BULLETIN: SEC Sanctions Troy Dooly For Zeek-Related Work; MLMHelpDesk Blogger Ordered To Pay More Than $6,000 In Disgorgement, Penalties And Interest
BULLETIN: (UPDATED 9:04 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) The SEC has sanctioned MLMHelpDesk Blogger Adam “Troy” Dooly, amid allegations he accepted money from the Zeek Rewards MLM “program” operated by Rex Venture Group LLC without disclosing to Blog readers and radio listeners that Rex “was paying him” to publicize the Zeek venture.
Section 17(b) of the Securities Act “prohibits publishing, giving publicity, or circulating ‘any notice, circular, advertisement . . . or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer . . . without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof,'” the SEC said.
Zeek has been described by the SEC in court papers (August 2012) as a $600 million Ponzi- and pyramid fraud that was selling unregistered securities as investment contracts. Dooly consented to the sanctions and an accompanying cease-and-desist order without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
“In each instance of public relations or promotion in various media outlets, Dooly failed to disclose to his readers and listeners that RVG was paying him for such publicity,” the SEC asserted in an administrative filing dated today. “Dooly believed that, pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement, RVG maintained the exclusive right to determine whether or not to disclose Dooly’s consulting agreement and the amount of compensation. Because RVG did not authorize such disclosure, Dooly declined to reveal his compensation and, in at least one instance, Dooly denied (or misled his audience about) receiving compensation from RVG (apart from reimbursement of expenses) when asked about his compensation during a public radio program.
Dooly, 49, has settled with the SEC by agreeing to pay disgorgement of $3,000, prejudgment interest of $98.81, and civil penalties of $3,000 to the court-appointed receiver in the case. The receiver is Kenneth D. Bell, who is in the process of preparing lawsuits against Zeek winners and insiders.
From the SEC (italics added):
2. From at least April 2012 until August 2012, Dooly served as a paid consultant to Rex Venture Group, LLC (“RVG”), the parent company of ZeekRewards.com (“ZeekRewards”), the self-described “affiliate advertising division” for a penny auction website known as Zeekler.com. ZeekRewards operated as a multi-level marketing program offering subscription memberships to affiliates who then recruited new affiliates and bought and gave away as samples, or sold, bid packages for the penny auction website. Rather than promoting penny auctions, however, RVG primarily marketed ZeekRewards to investors as an opportunity to earn passive income indefinitely through their participation in the program.
3. Under two successive contracts, RVG agreed to pay Dooly $6,000 per month to provide various consulting and public relations services that included, among other things, responding to negative press about RVG and ZeekRewards; providing live reporting from company events; conducting video chat interviews to “promote company, founders, officers, products and culture”; and providing media exposure to facilitate market penetration and improve public perception. In furtherance of the foregoing, Dooly promoted ZeekRewards on his website, MLMHelpdesk.com; posted blog entries and youtube.com videos giving publicity to ZeekRewards; and conducted at least one radio interview promoting the company.
4. Dooly provided the agreed services until ZeekRewards was shut down by the SEC in August 2012 for operating an illegal pyramid and Ponzi scheme. For all his services, Dooly earned $24,000 in consulting fees, but he never received the last $6,000 payment because the company’s assets were frozen (thus receiving only $18,000). Of that total, $3,000 or approximately 17% was attributed to public relations or promotion in various media outlets.
See “EDITORIAL: A Friday Evening In MLM Radio La-La Land” from the PP Blog on June 10, 2012.
The SEC moved against Zeek a little more than two months after Dooly interviewed then-Zeek executive Dawn Wright-Olivares on ACES Radio Live.
Read the SEC order against Dooly.
“.,…and providing media exposure to facilitate market penetration and improve public perception…,.”
Say it ain’t so Troy.
I think it’s important to remember that Troy did allow Zeek’s critics to have their say on MLM Help Desk, that being said Troy was not honest about the role he was playing. If he was being paid to “improve public perception” of Zeek Rewards he should have admitted that at the time. It would have changed how his coverage was being viewed, more like an infomercial than an editorial. But it would have been honest.
The really bad thing here is how MLM Help Desk is viewed going forward. Because Troy failed to disclose the nature of his relationship with one of his clients (Rex Ventures) we are left to wonder about his coverage of other companies he consults for. Is he being paid to improve public perception of those companies as well?
I honestly like Troy and sincerely wish to believe that he’s just as open and honest as he makes himself out to be in his videos. But this bell wont be unrung, Troy needs to answer it. And “sorry, never should have happened” wont mean much unless it’s coupled with “and this is why it will never happen again.”
I bet there are a lot of “other” big-name players in Zeek that are starting to sweat bullets about now with this news. It is gratifying to know that the receiver, Kenneth Bell, is doing exactly what he said he would do against the winners, those in the know, and the professional people who helped Zeek fleece the flock. I just hope that civil and criminal charges are not too far off for the people behind Zeek.
Troy, you should be thanking your lucky stars that you got off this easy, because the penalty should have been a lot more severe for what you did. Hopefully a lesson learned.
Now if they would only go after Ken Russo and Faith Sloan there would be dancing in the streets.
I would like to believe that Troy was just as fooled by this as the rest of us. His part in this doesn’t bother me – it is the blatant fleecing plan cooked up by Dawn and Darryl because I still feel like the two of them were the ring leaders in derailing all of this. I could be – and probably am wrong – but those two always felt slimy to me. It could have been a beautiful thing!!
Patrick and GlimDropper,
I will be talking about this situation now that the Settlement has been reached in the next week at MLM Help Desk.
I will share a few items here in your community because you reported and there is no reason to leave folks hanging while I am on the road. Plus you have always been fair with me, even when we didn’t agree, and I respect where you are coming from.
1. I reported many times that regulators monitored MLM Help Desk. I would NEVER knowingly violate ANY law.
Since 2009 we have followed the FTC disclosure rules. I had no clue about Sec. 17(B) of the 1933 Securities Act. I warned about making changes of the FTC or State AG might shut them down as a pyramid, never gave a thought about un-registered securities.
2. The SEC clarified that inside the Agreement was a non-disclosure, and RVG also had me sign an additional NDA which I shared publically, I could be held libel in civil court if I violated it, I never did.
Since the Settlement and my clear understanding of Sec. 17(B) of the Securities Act of 1933, the NDA has been removed from the Agreement, and all NDAs provided by new clients, will not be able to include stating I am a consultant or not, it will be strictly covering their proprietary company information.
3. The “Public Relations” side of the Agreement is unlike what most people think about Public Relations, our agreement was specific; it was not to show some false picture of Zeek, or to spin the truth. It is strictly to provide an outlet where both sides could be talked about without spin.
Which is why I allow all sides to talk about the issues. In the Zeek saga, I tried to provide the reps as well as the critics the ability to share their frustrations, argue the facts, share additional links, and provide answers I received from the company. Some times the info from the company made sense, and at times we all discussed that it did not make sense. That is not what a PR firm does!
Had I known that my use of the team Public Relations would be interpreted to mean I am promoting a client selling unregistered securities, then it would have been written differently. Now that I have learned a valuable lesson, the Agreement has been corrected.
4. GlimDropper, As for how this will never happen again is very simple. If you have noticed in the last few videos, and editorials I am making it clear which videos are about clients. The disclosures on at the bottom of the articles and at the end of the videos. At times I even mention the fact in the videos themselves. And I will be providing inside the disclosure page a list of current clients.
Troy, thank you for taking time out of what could not have been a great day for you to come here and address this issue
I have no trouble believing that. So much of Zeek’s faux affiliate compliance effort could best be visualized by three monkeys in a “hear no investments, see no investments. speak no investments” pose that I can see how you didn’t see (hear or speak) this coming. But you were warned.
I’m sorry but I do not see how providing a fair forum for open discussion where all aspects of an issue get heard could cost you six grand. I do admit that litigating an issue like this could easily cost you more that what you paid in fines and perhaps that was a consideration. But you agreed (without admitting any fault)to a judgement which implied a bias in furtherance of a fraud (with monetary penalties).
I like you man, I honestly wish you well but I know how this will look to people without a favorable inclination. This can not be swept under a rug and you’ll need a more substantial explanation for why you consented to judgement to get past this.
My advice, never sign a NDA that prevents you from beginning and ending any video or blog post you make on a company with a full disclosure of the fact that they are paying you and for what. And if your NDA forbids that sort of thing, never mention that company in any of your videos or blog posts while you are under contract.
GlimDroper,
1. My interpretation of my agreement and services is irrelevant when reviewing it against the current regulations. So when I was presented with the facts based on the Securities Act, it was clear that fighting to prove my meaning, would be pointless because case law would prevail.
I believe the SEC attorneys were both fair and balanced in how they handled my situation. I fully understand and accept their position and I am willing to lead the charge to clean up the way bloggers, reporter, consultants, etc, when it comes to fully disclosing all connections to a company. My ignorance is no excuse period!
Besides, let’s face it most people never read the posts or the comments, they watch a video and make a decision based on what I said or they perceived I said. And as discussed on my blog, I did at times come off as a promoter and not an advocate when it came to Zeek.
2. I shared today that we have removed the NDAs and are providing disclosures in several locations as well as providing a list of clients moving forward.
It is somewhat ironic, what I hit Zeek for in Dec 2011, where I stated they had many laws to review. Well I fell into the same trap. I followed the regulations of one branch of regulation and never gave a thought to another.
For all of this I take 100% full responsibility.
I’m sorry, but characterizing an illegal activity as “beautiful” just doesn’t work for me. My memory of the events may be flawed, but I seem to remember statements and questions as to whether Troy was paid by Zeek and those queries garnered negative or no responses. As far as the NDA is concerned, it is common knowledge that one of the ploys of scammers is to try to invoke an NDA.
Many thanks “Lynn” for calling a spade a spade. Dooly was truly a Judas.
Troy was affected by greed when he saw Zeek money. After so many years working with MLMs he had to knew what “ponzi” means. When he realized that it may cost him “reputation” in already shady MLM world, he sharply pulled back. So any way he will try to cover his tracks: (I was “stupid” or I was “naive”), it does not look good.
Boris,
Can you explain a little more where you are coming from? I never pulled back on the reporting on Zeek. As a matter of fact I continued to cover it after the closure.
As for the money, do the math… $18K in five months is not greed money.
As for covering my tracks, well that is an interesting remark since I have gone public on several blogs, radio shows and social media. Can you explain why you feel I am trying to cover my tracks when I published all the documents?
@Laidback,
Can you explain your “beautiful” remark? I think I made a comment once that it would be a beautiful things to see Zeek worm for the masses. Is this what you are referring?
And I always responded when asked if I got paid. What I DID NOT do is explain in full detail. As I mentioned in my video today, I split hairs and that violated the SEC regulations. We have not fixed the issues and are providing full disclosures!
And NDAs are common business practices, not just Ponzi.
NDAs are indeed common business practices. When coupled with an agreement to endorse/defend, however, the result is commonly called a “shill”.
I personally have a lot more respect for someone who has gotten their fingers burned in the “internet marketing business” and sticks around to face the critics as opposed to the more sleazy scammers who crawl back under their rocks and go quiet.
SD
.
And I personally have more respect for bank robbers who apologize than those who don’t.
“Split hairs”???….That’s a joke right??….
You were nothing more then a paid shill who had every opportunity to come clean and be honest yet you chose not to….
But I must ask….Have you learned your lesson from all this and are you done pitching these illegal ponzi schemes??..
When you get caught, time to apologize?
What a joke. How much cash did you cost people who trusted you?
This clown will be over here trying to answer every remark till doomsday.
YOU WERE FINED BY SEC. Thats it. Go away.
Because you got caught.
I’ve watched tens of thousands of Ponzi schemes evaporate along with those associated in one way or the other over the last 15 years.
The “associates” that disappear back under the comfort of their rock of anonymity have no conscience and teach us nothing that we don’t already know.
Those who choose to face their righteously indignant detractors (perhaps even for some self-dignifying purpose), I have some modicom of respect for. It’s hard for them and it’s beneficial for the ever-replenishing pool of potential victims.
SD
.
Troy, sorry man but you weren’t spiting hairs, you were not telling the truth. The significant question then becomes how much did your contractual relationship with one of your paying clients supersede the duty you owe to people who look to you for an honest opinion.
If you want to look at this way there are two parts of life, what we’ve done till now and what we do from here on. You earned the blow back you’re getting from the Zeek debacle, even after you pay your fines. But I do like what I’m hearing you say about disclosing conflicts of interest going forward.
When you think about exactly where you need to draw those lines please remember (and I’m not saying this to be mean), you were perhaps the number one recruiter for Zeek Rewards. The way you covered the company on your blogs and in your appearances resulted in a nowhere near insignificant number of people joining the company who between them lost a very significant amount of money and all because, much as myself they like you and want to trust you.
Own that. Make that the bench mark you use when you decide how to comment about a company that also happens to be one of your clients. Think of all the heart sick stories you’ve heard after Zeek was shut down and in addition to some blanket disclosures, use those people’s voices to guide your reporting on companies that are exploiting the “gray areas.”
When an honest person learns they have made a mistake, they either stop making that mistake or they stop being honest. I very much want to believe Troy wont make this mistake again and it goes without saying that he knows folks are paying attention.
Troy & Everyone,
I still can’t figure out. The receiver made early settlement with 135 net winners in July ’13 and its average recovery was 56% of total net winning amount. These net winners spontaneously settled but I understand that Troy settled after he had been charged, in other words forced to settle as the possible best choice.
Under the circumstances, why is total repayments – all together $6,000 out of $18,000 which is 33%, far lower than the early spontaneous net winners.
Can Troy or anybody give me comprehensive explanation?
William
Mr. Dooly, I don’t know what your lawyer had advised you, but I make several observations / questions.
1) You had so many lawyer friends, ANY ONE of course could have confirmed for you our warnings that Zeek is a security, fits the Howey Test, and will be slapped by the SEC. You ignored it all, and thus, you ignored all the ancillary disclosure rules that followed from securities, one of the most tightly controlled financial instruments in US finance. You kept saying that Zeek is looking into it, that Zeek will NOT fit the Howey test, but… what sort of crap was Nehra and Waak, or Burks feeding you? You couldn’t have checked with Mr. Thompson, or Mr. Babener, or someone who was NOT involved? That you NEVER realized you’ve been lied to, mislead, or even SUSPECTED so?
2) You had LONG experience swith the FTC and FDA disclosure rules on what must be disclosed and so on. Did you EVER bothered checking the LEGALITY of the NDA you agreed with RVG / Burk with any of your attorney friends, vs. the disclosure legal requirements as by law, even by FTC standards that you know, much less the SEC disclosure rules? Frankly, I had a hard time believing that you, having been in MLM for so long, would FAIL to see how getting paid by a company that don’t allow you to disclose that fact would have automatically disqualified you from covering that company in ANY sort of news, much less offering your own opinions! It’s an automatic ethical conflict that require reclusion, or failing that, a disclosure!
3) Why did you not disclose that fact that you were compensated by Zeek earlier? I seriously doubt the receiver would have bothered enforcing that NDA on you. That NDA either was never legal, or it was effectively moot when secret service changed the locks on the Lexington office. Yet we have to wait a whole YEAR to find out you were, in effect, speaking with a hidden agenda for MONTHS before Zeek folded?
I was actually responding to “Nell” and her assertion that absent manipulations by Dawn and Daryl Zeek could have been a “beautiful thing”. Regarding “splitting hairs”, that most probably accounted for several additional persons entering that might not have otherwise. As far as myself, and many others are concerned, failure to disclose that you are being compensated by the operation that you are touting is not , “splitting hairs”, it’s fraud.
Troy can speak to the issue of whether he was fooled by Zeek and how — if he cares to.
But here’s something to think about: Zeek consultant Keith Laggos was charged under 17(b) (the touting provision) in the 2004 Converge Global Inc. scam. This was long before Laggos became an apologist for the $119 million AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme and an insider at Zeek, a $600 million debacle.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr18887.htm
One might think that Laggos could have chosen to tell Troy, “Hey, look, man. I got charged under 17(b) when I was issuing laudatory press releases without disclosing my compensation, and had to pay more than $33,000, so you better be careful.”
Beyond that, one might think that Zeek made an epic mistake by bringing in a former SEC defendant charged under the touting provision to be one of the faces of the company — especially since Laggos’ Network Marketing Business Journal gushed and gushed about Zeek and Troy gushed about NMBJ’s gushing.
Here’s one way to look at this, Nell: Zeek brought in a former SEC defendant charged under the touting provision to gush over Zeek. It then arranged to bring in Troy to somehow manage/mitigate the daily PR disasters it was experiencing, only Zeek put Troy (with his consent) under a “can’t tell” NDA provision.
A skeptic might view that as a bid to get around 17(b), so one could reasonably ask whether Laggos told Zeek that 17(b) could be a problem and Zeek tried to circumvent the touting provision with the NDA.
In any event, the SEC brought 17(b) to bear against Troy. It’s hard for me to believe that Laggos (at least) didn’t see that as a possibility.
Here is some background:
https://patrickpretty.com/2012/08/12/editorial-karl-wallenda-wouldnt-do-zeek/
Only in MLM La-La Land.
Patrick
I warned you guys but no one wanted to listen. He did the same thing with that buzzirk (or what ever it was)telescam his buddy was behind and had to admit it on scamdotcom when he got caught. His credibility has been shot for a couple years.
It’s not that we’re not listening… It’s that we’re giving him a chance to prove… that leopard can’t change its spots. ;)
Raise your hand if youve been fined by SEC.
Try DOO Di has…enough said.
Troy: My disagreement with you and your actions in Zeek are not personal, it is strictly on a business level. As a business consultant for over 20 years, the sole responsibility of making sure the services I was providing to a client were legal was mine and my attorney. I did not rely on the company, any officer of the company, or their legal team telling me the services I was asked to provide were legal. It is called due diligence. Any consultant worth their salt would tell you the same thing.
As Patrick pointed out, your reliance on people in Zeek, and them only, coupled with your total lack of due diligence is what got you into this mess. And yet you had plenty of warnings from a whole host of people telling you there were problems with not only what you were doing but what Zeek was doing.
You claim “greed” did not play a role here. Seriously? It sure did “cloud” your judgment, which is just as bad in my book.
Your actions caused thousands of people to join Zeek instead of listening to all of us who were warning people Zeek was a massive Ponzi and offering securities despite what Zeek and you were saying Zeek was not.
One can only hope they were part of the victims that have filed with the receiver to recoup some of the money they lost in Zeek. For this is the only shining moment for Zeek is that there is money to pay back to the true victims of Zeek.
For justice to be truly done, the inner circle and founders of Zeek need to be prosecuted criminally for their roles in Zeek. I hope that day is not too far off. Since you were also an active participant of Zeek providing training and answering questions at the red carpet events, one could argue you were one of those insiders.
Just because you settled a civil action with the SEC does not mean you could be off the hook for criminal charges. That will be up to the US Attorney to decide who all were in the inner circle and founders are, and whether or not they will file criminal charges.
Why you refused to ignore all of us who were warning you and exposing Zeek for the Ponzi it was, only you can answer. To me it totally defied logic.
The moment the Feds start going after the major promoters of these Ponzi’s, it will be the death knell for them. At least the Feds are starting to listen to us on how to stop trillions of dollars from being stolen annually worldwide from these Ponzi’s, illegal cash gifting schemes and other scams.
While I applaud you for posting your sanctions, your reasoning as to why falls a little short for me. I also applaud you for your actions you are taking going forward to make sure this does not happen again.
In which type of situation will a company ask for anything like that?
An NDA should typically be about “company secrets”, something that can harm the company if it becomes publicly known, or if it’s being shared with competitors or others.
Since WHEN did companies start to see “hiring Troy Dooly as a PR consultant” to be something that absolutely needs to be covered by an NDA, “something harmful”?
“If the public or our competitors are made aware of the fact that we have hired Troy Dooly as a PR consultant, our reputation and trade secrets will be seriously harmed. We simply MUST ask him to sign an NDA about it!”.
Sorry Troy, your story is thin and vague. The NDA gave you an EXCUSE for not telling the truth, and that was probably its main purpose. “I need an excuse so I can hide the fact that I’m a paid consultant. Can we sign an NDA about it?”. That story is much more believable.
Any “opportunity” that has a “Compliance” person is by its nature non-compliant. Why else would they feel the need to tell everyone they employ a “compliance” person???
Because that guy is about compliance of the minions, not corporate. :) This is an “equivocation” fallacy. Zeek did quite a bit of that.
I’ve held my tongue, but I just have to say a few things.
Troy, first, an NDA that makes you do something or cover up something that is illegal is itself illegal. It’s non-enforceable much like the member agreements that many scams use with language that makes the signer agree he is not working for the government, law enforcement etc… You can write them, but you can’t enforce them. But you can plausibly claim to have not known that, which brings me to my second point. One that I first asked a few years ago and still haven’t gotten an answer to.
By what stretch of imagination do you have any claim to being an “expert” in MLM?
You don’t have any special education that I know of, you failed to see in Zeek that there was not enough revenue from the auctions to cover the payments promised (even after I and many others pointed that out) You didn’t know enough about law to keep yourself from getting the title “defendant” and frankly, from all I’ve seen you really don’t have a very good grasp on basic business practices. You’re a good talker, and you have built an audience based on that, but I’m not really convinced you know anymore about business than posters on internet forums.
From here in the bunker complex it looks like your only ethical path forward is to give up implying that you know anything about a business and just flat out endorse things for money, making it perfectly clear to your audience that you’re a paid promoter and nothing more.
And on a final note, I have to point out that you told me that the only money you accepted from RVG was reimbursements for expenses, and based upon that conversation I personally quit attacking you on that issue. I feel very much like you lied to me.
What about Kevin Grimes profiting from his compliance training program with Zeek. He benefited from the company. What is his fine?
Quick note: Have received a note from a longtime reader about an error message he received when trying to post a comment. Am working on getting it fixed.
My apologies for the inconvenience. The problem appears to have been caused by a plug-in conflict.
Patrick
Exactly. I was checking his blog for years and saw him supporting(or giving huge breaks) to very unreputable MLMs. Those reviews were never based on mathematical models or background criminal checks of people involved. Best argument he could provide was: “I know those people and they always been honest”. Very good argument for MLM promotion, not very good for MLM analysis. Since Dooley does not seem to be stupid, that means that he was sweeping unpleasant information under the rug. He is definitely not running “help desk”.
Given the fact Mr Dooly was publicly endorsing a business offering a 1% to 2% DAILY ROI, I think the truth of your observation could be described as self evident.
Actually legitimate companies do hire compliance people mostly when they expand in new markets or when laws change drastically. But you never hear of them because they are basic bureaucrats and not star-makers like in MLM industry.
OKosh,
A paid shill will never debate issues or allow others to provide validation to their point of view. I not only allowed the conversation I personally made it clear I learned from it, and in the end I moved from seeing Zeek Rewards as a posable pyramid scheme to a full out ponzi, admitting I was fooled to think that leadership wanted to change things.
GlimDropper,
I understand, points taken.
William,
The Reciever had nothing to do with this. I was NOT subpoenaed by the Reciever, I was subpoenaed by the SEC in Washington under a far lager investigation that zeek was just a small part of.
However, due to the fact, my contractual relationship was ONLY with Rex Venture Group, and I have not had any past, or present relationships with any other entity or party of that investigation, then my sanction was handed over to the Receiver of Rex Venture Group.
SevenDust,
I can see your point.
K. Chang
I am not sure these are observations. Thye look like statements trying to prove out the answers to your questions before I answer.
The SEC went over gigs of information, hours of videos, tens of thousands of comments (some yours) and did not fine any violations to SEC rules based on my coverage of Zeek Rewards.
They did find that because I did not “fully” disclose what RVG was paying more for, I was in violation of the 1933 Securities Act.
We have been down this road before on the coverage etc. You were right that Zeek Was found to be a ponzi. After reading all the court documents, I later agreed.
Lynndel “Lynn” Edgington,
Not sure where you are coming from. None of my services provided to Rex Venture Group were illegal. Nor did I then or do I now rely on a client to determine if my services are legal.
The SEC did not question any of the services I provided zeek as being illegal. Accual quit the contrary; it was the services we did provide to RVG to make Zeek Rewards a legal and viable direct sales model, that wold have changed things.
However, as the facts proved out, those services were never implemented.
Whip,
Not sure at all what you are referring. I led the fight against the scam wireless telcoms inside of MLM in 2010-2011.
Global Verge, Buzzirk, and many more.
So before you or K Chang start spreading rumors you need to get your facts straight. http://mlmhelpdesk.com/tag/buzzirk-wireless/
Gregg Evans,
Well I know that now based on the SEC ruling don’t I? Since regulators are monitoring my site regulatory, do you really think I would purposely do something to violate any regulation?
Kevin,
I answered that somewhere. Grimes paid back $65K
Boris,
Which companies are you referring?
Well Sevendust asked that I just go away. I have taken full responsibility for the lack of full disclosure both with the SEC and with the public.
The rest of this commentary is all old business ya’ll nailed me for months ago.
I do respect he majority of you who have over the last two years been willing to engage and educate me on the ponzi world, and to help guide my education.
My goal is to use that education to help others along with myself.
Patrick, thank you sir for allowing me some latitude from time to time in your community. I see why your community is so passionate.
Keep up the great work my friend.
Living An Epic Adventure,
Troy
Well, they are my observations… and questions to you. I was about to write an “open letter to Troy Dooly (to confess)” but I decided to cool off a bit.
Thanks for clarifying #2: you “paid your dues” for lack of disclosure that you’re compensated, much like Nehra was slapped before for his own failure of disclosure.
And I guess I should be flattered that you stated/implied that SEC read some of my comments. Yeah. :)
But that still leaves #1 and #3. So let me rephrase in a calmer tone:
Q1) Do you believe that you have presented a fair view of Zeek, WHILE you are paid by RVG, given that what you know NOW? I don’t mean that SEC did or did not find enough to fine you, but rather, your own introspective.
Q3) Is there a reason you did NOT disclose this potential conflict of interest sooner? Like “on the advice of my attorney”?
Troy: You said that you were precluded from telling people you were being paid by Rex Ventures due to a NDA Agreement. That NDA Agreement was part of your providing services to Rex Ventures, and it was illegal for them to require you to sign it.
Had you done any real due diligence and talked with your attorney, you would have known this was illegal. It should also have raised many red flags. You didn’t consult with your attorney about it, and it didn’t raise any red flags with you. My point is it should have immediately.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that thousands of people “relied on your statements” about Zeek and that is why they joined. In your position you are required to adhere to a higher standard than the typical “promoter” of these Ponzi’s. Instead you were nothing more than a “promoter” of Zeek instead of the subject matter expert you claim to be.
I just want to add. If you have seen any financial show, you will see that any analyst commenting on a particular company is asked to disclose at the end of the interview if he does any business or invests in that company. It has been like that for years. And as a reader of former msnbc.com I always noticed that they disclose if Microsoft or NBC had business connections with companies/people they report on. And it so with all corporate websites. So it never came to Dooley that he has to disclose his connections? Has he heard of advertorials? Ton of sites run them.
Dooley’s fine of 6K is less than the Zeek investors that put in their max amount of 10K. I am thinking he got off easy because he traded them information about the organization.
Lynndel “Lynn” Edgington,
I never said the NDA was illegal. And if I wrote that somewhere, then it was an auto correct by mistake.
I have stated the State law is superseded by Federal law. And although I fulfilled both State civil contract law, and Federal FTC regulations when it comes to disclosure. I did fail to fulfil the Federal SEC regulations due to the NDA.
This not anything illegal. It did lead to an infraction of the Security Code and has since been corrected on our end. And since I never want an issue like this again, we are going way above and beyond what was asked for by the SEC and what may even be seen as necessary by some.
As for your subjective reasoning on who I may have talked with or to what level of due diligence I may have taken, I fully respect where you are coming from.
You are also making a subjective conclusion when you say I am “ignoring the fact that thousands of people ‘relied on your statements’ about Zeek and that is why they joined.
I have never ignored any of my past sins or mistakes. I weigh each of them out to find where I fell short and to correct the issues moving forward.
I do agree 100% that I am required to adhere a higher standard. Really it should be of the highest standard! Which is always my goal. It is never to be seen as a hypocrite!
K. Chang,
1. I allowed a fair and balanced debate to be presented at MLMHelpDesk.com while I was paid by RVG.
I also believe I provided facts and at times conclusions based on partial or missing info that I had been provided by the leaders in the company.
Based on the court records, it is now very clear that several of the videos and articles I wrote were missing crucial pieces of info which would have provided a far different outcome for all of us had we known at the time.
Which is why I continued to provide coverage under my agreement with RVG even when the ownership was transferred to the Receiver. As you know I have been very clear that when new facts present themselves I will gladly recant any statement I have made.
As the facts became clearer in many areas I reported on those. I will continue to do this all the time. It is the main reason all my agreements have the clause that a company can’t find me violating our agreement if I talk in a disparaging manner based on the facts at hand.
I really don’t know how many ways a person can say, I take full responsibility or I apologize. But I have done it over and over!
3. I have disclosed since 2009 based on the FTC regulations. I failed to fully disclose as the Securities Act of 1933 required. Now in retrospect, as I have already stated in print, video and audio I should have never allowed the clients the right to decide if we disclose.
We have now taken that out of the equation and are fully revamping the sites and have already revamped the agreements.
[…] disclose that he was being paid for this kind of good ol’ pimpin’. But now he got caught so it’s time to play a […]
So you are going to stick with lying eh?
http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=867221&postcount=794
Perhaps I can be of assistance.
You haven’t really “done it over and over”. You have claimed over and over to have been unaware of SEC rules regarding securities. Fair enough. But take a step back.
I’m a lawyer. You retain me to advise you on whether a certain transaction would be a good idea for you. You don’t know that I’ve also been retained by the folks with whom you’re dealing, and I don’t tell you because I have a non-disclosure with them. Do you have a problem with that? Don’t you think that – law and regulation aside – basic ethical considerations of fair-dealing require disclosure of conflicts of interest?
You’ve never even acknowledged that conflict, let alone apologized for it. Instead, you’ve offered the politician’s apology, pretending that you merely unintentionally violated some technical rule instead of breaching the trust of your members. Pretending to be impartial while you secretly accept money from someone you write about is not a technicality. Perhaps, if you apologize for the real offense, people with a brain might trust you again.
Or perhaps not. So maybe it’s best to keep stonewalling, so at least you may hold onto the people without a brain.
Troy, your website is called MLM Help Desk. People who are trying to find a way to make money with MLMs go there for help and advice in the maize of businesses both illegal and illegal which make up the MLM world.
Troy, you set hyourself up to be an impartial expert in the field of MLM. The non disclosure of a commercial interest in any of the businesses discussed on your pages is more than just a slip. It is downright deception.
Troy, you are not a fool. You knows that people will join schemes that you recommend, BECAUSE you recommend them. It doesnt matter how many dissenting voices you allow in your comments section. It is YOUR site and your voice is the voice that has weight.
Troy, you also know that a business needs sales of a product or service with intrinsic value in order to pay comissions. Due diligence is required to ascertain a product’s value and you have more than enough experience to do this. There has been a large quantity of information about Zeek on the web over the past couple of years and red flags from people who you know do not make mistakes. You chose to ignore them for a long time.
Troy, unlike many people who venture into the MLM world to try to earn some money, you have access to impartial lawyers who can advise you on the legality of both the schemes AND the NDAs and you have more than enough MLM experience to ignore the advertizing exaggerations of promoters and owners.
Forgive me, but your explanations sound like hollow excuses and more so knowing the enormous number of people worldwide who lost money to Zeek. As Whip and others have pointed out, this is not your first rodeo. I wish I could believe it will be your last.