this ever more tortuous situation:

Site Critical Of Zeek Goes Missing After HubPages Receives Trademark ‘Infringement’ Complaint Attributed To Rex Venture Group LLC — But North Carolina-Based Rex Not Listed As Trademark Owner; Florida Firm That IS Listed As Owner Says It Has ‘No Knowledge’ Of Complaint

By PatrickPretty.com 8:13 am Jul 28, 2012

UPDATED 10:23 A.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Using the pronouns “we,” “our” and “us” — while butchering a legal term and implying he had the authority to act on behalf of Rex Venture Group LLC — a purported Rex Venture “consultant” appears to have caused HubPages.com to disable a Hub written by “K. Chang” that is critical of the Rex-owned Zeek Rewards MLM “program.”


How long the “K. Chang” Hub will remain offline and whether it even will return are unclear. A Hub is an article on a specific topic. The “K. Chang” Hub questioned whether Zeek was a legal and viable business.

The rest of the article is at the link above.

http://www.talkgold.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4847097&postcount=927

It appears Mr. Craddock prefers acting a MLM bigshot instead of a computer big-shot that he was

Linux.com :: Why Microsoft's Sender ID patent should not be granted

I think we have an excellent opportunity to expose Zeek for who they really are, and all you have to do is report Mr. Craddock to them and see how they handle it.

He has no authority to act on Zeek's behalf, and now he has escalated the intimidation/perceived threats to anyone who posts the info will possibly face a lawsuit. Here's a chance for their crack lawyer to show just how good he is and stops this nonsense.

Then if Zeek does nothing, it is just more ammo for the fire, so to speak against Zeek. It shows that KSChang was willing to provide Zeek with the solution to the issue, and they refused to take action, thus sanctioning the acts of a "consultant" not an employee.

Then have a "real" lawyer send Mr. Craddock a letter adivising him what will happen if he doesn't retract his complaint and stops the intimidating/bullying Emails.

I had some formatting issues to deal with before I can get the article up on our website, plus I need Kasey to approve it before posting. Stay tuned, because this could get really interesting.

EagleOne, he *may* have the authority, as he supposedly works for the new COO. It's just UNCONFIRMED.

You may put up the hub whenever you're ready. I've made several small edits but they're rather inconsequential.

Originally Posted by kschang

EagleOne, he *may* have the authority, as he supposedly works for the new COO. It's just UNCONFIRMED.

You may put up the hub whenever you're ready. I've made several small edits but they're rather inconsequential.

I don't care who he supposedly works for. If he is only a consultant he cannot demand anything be taken down on behalf of Zeek. Only an officer or someone in management has that authority.

I was a business consultant for twenty years, and not once was I ever given that kind of authority, and wouldn't have accepted it if they had offered. Real companies don't give "consultants" this kind of authority. It opens them to all kinds of litigation, let alone regulatory issues.

They are blowing smoke. Besides, he didn't report to the new COO, or whomever, when he had the site taken down, and they would have to show him as an executive for him to do so. He wasn't any executive when he took this upon himself. A letter from a good attorney will have him apologizing so fast you would almost get whiplash.