Zeek Receiver files clawbacks against nine UK investors
Just over two weeks after Norwegian net-winners were taken care of, the Zeek Rewards clawback world tour has made another stop – this time in the UK.
Filed on the 5th of March, the Receiver is now suing nine UK-based net-winners of the $850 million Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme.
Named in the Receiver’s lawsuit are
- Shaun Smith – a resident of Bridgnorth who stole $262,900 under one or more usernames, including “topincometeam”
- Peter William Bennett – a resident of Wokingham who stole $257,573 under one or more usernames, including “orchard”
- Mark Anthony Ferrie – a resident of Abergavenny who stole $212,072 under one or more usernames, including “maferrie”
- Gary Bryan Morris – a resident of Abergavenny who stole $342,405 under one or more usernames, including “everychance”
- Kalpesh Patel – a resident of Newham, London who stole $140,842 under one or more usernames, including “international”
- Parvis Parvizi – a resident of Macclesfield who stole $90,518 under one or more usernames, including “globalpartners”
- Cathal Lambe – a resident of Omagh who stole $90,311 under one or more usernames, including “luckoftheirish”
- Adrian John Hibbert – a resident of Sully who stole $82,103 under one or more usernames, including “ade”
- John Noakes – a resident of Croydon, London who stole $59,850 under one or more usernames, including “syfgroup”
All in all the UK’s top Zeek investors took in $1.4 million. Not a bad little heist but a far cry from the millions individual net-winners stole in other countries.
Of the UK net-winners Kalpesh Patel in particular stands out. Prior to Zeek Rewards he appears to have a bit of a history promoting dubious schemes:
CALL us old fashioned, but we reckon the best way to earn money is by getting a job.
But try telling that to Ketan Hirani and Kalpesh Patel, habitual purveyors of crackpot get-rich-quick schemes.
This London pair have been behind a string of pyramid scams – we’ve exposed Omi Club, VIP, LMI, MLI – and still they’re at it. Now they’re drumming up recruits for something called Success University.
Our colleague Andrew Gregory had gone undercover to the sales pitch where Kalpesh, dressed in a perfectly pressed shirt and a flash suit, lavished praise on his latest wheeze.
Success University was born in the United States and Kalpesh gave prices in dollars.
It costs 149.95 (£76) to join and you’ll have to stump up 50 (£25) a month to “attend” the university. In return you get a website which Kalpesh insisted would cost you “at least £10,000 to build yourself”.
The idea is you make money by persuading your mates to sign up to it, getting 5 (£2.50) for each one.
Which might not sound like much, but you’ll also get a cut of the joining fees from the people signed up by your recruits.
After the hard sell we collared Ketan and suggested he was running yet another pyramid scam. “It’s a network marketing company,” he pleaded.
“Just say ‘no comment’,” interrupted Kalpesh, telling Penman: “You wrote a load of rubbish about us before for no reason.”
Then he squared up to Mirror snapper Michael Fresco (hobby, kickboxing) and hissed: “I could get nasty.”
What’s worse is Kalpesh seems perfectly competent when it comes to identifying what he refers to as “money games”.
In an open letter discussing MyShoppingGenie Kalpesh wrote back in 2011:
They gave me the go ahead to open south Africa and Germany saying new app will be ready in January….to this date…. NOTHING.
It’s a pure illegal money game in most countries they open, robbing people to cashflow their thieving bad habits, moving millions into offshore accounts.
It’s a cesspit of incestuous relationships between all of those below. They know each other, are related to each other and have done this EXACT thing 6 times now. Sweet tongues, facades on stage and smiles rope people in.
These people are masters of robbing people in MLM, I ignored so much because of their ability to look you in the eyes lie with conviction, constantly pulling people back in on false promises.
Yet none of that stopped Kalpesh from signing up with Zeek Rewards and stealing $140,000 from its victims. Money he now refuses to give back.
As with net-winners in other countries, the UK’s nine defendants will be given a chance to respond to the lawsuit. Failing which, default judgement, including interest, will be sought and entered against them.
Which country will be next?
Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of the Zeek Receiver’s lawsuit against the UK’s top net-winners.
Oz, actually, this was filed today, March 5th. 🙂
Damn American date format. I must have glanced at it wrong :).
Morning brain did stop me from writing 3rd of May though!
Shaun Smith may be the Shaun who experienced payment problems in late July / early August 2012, posting on MLMhelpdesk:
Example (he had more than one post):
Shaun Smith and Kalpesh Patel are promoting other ponzi type programs all over Facebook every single day. Moving from one scam to another, and sucking up huge amounts of cash from the sheep that join them. They even post pictures of their expensive cars and other things purchased with their ill gotten gains.
Bragging about income is a marketing method. It may attract some people, the ones attracted to that type of marketing. It’s usually some “low hanging fruits” (“low hanging” because they believe in certain ideas).
The problem is that too many people are using the same method, and too many of them are fake. And it won’t attract most other people, other than those “low hanging fruits” looking for the next opportunity to join.
The Shaun who posted on MLMhelpdesk was relatively “rational” (compared to many others), e.g. he “communicated” directly with Troy Dooly about something and ignored other issues.
Yep there are plenty of people out there faking it. That’s for sure.
I promote some real “Legit” stuff unfortunately people want “making money” for doing nothing. So that’s what they get.
So you can shoot the messenger, the owners set these things up.
But who should take responsibility?
The people wanting easy money, the owners or the people promoting them?
In the case of Zeek Rewards, all of the above. At least those who made over $1000.
I posted some relevant info (net winners bring sued) in a Norwegian pyramid scheme forum. Link in another thread:
NOLINK://behindmlm.com/companies/zeek-rewards/zeek-receiver-sues-top-11-norwegian-ponzi-investors/#comment-332184
I identified different aspects of the case as a layman, e.g.:
* where to find court documents, related cases
* other countries (Canada, Australia, BVI, New Zealand)
* Main case = “SEC v. Paul Burks et al”
* other relevant case = “Bell v. Disner et al”
* some info about relevant laws (Fraudulent Transfer, personal jurisdiction)
* some info about relevant defense arguments
* some info about failed defense arguments
* some info about settlements, potential strategies
* pointing out some specific documents of interest
The translated link (in the other thread) is only readable for the first few posts. After that, there’s no formatting of the posts. The most relevant info can probably be exported to another place, e.g. I can import some of it back here.
The primary target audience in that thread was actually journalists. The net winners were a secondary target, along with “other interested people”.
Relevant links to sources.
COURT DOCUMENTS – “SEC V. PAUL BURKS” (MAIN CASE)
NOLINK://sites.google.com/a/asdupdates.com/files-website/zeek-rewards-sec-case
Some relevant documents (settlement lists):
ZeekDoc150-1.pdf Exhibit 2 – List of Settlements (Jul 23, 2013)
ZeekDoc164-2.pdf Settlement Details (Nov 12, 2013)
ZeekDoc259-1.pdf EXHIBIT A (Oct 3, 2014)
– – – – –
ZeekDoc259-main.pdf RECEIVER’S MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
All the other cases (clawbacks) can be found in the menu to the left.
SOME ANCILLARY CASES (clawbacks)
* “Bell v. Disner et al” class action, USA. Relevant (e.g. 90.pdf).
* “Bell v. Parker et al”, Canada. Some relevance.
* “Bell v. Burks et al” (insiders), USA. Not very relevant.
* Australia, BVI, New Zealand, Norway. Currently less relevance.
I have identified “relevance” to be about “similar type of case”, e.g. the case against the insiders has been seen as “not very relevant” because of much tougher conditions in settlements. It’s a different type of case.
The Canadian case has been seen as “some relevance” because it gives an overview of the process from complaint → motion for default judgment → entry of default judgment.
“Disner et al” has been seen as “relevant” because of
* Order Denying Motion To Dismiss (90.pdf)
* Order Denying Counter Claims
The logic for that was “it doesn’t make much sense trying to copy failed strategies”.
Zeek was a Ponzi you made a fortune promoting it . You should take responsibility.
Why don’t you promote real products? You know by selling the dream it is easier.
People like you are at fault because you sell the I made $1000 while I slept etc. You make it sound like you make money doing nothing.
Legit stuff like Banners Broker another Ponzi you promoted? What are you promoting now, some sort of Ponzi I bet ?
Just for the record, I didn’t promote Banners Broker.
As for Zeek, I didn’t make as much as you think. There is a saying “Turnover is Vanity” “Profit is Sanity”. When you take in to account, advertising, marketing, travelling to meet people, Tax, it does dilute the profit somewhat.
And Pete, if you are who I think you are, didn’t you join me in ZEEK and start promoting?
You pitched me this morning (8th March) with a UK opportunity (which I turned down due to being a ponzi). Is that why you feel it necessary to comment here?
And it’s a shame that you forgot, a few years back, when you asked me to promote your ClickBank product, which I did, for free and no financial gain to me. You thanked me for helping out.
How people turn when things aren’t going their way.
So all your bragging about how much you make are lies because that is your turn over and not profit? Pity you don’t tell your prospects that.
So the $1.9 million made in the last couple of years you claim in your email sig is turn over and not profit ? How much of that was stolen from Zeek victims?
Shall we go into your conviction for fraud ?
Those arguments don’t work very well, neither as defenses in a clawback trial nor in settlements. I can find some sources showing strategies that don’t work very well, but you’re most likely looking for some type of solution?
Your best chance is probably settlement, if you have something to lose in a judgment. If you don’t have anything to lose, then the Receiver has a major problem. You can of course offer a solution to HIS problem.
“Offer some solutions to his problems, but try to get something in exchange” is what settlements are about. So you should carefully study HIS problems, trying to find some “buttons to push”. I can probably list some factors.
1. All the costs (time, money, efforts) related to clawback litigations and enforcement of judgments is a major problem. The Receiver initially planned to sue all net winners over $1,000 (like he did in the U.S.). He had to adjust that threshold amount to $50,000 in foreign countries.
I have some ideas for how that information potentially can be used in settlement negotiations, but currently only vague ideas.
2. Clawbacks are probably 6-12 months behind the initial plan. The Receiver sent subpoenas to 1,200 net winners in November 2012. Subpoena is normally an initial action in a lawsuit, so he probably planned to sue the first net winners in early 2013. But the first lawsuit was first filed in early 2014.
Conclusion: He has a time-problem too. He should probably try to find some solutions, not only in your case but in most cases.
I can see some settlement potential in that factor. Settlements are about “solutions people can accept”, it doesn’t need to be solely about paying money.
3. The Receiver has a communication problem. He has sent ONE “general email” to 16,000 net winners, informing about settlement deadline. It was sent on April 1st 2013, with a 60 day deadline for settlements.
NOLINK://zeekrewardsreceivership.com/pdf/4-1-13%20-%20Letter%20from%20Receiver%20to%20Net%20Winners_Updated.pdf
The only other relevant info for net winners I have found (if we ignore “Quarterly Reports”) is hidden in point #9 in the “Subpoena FAQ” from 2012. It has the email address for settlement negotiations.
NOLINK://zeekrewardsreceivership.com/sub#9
4. Clawback isn’t about “punishment”, but about making the net losers whole, about distributing money back to the net losers.
A court or a judge must “defend the law”. Allowing deductions of expenses will bring them in conflict with the existing case law.
(from memory)
The trial court in the Burnlounge case allowed a reduction in the disgorgement amount for defendant DeBoer, from $900,000 down to $150,000, based on:
* he wasn’t an insider, only a top distributor
* SEC or FTC hadn’t documented his expenses, only the total amount
* “some other reason” (I don’t remember the details)
The appellate court reversed that decision, adjusting it up to the full amount of $900,000.
“The trial court didn’t have the authority to allow reductions like that. It can’t allow deductions of expenses related to illegal activities like promoting a pyramid scheme”.
– – – – – – – –
That’s one of the problems here. A court may not see it as it really is, but as the law defines it to be. And it must defend the viewpoint of the law.
The judge as a PERSON may accept many different ideas. Defendant DeBoer probably managed to present his case in an “acceptable way”, acceptable enough to get the amount reduced by 83%. But he didn’t get the appellate court to accept it.
Many of the defense arguments used in ZeekRewards clawbacks have failed because of that. People will usually SEE a case as they see it or feel it themselves, not as the court might see it.
They may convince themselves and some others, but may fail to convince “the right authority”.
A court is a “different type of animal”. It doesn’t THINK like ordinary people, e.g. it may use some pre-defined ideas other people don’t use.
It can be a major problem for a defendant, e.g. we can feel we have a solid case based on our own “common sense” but suddenly find out it wasn’t true.
The good thing is … if you can identify some of the ideas the court already has accepted, you may have a much better chance. It’s also about avoiding some ideas a court cannot accept.
You probably use a similar idea in recruitment, e.g. identify the ideas THEY can accept or be attracted to rather than a focus solely on your OWN ideas.
uh, norway, i don’t think your chosen audience shaun smith, is interested in your advice, about settlement being the best route for him. he is a ‘taker’ not a ‘giver’.
for a guy who says he dint earn that much from zeek, his website quite boldly advertises the picture perfect beauty of his ‘house by the sea’ and magnificent car.
shaun tells pete in post#11, that he turned down pete’s request , because pete was offering a ponzi. well, what is the ‘ponzi’ status of MAPS which shaun has been selling?
mr norway, thanks for your detailed advice, but shaun smith wont get off his sofa, till bell comes knocking at his door. and then he may escape through the back door. ‘settling with bell’ is not the thought process his brain may be accustomed to.
I forgot to mention something there. The legal actions may have been delayed, but the cases have generally been made more “solid” and “correct”.
The initial subpoenas were probably part of an “act FAST” plan. “Start initiating lawsuits while the case still is fresh, before people have had time to dissipate the earnings”. It’s usually a good idea, but it didn’t work here.
It didn’t work because of several reasons, e.g. because it wasn’t correct enough (“all the required pieces were not in place”, e.g. some unresolved disputes and some missing information).
That strategy was changed to a much higher degree of correctness at the expense of speed. The initial short term eagerness have probably been replaced by a long term stubborness.
It will usually mean it may have become more difficult to “fight the case” or to negotiate acceptable settlements (to make people change their initial position). Stubborness is usually a wrong type of attitude for negotiations.
In addition to that, the Receivership team has got plenty of experience during the case, and has probably built up “resistance” against most defense arguments. So all in all, it’s not a nice case if you’re “on the wrong side of it”.
SOME SETTLEMENTS
July 23 2013, settlements #1 .. #136:
Amount $3,242,000
Settled amount $1,819,000
Average % 56.12%
November 12 2013 settlements #137 .. #175:
Amount $829,000
Settled amount $474,000
Average % 57.18%
October 3 2014 settlements #176 .. #212:
Amount $704,000
Settled amount $418,000
Average % 59.43%
The number of settlements have been reduced heavily, but the average percentage has increased. They’re probably doing something wrong here. That’s why I pointed out “stubborness” and “resistance” as 2 potential factors.
Negotiation is actually about making changes in own position. It’s about finding solutions both parties can accept. It’s also about encouraging people to make decisions, e.g. “We will give you an extra steak knife for free if you order within the next hour”. 🙂
I don’t write specifically for him either. I will usually have a wider audience in mind, or sometimes “other uses”.
So are you the same Shaun Smith that spent 5 years in jail for his role in SBS Designs of Staffs that stole over $6 Million from the jobless? The same Shaun Smith who is currently promoting MAPS another Ponzi?
For if you are so much for your promoting “real legit” stuff.
Here are some settlement conditions.
ZeekDoc259-main.pdf
RECEIVER’S MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.
Both net winner and insiders
Here’s how he sees his own communication.
“From his earliest communications” = 1,200 subpoenas in November 2012.
“repeatedly encouraged” = April 1 2013, general email to 16,000 net winners.
for all those who are planning to buy in on shaun smiths’ training and mentoring’ program where he will teach you how to — ‘Let me show you how you can make $54,000 (£32,939.43) working from home for just 1-3 hours per day”. and for extra effect he will show you his ‘beautiful house and car’, here’s some background info about him:
I hope the Zeek Receiver gets EVERY penny back that Shaun Smith owes.
From the Daily Mirror Website
I tried to check that since SS didn’t answer it himself. It was impossible to find any clear answers to the first question (“multiple frauds”). I didn’t bother to check the second question (“MAPS promoter”), he’s most likely the same guy.
The original story seems to come from 2 investigative reporters in 2001, Andrew Penman and Nick Sommerlad.
NOLINK://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2001/09/court-you-at-last.html
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Then the story has been copied and “updated” by others. One comment on that website picks it up in 2010, “I’m following Mr Smiths latest. His 700inaday system”.
Then in December 2008, “Scambusta’s Blog” is retelling the story, in the format “intro + new story + dead video + original story”
I believe he refer to his source here …
The Youtube video is dead and removed / Youtube user deleted.
So the connection between “Shaun Bernard Smith, Court You, 2001” and “Shaun Smith, income opportunities, 2008” is almost impossible to verify.
I believe there may not be any connection between those two stories, i.e. it may be two different people.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
I tried to search for “Shaun Smith fraud”, but that gave too many results containing that original story (in one form or another, e.g. some short versions).
I then tried to search for “Shaun Smith sentence”. That name is rather common among criminals (and also lawyers).
Search results:
It means that people eager to find something on the internet will find it, but the name is too common to give reliable results.
Oops, I forgot to add a link to that source.
NOLINK://scambusta.wordpress.com/tag/shaun-bernard-smith-notorious-scammer-the-full-story/
I have looked into it. You couldn’t expect any answer to those 2 questions.
The first question is fair enough, the second is fair enough. But you can’t combine them like you did.
Facts: £6.5 million that’s about $10,000,000 in your money and I paid back £500,000 ($800,000) so fill your boots.
Now guys you are making feel old. All this old news from 14 years ago! I did have more hair and money back then. I can always scan you a copy of the newspaper articles and there is a copy of the BBC documentary they did for TV.
(Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt removed.)
One thing, you can’t take away the memories, the memories of the Porsche 911, the Ferrari, and the BMW M3, the houses, the holiday’s, the meals out, the designer clothes and money to pay bills.
OH and the money I gave to charity (not as though that will touch any of you sanctimonious guys).
These post bring it all flooding back.
People make mistakes. But you don’t seem to think of it as a mistake. Your post is unbelievable they way all you seem bothered about is the fact you don’t have your porche etc anymore.
Stealing money and preying on the desperate is dispicable. You don’t se bothered. Money you gave to charity – geez you got that money from the needy in the first place. What a guy you are…
I am (a guy) Pete and yes it was a mistake, but it happened, that’s life. I look after my family first, then friends.
That’s why I have great social life with people that matter to me.
(Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt removed.)
So stop looking at people “LIKE ME” stop whinging and do something about your life.
Shit happens. I should have been a Politician, a dodgy Police Officer or a dodgy reporter that wrote about me.
And Pete I’m not bothered, about you or anyone else on here. You are not my mate, relative or family member.
I make money online and offline – period! For the benefit of my ONE life and family.
So spread the news… they have been doing that for 14 years and I’m still here making money.
Stubborn til the end. Have a good one
Oh and when you say needed…
Are these the people joining ponzi schemes like you did to make money.
You were happy to make money from the “needed” because you were “needed” but collapsed before you could make any decent money. Some Irony there lol.
Personally I have never been in a Ponzi. I have done MLM with physical products tho.
I was actually referring to the victims of your fraud.
It amazes me how you don’t seem bothered. Maybe you don’t think it was a mistake. Just unlucky you got caught !!
And Prison Sexy times. Drop the soap much Shaun?
And all of this takes away from you promoting the Ponzi MAPS how? Come on Shaun, it is all you know how to do. Bet the next time you’re caught, the courts won’t be so lenient.
(Ozedit: Offtopic comments about government removed.)
As for your charitable giving, it wasn’t so charitable if the charity had to give it back since it came from illegal means. Thus causing them real pain by having to give the money back.
Real charitable my assets.
If there hadn’t been any connection between those two stories, then you would seriously had a need for a solution there.
It’s of course still a problem when there IS a connection. Everything looks “relatively new” on the internet, i.e. people will probably focus on the story itself.
And if I interpreted it correctly, you had someone “campaigning” against you in 2008 or 2009, actively trying to spread the story.
This website will mostly attract anti scam people, and your normal strategy (whatever that is) will not be a good idea here.
THE CLAWBACK ACTION
The only partially successful action (early 2013) from top net winners was the one against “overly broad and burdensome subpoenas” (Fun Club USA / Robert Craddock). The other actions were not successful.
Attorneys:
Rodney Alexander
Michael Quilling (experience as a receiver)
Michael Quilling probably has the right experience for settlement negotiations. He has been in the same situation himself, i.e. he know what HE would have accepted (he THINKS relatively similar to the opponent).
The subpoenas were changed from “overly burdensome harassment” (26 points detailed financial questions / all communication between Zeek and affiliates and between affiliates), down to 7 points only related to ZeekRewards.
I will probably cover that in another post.
I know you’re not very interested in settlement, but I’m actually writing for a wider range of people. I know someone out there may be interested.
One problem:
When I initially analysed settlements in 2013, I analysed it from a specific viewpoint, from someone who had separated the money from Zeek into a separate account and was more or less prepared for clawback.
60% settlements looked “relatively acceptable” from that viewpoint.
John what a childish comment. That just about sums up your mentality.
And I thought this was about Zeek Receiver. Guess you have a problem reading the posts.
As for getting caught! I haven’t nor intend to set up on of these schemes. I’m not the owner, and people that have made A LOT MORE MONEY than me promoting haven’t been prosecuted, the owners and some office staff have.
I didn’t join Zeek until the last 6 months. People (everyday people) where pitching me for 12 months to join them. How these law abiding citizens suddenly wanted me to promote and build a downline so they could make more money.
What will be will be. If clawback goes through here in the UK, then it will be dealt with.
well you are a cold blooded reptile [this is a fact, reptiles are coldblooded].
everytime you seated your ass in your Porsche 911, the Ferrari, and the BMW M3, you stole someones college fund, medical fund, retirement fund, rent fund, food fund.
if You have Only One Life, how may lives do you think Your Victims have? i’m calling them ‘your victims’ because you have known what you were doing Every Time.
and you have the gall to come here and be Proud/Cavalier about it!
really shaun, one may need measuring tape to check how ‘thick’ your skin is.
I like your Zeek email address, set up about the time your joined. There you have it folks, Pete says Zeek wasn’t a Ponzi as he has never been in one yourfutureincomes.com/Pete.html
actually this isn’t a competition about ‘who is worser’. oz doesn’t hold those kind of competitions here.
so, comparing yourself to pete, or politicians, or police officers, will do nothing to water down your own crimes. You Stand Alone.
who is worser, must be a subject of discussion when you “have [a] great social life with people that matter to me”:
‘hey i stole a million! what! you only did 500.000 my social life friend! haha! lets have a good one, we darling stubborn thieves!”
I would calm down Anjai, It was in 1994. And I think the £60 they each spent 108,000 x £60 didn’t stop them buying cigarettes.
As for medical fund, we have free health service in the UK and we don’t have food stamps.
Anyway I’ll have to shoot, got things to do. Take a deep breath Anjali, you will feel much better.
thanx for that advice, i needed it. that ‘one tight slap’ feeling was really building up!
Courts will generally accept foreign country judgments in civil cases / commercial cases, as long as they’re final and valid.
Australia had some restrictions for default judgments. I didn’t check any details for it. I only check enough to recognize the information others can provide (I’m not an “expert”, and I have no intention of becoming one either).
I primarily provide information about the sources, e.g. the ASDupdates website and which documents to find there, but it will be up to people themselves to decide whether they can use it for some purposes.
It’s typically the type of information I would have needed to make decisions, and I will usually try to identify the problem first before making any decisions. But my decision methods may not be very useable for others.
Whilst you are happy to regale us with the upsides to your criminal lifestyle, I just thought I would point out the downsides.
You also seem keen to point out that it was a long time ago, but you Shaun are a leopard who has not and has no intention of changing his spots, as can be seen with your current involvement in the My Advertising Pays Ponzi scheme.
as well as the banners broker scam before that.
Read further up these post. I was never in Banner Broker.
Stick to the facts.
shaun has no moral compass. over that he seems to be a narcissistic personality.
like those guys from the stories of yore, who would loot and plunder, and then sit in the local taverns and enjoy the attention their ‘kills’ got them.
he also appears to be a sociopath as he has noticeable lack of regard for the rights of others, and a tendency to regularly violate those rights.
congratulations shaun, in your One Life, you appear to be a narcissistic sociopath. no morals, no care of karma, a Rich Life Indeed!
hardly something one should aspire to, as it is ONLY One Life!
Anjali, you are getting too deep for me. I’m off for a beer, had hard day sitting in front of the Computer. I did have a break to walk the dogs, prepare the dinner and doing a spot of gardening. And still made money online.
Go and praise the lord or whatever you do.
@Shaun
Did you get the April 1 2013 email from the Receiver?
I’m not specifically interested in whether YOU got it. It’s about if PEOPLE got it outside USA.
No communication at all! Also, a few friends that joined (that I gave the money back to) when it went tits up, haven’t received any emails about claiming their money back. They don’t need to I know, because I gave them the money.
But emails haven’t been received here in the UK
@Shaun
This won’t worry Shaun he will fire up another con to pay them off. It is probably best for the desperate that they let him keep his PONZI gains…..
And I was NEVER in Zeek.
He will more likely offer some positions DIRECTLY to the Receiver as a settlement. It will reduce the risk of clawbacks, and he will also get an experienced attorney on his team. 🙂
“Completely legitimate program, much better than ZeekRewards. You don’t need to recruit anyone or sell anything, the system will do all the work for you”. etc.
I haven’t studied that part yet, so the settlement pitch became too vague and thin. He will need something more than money to get the Receiver on the hook.
What! i explained narcissistic sociopath quite simply! are you deft at pick pocketing but dull of mind?
yes, multitasking seems to be be a talent with you. even when you were on bail awaiting sentencing in your SBS scam you were trying to rip off people. you are a ‘smooth operator’.
i shall not be doing anything on your behalf. but before praising the lord, or whatever you do, try ‘praising’ yourself for what ‘you do’. the lord aint doing anything, this is All You!
do not slickly forward ‘credit’!
such an ‘out of the box’ solution norway! shaun should pay you some ‘consultancy’ for this! 🙂
It isn’t worth anything (yet). People only buy complete solutions that actually work. They also buy everything they BELIEVE will work. The last one there is the easiest to sell. And they must believe that others believe in it too.
Bell won’t feel very attracted to the typical network marketing arguments, but he probably has some “unfulfilled dreams”. “Becoming the most successful receiver of all times, a raw model for other receivers” is currently unfulfilled, but I will need a more fundamental dream than that.
That’s the problem. I can’t just copy ideas that worked in one market and believe they will work in a completely different market. Life simply doesn’t work that way. I will need to find Bell’s dreams and Bell’s beliefs.
That’s where Bell failed. He didn’t analyse the market, but tried to “push” some solutions people really didn’t want or could accept.
He should probably have offered an opportunity where net winners could “win” something if they brought other net winners into some acceptable, “easy to sell” settlement agreements.
I have spent some time trying to find discussions about it on the internet, but I haven’t found any. But the letter from the Receiver wasn’t of a type to cause discussions.
“Lack of communication” isn’t a legal issue in itself, it can’t be directly used as a defense against Fraudulent Transfers. It would have been if it had been an ordinary creditor (e.g. contract claims).
That’s what makes this case difficult. You’re not dealing with an ordinary creditor. I haven’t been able to find any good defense strategy.
Jordan M. (attorney) gives a quick overview of what he expects to be Kenneth Bell’s strategy in “Bell v. Disner et al” here (second half of that post):
NOLINK://behindmlm.com/companies/zeek-rewards/berkeley-research-group-to-defend-zeek-ponzi-pimps/#comment-333396
I analysed some “initial defense actions” from net winners in January 2013. Note that all this is from memory. I looked at it in January 2013, and have only had a quick look at it now.
* Motion To Intervene (Gilmond / King)
* Motion To Unfreeze (Kettner, Kettner, Sorrells)
* Motion To Appoint a supervisor
* Objections against subpoenas (multiple non-parties)
Only the last on produced any significant results.
WHAT THEY DID
– – – – – – – – – – The elements – – – – – – –
1. They analysed the Order Appointing Receiver, and was able to point of one flaw. The Receiver had been instructed to ask the court for permission before he could initiate legal actions. He had failed to do that.
2. He had also ignored to move the court for permission to file documents under seal. He requested sensitive information before he had a system in place to protect it from public view.
Quilling and Alexander didn’t play those two cards directly. They introduced a third card.
3. “Overly broad and burdensome subpoenas” plus some related arguments. Federal Rules For Civil Procedure may accept burdensome subpoenas, but it will not allow “harassment” of non-parties. The net winners were non-parties to the SEC action.
Quilling and Alexander only played the “burdensome” card plus some related arguments (“incorrect serving”, etc.). They did NOT play the “non-parties” card directly.
– – – – – – – – – – The details – – – – – – – –
Alexander played the “burdensome” card from late October, e.g. he pointed out that SEC / the Receiver already had much of the information. He then got a reduced subpoena correctly served (to Robert Craddock).
From the Receiver’s point of view, everything looked lawful when the new subpoena had been served, so he expected a response in the form of documents from that moment.
Instead he received more complaints about “burdensome subpoena”, and multiple offers to discuss the conditions. He didn’t respond to those offers, he only demanded some action.
Bell received several “Dear Ken” emails from Alexander and Quilling, “we can discuss the defective subpoena and probably agree to some acceptable conditions”.
On December 19 2012, Bell finally lost all the patience he could have had, and filed a Motion To Compel (ordering the different non-parties to produce the requested documents). “If they don’t want to respond voluntarily, I can get the court to demand them to respond anyway”.
It was met with an Objection To Motion To Compel, supported by a Memorandum Of Law, which pointed out those flaws listed as point 1 and 2 (failed to ask the court for permission, failed to request filing under seal).
It also pointed out that their clients were non-parties, and that Bell repeatedly had identified them as that himself. It confronted him with a question about whether he saw it differently, e.g. if he was investigating the clients for any wrongdoing.
In short, the message was “If you want others to follow the rules, then you should first start to follow the rules yourself. Don’t invent your own rules”.
– – – – – – – – – – The result – – – – – – – –
It ended in a settlement, where Bell heavily reduced the subpoenas down to 7 points “acceptable info” (it was initially 26 points “full insight into personal finances and communication”). The non-parties agreed to produce the requested documents. The agreement didn’t restrict any future requests for documents, but it indirectly restricted “harassment” type of actions.
WHAT TO LEARN FROM IT?
I will need to extract that in a different post. Bell probably trusted his experience, and acted like he believed was correct.
His opponents carefully analysed the rules to find something to attack. But they also used a strategy for how to play the cards, they didn’t play the cards randomly.
It’s unlikely under UK common law as there is no jurisdiction, the following is a section from: out-law.com/en/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/enforcement/enforcing-foreign-judgments-in-england-and-wales/
This means the person had to be in the US at the time or have responded to the summons, which is why most may be advised not to. The receiver has tried to cover jurisdiction issues in the Summons by linking foreign people to the ZeekRewards North Carolina location but it may not be enough to satisfy the UK common law requirements.
I wanted to mention that the summons doesn’t say anybody stole anything as shown at the top of this article, they were paid by a program that they were advised was genuine at the time (even by respected US lawyers).
Those paid under $100k over the approx 2 year period the program ran for, would have earned less than the average UK wage over that period (much less after business expenses used), meaning they would have lived off the rest and could lose everything if forced to pay it back.
It is true there are victims and I’ve been one myself twice in similar schemes where I lost $20k in one after the SEC closed it down and I didn’t get anything back, the ZR victims have already received 40% back and could get a lot more even if many of the claw-back claims can’t retrieve all the funds.
It seems the receiver is the only winner here and I hope they don’t waste the funds on unnecessary costs, including their own.
Oh please, you and your scamming buddies stole funds from hundreds of thousands of victims through an $850 million dollar Ponzi scheme. Cram it with the “program” crap.
You knew you were ripping people off, just like the rest of the scammers in Zeek Rewards did.
Here’s a tissue for your Ponzi losses. I have no sympathy for serial scammers.
Spoken like a true unremorseful pimp. I hope you lose more money in future hustles.
Shaun Smith is still promoting ponzi schemes – and yes, it’s the same Shaun Smith who was jailed for 5 years – there’s a clear photo of him on the BBC news site – news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1630366.stm