Lufos Aka/ Lucius
Fellow Moderators,
I have copied a link to a post made awhile back about Lucius and his article.
http://www.thecreativeinvestor.com/ViewTopic28306-36-1.html
I have been contacted for the second time from someone who was also conned out of $6K by Lucius with a phony Limited Partnership that was never set up and promises of documentation, which also never arrived.
I am not ready to post this persons name yet, however I have every letter and email sent between them.
I have forward the summation of these letters and emails to the powers that be at TCI for verification purposes.
There are probably more people who were hustlled however most people who are conned are to embarrased to let anyone else know they were.
I will personally contact Lucius to return this persons money as they have requested the return from him and only to be told that he does not have it. Now with all this wheeling and dealing, how could he not have $6K.
If he does not respond or send this person their money back, then he will feel my wrath with a post on this board plus some calls to some Federal and State offices.
Raj and I said it was an ad when it first appeared, it was a con and hustle from the begining, which I also said.
$Cash$
Very, very sad, but he's experienced enough to know exactly what he's done and can have no valid excuse for his poor conduct.
[addsig]
I think it damages the credibility of the site if allowed to continue. This would constitute fraud and wire fraud in my opinion if the site were used to procure an investor etc using fraudulent means.
While I enjoy the "old geezer's" ramblings from time to time I wouldn't want to be hustled by him
I echo the sentiments, "sad, very sad"
UPDATE:
Here is my latest email to Lucius in response to an email from him, trying to resolve this problem.
Lucius,
Before XXXX will agree to a payment schedule for the return of her money she is asking for security on her money covered by your assets, which you agreed to give her for her investment.
I see no problem with you showing documented proof of the following statement from you.
"I have gained control of enough lots Long Term Leases etc. etc.) to do a proper infill. throughout Southern California.
We have had to advance for engineering and display and of course the building permit fees which are paid in advance, $10,000 each"
1. Copies of the Long Term Leases etc. etc. and where the property is located also with who the leases are with.
2. A copy of the studies done by the engineering company for advance engineering and any displays involved.
3. Copies of the building permits at $10K each.
4. Where are the containers located that you purchased if any.
Since you said you have accomplished the above this should be no problem supplying this information for XXXX's review. This would be a good start in showing your sincerity with this project.
$
John $Cash$ Locke
John L, I think I'd go a little further and tell him that it's either perform NOW or he's out.
Your failure to do so right now, might just get site/Joel/JohnL, et al, sued by some aggrieved REI in one of Lufos' deals.
I know if I were the P's lawyer looking for redress for my screwed-over client, I'd look at everybody with any possible involvement or who might have even casually or lightly endorsed or given any show of backing, endorsing, or supporting the scam.
Once that lawyer knows we knew of, but did nothing about it, then he's really onto a target Defendant.
[addsig]
John M.
Wtihout compromising your position by seeking legal advice any off the wall recomenndatiions that you can think of are appreciated.
You can send this info to my email address in my profile.
$Cash$
[addsig]
Well I guess its no revelation that I have supported Lucius in the past in this on-going fracas and I guess that I am doing it again, at least in part.
So Lucius has an investor that would like to back out of the deal? That is hardly newsworthy. Happens all the time. Every time I get into a deal that looses money I'd like to back out of it too. I've even had passive investors who wanted out of deals when things were going well-- just got cold feet. If I am able, I try to accomidate them. If the deal happens to be at a place where such accomidation cannot happen I apologize, explain that this is one of the risks of real estate investment and move on. Sometimes they make a stink. Life is full of stinks big and small. You deal with it.
Now, if Lucius has acquired this investor fraudulently, or is running a large-scale scam of some sort that is a different issue. If we were aware of the fraud and did nothing then we might well be liable to prosecution. (At one level I'd hate to be the state's attny prosecuting that one-- sorta like suing a newspaper for the fraudulent content of a letter to the Editor. On the other hand internet law is a new field and who knows what someone might do. After all some over-zealous AG in North Carolina has decided sub-to deals are illegal. )
If, on the other hand we were to give Lucius the benefit of the doubt for a moment and assume that he's on the up-and-up (remember Presumption of Innocence?) and just has a disgruntled investor then John's continued posting of accusations without any evidence that would meet the Standards of Evidence might well constitute Libel and TCI might be liable from that direction as well. If I were Lucius and had access to the discussion to date. I'd be considering a libel suit. (Not that he would because I seriously doubt that there is enough at stake to make it worth the fees).
So, I have four points to make
1) This is not a court of law. If it were none of the "evidence" produced so far would be admissable. So far all we have is John's unsubstianted accusations. If we are going to accuse Lucius of criminal activity we should at least get the charge spelled out clearly. What is it that Lucius is supposed to have done that is criminal? Taken money from an investor? Not criminal. Not used the money for the purposes intended? That would be criminal, but there is no evidence of that at this point. Lied to the investor about the deal somehow? Criminal, if it happened. Where is the evidence that it happened? Let the corporation expire and re-incorporated in a different name? Careless, but hardly a securities violation on the order of Enron or even Martha Stewart. He violated the no-advertising rule? Where does it say that the forum rules apply to articles? Even if they did its not a crime. In addition, the alleged contract, if it happened at all, happened before the article that was/may-have-been/is-alleged-to-be an ad was placed. Since when can effects preceed their causes?
2) This is not a court of law. Even if we found that Lucius was behaving illegally we have no power to make him stop other than banning him from the site. However if we were aware of criminal violations I think we would have a responsibility to notify the proper authorities. However, based on the allegations and evidence presented to date I don't believe the AG's office would even open an investigation.
3) This is not a court of law. If it were Lucius would have the right to confront his accuser, examine the evidence and respond in a more-or-less organized fashion. John's list of "demands" look a lot like a supoena. But who serves Lucius? What happens if he refuses to comply? What are the penalties if he complies and is not truthful? The judicial system has all these issues worked out-- it is not our job to duplicate the process.
4) This is not a court of law. None-the-less the rules of due process and standards of evidence are rules of logic as much as they are of law. To prosecute Lucius in this forum without giving him the ability to respond, to chase him on vague allegations and innuendo, to allege that he has scammed many people on the basis of John's single un-named disgruntled investor, these tactics smack of a witch hunt. If you're going to act like you're a court then follow the rules of evidence and logic and be a real court and not the kangaroo variety.
I know, as John has pointed out many times, that I am the new guy here. And I do not have the advantage of John's psychic ability to detect scam artists honed in the gambling dens of Lost Wages. But I have studied a thing or two about logic and I've been on both sides of more than my share of lawsuits. Before you break out the virtual tar and feathers for Lucius you really ought to get some shred of actual evidence.
In closing to this wayyy to long post: If Lucius is conning the newbies I'll be the first to vote for banning him from the site and I'll look up the number for the AG's office myself. And he may well be. All I am saying is that the "evidence" and accusations presented to date wouldn't hold up in an eighth grade civic class moot court. I expect better from grownups.
Well, Kyle, I guess that qualifies as "a little confrontational", don't it?
Mark,
I see that since you have become a Moderator on the Legal Forum now u r one.
I have more than enough documentation, as a matter of fact about 16 emails of correspondence between the person who put the money in and received nothing but rhetoric in return.
You are correct this is not a court of law, however as a Moderator we have a responsibility to protect the members here from the board hustlers and such.
My goal is to get this persons money back as they have not received anything promised by Lucius.
Before I even commented about Lucius I sent the powers to be at TCI the correspondence in the emails I referred to, they concured we need to help this person retrieve their money.
When Lucius lied about selling his house, (not his) this was brought to everyone's attention and I believe some other matters like not having an entity in the name of this company he was selling stock in (minor point?).
By his admission and also a proven fact. Where you on this board when this happened or did you miss this part?
So your rhetorical post has also proven nothing except you support Lucius, fine this is your right to.
I do not ask a question that I don't already know the answer to and I don't make accusations unless I have the proper documentation.
This is not the first time and probably not the last that a member of TCI has asked for my help, because they were scammed by another member and I became involved to help the member.
As a mattter of fact a person turned over some property subject 2 to a TCI member who contacted them through this board, this member who took the properties stopped making payments on them leaving the seller with runied credit and other problems, this is a current situation and I have my investors in his area looking to see if they can help him.
This person asked me for help, he is not a student, just a person who was scammed. I also have the documentation on what happended.
Of course being new here, you probably still have a lot to learn. Stick around and watch you will get there sooner or later.
$Cash$
PS: I was asked already if I wanted to ban him from this site, I said I would rather give him the chance to make things right.
I just received this email from Lucius.
"Mr. John Locke,
I have read your communication and have shown it to Counsel.
On his direction please be advised we will not communicate nor disclose any items whatsoever of a business or personal nature.
I will execute a standard note form in the amount of $6,000 this note will be payable in monthly payments of $500 a month until paid in full.
There will be a standard statement typed in the body of the note that it is secured by all of the assets of the maker. I will require a full release of all claims now and future from XXXX.
Once again on advice of Counsel I extend to her a period of five days from date to accept. The offer will then be withdrawn.
L. Foster"
I will advise this member to take this offer as I see it is probably the best she will get Case Closed.
$Cash$
PS: Mark you were saying...
As long as we are investigating members how about this post:
BEWARE!
WEBUYHOUSESFORCASH is a criminal organization run by Jeff Adams and Robert Kamens in Southern California that preys upon people interested in Real Estate Investment. If given half the chance, they will attempt to;
1)Steal money from you by trying to get you to sign up for bogus "services"
2)Extract private financial information from your computer for Identity Theft purposes.
:-x
So do we now contact the poster, attempt to find the nature of his beef with Jeff Adams and force Jeff to make restitution? Along the way do we send Jeff a supoena for his buisness records so that we can attempt to find out who else he has scammed?
Quote:
On 2004-08-26 06:14, commercialking wrote:
I was saying that is a better deal than I would probably given her. I don't blame Lucius for not wanting to open his books and records to you given that you obviously have an axe to grind. He's offering to give her her money back-- thats what you said you wanted. Yet even this concession on Lucius part is being read as further evidence of his guilt. No wonder Lucius hardly posts any more.
With all due respect, Commecial.....
Any bias showing is on your part, not Cash's. If Lucias was right then why is he returning the money......obviously at the advice of his counsel.
Could it be that Lucias doesnt want to open his books because........the numbers dont add up.
I open my books all the time for clients....matter of fact its in my contract that they have the right to look at my books in regards to their project.......nothing to hide on my part.
Yes their are deals that go bad but anyone that see that is more then a deal that went bad.
How can you justly accuse Cash of having an Ax to grind in helping someone that was done wrong......??
That's absurd to say the least.
We moderators do have a responsibility to look for scam artists.................from my point of view it looks like you lack objectivity in this matter.
If I felt Cash was wrong on an issue I would have no problem in letting him know.......evidently it seems that you give everyone the benefit of the doubt.......are you unable or just unwilling to make a decision based upon facts?
Or could it be that you are embarrassed because you stuck up for a con man...............?
Unfortunatley this world is full of people that are unable to come to conclussions based upon facts..........they usually end up as jurors for murderers and rapist.
NC_Yank
Mark,
FYI:
Jeff Adams contacted me a while back about becoming involved with his organization, to which I replied I would have to think about it.
I immediately broke out my crystal ball the one I brought with me from Las Vegas and what I saw were problems, so I declined Jeff's request.
If have been aware of what has been going on with his organization, how long have you know about this?
Since you must have some documentation to back up your claims against him I would think the prudent thing to do is put a stop to him on TCI before any members get hurt.
Now that I think about it awhile back I did defend Jeff about a post he made, one of the members here got their panties in a bunch because I did this, so I hope this has nothing to do with your post about Jeff. This also had nothing to do with any involvement with Jeff, I felt he was being unjustly accused about what he posted.
On another point concerning Lucius, the person who gave the money to become involved with his plan to "save the homeless" (which looks like it was Lucius himself), requested in several emails paperwork showing what was going on and the partnership agreement. They never received anything back, but it is in the works, as a matter of fact in the works for over one year.
If you are as smart of a business person as I think you are, would you withold information from your partners or become involved with someone who could not produce any paperwork showing you what was going on with a partnership you were involved with?
Of course on advice of counsul he will not produce the paperwork, now why do you suppose counsul advised him to do this, maybe because there isn't any?
One more thing I think the colors used on the Commercial side of TCI are appalling and I hope you have to live with them.
$Cash$
[addsig]
Yank,
1) "If Lucias was right then why is he returning the money......obviously at the advice of his counsel."
Returning the money doesn't prove Lucius is guilty of anything. I refund money (security deposits for example) all the time where I might reasonably withhold it because it is cheaper than the hassle. Lets look at this, Lucius is refunding $6,000. Even if Olga's claim were totally spurious (and I am not saying that it is) he could not reasonably expect to spend a lot less than that on legal fees to defend a court case. Lucius's e-mail as quoted does not say that he is refunding the money at the advice of counsel-- but even if it did this is the sort of advice my lawyer gives me all the time, "Its not worth the fees involved, Mark."
2) "Could it be that Lucias doesnt want to open his books because........the numbers dont add up."
It could be. It could also be that he sees John as on a witch hunt and doesn't want to assist in putting himself on the spit. Your speculations about the reasons Lucius doesn't want to provide this information are not the same as evidence. Were it me I wouldn't have tried to palm this off on my counsel. But John is the guy talking lawsuits and AG's, you can hardly blame the guy for getting counsel in that circumstance.
3) "I open my books all the time for clients....matter of fact its in my contract that they have the right to look at my books in regards to their project.......nothing to hide on my part. "
Me too. This is why I don't do my own bookeeping anymore-- much easier to send them to the accountant. But again, you must read the texts provided carefully. What Lucius refuses to provide is not acces to the company books, it is a list of personal assets "she is asking for security on her money covered by your assets." Lucius has agreed to sign a promisory note-- but not to provide a list of assets.
"right to look at my books in regards to their project " Absolutly so. But not your books regarding projects they are not involved in. John, is not, after all, an investor in Lucius's deal.
"Yes their (sic) are deals that go bad but anyone that see (sic) that is more then (sic) a deal that went bad."
Well maybe I am particularly dense, but I don't even see that there is even a deal that went bad. I have no idea what the deal was/is. Have we seen a copy of a partnership agreement? A description of what the deal was? An offering memorandum. All I know is that Olga claims she sent Lucius $6,000 and now she wants it back. On reflection I don't even know that. I know that John says that Olga claims she sent Lucius $6,000 and now she wants it back.
"Or could it be that you are embarrassed because you stuck up for a con man...............?"
I think, if you go back and read my posts carefully you will be hard pressed to find a place where I have actually stood up for Lucius. I have not said I think his deal is legit. I have not said I think Olga is overreaching in her claim. I have only said that Lucius deserves the respect and conventions of law which are part of the history of this great country. The presumption of innocence and the rules of evidence are not there to be ignored when we wish. They are among the most basic principles of a free society. Abandon them and the only question becomes which tyrant will be in charge next?
"Unfortunatley this world is full of people that are unable to come to conclussions based upon facts..........they usually end up as jurors for murderers and rapist."
Unfortunately the world is also full of people more than willing to come to conclusions based on hearsay and accusations, in the absence of any facts. Somehow they seem to end up as jurors for innocent men.
Mark,
I don't remember mentioning Olga's name, strange that you would know who it is.
How deep to you go with Lucius?
$Cash$
Mark,
The colors were an inside joke between someone in the TCI organization and myself. So it was just my dry sense of humor showing through.
I enjoy it when someone defends their position or trys to anyway, the point being that Lucius offered to return this persons money, which was what this post was about. If she did not give the money to him why would he return the money or why would he offer to give her anything?
He certainly has not given her anything else that I could find or that he would tell me he did, he doesn't have to show me anything but he has a fudicary responsibility to show her.
You use attorney's I use many years of how to effectively negotiate without attorney's becoming involved.
If you look at the AG's post you will see my mentods at work. Out of all the names attorney's included in the long post the person representing the AG's office chose mine as the person to talk with, strange, not really from my standpoint I knew exactly what needed to be accomplished, good ole crystal ball works everytime.
What was accomplished was I have many students in North Carolina looking to me to have the anwers for the situation there, the thank you $Cash$ for going to bat for us emails are plentiful plus a direction they need to pursue to do Subject To deals in NC.
The people who sell trusts as the way to go, have the battle with the AG, which is an uphill battle with many battles and expenses, I entered the battle from my perspective won the war, so my job was done with just some charges on my cell phone bill.
I am not the hangman looking to pursue Lucius looking for a solid tree branch to through the rope over, I have enjoyed his posts as many have. However when someone crosses the line, then the thirteenth knot in my rope is tied.
If I am proven wrong then I am person enough to admit it, however I found no documentation in Lucius's defense to show his intentions were honorable.
$Cash$
Quote:
On 2004-08-26 10:37, JohnLocke wrote:
Mark,
I don't remember mentioning Olga's name, strange that you would know who it is.
How deep to you go with Lucius?
$Cash$
Actually John, I didn't know for sure that it was Olga until just now. I pieced together the description of the disgruntled investor from bits and pieces here and there. Lucius admits in his posts to having three or four TCI members as investors. Only one is a woman. I used that woman's name in the post as a test. You just confirmed the identity. No crystal ball, no communication with Lucius.
John,
I've been thinking about something you wrote here since I posted my prior response:
"what I saw were problems, so I declined Jeff's request.
What was the nature of the problems you saw? Again, I have no information except that Oscott seems angry in some way. But you've looked at Jeff's organization and saw problems, perhaps something should have been done then?
Mark
John, I am not sure I would advise her to do anything at all. None of us (OK maybe a few here) are Philadelphia lawyers. I would advise her to seek competent legal advise ASAP. Shae may be due more than the 6k. BTW, he is going to pay her back at $500.00 per month? I wonder if she invested at $500.00 per month or $6,000.00 certified funds up front? Is it an interest bearing note? Why not? I just read this, been very busy, but this seems kind of squirrely to me.
Have a great day lads and ladies,
Good Luck,
Shawn(OH)
Shawn,
Always good to hear from you Ole Bud, you must be busy selling some fine pieces of automotive machinery, plus taking care of all those properties you own. I know you are a busy man.
I am only acting as a mediator in this situation, the minute it turns legalese, I am out of the picture. She did put all the money up front, so I can't blame her for wanting her money back when nothing was delivered to secure her investment.
You would think someone putting together a major undertaking (I believe big figures were being tossed around as an inducement to invest) would have reserves in the amount of $6K for any contingencies.
As you know you being in the automobile business as well as I was having to put up $50K surety bonds should something go wrong. Before I could get my Bail Bond License my surety bond was $500K.
Maybe one of Lucius's good friends wants to front the $6K, who knows.
Anyway thank you for the advice always a pleasure.
$Cash$
[addsig]
I am locking this topic.
There is no purpose in getting heated discussions for things that have already been solved.
Colors on TCI Commercial, - I chose them. I specifically didn't choose a green theme, because I didn't want to rip off Wall Street Journal Real Estate edition.
Lucius and Olga. - While TCI is facilitating networking. Investors networking, deals are going to be made. While TCI shouldn't be held responsible for these, it is a fine line for us to help people, when they need help.
John helped this lady because it wasn't the first person to talk to John about bad deals with Lucius. We have had complaints before.
We all enjoy Lucius' war stories, but the fact is, when people come to do business on TCI, they immediately have credibility.
And because of this, that is why John stuck his neck out in this situation.
John, Mark, and moderating - You guys are pros, there is no doubt about it. But really that is why I have you as moderators.
John got upset the last time when I chose moderators that didn't know diddly about Real Estate to moderate.
So now, we are hand selecting moderators to join TCI. Everybody is doing a great job moderating. We also have made the search a lot faster on the back end to help out with the searches.
Mark actually help me move over 200 posts out of old expired forums in the past two weeks. I really appreciate that.
Thanks again guys for all your help. I am sorry I have to lock the topic.