PatrickPretty.com

Tag: Todd Disner

Potential Zeek Clawback Target Pitched Collapsed Regenesis 2X2 Cycler: ‘Giddy Up. Get Involved. [It’ll] Be The Best Decision You Ever Made’

UPDATED 7:55 A.M. ET (DEC. 23, U.S.A.) In May 2009, before the launch of the alleged Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme, a Zeek promoter who has hired famed attorney Ira Lee Sorkin appeared in a check-waving video for an “opportunity” known as Regenesis 2X2.

Check-waving is used as a form of “proof” that an “opportunity” that “pays” is not a scam.

“Giddy up,” intoned Trudy Gilmond of Vermont. “Get involved. [It’ll] be the best decision you ever made.”

Gilmond, according to the video she narrated while waving two checks from Regenesis 2X2 totaling $1,200, sent by Priority Mail and drawn on Bank of America, was “fired up.”

She’d been in Regenesis 2X2 only since May 1, and already had received a nice payout, Gilmond explained.

“Knew this company would work,” she said, before alluding to a Biblical tale of an apostle who insisted on proof of the resurrection of Jesus.

“A lot of people are nonbelievers, doubting Thomases, didn’t believe it,” Gilmond said. She then presented checks as a form of proof that Regenesis 2X2 paid.

About two months later — in July 2009 — the U.S. Secret Service applied for search warrants in federal court in Washington state, the purported home of Regenesis 2X2. From a PP Blog story on Aug. 3, 2009 (italics added):

Agents, according to court filings, observed complaint letters directed at the firm being discarded into a Dumpster that was kept under constant surveillance. Also found in the Dumpster were copies of checks sent in by customers, other documents that included customers’ names and information to identify them personally, complaint faxes sent by customers and a letter from a law firm complaining about false, misleading and deceptive advertising.

In one case in which agents were observing one of the adult principals in the case, they observed a youth described as a teenager exiting a vehicle and “struggling with a large arm full of opened business and UPS Priority Mail envelopes,” the Secret Service said in court filings.

The juvenile entered a building and “then immediately came back outside and discarded the materials into an alley [D]umpster,” agents said.

Agents identified the adult under surveillance as a person “arrested by the Internal Revenue Service out of Las Vegas, Nevada[,] for felony violations related to Illegal Money Laundering from Securities Fraud and Wire Fraud” in a previous case.

How the Regenesis 2X2 probe proceeded is unclear.

What is clear is that Zeek eventually came to the fore. In court filings, Sorkin has noted that Gilmond has potential clawback exposure of more than $1.364 million from the court-appointed receiver in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme case.

Gilmond once was listed on a Zeek website as both an “Employee” and “Official Rep.” So, too, was Zeek pitchman OH Brown of USHBB Inc., which produced ads for both Zeek and the collapsed Narc That Car pyramid scheme. For a while, at least, Zeek and Narc That Car appear to have used the same North Carolina-based bank: NewBridge.

Checks displaying the name of NewBridge showed up in independent affiliate promotions on YouTube in 2010. After one Narc affiliate quit the program, he moved to another one. The check-waving for the new “program” began at the one-second mark. Literally.

BehindMLM reported yesterday that Brown may have a tie to a burgeoning “opportunity” known as Offer Hubb. AdSurfDaily and Zeek promoters Todd Disner and Jerry Napier also appear to be in the communication chain of Offer Hubb. The U.S. Secret Service has described ASD as a “criminal enterprise.” The U.S. Department of Justice has described ASD as “insidious.”

A source told the PP Blog last week that Zeek figure Robert Craddock now was pitching Offer Hubb. Craddock is a purported Zeek “consultant” raising money to contest elements of the SEC’s Ponzi-scheme complaint and the court-appointed receivership. In July, Craddock sought to have the website of Zeek critic K. Chang removed from the Internet. Craddock was successful briefly, but the “K. Chang” Hub at HubPages returned.

By Aug. 4 — just 13 days prior to the filing of a emergency action by the SEC alleging that Zeek was a $600 million Ponzi- and pyramid scheme — Zeek used its Blog to blast unspecified “North Carolina Credit Unions” for raising questions about the “program.”

For years, questions have been raised about whether fraud schemes within the MLM sphere were recycling money between and among schemes and putting banks and other financial-service companies in possession of tainted funds. Purported “Wiring Instructions” of Offer Hubb imply that the Wyoming-based entity is soliciting sums of up to $10,099 from prospects and is using City National Bank.

From a section of the BehindMLM report that describes an address used by Offer Hubb (italics added):

As mentioned in the introduction of this review, “1712 Pioneer Avenue” is the headquarters of “Corporations Today”. The address is apparently so well-known in tax haven circles that Reuters used the 1712 Pioneer Avenue building itself for a 2011 article on corporate secrecy in the United States.

Dec 17, 2012
CURIOUS: 3 Of 5 ‘Most Popular’ Stories On PP Blog Last Week Were ‘Old’ Articles On The AdSurfDaily And AdView Global Scams

UPDATED 8:55 A.M. ET (U.S.A., DEC. 11) Are Zeekers doing research in advance of clawback actions in the Ponzi scheme case or otherwise trying to get a sense of history? Are they (or other readers) trying to gain a better understanding of ties that may exist among Zeek, AdSurfDaily and AdViewGlobal?

Three of the PP Blog’s five “Most Popular” stories last week were “old” articles about ASD and AVG, according to a tracking service used by the Blog. AVG had not dominated reader interest on the PP Blog for nearly three years.

Here are links to (and briefs about) those stories:

From July 16, 2009: (No. 2 in ‘Most Popular’ rankings last week.) BREAKING NEWS: Federal Judge Says Curtis Richmond, Six Other Parties Who Used Pro Se Litigation Blueprint, Cannot Intervene In AdSurfDaily Forfeiture Case

The July 16, 2009, story reported that seven would-be, pro se intervenors in the ASD Ponzi case were denied standing by a federal judge. In her ruling, the judge pointed out that the first filing occurred in February 2009. It is “representative and seems to be a ‘form’ complaint inasmuch as the others are duplicates,” the judge said.

A key part of the ruling (italics added): “Fraud victims who voluntarily transfer their property to their wrongdoers do not retain a legal interest in their property; instead, such victims acquire a debt against their wrongdoers.”

Waves of other pro se filiers later were denied standing in the case. (On at least two occasions, the judge denied the would-be intervenors en masse.)

It perhaps is worth pointing out that standing also could become an issue in the Zeek case. Given ASD’s history, it also seems possible that “defenders” of the Zeek scheme will ponder the use of shared litigation templates. (The ASD templates, which advanced conspiracy theories and accused public officials of crimes, didn’t “work.” To date, one Zeeker has accused the court-appointed Zeek receiver of a crime.)

From Dec. 7, 2009: (No. 4 in “Most Popular” rankings last week.) AdViewGlobal Recording Suggests Member Cashed Out $10,000 Only Days After Formal Launch And That Insiders Were Awarded Bonuses; Less Than Two Weeks Later, Surf Switched To ‘Private Association’ Structure

The Dec. 7, 2009, story reported that AVG, a purported offshore entity, had conducted conference calls earlier in the year and lured prospects with “bonuses.” It also reported that some AdSurfDaily figures were among the first to receive the “bonuses.”

It perhaps is worth pointing out that an effort by some Zeek insiders now appears to be under way to lure their downlines into nascent “programs,” at least one of which is being positioned as a way to maintain a Zeek downline in a new “program” and receive a bonus. The name of the new “program” that purportedly will provide bonuses to Zeek members and its base of operations are unclear.

Zeek and ASD figure Todd Disner, however, recently was reported to be in Hong Kong with a “lost” passport.

“Todd Disner,” said Zeek figure Robert Craddock on a call last week. “Bless his heart. I don’t know if he’s found his passport yet, but he’s . . . in Hong Kong right now assisting us with this new program. And he’s lost his passport. So, I don’t know if he’s made it back to the states yet or not. And, so, we’re all working very, very hard to pull this together for you.”

Some Zeekers have ported themselves to schemes such as “BannersBroker” and “GoFunPlaces.” It is possible that any number of Zeek members took soiled proceeds from previous scams to their new “opportunities.” What’s not known at this time is what will happen if Zeek “winners” who are the prospective targets of clawback litigation will do if they moved illicit Zeek proceeds into another scheme or dissipated the money in other ways.

From the Dec. 7, 2009, story (italics added):

The conference call, hosted by Terralynn Hoy, a Moderator at both the Pro-AdSurfDaily Surf’s Up forum and a ning.com forum set up to promote AVG, did not disclose how the member amassed a large sum in only days and qualified for a cashout. But another participant in the call announced that the man excitedly expected to receive a check for $10,000.

Terralynn Hoy, a figure in both the ASD and AVG stories, hosted at least one call for Zeek in 2011. ASD was a $119 million Ponzi scheme that collapsed in August 2008. AVG collapsed in a sea of mystery in June 2009. Before it collapsed, it sought to make an 80/20 “program” mandatory and exercised its version of a “rebates aren’t guaranteed” clause.

Lots of Zeek members tried to encourage fellow members and prospects to keep 80 percent in the “program” and remove only 20 percent. Like ASD and AVG, Zeek also had a version of a “rebates aren’t guaranteed” clause. Some Zeek “defenders” now claim that Zeek should be left alone because it never promised anybody anything. ASD and AVG members said the same thing about those “programs.”

From July 24, 2009: (No. 5 in “Most Popular” rankings last week.) UNCONFIRMED: Harris Family In Uruguay, AVG Staff Fired

This story reported that certain members of the Bowdoin-Harris family involved in both ASD and AdViewGlobal purportedly had moved to Uruguay. News about the purported move broke after AVG was mentioned in a racketeering lawsuit against ASD in June 2009.

From the July 24, 2009, story (italics added):

AVG has a history of blaming members for its problems and deflecting accountability from management to the rank-and-file. In the past, it has blamed members for the suspension of a bank account and threatened to sue members who shared information outside association walls — and even to contact their ISPs to suspend service of people who asked pointed questions about the company in forums.

Yesterday’s announcement by AVG also blamed the delay in audit findings on unspecified “complications created by changes in payment processors.”

Prior to its August 2012 collapse, Zeek appears to have experienced problems with banks and payment processors. Some Zeek promoters cautioned fellow members not to talk too much about Zeek in public. On Aug. 4, Zeek complained on its Blog about unspecified “North Carolina Credit Unions” saying unfair or untrue things about Zeek.

Zeek members were warned there would be consequences to members who did not toe the company line.

Just 13 days later, on Aug. 17, the SEC filed an emergency action in federal court that alleged Zeek was a $600 million Ponzi and pyramid scheme

Dec 10, 2012
SPECIAL REPORT: AdSurfDaily/Zeek Pitchman Todd Disner Gave Thousands To Gingrich, Romney After Soliciting Money To Sue The United States; Records Show Tax Liens Of More Than $405,000 Dating Back To 1999

EDITOR’S NOTE: ASD was a multilevel-marketing scheme that planted the seed it paid a return of 1 percent a day on top of two-tiered affiliate commissions totaling 15 percent for recruiters. Federal prosecutors described the purported “opportunity” as a Ponzi scheme based in the the small town of Quincy, Fla., and operated by recidivist securities felon Andy Bowdoin.

UPDATED 9:46 A.M. ET (NOV. 18, U.S.A.) A Florida man who claimed in a November 2011 lawsuit against the United States that AdSurfDaily was not a Ponzi scheme doled out thousands of dollars to Republican candidates and organizations in the following months, records show.

The man, ASD promoter Todd Disner of Miami, joined with fellow Miami resident and suspended Connecticut attorney Dwight Owen Schweitzer in suing the United States as pro se plaintiffs after soliciting donations from fellow ASD members to fund the lawsuit earlier in 2011, according to records. As the lawsuit proceeded, Disner and fellow ASD promoter Schweitzer raised the prospect in court filings that the seizure of ASD’s database in a 2008 case brought by the U.S. Secret Service and federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia could lead to the ASD duo’s prosecution for tax evasion.

A federal judge tossed the lawsuit in August 2012, but Disner and Schwetizer are appealing. They have accused the judge of “sophistry.”

Both Disner and Schweitzer have been engaged in continuous litigation against the United States for more than a year. Neither has been charged with a crime. After their days promoting ASD, Disner and Schweitzer went on to promote Zeek Rewards, an ASD-like, 1.5-percent-a-day “program” with accompanying commissions that triggered probes by both the SEC and the U.S. Secret Service. On Aug. 17, the SEC accused North Carolina-based Zeek of operating a $600 million Ponzi-and pyramid scheme that potentially swindled more than 1 million investors.

Zeek operator Paul R. Burks did not contest the SEC’s civil allegations and consented to a judgment in the case. Records show that Burks gave $2,500 to the campaign of GOP Presidential hopeful Ron Paul between 2011 and early 2012.

On Dec. 26, 2011, only weeks after the Disner/Schweitzer lawsuit was filed against the government, Disner provided a donation of $1,000 to the GOP Presidential campaign of Newt Gingrich (Newt 2012), Federal Election Commission records show. The Gingrich donation by Disner appears to have been his first to a national candidate or organization. The FEC database, for example, shows no donations from Disner between Jan. 1, 1990, and Dec. 25, 2011.

Disner matched the Dec. 26 donation with another $1,000 to Gingrich in January 2012, according to FEC records.

Separately, records in Miami-Dade County show that the IRS filed a tax lien against Disner for $101,723 on Aug. 1, 2006. Included in that sum was $95,015.97 allegedly owed from 1999, and $6,707.77 allegedly owed from 2002.

ASD, operated by the now-convicted and jailed Andy Bowdoin, launched just weeks after the IRS filed the lien against Disner. Two years to the day after the lien was recorded in Miami-Dade, the Secret Service seized $65.8 million from 10 Bowdoin bank accounts. A raid of ASD’s headquarters followed four days later. Bowdoin later was charged criminally with operating a Ponzi scheme. Among the allegations against Bowdoin was that he had used money from the ASD Ponzi scheme to make a donation to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Bowdoin, 77, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in May 2012. In August, he was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison. Prosecutors said he was at the helm of a $119 million Ponzi scheme and promoted other MLM fraud schemes even after his December 2010 arrest.

On Nov. 21, 2007, according to records, the IRS filed another lien against Disner in Miami-Dade totaling $294,940.89. This lien was for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. The IRS filed yet another lien against Disner on Oct. 22, 2008. This one sought $8,661.36 for the 2000 and 2001 tax years.

All in all, records show three tax liens against Disner for the combined sum of $405,325.99.

Whether Disner has cleared the IRS liens is unclear. What is clear is that, in June 2012, he raised the prospect in court filings that he could be prosecuted for tax evasion because of the seizure of ASD’s database in 2008. Records in the Zeek case, meanwhile, show that the Zeek database also has been seized.

Records suggest that, with Gingrich out of the GOP Presidential race by May 2012, Disner switched his support to Mitt Romney, who went on to become the party’s nominee. Romney ultimately lost in the general election to President Obama, a Democrat seeking a second term.

Gingrich, a former Georgia Congressman, is a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

On June 25, 2012, Disner gave $1,000 to Romney for President Inc., according to FEC records.

Just days earlier — on June 18, 2012 — Disner and Schweizer claimed in federal court that the government’s Ponzi case against ASD was a “house of cards,” despite Bowdoin’s guilty plea and acknowledgment that he had operated a Ponzi scheme and that ASD never had operated lawfully after its 2006 inception.

A month later — on July 17, 2012 — Disner gave $200 to the Republican National Committee, according to FEC records.

Exactly a month after that — on Aug. 17, 2012 — the SEC filed an emergency action in federal court that accused Burks of presiding over a massive fraud scheme that effectively extended across the world.

Within days of the SEC action, Disner — who previously solicited money to sue the United States for alleged misdeeds in the ASD Ponzi case — participated in a conference call with self-described Zeek “consultant” Robert Craddock, who himself was soliciting money for some sort of court action against the SEC or the court-appointed receiver in the Zeek case.

Nothing has been filed by Craddock to date. During one call, Craddock dropped the name of former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, claiming McCollum as a “friend.” McCollum is a Republican. In 2008, while attorney general, McCollum accused ASD of operating a pyramid scheme.

Some ASD members reacted by suggesting that McCollum and a Florida TV station that carried the news of the ASD lawsuit should be charged with Deceptive Trade Practices.

Despite Craddock’s claim after the SEC action that McCollum’s law firm SNR Denton had become the attorneys for a Craddock and a group of Zeek members, SNR Denton appears to have decided not to represent Craddock or his group.

FEC records show that Disner gave $1,500 to the Republican National Committee in September 2012.

Nov 17, 2012
AdSurfDaily Figures Todd Disner, Dwight Owen Schweitzer Appeal Lawsuit Dismissal

AdSurfDaily figures Todd Disner and Dwight Owen Schweitzer — later to become pitchmen for the alleged Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme — have appealed the dismissal of their ASD-related lawsuit.

In August, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed claims by the ASD duo that their 4th Amendment rights had been violated when ASD computer records were seized in 2008.

Disner and Schweitzer had no standing to make the claim and had no privacy interests in records they voluntarily conveyed to ASD, Collyer ruled.

In September, the duo sought to reopen the case and have Collyer removed from hearing it, but Collyer said no.

Disner and Schweitzer now have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia the Aug. 29 final judgment and their denied motions to reopen the case and have Collyer stand down.

The combined ASD and Zeek schemes fetched at least $719 million, according to federal records. On Aug. 17, the SEC described Zeek as a $600 million Ponzi- and pyramid fraud.

ASD was a $119 million Ponzi scheme, according to the U.S. Secret Service. The Secret Service said in August that it also was investigating Zeek.

Oct 17, 2012
BULLETIN: Judge Declines To Recuse Herself — And Denies Motion By ASD Figures Todd Disner And Dwight Owen Schweitzer To Reopen Lawsuit

BULLETIN: AdSurfDaily figures Todd Disner and Dwight Owen Schweitzer will not be permitted to reopen their lawsuit against the government and get a different judge to hear it.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District of Columbia this morning denied a motion by the ASD duo that she recuse herself from the case. At the same time, Collyer denied a motion by Disner and Schweitzer to reopen the case.

“A judge’s sworn duty is to judge with fairness and impartiality, and absent a showing otherwise, a judge is presumed to be impartial,” Collyer ruled.

Disner and Schweitzer made no such showing, Collyer ruled.

“Plaintiffs have presented no reasonable argument why this matter should be transferred to another judge,” Collyer ruled. “Further, Plaintiffs do not present sufficient facts that would lead an objective observer to believe that the Court has rendered a biased decision in this matter.”

With respect to the Disner/Schweitzer motion to reopen the case, Collyer said this (italics added):

Plaintiffs were victims of an internet Ponzi scheme called AdSurfDaily, Inc. (ASD). Federal agents investigated ASD for wire fraud and money laundering and, pursuant to warrants, federal agents seized approximately $80 million of ASD’s funds and related assets. The Government obtained in rem forfeiture judgments against the funds and other property purchased with ASD monies. Plaintiffs brought this suit, alleging that the warrants and the seizure of the funds were invalid and seeking a declaratory judgment that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

Because Plaintiffs lacked standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim and because they had no privacy interest in financial records they voluntarily conveyed to ASD, the Court dismissed the Complaint on August 29, 2012 . . .

A motion for reconsideration need not be granted unless the court finds there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice . . .

A motion to reconsider is not “simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled” . . . Nor is it an avenue for a “losing party . . . to raise new issues that could have been raised previously” . . .

Plaintiffs’ motion falls woefully short of this demanding standard. Plaintiffs do not allege an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. They merely reargue the same points they previously raised . . .

On Sept. 17, Disner and Schweitzer accused Collyer of “sophistry” in her handling of their lawsuit. The ASD duo insisted that ASD was a legitimate enterprise even after ASD President Andy Bowdoin pleaded guilty to wire fraud in May and admitted ASD was a Ponzi scheme.

In separate court actions brought by the government on ASD-related matters, Collyer has ordered the forfeiture of more than $80 million. That money was set aside to compensate victims of Bowdoin’s crime.

About 9,000 ASD victims already have received a total of about $59 million in compensation, and the government says it plans to reopen claims to victims who missed the January 2011 filing deadline because the ASD database very likely did not include the names of all members.

In their motion to reopen the case, Disner and Schweitzer curiously argued that Collyer — despite Bowdoin’s guilty plea, acknowledgment that ASD was a Ponzi scheme and prison sentence of 78 months — should have assigned more weight to the opinions of purported multilevel-marketing experts that ASD was not a Ponzi scheme.

They further ventured that Bowdoin’s confession was “coerced,” even though Bowdoin himself said it was not.

After their ASD days, both Disner and Schweitzer became pitchmen for Zeek Rewards, which the SEC described in August as a $600 million Ponzi- and pyramid scheme.

ASD was a Ponzi scheme that gathered at least $119 million, federal prosecutors said.

Oct 5, 2012
Government Opposes Bids By ASD Figures Todd Disner And Dwight Owen Schweitzer To Reopen Lawsuit And Boot Federal Judge From Case

AdSurfDaily figures Todd Disner and Dwight Owen Schweitzer should not be permitted to reopen their lawsuit against the government for alleged misdeeds in bringing the ASD Ponzi-scheme case in August 2008, government lawyers said in court filings today.

Moreover, the bid by Disner and Schweitzer to force U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District of Columbia to recuse herself from the case should fail because the ASD duo’s “dissatisfaction with the Court’s rulings is not a basis for recusal,” the lawyers said.

Disner and Schweitzer, who became pitchmen for the alleged Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme after their ASD days ended, sued the United States in November 2011. Collyer dismissed their lawsuit in late August, ruling that Disner and Schweitzer lacked standing to bring their 4th Amendment claim.

Collyer dismissed the case on Aug. 29, the same date upon which she sentenced ASD operator Andy Bowdoin to 78 months in federal prison. Bowdoin, 77, admitted in May that ASD was a Ponzi scheme and that the firm never operated lawfully from its 2006 inception.

Summoning a fancy word in their bid to force Collyer to step down, Disner and Schweitzer accused the judge of “sophistry.”

The move by Disner and Schweitzer to prevent Collyer from hearing ASD-related matters was at least the third. Two others failed — one by purported “sovereign” being Curtis Richmond in 2009 and another by Bowdoin himself in 2009.

“Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen and set aside the Court’s Order of August 29, 2012, merely rehashes arguments previously raised and fails to demonstrate any error, let alone clear error, in the Court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Likewise, the record provides no support for Plaintiffs’ motion to recuse Judge Collyer and this motion, too, should be dismissed,” the government said.

ASD was a Ponzi scheme that raised at least $119 million, federal prosecutors said.

Zeek Rewards was a $600 million Ponzi- and pyramid scheme, the SEC said on Aug. 17.

Precisely when Disner and Schweitzer joined Zeek is unclear.

What is clear is that some very strange events have occurred since the U.S. Secret Service brought the civil portion of the ASD Ponzi case in 2008.

Purported “sovereign citizen” Kenneth Wayne Leaming is jailed near Seattle on charges he brought false liens against Collyer, three federal prosecutors and a U.S. Secret Service agent who had roles in the case.

Leaming was arrested by an FBI Terrorism Task Force in November 2011. He since has sued President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Separately, Leaming sued a county sheriff in Arkansas.

Some ASD members claimed Leaming was doing legal work for them, even though he is not an attorney.

Disner, who solicited funds to sue the government for alleged misdeeds in the ASD case, also was involved in an effort by Zeek figure Robert Craddock to raise funds to intervene in the Zeek case.

Precisely how Craddock intends to do that is unclear.

Oct 4, 2012
Month After Zeek Ponzi Complaint By SEC, ASD Figures (And Zeek Pitchmen) Todd Disner And Dwight Owen Schweitzer Accuse Judge Who Dismissed Their ASD-Related Lawsuit Of ‘Sophistry’; Duo Tries To Reopen Case And Have Judge Removed

MLM pitchmen and AdSurfDaily figures Todd Disner and Dwight Owen Schweitzer — both of whom went on to become promoters of the alleged Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme — have accused a federal judge of “sophistry.”

Sophistry, according to Dictionary.com, means “a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.”

Disner turned to MLM after his days as a founder of the Quiznos sandwhich franchise. Schweitzer is a former attorney whose license was suspended in Connecticut. Both men live in southern Florida.

The curious assertion by Disner and Schweitzer against U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer appeared on Collyer’s court docket in the District of Columbia on Sept. 17, one month to the day after the SEC alleged in the western District of North Carolina that the Zeek Rewards MLM “program” was a $600 million Ponzi scheme and pyramid fraud that potentially had affected more than 1 million people.

Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen of the western District of North Carolina is presiding over the Zeek case. Kenneth D. Bell is the court-appointed receiver.

Zeek and ASD are known to have members in common.

The ASD Ponzi scheme, which collapsed in 2008, affected at least 97,000 people and created at least 9,000 victims, federal prosecutors said.

Disner and Schweitzer also were pitchmen for ASD, which federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia have described as a $119 million Ponzi scheme marketed MLM-style. The ASD duo sued the United States in November 2011, claiming their records in ASD’s database were private and thus unlawfully seized and accusing federal prosecutors and a U.S. Secret Service agent of presenting a “tissue of lies” when bringing the civil- forfeiture case against $65.8 million in the bank accounts of ASD President Andy Bowdoin in August 2008.

On Aug. 29, Collyer sentenced Bowdoin to 78 months in federal prison. Bowdoin, 77, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in May 2012, admitting in a statement of offense that ASD was a Ponzi scheme and that his business never operated lawfully from its inception in 2006.

Collyer dismissed the Disner/Schweitzer complaint on the same day she sentenced Bowdoin.

But Disner and Schweitzer now claim Bowdoin’s admission “was a necessary part of his plea bargain” with the government. They further assert that Bowdoin’s admission was the “coerced confession of an 80 year old man.”

In court filings in May, however, Bowdoin said this:

“I have read this Plea Agreement and discussed it with my attorneys, Michael McDonnell, Esq. and Charles Murray, Esq. I fully understand this Plea Agreement and agree to it without reservation. I do this voluntarily and of my own free will, intending to be legally bound. No threats have been made against me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Plea Agreement fully. I am pleading guilty because I am in fact guilty of the offense(s) identified in this Plea Agreement.” (Italics/bolding added by PP Blog.)

In the filing docketed Sept. 17, Disner and Schweitzer claim the Secret Service “manufactured” events to ensure that the ASD case was heard by Collyer. Earlier, Disner and Schweitzer advanced a theory that undercover agents who joined ASD in 2008 had a duty to identify themselves to ASD management.

Even after Bowdoin pleaded guilty in May, Disner and Schweitzer contended that the government’s case was a “house of cards,” according to court filings.

Disner and Schweitzer now have asked for their lawsuit to be reopened and to have Collyer removed from the case. In ASD-related litigation, Collyer has ordered the forfeiture of more than $80 million.

The bid by Disner and Schweitzer to have Collyer removed from ASD-related litigation is at least the third. In 2009, purported “sovereign” being Curtis Richmond unsuccessfully sought to have Collyer removed. So did Bowdoin.

Disner is now involved with purported Zeek Rewards consultant Robert Craddock in an effort to raise money to challenge either the SEC or the court-appointed receiver in the Zeek case.

Among the early theories advanced by Craddock was that Mullen — the judge in the Zeek case — was playing politics by appointing Bell’s firm as the receiver to enable the firm to gorge itself on fees.

Both ASD and Zeek were accused of selling unregistered securities as investment contracts. The U.S. Secret Service brought the ASD case, with the SEC bringing the Zeek case.

The Secret Service confirmed on Aug. 17 that it also was investigating Zeek. The SEC said that, since January 2011, Zeek had “raised more than $600 million from approximately 1 million investors nationwide and overseas by making unregistered offers and sales of
securities through the ZeekRewards website in the form of Premium Subscriptions
and VIP Bids.”

Zeek was an arm of North Carolina-based Rex Venture Group LLC and was operated by Paul R. Burks, the SEC said.

In their filing accusing Collyer of sophistry, Disner and Schweitzer appear to suggest that Collyer needs a lesson in MLM from purported MLM expert Keith Laggos and MLM attorney Gerald Nehra.

Laggos, an SEC defendant in a 2004 case that alleged he issued laudatory press releases without disclosing he was being compensated, is listed in court records as a Zeek consultant. Laggos settled the 2004 SEC case without admitting or denying liability but agreeing to pay more than $30,000, including a $19,500 civil penalty.

Laggos once opined that ASD was not a Ponzi scheme. Nehra also opined that ASD was not a Ponzi scheme. Richard W. Waak, Nehra’s law partner, is listed in court filings by Zeek as an attorney for the firm.

Read the Disner/Schweitzer motion to remove Collyer.

Screen shot of section of motion by ASD figures Todd Disner and Dwight Owen Schweitzer to remove Judge Collyer for alleged "cause."

Sep 28, 2012
SEC Says Zeek Probe ‘Is Continuing’; Agency Updates Information Page

UPDATED 10:05 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) The SEC today updated its information site on the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme case, noting its investigation “is continuing” and pointedly adding language that “ZeekRewards and [Paul R.] Burks immediately consented to an asset freeze, the appointment of a receiver over their assets, and the payment of a $4 million penalty.”

Although the agency gave no specific reason for the update, it occurred against the backdrop of an ongoing effort by Zeek figure Robert Craddock to intervene in the case after collecting donations from individual members of Zeek.

1.

Screen shot of section from Google cache. This is how this section of the SEC's Zeek information page looked prior to today's update.

2.

Screen shot: The red highlights were added by the PP Blog and show today's change to the SEC's Zeek info site.

Blogger Jordan Maglich of PonziTracker.com noted yesterday that Craddock reportedly had been subpoenaed to appear before the SEC.

From PonziTracker (italics added):

While the SEC did not provide the reason for the subpoena, some have speculated that recent comments attributed by Craddock to the SEC concerning purported admissions of fault in the SEC’s case against Zeek which were later refuted may have piqued the SEC’s interest.

On Sept. 23, the PP Blog reported that Craddock’s name did not appear on a Sept. 17 list of “EMPLOYEES, OTHER PERSONNEL, ATTORNEYS, ACCOUNTANTS & OTHER AGENTS/CONTRACTORS” submitted by Zeek to Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen even though Craddock identified himself in July as a Zeek “consultant.”

Craddock also was present on separate fundraising calls last month with Todd Disner, a Zeek pitchman and a member of the AdSurfDaily 1-percent-a-day Ponzi scheme, and with T. LeMont Silver. Silver was described on a Zeek website in June as a Zeek “employee.”

Among other things, Silver was a pitchman for OneX, which federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia described in April as a “fraudulent scheme” and “pyramid” that was cycling money in ASD-like fashion. Jailed ASD Ponzi scheme operator Andy Bowdoin also was a OneX pitchman.

ASD was a Ponzi scheme that gathered at least $119 million, according to federal prosecutors. Zeek’s business model was very similar to ASD’s business model.

Zeek was a Ponzi scheme that gathered $600 million, according to the SEC.

See Sept. 19 PP Blog story.

Visit the SEC’s Zeek infomation page.

Sep 26, 2012
BULLETIN: ZTeamBiz, Site Purportedly Raising Funds To Defend Zeek Affiliates, No Longer Has Access To PayPal; Site Weaves Conspiracy Theory That eBay Didn’t Want Zeek To Survive

BULLETIN: (UPDATED 3 P.M. EDT U.S.A.) This bizarre announcement appears today on ZTeamBiz, the site that was using PayPal purportedly to raise funds to “defend” affiliates of the collapsed Zeek Rewards’ MLM scheme:

The payment solution has been removed and will be replaced on September 8, 2012. PayPal a company owned by eBay.com had decided it is not in their best interest to assist us in bringing back a Penny Auction that is directly competing with eBay.com.

We apologize for this inconvenient [sic] and will have a new solution soon. Thank you for your understanding

ZTeamBiz, which targeted Zeek affiliates in its fundraising pitch, has a tie to Todd Disner, a figure in the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme that advertised a Zeek-like payout of 1 percent a day. Affiliates who provided money to ZTeamBiz potentially put themselves at cross-purposes, given that a federal judge has appointed a receiver in the Zeek case and that the interests of all Zeek affiliates are not equivalent.

In 2011, ASD President Andy Bowdoin sought to use PayPal to raise funds to pay for his criminal defense. The site, known as Andy’s Fundraising Army, eventually was blocked by PayPal from using its services.

Robert Craddock is part of the purported braintrust behind the ZTeamBiz fundraising effort. Disner once was a guest on a Zeek-related conference call featuring Craddock. That call occurred after the SEC moved against Zeek last month.

In July, Craddock reportedly was behind an effort to silence the voice of Zeek critic “K. Chang” by bringing a purported copyright and trademark infringement complaint against K. Chang through HubPages, a site used by K. Chang to publish news and opinion about Zeek. The site was taken offline, but eventually returned.

In 2011, Disner sued the United States for alleged misdeeds in bringing the ASD Ponzi case, claiming ASD was a legitimate enterprise and that the U.S. government had presented a “tissue of lies” when bringing the case in August 2008. About seven months after Disner brought the action, Bowdoin pleaded guilty to wire fraud, admitting ASD was a Ponzi scheme.

A federal judge sentenced Bowdoin to 78 months in federal prison — and dismissed the lawsuit filed by Disner. Disner’s co-plaintiff in the case was Dwight Owen Schweitzer. At an unclear point in time after the August 2008 seizure of tens of millions of dollars in ASD-related bank accounts in the ASD Ponzi case by the U.S. Secret Service, both Disner and Schweitzer became Zeek promoters.

Zeek’s business model was similar to ASD’s. On Aug. 17, the SEC described Zeek as a $600 million Ponzi- and pyramid scheme that potentially affected more than 1 million people. The Secret Service also is investigating Zeek.

ASD’s Bowdoin was sentenced Aug. 29. Federal prosecutors described his “program” as a $119 million Ponzi scheme that had created at least 9,000 victims and had resulted in millions of dollars of losses.

ZTeamBiz did not explain on its website whether PayPal blocked the account through which it was soliciting funds from Zeek affiliates. Instead, it suggested that eBay, which owns PayPal, was an envious Zeek competitor.

See “Whose Lawyer Is This Anyway,” an Aug. 29 PP Blog guest column by Gregg Evans. See July 9, 2009, guest column by Evans that raised questions about how the SolidTrustPay payment processor was enabling fraud schemes.

See July 28 PP Blog column on the Craddock HubPages flap.

Sep 7, 2012
ALERT >> ALERT >> ALERT: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Filed Against United States By AdSurfDaily Figures Todd Disner And Dwight Owen Schweitzer, Later To Become Zeek Promoters

BULLETIN: A federal judge has dismissed the November 2011 lawsuit against the United States by AdSurfDaily figures Todd Disner and Dwight Owen Schweitzer.

The dismissal of the lawsuit by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer came on the same day she sentenced confessed ASD Ponzi scheme operator Andy Bowdoin to 78 months in federal prison.

After their ASD days, Disner and Schweitzer went on to become promoters of Zeek Rewards, which the SEC now describes as a $600 million Ponzi- and pyramid scheme. ASD was a $119 million Ponzi scheme.

Disner reportedly now is involved in an effort to raise funds to sue the SEC for its role in the Zeek case. Disner and Schweitzer also raised funds to sue the government for its role in the ASD Ponzi case, but Collyer today dismissed their complaint.

From Collyer’s order of dismissal in the case brought by Disner and Schweitzer, who alleged the seizure of their records on ASD’s database was unconstitutional (italics added).

They allege that federal agents seized money, uncashed checks, unendorsed checks, books, computers, and other assets and records created and maintained by Plaintiffs in the computers and servers that were in the custody and control of ASD. Plaintiffs maintain that their information was encrypted and password protected. Specifically, Mr. Disner claims that he is owed $53,000 . . . On September 17, 2008, the Government returned to ASD the computers that it had seized . . . Mr. Schweitzer avers that he cannot remember where his checks/money orders were drawn, that he put $3,500 into ASD, and that he was involved with ASD for “only a few weeks before it was shut down.”

Read the full ruling.

Aug 29, 2012
As Zeek Apologists Solicit Funds And Plant Seed They’ll Sue SEC, Guest Columnist Asks, ‘Whose Lawyer Is This Anyway?’

DISCLOSURE: Gregg Evans, a longtime member of the antiscam community, is a longtime PP Blog contributor. He was not compensated for this column, and his views are not necessarily the views of the PP Blog.

Whose Lawyer Is This Anyway?

By Gregg Evans

A group of Zeek Rewards’ affiliates claim they have retained SNR Denton to do, well, something about the SEC taking over Rex Venture Group, Zeek’s corporate parent. What they intend to do is a mystery at this time. You see, Rex Venture Group, and with it Zeek, is dead. Nothing left but the shell that is in possession of a court-appointed receiver.

There can be no resurrection here: Paul Burks, the previous owner has turned the company over voluntarily to the receiver and, under the terms of the consent judgment, he cannot change his mind, he cannot appeal, he cannot argue that he didn’t violate securities laws and he can’t reboot the company under a different entity.

Zeek is no more: All that’s left is to gather up all the money and distribute what’s left back to those that it was stolen from.

The first problem with this is that not all that was stolen can be recovered, a part of it is going to be spent in the effort to return it and not everyone lost, which means some people won. Fairness, and by the way the law, says that those winners should have to return not only their ill-gotten gains, but in fact they should also return part of their original investment so that they proportionately bear the same loss rate as everyone involved.

In short, if the average “investor” is only going to recover $30 of the $100 they sent in, why should someone who sent $10,000, and profited in the end, only have to return their net winnings? It’s only fair that they should in fact have to return all their profits, but also 70% of their contributions, so that they bear the same loss as everyone else. If you sent in $10,000 and didn’t take out a dime, I think you’ll see the logic there. If, on the other hand, you were among the early investors who made a sizable profit, you may think differently.

Zeek presented in online pitch as “Passive Income!” opportunity.

It was once claimed that some affiliates were “earning” over $1 million a month from Zeek. If you’re a big winner, you might be quietly hoping that the receiver isn’t going to try to get anything back from you and you might be thinking that if he does, you might be wise to get an attorney to do everything legally possible to prevent any of your “profits” being taken from you to be added to the pool of funds eventually refunded to the people who weren’t as lucky as you. Well and good. I don’t agree with you, but then again, I wasn’t getting a million dollars a month in Zeek “profit sharing.” You’re certainly entitled to the best legal talent you can pay for.

Ah, but you’re too greedy to even accept that. No, you’re not going to use your own money to get that very pricey legal team working to keep you from losing money in the Ponzi scheme like almost all the others, you want the losers to contribute to a fund to pay your lawyers.

That’s chutzpa, Sparky.

The names so far mentioned as being behind this legal effort are hardly innocents. Among them are some names very familiar to those of us who follow online investment frauds, Ponzi schemes and MLM hucksters. These are the big recruiters. They pimped this scam, flaunted the money they were raking in, money that was ultimately stolen from their own downlines. Now they’ve cranked up their downlines, incited the victims and are shouting from the Internet hills about the injustice of the evil government shutting down their favorite scam, because, after all, it was still paying.

Never mind the $3 billion deferred liability that Zeek Rewards had only $225 million to pay. Never mind that only 2% of Zeek’s revenue came from an actual business and that 98% of the money paid out in the end was coming from new money paid into the affiliates programs. (The very definition of a Ponzi scheme.)

I’d venture you’d be a little less admiring of Paul Burks if the SEC, Secret Service and North Carolina Attorney General had not investigated this scam and it had collapsed of its own weight a few weeks or days later than the SEC action. There were signs that Zeek was in fact about to implode in the very near future anyway. Had that happened I’d expect a few of you would be raising complaints as to why the authorities had let the scam continue when they knew about it and had been investigating it. (Search “CMKX Scam” for an example of that.)

But with apologies to Arlo Guthrie, that’s not what I’m here to talk about.

I’m here to talk about your lawyers, and how you’re trying to get the people whose stolen money you have, to pay lawyers so you don’t have to give any of that stolen money back. First, you’re asking people to send the money to you, not to the lawyers. Second, you’re telling them to please not call the lawyers.

This raises a few issues. To begin with, if the people involved lost money they can of course take advantage of the tax code to at least save on their taxes. They could also, if they retained counsel in relation to their business deduct that money, too. They cannot deduct any contribution they make to someone else’s legal bills.

In order for them to be able to say they paid a lawyer in relation to a business expense, the IRS is pretty insistent that they paid lawyers, not paid someone else who paid a lawyer, especially when the lawyer in question won’t even take your calls. I’m not an attorney myself but I’m pretty certain that some ethical rule somewhere says you have to take calls from your client. Which brings us to another thing:

Who is the client, and what is the client’s interest?

In a solicitation letter published on the Internet, the people soliciting donations say that the law firm will only communicate with 12 people. Forgive me if I take that to mean that only those 12 people are formally the clients represented, and that means that the attorney’s in question MUST represent those 12 people and ONLY those 12 people, and any interest any other people may have that is against the clients are by default adversarial.

So if, for instance, those 12 people were all net winners wishing to avoid a clawback action, hundreds of thousands of investors who lost would be the enemy, and by the tenets of the legal profession, said lawyers would be opposed to their interests in any conflict. There were early reports of over a million investors in Zeek Rewards. At a later news conference, the receiver said that number may well be over 2 million.

Mathematically speaking a Ponzi scheme results in at least 88% of participants who are net losers, a percentage that rises the longer a scheme continues, so of the 2 million, 1,760,000 people are likely net losers here. But these lawyers are only looking out for the 12, who I’ll bet are all net winners.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that all of them are big-time winners; at least one had a video posted showing off a new luxury home he implied was paid for with Zeek Reward profits. And they want the losers to pay for their lawyers, because after all, Zeek was still paying. There was over $225 million left in the till and if the evil government had just minded their business they could have gotten a pretty good chunk of that, too.

So, am I wrong? I’m talking now to the 12 people who are allowed to call the lawyer, and to the lawyer, too for that matter. I think this is rotten to the core, but prove me wrong. Make public the retainer agreement between whoever the clients are and SNR Denton.

If you’re good enough and shameless enough to get your victims to pay for your lawyers, good on you, but I think you owe it to the people you’re asking to pay for it to show them just exactly what they’re paying for, and whose interest is being represented here.

Oh, and since you’re telling people to pay you, and not the lawyers, and since that means they can’t deduct it on their taxes, I ‘d like to offer my own opinion that any money you get is regular income as far as the IRS is concerned, and you’d better report every penny of it as such.

Aug 29, 2012