Zeek Rewards: Judge Orders “Final Judgments”

Based on Kenneth Bell’s Motion for Final Judgments for a group of “Net Winners”, Judge Mullen has issued an Order as follows:

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Receiver’s Motion to Enter Judgment and to Confirm Judgments as Final.

 
For good cause shown, the Motion is hereby GRANTED and the Final Judgments requested shall be entered as filed.

So far, three (3) Final Judgments have been entered today:

  • Final Judgment is hereby entered against Defendants David Kettner, Mary Kettner, Kettner & Associates, LLC and Desert Oasis International Marketing, LLC (The Kettner Defendants) jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,259,114.65 which is comprised of $937,529.27 in net winnings from the ZeekRewards scheme and $321,585.38 in prejudgment interest
  • Final Judgment is hereby entered against Defendants T. Lemont Silver, Sr., Karen Silver, and Global Internet Formula, Inc., (The Silver Defendants) jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,141,668.09, which is comprised of $2,339,267.35 in net winnings from the ZeekRewards scheme and $802,400.74 in prejudgment interest
  • Final Judgment is hereby entered against Defendant Durant Brockett in the amount of $2,312,129.25, which is comprised of $1,721,597.67 in net winnings from the ZeekRewards scheme and $590,531.58 in prejudgment interest

Zeek Rewards: Judge Enters Final Judgments Against 3 “Net Winners”

Judge Mullen has ordered Final Judgments against 3 of the “net winners”, with more likely to follow.

Kenneth Bell has also filed for Final Judgments against:

  • Defendant Rhonda Gates in the amount of $1,916,479.07
  • Defendants T. Lemont Silver, Sr., Karen Silver, and Global Internet Formula, Inc., jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,141,668.09
  • Defendant Durant Brockett in the amount of $2,312,129.25, and
  • Defendants David Kettner, Mary Kettner, Kettner & Associates, LLC and Desert Oasis International Marketing, LLC jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,259,114.65

As of today, only these Defendants have had Final Judgments ordered, as follows:

Final Judgment is hereby entered against Defendant Jerry Napier in the amount of $2,349,670.59, which is comprised of $1,749,550.73 in net winnings from the ZeekRewards scheme and $600,119.86 in prejudgment interest, calculated at the North Carolina statutory rate of 8% per annum from August 17, 2012, which is on or after the date of the last fraudulent transfer payment to each Defendant, to November 29, 2016, the date of the Summary Judgment Order in this action.

Final Judgment is hereby entered against Defendant Darren Miller in the amount of $2,198,738.44, which is comprised of $1,637,167.55 in net winnings from the ZeekRewards scheme and $561,570.89 in prejudgment interest, calculated at the North Carolina statutory rate of 8% per annum from August 17, 2012, which is on or after the date of the last fraudulent transfer payment to each Defendant, to November 29, 2016, the date of the Summary Judgment Order in this action.

Final Judgment is hereby entered against Defendants Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, and Innovation Marketing, LLC, (The Andrews Defendants) jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,359,897.50 which is comprised of $1,012,571.58 in net winnings from the ZeekRewards scheme and $347,325.92 in prejudgment interest, calculated at the North Carolina statutory rate of 8% per annum from August 17, 2012, which is on or after the date of the last fraudulent transfer payment to each Defendant, to November 29, 2016, the date of the Summary Judgment Order in this action.

Zeek Rewards: Judge Mullen Grants Default Judgement in ‘Bell v Disner et al’

zeekrewardsIn case filed by the Zeek Receiver, Kenneth Bell, the receivership filed  civil suit against what were called “Net Winners” in the Zeek scam which garnered $1000 or more from the scheme. The list of Defendants included a large number of serial promoters of this type of pyramid/Ponzi scheme such as:

Todd Disner, Trudy Gilmond, Jerry Napier, Daren Miller, Rhonda Gates, David Sorrells, Aaron and Shara Andrews, T. Lemont Silver, Karen Silver, Michael Van Leeuwen, Duran Brockett, David and Mary Kettner and a “Defendant Class of Net Winners”.

Several of the individuals above were involved in ASD and other scams prior to promoting Zeek and bilking thousands of people on the false hopes of becoming rich with little or no effort. The majority of these defendants have already received judgments which resulted in them having to return monies to the receivership to be distributed to the victims.

The problem with scams like Zeek is the money was actually made from recruiting others, not from sales of products of services. Sadly, a new one pops up almost every day.

You can read the 27 page order, wherein the Judge details the reasons for his decision and a background on the scam by clicking the link. There is also a list of the “Net Winners” on the site.

Zeek Rewards: “Net Winner Class” Defendants File Reply to Complaint

zeekrewardsIn case 14-cv-91, Bell v Disner ,et al, the “Defendant Class of Net Winners” by and through their Texas attorney, James Kevin Edmundson, have filed a “Defendants’ Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses” in reply to the original complaint filed back on February 28, 2014.

The very first 2 sentences are this:

1. The statement that RVG operated as a Ponzi scheme is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 1.

2. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 2 because, among other reasons, they have no information leading them to believe that RVG was a “scheme” or that they or others were somehow “net winners” as opposed to individuals who worked diligently for the income they earned in connection with Zeek.

I suppose even though a legal decision has been made as to whether Zeek was a Ponzi or a “scheme”, following the conviction on all counts of Paul Burks in the criminal trial, one would surmise that these positions by the Net Winners would be somewhat untenable. But, it gets even better with their Affirmative Defenses: (Pay particular attention to “C”, emphasis added)

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
A. Defendants devoted significant time and money working on behalf of RVG, which was performed pursuant to a contract between Defendants and RVG by which RVG agreed to pay Defendants for the work that they performed. Defendants performed as agreed and were owed the compensation that RVG promised to pay.
B. If RVG was a Ponzi scheme, Defendants had no knowledge of that fact. If RVG was a Ponzi scheme, then all of the other affiliates who participated in RVG have unclean hands as a result of their participation in a fraudulent scheme.
C. On information and belief, the SEC knew or should have known of the RVG Ponzi scheme, but delayed unreasonably in its prosecution of claims against RVG. Alternatively, the SEC knew for some time that RVG was operating as a Ponzi scheme but intentionally delayed disclosing that information to Affiliates and to the public. That unreasonable delay has prejudiced Defendants because t h e y h a v e paid taxes on the money they earned working on behalf of RVG and have incurred business expenses as a part of their work on behalf of RVG. The Receiver in this action stands in the SEC’s shoes and also delayed to Defendants’ detriment and now seeks return of all monies Defendants earned in connection with RVG, with no credit for the taxes or business expenses that Defendants legitimately paid, but that could have been avoided had the SEC or the Receiver timely advised Defendants of RVG’s true nature or acted in a more expeditious manner.
D. The Receiver’s claims in this case against Defendants are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
E. Defendants accepted compensation in connection with RVG in good faith, in exchange for reasonably equivalent value and in accordance with the terms of the contract between Defendants and RVG.
F. Defendants are entitled to a setoff for the amounts they paid to RVG for the purchase of bids and to otherwise participate in the Affiliate program, the amount of any and all expenses they incurred in operating their business for the benefit of RVG, for the amount of all taxes they paid and for the value of the funds the Receiver wrongfully misappropriated from Defendants’ e-wallet accounts. Defendants are also entitled to a setoff to the extent of any judgment on their counterclaims.
G. The Receiver has filed suit against two attorneys who provided legal advice to RVG and Affiliates, including Defendants. Defendants relied on that advice in concluding that RVG was a legitimate business and in committing significant personal resources to grow their now defunct business. Because Defendants’ damages were caused in part by the conduct of the two lawyers, Defendants are entitled in equity and at law to a credit for all money the Receiver recovers from the two attorneys as a result of their claims against them.
H. Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred pursuant to the express terms of the agreement between RVG/ZeekRewards and Defendants.

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Asks for Summary Judgment Against Class of “Net Winners”

Filed on the virtual eve of the Burks criminal trial which begins on July 5th, the Receiver has filed a ZeekMotion for Summary Judgment in Bell v Disner, et al, along with a supporting memorandum of Law and a group of Exhibits.  The Motion lists the “Named Defendants” like this:

The named defendants in this action are among the largest net winners of the ZeekRewards scheme, with winnings for each reaching as high as $1,875,000. The Court already has entered Judgments against several of these named defendants – who either failed to answer or cooperate in the action. See supra at n.1 and Doc. Nos. 76, 93, 95 and 119. Two defendants, Lori Jean Webber and P.A.W.S. Capital Management LLC, have reached a settlement with the Receiver.

 

 

The remaining named defendants are: Jerry Napier (Owosso, Michigan; a “net winner” of more than $1,745,000); Durant Brockett (Las Vegas, Nevada; a “net winner” of more than $1,720,000); Darren Miller (Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; a “net winner” of more than $1,635,000); Rhonda Gates (Nashville, Tennessee; a “net winner” of more than $1,425,000); T. Le Mont Silver Sr. (Orlando, Florida / Dominican Republic; a “net winner” of more than $773,000; Mr. Silver also used Global Internet Formula, Inc., which is, upon information and belief, incorporated in Florida, as a shell company through which he was a ZeekRewards “net winner” of more than $943,000); Karen Silver (T. Le Mont Silver’s wife; a “net winner” of more than $600,000); Aaron and Shara Andrews (Lake Worth, Florida; the Andrews used Innovation Marketing LLC, a Florida shell company to win more than $1,000,000) and David and Mary Kettner (Peoria, Arizona; “net winners” of more than $930,000 using the shell companies named Desert Oasis International Marketing, LLC and Kettner & Associates, LLC as nominal payees). See Exhibit C (Expert Report of David S. Turner) (hereinafter “Turner Report”)at Ex. F.

Default judgments have already been ordered against:

    • Michael Van Leeuwen – $1,617,444.99
    • Todd Disner – $2,079,757.88
    • David Sorrells – 1,197,241.12
    • Trudy Gilmond – $2,129,522.27

 

Also listed are the “net Winner Class” which was already certified by the Court.

On September 14, 2015, the Court appointed Kevin Edmundson as class counsel and subsequently the Court authorized the defendant class to engage an expert witness,
Berkeley Research Group (“BRG”), at the primary expense of the Receivership. See
Doc. Nos. 117, 125.

Their own expert witness, BRG concluded the following:

In its initial report dated January 18, 2016, BRG agreed that it was able to “replicate the exhibits in the Turner Report, within a reasonable margin of difference.” Then, in its “Phase II” report, BRG reached two conclusions (bolded in the report):
a) [B]ased upon a preliminary analysis, it does not appear that the magnitude
of profit from the auction business would materially impact the assessment of
whether or not the business, taken as a whole, operated as a Ponzi scheme.
b) As a result of our testing in Phase II, we have not found evidence that
definitively disproves that the business as a whole operated as a Ponzi scheme.

Addressing the Burks and his not so successful endeavors, the receiver had this to say:

Beginning at least as far back as 2000, Paul Burks operated a number of generally
unsuccessful multi-level marketing businesses through Rex Venture Group, LLC (and
related entities) with names such as Go-Go Hub, Free Store Club, My Bid Shack, New
Net Mail and Signed and Numbered International. See, e.g., Bell Aff. at Ex. 2, 3;
Douglas Dep. at pp. 50, 54-55, 71, 78; Exhibit D (Excerpt of Durant Brockett Deposition)
(hereinafter “Brockett Dep.”) at pp.18-19, 30. In 2010, RVG launched Zeekler.com, a
so-called “penny auction” website where items ranging from personal electronics to cash
were auctioned to bidders. See id.

 

However, bids bought through ZeekRewards rather than as retail bids were more valuable because purchasing those bids gave the affiliates “points” that supposedly entitled Affiliates to a portion of the profits from the business. This was the real (and only) reason Affiliates would pay $1 for auction bids they could buy for $.65. See Brockett Dep. at 77-78. As one Affiliate told Burks, “I know how the system works mathematically and you know I know. Whether you call the bids bids or hamburgers makes no difference. People are not joining Zeek to get hamburgers, orauction bids; they are joining Zeek to make money….” Bell Aff. at Ex. 6.

Also mentioned are the Wright-Olivares and how they knew what they were doing:

From the beginning, RVG intended to use “bids” in ZeekRewards not as a product but as a proxy for money deposited into the program. Dawn Wright-Olivares was very clear about the plan, telling Danny Olivares on January 21, 2011: “We’re just going to use bids as currency.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 9(a). On another occasion, Dawn Wright-Olivares referred to the compounding bids as “Monopoly money.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 9(b). Quickly, RVG’s focus changed from Zeekler to ZeekRewards, which was the source of nearly all the company’s income. Relative to ZeekRewards, little or no money was made in the Zeekler “penny auction” business.

Burks and the other Insiders were aware that the payouts to Affiliates would be funded by new participants rather than retail profits from the penny auctions. Dawn Wright-Olivares excitedly told Burks early in the scheme, “I think we can blow this OUT together- we’ve already attracted a great many big fishes.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 4.

As you go farther down the Memorandum, it details the “Compensation Plan”, the “Compounder” and how the money magically multiplied. And it seems everyone at the top knew all along that it was not exactly above board and could not really explain the voodoo behind the ROI and how it was calculated:

Burks deliberately evaded affiliate questions asking how the RPP was calculated. In a Skype chat with an affiliate, he said: “[a] proprietary system is used to determine the amount of profit sharing that is done each day. We do not divulge the details of how those numbers are determined. Our stated target of minimum of 1% weekdays (Mon-Thur) and .5% weekends (Fri-Sun) has always been met and exceeded. It is clearly not directly tied to the number of auctions in a particular day. It is the overall average that counts.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 9(d).

Behind the scenes, the Insiders were not even subtle about the fake earnings numbers. Often, the company simply used the previous week’s daily RPP percentages. For example, on one occasion, Danny Olivares sent a text message to multiple insiders stating, “Need a % for rpp when you can.” Dawn Wright-Olivares responded, “Do whatever was last Monday.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 40. Or, from Paul Burks: “Hey Dan. Sorry about last night. What percent did you use?” Danny Olivares: “Same as last Friday. 0.009.” Bell Aff. at Ex. 23.

There are a ton more revelations in this filing, too many to detail here. You can click here to look at the 139 page filing, including all of the Exhibits.

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Files Motion for Class Certification Notice

In the case entitled “Bell v Disner, et al” the Receiver has filed for Court approval on a Notice to send to all affiliates within the Class recently certified by Senior Judge Mullen.

The filing lists these individuals and entities as Defendants:

TODD DISNER, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as trustee for Kestrel Spendthrift Trust;
TRUDY GILMOND; TRUDY GILMOND, LLC; JERRY NAPIER; DARREN MILLER; RHONDA GATES; DAVID SORRELLS; INNOVATION MARKETING, LLC; AARON ANDREWS; SHARA ANDREWS; GLOBAL INTERNET FORMULA, INC.; T. LEMONT SILVER; KAREN SILVER; MICHAEL VAN LEEUWEN; DURANT BROCKETT; DAVID KETTNER; MARY KETTNER; P.A.W.S. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; LORI JEAN WEBER; and a Defendant Class of Net Winners in ZEEKREWARDS.COM

Here is a copy of the Proposed Order, ZeekDoc103-1.

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Replies in Support of Consolidated Motion to Dismiss

Today, Kenneth Bell, through his attorneys, filed a Reply in support of his Consolidated Motion to Dismiss the Defendants’ Counterclaims. In this reply, he states (in part):

  • The Defendants seek to save their breach of contract claims by arguing the false premise that the Court cannot somehow consider its own prior orders in determining a motion to dismiss. However, their position ignores the well-established case law to the contrary.
  • Pursuant to the relevant Order, the Defendants are barred from asserting their breach of contract claims.
  • The Defendants suggest that the Receiver wishes to rely upon the stay of litigation to avoid the adjudication of their counterclaims. This is incorrect. The Receiver is seeking immediate dismissal of the Defendants’ counterclaims as a matter of law.
  • As explained in the Receiver’s initial memorandum, Defendants’ non-contractual counterclaims are all barred by the Court’s previous Order requiring NxPay to return Receivership funds to the Receiver. Ignoring this Order, Defendants ask the Court to wear blinders and view only the four corners of their pleadings. However, as explained above, the Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit have instructed that relevant matters of public record should be judicially noticed and considered in determining a motion to dismiss.
  • Defendants have mischaracterized what the Receiver obtained from NxPay pursuant to the Court’s Order. As this Court held, “the Court Orders the RVG funds being held by NxPay® to be turned over to the Receiver.” (Id. at 4). As made clear by the Order and by the Affidavit of Kenneth Mitchell-Phillips of NxPay (SEC Action, Doc. No. 129-1), not all funds frozen in affiliates’ NxPay accounts were RVG funds.
  • Again in this response as they have repeatedly done elsewhere, Defendants oppose the
    Receiver’s requested relief on the grounds that the Receiver was supposedly wrongfully appointed and thus this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Receiver’s claims. This issue of subject matter jurisdiction has continued to be muddled by the Defendants’ insistent and erroneous focus on the question of whether or not the ZeekRewards scheme involved the sale of “securities,” which is not at all relevant to this action (which seeks the return of fraudulent transfers to the Defendants regardless of whether the scheme involved securities) and not determinative of jurisdiction in the underlying SEC Action.
  • Defendants do not (and cannot) challenge a federal equity Receiver’s right to bring federal actions or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear claims brought by a duly appointed Receiver within the scope of his appointment. And, there is no dispute that pursuing claims seeking the return of fraudulent transfers from the ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme is at the core of this Receiver’s authorized duties. Rather, the Defendants claim that the Court did not have the authority to appoint the Receiver in the first place because the Court allegedly lacked jurisdiction over the SEC Action.

I have uploaded this filing onto the Files website.

Zeek Rewards: Judge Mullen Orders Interim Distribution

ORDER APPROVING MOTION TO AUTHORIZE
FIRST INTERIM DISTRIBUTION, ESTABLISH RECORD DATES
AND SET FIRST INTERIM DISTRIBUTION DATE

This matter is before the Court upon the Receiver’s Motion for an Order Approving his motion to (i) authorize an interim distribution on account of allowed class 3 claims, (ii) establish a record date for eligibility to receive the First Interim Distribution on the First Interim Distribution Date, (iii) set the First Interim Distribution Date, and (iv) establish Subsequent Record Dates and Subsequent Distribution Dates for making the First Interim Distribution to Class 3 Claimants whose claims are allowed prior to a Subsequent Record Date (the “Motion”).1 Non-party Plastic Cash International, LLC (“PCI”) filed a response objecting to the Receiver’s motion.

1 Capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the meanings ascribed them in the Motion.

This Court, having reviewed and considered the Motion, and upon all of the proceedings had before this Court, and after due deliberation and sufficient cause having been shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion in all respects. The Court specifically notes that this Order does not purport to determine the validity or priority of PCI’s claim. The PCI Claim will be addressed through the Claim Determination process and separate litigation.

IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The notice of the Motion sent via electronic mail to all entities that fully submitted claims on the Claims Portal via the electronic mail address provided in the Claim submission process by such entity constitutes good and sufficient notice of the Motion and all the relief sought therein.

2. The Receiver is authorized, but not directed, to make the First Interim Distribution directly to the Claimants who hold Allowed Claims in Class 3 pursuant to the Distribution Plan.

3. The First Interim Distribution Record Date shall be August 15, 2014.

4. The First Interim Distribution Date shall be September 30, 2014.

5. The first Subsequent Record Date for the First Interim Distribution shall be December 31, 2014.

6. Additional Subsequent Record Dates for the First Interim Distribution shall occur on each of the last business days of each calendar quarter subsequent to the first Subsequent Record Date.

7. The first Subsequent Distribution Date for the First Interim Distribution shall be January 30, 2015.

8. Additional Subsequent Distribution Dates for the First Interim Distribution shall occur on the last business day of the calendar month that directly follows a Subsequent Record Date.

9. The methodology for determining the amount of reserves to be held by the Receiver for the holders of Class 3 Claims that are not allowed by the First Distribution Record Date, but have not been disallowed, is proper. The amount to be reserved by the Receiver for the holders of Class 3 Claims that are not allowed as of the First Distribution Record Date shall be determined and held in the manner set forth in the Motion.

10. The Receiver shall establish a reserve on account of Class 3 Claims that are not allowed as of the First Distribution Record Date in the aggregate amount of the First Interim Distribution Amount that would be necessary to pay such Class 3 Claimant based on the amount that such Class 3 Claimant asserted in the Claim Process, after applying Rising Tide to the First Interim Distribution Amount in accordance with the Distribution Plan.

Continue reading “Zeek Rewards: Judge Mullen Orders Interim Distribution”

Zeek Rewards: Receiver’s Statement Regarding Class Certification

ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE RECEIVER – JULY 30, 2014

On March 3, 2014, I announced the filing of a lawsuit to obtain the return of the money paid out to net winners in the ZeekRewards scheme in excess of the amount they paid into RVG. In that lawsuit, Kenneth D. Bell v. Todd Disner, et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-91, I made claims against more than 10 of ZeekRewards’ largest “net winners” in the United States asking that the Court order them to repay the net winnings they received from the scheme. I also made class action claims against approximately 9,400 ZeekRewards net winners in the United States who each won more than $1,000.

Today, I have filed with the Court a motion asking the Court to certify this Net Winner Class and asked that the Court appoint one or more of the largest net winners sued by name as class representatives because they will, by virtue of their own defense to the same claims, be adequate and appropriate representatives for the rest of the Net Winner Class. Proposed Net Winner Class members are not required to file any response to the motion, but may, of course, discuss this matter with legal counsel if they choose to do so. The deadline for the named defendants to respond to the motion has been set for August 18, 2014.

A copy of the Motion to Certify the Net Winner Class and the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Receiver’s Motion to Certify the Class can be found here: Motion and Memorandum. Also, a list of those individuals whom the Receiver believes won more than $1,000 and therefore would be included in the Net Winner Class can be found here.

Zeek Rewards: More on Bell’s Class Action Suits and Recent Defaults

The case I am writing about today is the Class Action suit brought by Zeek Receiver, Kenneth D. Bell,  against what have been termed the “Net Winners”. While there have been some “Entry of Default” filings in the case, from what I can find, there still needs to be a Jury Trial to determine what monetary values these defaults actually end up being.  I suppose there must be some method in their madness in failing to file a response to the Complaint before the deadline of June 30, 2014.

Many of us who follow these scams and schemes thought the ASD/AdSurfDaily would set some form of “precedence” and be the poster child for how to prosecute and/or curtail the exponential increase of individuals and “opportunities” to separate you from your money, all the while telling you how they can double or triple it with some amazing, heretofore unknown business model that even they do not understand. There are unmistakeable similarities between ASD, Zeek Rewards, and other still operating scams.

No one makes lots of money reading or placing ads on a website, people!!

 


 

In the Bell v. Disner et al Civil Class Action original Complaint, and to refresh our memories of the allegations, we have the following defendants whose names and alleged amounts are taken from this Complaint:

  • Todd Disner, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,875,000
  • Trudy Gilmond, former “field liaison” and “net winner” of more than $1,750,000
  • Jerry Napier, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,745,000
  • Durant Brockett, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,720,000
  • Rhonda Gates, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,425,000
  • Michael Van Leeuwen,  a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and  a “net winner” of more than $1,400,000
  • David Sorrells, a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $1,000,000
  • T. Le Mont Silver Sr., a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of more than $773,000
  • Aaron and Shara Andrews,  ZeekRewards “net winners” of more than $1,000,000
  • David and Mary Kettner, former ZeekRewards “affiliates” and “net winners” of more
    than $930,000
  • Lori Jean Weber, a ZeekRewards “net winner” of more than $1,940,000