Zeek Rewards Scam Coverage and related News

ZeekRewards scam coverage reached even India:
http://www.moneylife.in/article/sec-aims-to-shut-down-600-million-ponzi-scheme/28127.html

Another North Carolina business weighed in on Zeek Rewards Scam
http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-14759-money-for-nothing.html

Judge Dismissed lawsuit by Disner and Schweitzer to revive Ad Surf Daily Ponzi
http://www.patrickpretty.com/2012/08/29/alert-alert-alert-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-filed-against-united-states-by-adsurfdaily-figures-todd-disner-and-dwight-owen-schweitzer-later-to-become-zeek-promoters/

NOTE: the same pair is now fronting someone else to restart the Zeek Ponzi.

WFMY News-2 reports on Ken Bell's news conference call 27-AUG-2012
http://www.digtriad.com/news/article/242477/57/Zeek-Rewards-Receiver-To-Address-Media

Related articles

• EDITORIAL: People in denial do some crazy things...
• WARNING: "reload" scams targeting Zeek Rewards Ponzi victims
• Can you have a scam feed off another scam? Absolutely.
• How to stop (or at least slow down) online Ponzi schemes

How did a scam become a cult?

About 2 weeks ago (18-AUG-2012) the American SEC shut down ZeekRewards as a $600 million Ponzi scheme. The owner plead no contest and gave up the company to the Feds and 4 million in his bank account (obtained from the Ponzi).

I have been speaking out against this potential scam since April 2012, and since then I've received death threats, "warnings", and even cyberattacks as well as a legal threat which temporarily knocked my review offline for 6 days.

So it is especially sad to see people who STILL believe in Zeek, even after the Feds shut them down. The following is an actual sign posted on Zeek shuttered HQ's window.

(source: http://mywritestuff.blogs.the-dispatch.com/10319/some-just-dont-get-it/ )

Zeek is one of the outliers of Ponzi... snaring up to 1 million victims. While money-wise it comes nowhere close to Bernie Madoff or Alan Stanford's Ponzis, those went after rich people. Zeek went after the middle class, the everyman, the average Joe and Jane, that could be you, your friends, your family.

COMMENTARY: Why didn't the so-called experts speak up sooner?

In analyzing the MLM industry only for about 3 or so years, I've been called many names by supporters of many suspect schemes.

While I am just as happy to have been proven right, or even... vindicated, regarding my criticism of Zeek Rewards, one thing bothered me somewhat...

Where were the "real" experts? Those who had been studying the industry for years, both for and against the MLM model? 

And where is the DSA in the whole Zeek debacle?

Can you have a scam feed off another scam? Absolutely.

By now we've pretty much covered the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme to death, except the few folks that want to revive this monstrocity.

But let's back track for a moment... There were a lot of "feeders" that benefited off Zeek.

You need customers to give bids to? Instead of recruiting your own, you can "buy leads" from outside companies. It used to be internal (5cc and "customer co-op") but it was outsourced (supposedly for "compliance") to ZCustomers.com owned by Mr. Bessoni, who claims to be the same source that supplied the 5cc in the first place.

(Whether the customers are legit is a different story)

Well, turns out there was supposed to be some competitor to Mr. Bessoni in the coming months, except SEC got involved and closed off this little money tree someone's been shaking nonstop.

Bad Argument: The "You can't satisfy everybody" red herring

When supporters of a suspect scheme ran out of arguments against its critics, they often fall back to the "you can't satisfy everyone" fallacy, where they try to dismiss the critic's points as "negativity" without saying so. It is a type of red herring, and takes the following form:

A: Acme XYZ is a scam because of ____, ____, ____. 

B: Acme XYZ can't satisfy everybody. There's always some detractors.

This is a red herring because B's statement neither disproves the premise (Acme XYZ is a scam), nor does it prove the counter-premise (Acme XYZ is NOT a scam). Instead, it throws in a completely irrelevant statement: "so what?"

Which is just plain rude.

Bad Argument: the "lack of complaints" fallacy

A suspect scheme supporter may defend the scheme by touting how few complaints it had with legal authorities or agencies such as the BBB (that is, when they are not discrediting the BBB). It may take the following form:

S: Acme XYZ is not a scam! It has a million affiliates and only 8 complaints! 

Unfortunately, this is a fallacy of "appeal to ignorance". Just because there's lack of complaints doesn't prove the scheme's legit.

The fact that there had been few complaints could have variety of explanations... age (it may have just started), maturity (Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes don't generate complaints until they stop paying), cult control (if you complain you are not one of us), and so on.

EDITORIAL: People in denial do some crazy things...

It is interesting that people in denial will do some absolutely crazy things, such as claiming black is white, truth is fiction, and so on.

This is exactly what's happening with many Zeek affiliates, one week after their scheme, ZeekRewards, was shut down by the SEC as a $600 million Ponzi scheme. And they are being lead by someone who thus far has yet to publicize his own relationship with Zeek, not as an affiliate, but also as a consultant for Zeek.

This is a letter I was forwarded recently, and it illustrates the amount of delusion people in denial has, in that they refuse to see the truth, but would rather spin some sort of conspiracy to fit their own narrative.

Their words will be in blue, and my reply will be in red.