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

Originally Posted by GlimDropper

Credit where it's due. Troy Dooly's most recent blog post. When confronting the question of which remaining Penny Auction MLMs he would recommend joining, Troy gave an answer I can endorse. I'll link to Troy if I agree with him or not, I've never doubted if his heart was in the right place but sometimes I can't figure out where his head is at. It isn't an issue of agree or disagree, it's more about the consequences of misplaced enthusiasm and the caution that should be used to avoid them.

Thank you Troy for telling the people who look to you for advice that JBP and Banner Brokers are straight up ponzies. Not like there was ever really any question about that but with all the ponzi "street cred" you gained by being the go to PR guy for Zeek, maybe the respect you gained with ponzi promoters everywhere can be used to leverage against a few near end cycle programs.

I'm starting to think that Troy should record all of his videos at 4:30 in the morning.

LOL, must be harder to keep the beat to that mlm drum when you're bleary-eyed from lack of sleep...!

From the background, I think he recorded that in a hotel room.

The problem is he suffers from severe tunnel vision. Penny auction by itself is fine. It's the Ponzi comp plan of Zeek Rewards that sunk RVG, NOT Zeekler penny auctions.

Originally Posted by kschang

The problem is he suffers from severe tunnel vision. Penny auction by itself is fine. It's the Ponzi comp plan of Zeek Rewards that sunk RVG, NOT Zeekler penny auctions.

His tunnel vision is now compounding his problems.

Not only is he refusing to admit Zeek was a ponzi fraud from the start, he's now tarring the legitimate penny auction industry with the same brush.

STOP, Mr Dooly, STOP

In the name of all that's holy SHUT UP !!! You're making things worse, not better.

Actually, LRM, he's only tarring those penny auctions with a MLM/ Ponzi component. He didn't say anything about Quibids, for example. And he rather liked Bidify, kept mentioned how "reformed" Jorgensen was. :D

Originally Posted by kschang

From the background, I think he recorded that in a hotel room.

The problem is he suffers from severe tunnel vision. Penny auction by itself is fine. It's the Ponzi comp plan of Zeek Rewards that sunk RVG, NOT Zeekler penny auctions.

Amen. The penny auction had very little to do with the scam, it was just a good cover story. I personally think that penny auctions are eventually going to run afoul of gambling laws, but other than that issue for the time being the real ones remain legitimate businesses. It's the idea of hooking one up to a cheap ponzi scheme (Hiya Frode! I'm talking to you!) that stinks.

And honestly, the very idea that anyone would give Frode Joregenson money to invest boggles my mind. I guess there will be people lining up for Bryan Marsden's next program too. It's amazing how stupid greed can make people.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

His tunnel vision is now compounding his problems.

Not only is he refusing to admit Zeek was a ponzi fraud from the start, he's now tarring the legitimate penny auction industry with the same brush.

STOP, Mr Dooly, STOP

In the name of all that's holy SHUT UP !!! You're making things worse, not better.

I'm anxiously awaiting reports from the receiver that will finally make public how much money Troy was paid "not as an affiliate" by RVG. It wqill help make my point that the industry experts are qualified more by how willing they are to be bought off than by actually knowing anything about business.

Originally Posted by Gregg

Amen. The penny auction had very little to do with the scam, it was just a good cover story. I personally think that penny auctions are eventually going to run afoul of gambling laws, but other than that issue for the time being the real ones remain legitimate businesses. It's the idea of hooking one up to a cheap ponzi scheme (Hiya Frode! I'm talking to you!) that stinks.

And honestly, the very idea that anyone would give Frode Joregenson money to invest boggles my mind. I guess there will be people lining up for Bryan Marsden's next program too. It's amazing how stupid greed can make people.

No need for a new scam as Yogibrood over at rollclub is still working the origional PIPS scam with mandatory donations claiming they trying to get pipsters money back from Malaysia

Zeek Rewards Receivership website

• Subscriptions
• Language
• Information For...

Advanced

• Filing
• Payments
• Refunds
• Credits & Deductions News & Events Forms & Pubs Help & Resources

Like Share Print
Help for Victims of Ponzi Investment Schemes

The IRS provides two items of guidance to help taxpayers who are victims of losses from Ponzi-type investment schemes.

• Revenue Ruling 2009-9 provides guidance on determining the amount and timing of losses from these schemes, which is difficult and dependent on the prospect of recovering the lost money (which may not become known for several years).
• Revenue Procedure 2009-20 simplifies compliance for taxpayers by providing a safe-harbor means of determining the year in which the loss is deemed to occur and a simplified means of computing the amount of the loss.

For an overview of this guidance, see IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman's March 17, 2009, testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on tax issues related to Ponzi schemes.
Questions and Answers

• Do you have questions on what to do if you've invested in a Ponzi scheme? If so, these questions and answers may help.
• Do you have questions on what to do if you took a tax loss due to a Ponzi scheme investment but later recovered some of your investment? If so, these questions and answers on the tax treatment of distributions received from a trustee/receiver may help. A trustee or receiver may use this information to respond to questions from investors and may include a copy of these questions and answers with any distributions sent to investors.

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 2012-08-03

Help for Victims of Ponzi Investment Schemes

Who'd be a judge or receiver in a HYIP ponzi case, eh ??

And, before anyone asks, Yep, it's not a joke and he/she really is serious













CONTINUED NEXT POST

Wow, a bunch of new Zeek related court documents to read, and our good friend Don makes them all available right here.

And of course, Patrick has a post up about them already. (Link)

I wonder how many Zeek insiders knew Paul was talking to the SEC before the 17th. So much for the "SEC knew nothing" when they filed their complaint argument. No fear, Robbert will just invent a new one.


Take a look at the footnote on page 1 of document 20. The entire document is in opposition to the receiver seizing Paul's personal bank accounts but the footnote explains that he doesn't oppose the receiver cashing Zeek member's checks. Take their money, not mine is what he seems to be saying.

OUCH !!

Man, this has got to hurt the remaining Paul Burks defenders out there:

His own lawyer tells the truth:

Originally Posted by littleroundman

OUCH !!

Man, this has got to hurt the remaining Paul Burks defenders out there:

His own lawyer tells the truth:

So how did Burks lawyer go in stopping the receiver from freezing his personal assets? Or no decision yet?.

Originally Posted by okosh

So how did Burks lawyer go in stopping the receiver from freezing his personal assets? Or no decision yet?.

That extract is from the DEFENDANT PAUL BURKS’ RESPONSE TO RECEIVER’S MOTION in which Burks' lawyer argues that Burks' agreed forfeiture should not include his (Burks) personal assets.

So, it hasn't been ruled upon yet.

If I read the motions correctly, the receiver petitioned the judge to 1) clarify what are his rights to the checks "in transit" to Zeek as he took over, and 2) seek expanded freeze upon Burks' personal accounts, as he kept finding more and more stuff SEC didn't seem to know about.

The judge ruled that the checks belong to the receiver, period. Burks' lawyer Noell Tin spoke up and said "Hey, you already got 4 mil and my client's cooperation. What else you want?" Judge said "Receiver, unless you find evidence that Burks actually hid money in his own accounts, then I'll think about it. Right now, no more freezes on Burks personal assets."

Originally Posted by kschang

If I read the motions correctly, the receiver petitioned the judge to 1) clarify what are his rights to the checks "in transit" to Zeek as he took over, and 2) seek expanded freeze upon Burks' personal accounts, as he kept finding more and more stuff SEC didn't seem to know about.

The judge ruled that the checks belong to the receiver, period. Burks' lawyer Noell Tin spoke up and said "Hey, you already got 4 mil and my client's cooperation. What else you want?" Judge said "Receiver, unless you find evidence that Burks actually hid money in his own accounts, then I'll think about it. Right now, no more freezes on Burks personal assets."

Shouldn't Burke have to pay back the money stolen from the victims??....Since the $225million won't cover the lot shouldn't his personal assets be added to the money frozen in the bank accounts??....

Originally Posted by okosh

Shouldn't Burke have to pay back the money stolen from the victims??....Since the $225million won't cover the lot shouldn't his personal assets be added to the money frozen in the bank accounts??....

Depends on how much "ill-gotten gains" he had been personally enriched by. In a Ponzi, the organizers just take a little off the top. Most of the money actually went to the early joiners (who are used as Judas Goats to draw in more joiners).

That whole "rebuttal" just makes me want to open the window and see if my computer can fly.
Does Kasey actually talk to Troy Dooly? If anyone does, please pass on a message from me.

Since Troy has himself said he is NOT an expert on Ponzi Schemes, and since a good part of his audience is right now interested in a Ponzi Scheme, I'll come on his show or whatever it is an answer questions, and I won't ask anyone for a dime beyond asking anyone so inclined to help support Patrick Penny's blog.....

If he has any intellectual honesty, he should accept that I think.

His e-mail address is public:

troydooly@mlmhelpdesk.com

I've sent him private e-mails before, you're welcome to do the same. I have one of his other email address, but I'm not sure it's for public consumption. (Though it's rather obvious if you check his name as a domain)

Originally Posted by okosh

Shouldn't Burke have to pay back the money stolen from the victims??....Since the $225million won't cover the lot shouldn't his personal assets be added to the money frozen in the bank accounts??....

That's precisely the argument that's taking place in the court at the minute.

Again from DEFENDANT PAUL BURKS’ RESPONSE TO RECEIVER’S MOTION

Remember, this is Burks' lawyer arguing that the consent order precludes Burks' personal accounts.

Originally Posted by GlimDropper

Wow, a bunch of new Zeek related court documents to read, and our good friend Don makes them all available right here.

And of course, Patrick has a post up about them already. (Link)

I wonder how many Zeek insiders knew Paul was talking to the SEC before the 17th. So much for the "SEC knew nothing" when they filed their complaint argument. No fear, Robbert will just invent a new one.


Take a look at the footnote on page 1 of document 20. The entire document is in opposition to the receiver seizing Paul's personal bank accounts but the footnote explains that he doesn't oppose the receiver cashing Zeek member's checks. Take their money, not mine is what he seems to be saying.

In looking at the documents that Don so diligently gathers, this one is somewhat bizarre to me: The document from Synovus Bank saying they had stopped payment on $86000 worth of Cashiers checks. Doesn't that fly in the face of the purpose and security of a cashiers check? Also, I wonder how many of those were 'new' suckers as opposed to people that had already 'profited'...!

Originally Posted by laidback

Doesn't that fly in the face of the purpose and security of a cashiers check?

Not at all, it flies in the face of WHAT MOST PEOPLE ASSUME is the purpose and security of a cashiers check.

In pure terms all it means is a cashiers' cheque is guaranteed by the bank. I.OW. They are treated as guaranteed funds and are usually cleared the next day.

From Wikipedia:

Most banks do not clear them instantly. However, banks are permitted to take back money from a "cleared" check one or two weeks later if subsequent processing finds it to be fraudulent. Because customers believe the checks have been found valid and have been converted to cash in hand, customers are readily defrauded by schemes that ask them to part with goods or a portion of the money if it is cleared in a timely manner.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Not at all, it flies in the face of WHAT MOST PEOPLE ASSUME is the purpose and security of a cashiers check.

In pure terms all it means is a cashiers' cheque is guaranteed by the bank. I.OW. They are treated as guaranteed funds and are usually cleared the next day.

From Wikipedia:

Aha. So a cashiers check is no better than any other check.

Originally Posted by laidback

Aha. So a cashiers check is no better than any other check.

More to the point a bank or cashiers check is different from a personal check because whoever is cashing the check doesn't need to trust you, they only need to trust your bank. When you purchase a cashiers check you do precisely that. You gave the money upfront to your bank and after that the transaction is between your bank and the bank used by the person or company the check is addressed to. You're no longer involved, it's just your bank and their bank.