What happened to this new big thing on MSA??????????????????

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 28 May 2002 2:01 pm

Are you asserting that although I have stated my position publicly and repeatedly (even according to your account) I am supposed to answer a question for you,

To the best of my knowledge, you have not ever answered this direct question publically. If so, show me the link. I said that you have repeatedly declared yourself innocent on this Forum. The real answer to my question will reveal much.

a guy who will not specify his intentions and motives though he pretty clearly has some undisclosed agenda?

Just what is that agenda, Reece? Please specify?

I have stated my position for 20 years, what is your position? Upon what is your decision based?

My position is this: "IF" your company accepted money AFTER you all knew you would not deliver any more steel guitars, then you defrauded those folks. The moral and right thing to do when a company knows it is going under is to return the money and cancel the order explaining why.

Do you wish everyone to believe that you will then take any answer I would give you

You profess to be a Christian, so I should expect that you will not lie. I would be expected to take you for your word unless other credible evidence surfaced to prove otherwise.

and with the Solomon-like wisdom that you typically display on this forum, will personally determine the truth of the answer?

Obviously, you are making a personal attack not liking some of my other posts. Care to site a few examples of posts that were not Solomon-like?

And, if you determine that it is true, will you unveil your true intentions and those of your confederates?

Who are my so-called "confederates?" I would have to guess it is all those who are asking questions. No one is putting any one up to anything.

And if you, in all your prescience, determine that it is not truthful, you will not disclose such intentions?

Even if I had some wild intentions, how does that affect the truth you should reveal on the matter?

How are you going to make a determination? Do you have some new information that you have uncovered based upon your personal search? If so, share it. If not, what would you use?

As I wrote above, I would take your word for it, since you profess Christianity. Others will have to provide other info, not me.

Tell me, if it’s not you who will determine it, then who is going to determine whether any answer is true or false? What will be the basis of that determination?

It is up to you to answer truthfully, realizing that the Almighty God knows the truth and will hold us all accountable for the truth.

Nothing personal, but I think I would prefer to rely on the fair-mindedness of the overwhelming majority of the steel guitar community and leave you and your confederates to attempt to disrupt the steel guitar community.

Actually, you have resorted to attacking me personally for asking a simple, direct and fair question. You do not know me or have ever met me and believe it or not, I am an objective observer of this saga. You have wrongly decided that I am not fair-minded by asking a very reasonable question. My only problem is that you often act like a guilty man.

Answer the question, once and for all: Did you knowingly accept money for steel guitar orders AFTER you knew that you would not and/or could not deliver them?

Let's see if I can follow your logic as you define fair-mindedness in this little analogy: a woman is being raped and as I review the situation, I decide to stay out of it because the woman is not my wife or is not related to me in any way. I should stay out of it because it is none of business, technically. In this way, I would appear more fair minded to the rapist, would I not?

The answer to Cain's rhetorical question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" is yes, to a point. Perhaps this will shed some light on the motivation of the so-called "confederates."[This message was edited by Frank Estes on 28 May 2002 at 03:12 PM.]

Reece Anderson · Post by **Reece Anderson** » 28 May 2002 2:06 pm

Frank E….Are you asserting that although I have stated my position publicly and repeatedly (even according to your account) I am supposed to answer a question for you, a guy who will not specify his intentions and motives though he pretty clearly has some undisclosed agenda? I have stated my position for 20 years, what is your position? Upon what is your decision based?

Do you wish everyone to believe that you will then take any answer I would give you and with the Solomon-like wisdom that you typically display on this forum, will personally determine the truth of the answer? And, if you determine that it is true, will you unveil your true intentions and those of your confederates?

And if you, in all your prescience, determine that it is not truthful, you will not disclose such intentions?

How are you going to make a determination? Do you have some new information that you have uncovered based upon your personal search? If so, share it. If not, what would you use?

Tell me, if it’s not you who will determine it, then who is going to determine whether any answer is true or false? What will be the basis of that determination?

Nothing personal, but I think I would prefer to rely on the fair-mindedness of the overwhelming majority of the steel guitar community and leave you and your confederates to attempt to disrupt the steel guitar community.

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 28 May 2002 2:13 pm

Did you knowingly accept money for steel guitar orders AFTER you knew that you would not and/or could not deliver them?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 28 May 2002 2:17 pm

Yeah, Frank. What the heck are you and your confederates up to anyway? Hey, wait a second. Maybe I'm a confederate, too! But how can I be a confederate, I'm from the north!

Yes, let's not muss up the calm of the steel guitar community by asking difficult questions. That would be rude.

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 28 May 2002 2:18 pm

Yeah, Stephen, I was wondering if the "confederate" term he is using is an attempt at slurring those from the South.

Dave Horner · Post by **Dave Horner** » 28 May 2002 2:21 pm

Steve- Your embellishments notwithstanding, assuming the quote was accurate, Reece merely said that there was a point where he realized that there was a problem that simply could not be overcome. That could hardly be regarded as a revelation.

Frank- Reece has answered that question in all its forms many times and has no obligation to dice back and forth with you or your associates for your amusement.

Dave

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 28 May 2002 2:22 pm

Well, Dave, I must be dense, what is that answer? Please tell us. It does not appear that Reece will. Look, I will be the first to say that being a bad business man is not a crime and for one to sincerely not keep up with one's books can happen. What I cannot accept is that "if" money was accepted and kept even though the company knows that it will not be able to honor those orders is simply not right.[This message was edited by Frank Estes on 28 May 2002 at 03:27 PM.]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 28 May 2002 2:38 pm

Dave, my is quotation correct, but I did leave out these lines that directly follow those I quoted earlier:

"At that very instant I felt it to be God's will that I immediately close MSA. Closing meant employees would have to be terminated, equipment relinquished; and all the consequences would have to be faced. I immediately called a board meeting and all reluctantly and sadly agreed with my decision that, the time had come to give up the struggle which we had endured for so long."

So, in Maurice's own words, he was unaware of the dire nature of his company's financial situation until one week before a payment to the SBA was due and he IMMEDIATELY called a board meeting where it was decided to close the company.

So, you see, it's easy to believe Maurice when he says he didn't accept any deposits without intending to deliver guitars. It's easy to believe because, as Maurice states, he was completely unaware of how badly off his own company's finances were. The fact that he later explains that his company owed money to both the SBA and the IRS confirms that he didn't really know what was going on. It was all a big surprise.

What's so hard to believe about that?[This message was edited by Stephen O'Brien on 28 May 2002 at 03:42 PM.]

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 28 May 2002 2:47 pm

Steve, I "suppose" it is possible for people to be such boneheaded businessmen. So, it appears we may have two possible explanations:

1. They were always honest, but stupid business people.

2. They were not stupid, just not always upfront.

Perhaps we should have a Forum poll of which one all the fair-minded people consider to be the likely explanation. Sorry, I would not be allowed to vote because I am not fair-minded.

[This message was edited by Frank Estes on 28 May 2002 at 03:48 PM.]

Bob Blair · Post by **Bob Blair** » 28 May 2002 2:53 pm

Frank, I thought I understood you to say earlier that, because of the religious faith that you and Reece share, you would believe him? Are you now saying something different?

I truly have no axe to grind on this thing, but all of this pompous pronouncing is getting unbelievably tiresome. Why don't you go practice some scales or something.....

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 28 May 2002 2:56 pm

Bob, I am waiting to hear the answer. And, I genuinely would take his word for it. Do YOU know the answer or the link that shows he answered it?

As for it getting tiresome, I agree. I am getting tired of it. Of course, you could always show a little will-power and change the channel if you do not like what is on!
[This message was edited by Frank Estes on 28 May 2002 at 03:57 PM.]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 28 May 2002 3:10 pm

Frank, there is one third possiblity that you didn't consider. It is possible that they were both incompetent and not forthright. I don't know which of the three would be accurate.

Dave Horner · Post by **Dave Horner** » 28 May 2002 3:12 pm

Steve- I see a quote - then I see your restatement of the quote which of course is different than the quote. Then you analyze your restatement.

The fact is one never knows the extent of a problem until one knows the extent of the problem. One second you don't know it, the next second you know it. That's kind of the way life works. The quote seems to indicate that when he had concluded it was over he acted in concert with that knowledge. I suppose you often conclude things before you conclude them- Reece didn't.

Frank- You seem to be trying your best to prove that which you indicated you had concluded about yourself. I'm guessing that there are a lot of people who are willing to just take your word for it.

Stephen Gambrell · Post by **Stephen Gambrell** » 28 May 2002 3:59 pm

Maybe you dissenters shoulda just bought an Emmons!

Quesney Gibbs · Post by **Quesney Gibbs** » 28 May 2002 4:26 pm

Frank...You will never get a straight yes or no answer from Reece. I know what happened because I was one of those who sent money up front and in good faith and got nothing and even twenty years later the same old B. S. (Calling on God, Budda and Mohammed) instead of a straight reply. I have long since given up on any refund even if it is something due to me. If anyone else wants to send deposits to MSA so be it. It's your hard earned money so risk it if you wish. [This message was edited by Quesney Gibbs on 28 May 2002 at 05:28 PM.][This message was edited by Quesney Gibbs on 28 May 2002 at 05:29 PM.][This message was edited by Quesney Gibbs on 28 May 2002 at 05:31 PM.]

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 28 May 2002 8:13 pm

Cute, Dave, but still no answer or link to an answer to my question. Actually, I do not believe what you are hoping to believe about me, I thought some false humility on my part might stroke your pretend lawyer ego enough to get a straight answer from you, for a change. Surprise! You have failed to deliver again...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 29 May 2002 3:03 am

Folks, there was a time, not long ago, when I felt that all the posts about Maurice were simply unfounded attacks. But after reading Maurice's account of the demise of MSA and hearing from some who lost deposits, my mind has changed. Let's face it, Maurice is one of the all time greatest steel players and 100 years from now, his name will still be known to anyone who plays steel guitar. But as a businessman, I feel there is ample reason to believe we have not been told the real story.

In my opinion, the steel guitar community is the most honest and ethical bunch of people I've had the pleasure to associate with. But the old adage "You can't cheat an honest man" is a lie -- honest people are cheated every day. Honest and trusting people lost money on guitars they ordered from MSA, even Maurice admits that. For the most part, steel guitar players are not rich people. To most, if not all, of those people, the deposits they lost represented a sizeable amount of money. The passage of time does not mean we should accept a pat answer to their losses.

The questions that remain in my mind were the result of reading Maurices article that was published in Steel Guitar World. In this article Maurice describes the demise of MSA. After reading it, though, I had more questions than when I started. It just didn't seem to make sense to me then, and it doesn't make sense to me today.

You can read the article and judge for yourself. It's posted on Maurice's website at http://home.flash.net/~picker1/reece/story1.html

Here are the questions that I have after reading Maurice's explanation.

1. Maurice begins the article by noting that MSA's business was negatively impacted by the Arab oil embargo.

* While it's true that the oil embargo generated a recession, that recession was over by April 1975. MSA did not go out of business until 1984 - how is it possible to blame the Arab oil embargo for the demise of a company ten years later?

* Despite the embargo, throughout the 1970's demand for steel guitars increased.

* Since the oil embargo and inflation affected all manufacturers of steel guitars, how is it that MSA was particularly impacted?

2. Maurice informs us that the company's financial advisor (not identified) wrote himself a large check against company funds and "went directly to the bank and drew out a large sum of money…" Mr. Andersen goes on to say "His judgment was certainly distorted and misguided…" and that "From that day forward it became a month-to-month battle to continue."

* What actually happened here? It's hard to tell. Was a crime committed? If so, then in addition to showing distorted and misquided judgment, the financial advisor also committed a felony. Did Maurice do nothing to prosecute this individual or recover the money? If not, why not?

* If the company's future was as tenuous as Maurice describes, was that not an indication that they might not be able to fulfill orders?

3. The next event that Maurice mentions occurred in early 1984. As he says, "One Friday morning in early 1984 after looking over the orders shipped that month and the few orders in-house, I then saw a date circled on my calendar which indicated the due date of a large payment due the following week to the SBA. That amount plus what was owed to employees for the week was simply a problem that could not be overcome. At that very instant I felt it to be God's will that I immediately close MSA. Closing meant employees would have to be terminated, equipment relinquished; and all the consequences would have to be faced. I immediately called a board meeting and all reluctantly and sadly agreed with my decision that, the time had come to give up the struggle which we had endured for so long."

* Maurice has demonstrated a keen memory for detail when asked about specific steel guitars on the forum. Is it credible that Mr. was unaware of a large payment due to the SBA and that he was reminded only a week prior to the due date by a circle on his calendar? It seems highly unlikely to me that a large loan payment would not have weighed heavily on his mind well in advance of the due date.

* Is it credible that, after "discovering" a loan payment, Maurice decided then and there to close MSA?

4. "I received a letter from the IRS informing me MSA's employee withholding taxes were due. Our financial advisor had also neglected to inform me of this matter."

* Funds withheld from employee paychecks for the IRS are the property of the Federal Government and are not to be used in any way as part of the operating funds of the firm. These funds are collected on a regular basis (quarterly or weekly or even daily depending on the size of the company). No competent business owner can be unaware of this obligation.

5. Maurice provided to depositors stock in his father-in-law's company, which he purchased "at a below-market price". He says that he purchased this stock by "refinancing my automobile and borrowing on two credit cards to their maximum cash limit."

* Was his father-in-law's company was listed on any stock exchange? If not, it would have been impossible to determine what, if any, market value the stock had. Typically, shares in closely held small companies have no liquidity and no determinable market value.

* If the shares truly did have a market value that was higher than the price Maurice paid for it, why didn't Maurice simply sell the shares at the higher price and send cash to his debtors?

* Why did Maurice go to the trouble of borrowing money to buy the shares at all - why not use the money he borrowed to pay off at least a portion of the money owed to the depositors?

* I would like to note that Maurice did pay off his debts to the SBA and IRS - organizations that he could not possibly refuse to pay. But to his depositors he offered only shares of questionable value.

6. "I sent those stock certificates along with a letter explaining that the stocks were given as a gesture of good faith and my sincere concern for them as friends and past customers, and were not intended to be considered as repayment of deposits sent."

* If the stock certificates where not intended to be considered as repayment for the deposits, why did he mortgage his car and borrow against his credit cards to buy the stock?

* A gesture of good faith is only sincere if it is followed up by concrete actions. I may give you an IOU as a gesture of good faith, but that good faith would be false if I never actually paid the IOU.

7. "Over all these years only two people have contacted me concerning their deposits with MSA."

* Is this a credible statement?

I have no bone to pick with Maurice Anderson. I have never met him and don't expect I ever will. But given the seriousness of the allegations being leveled at him, I think it is useful to try to determine if there is any credibility to his assertions that he had did not take deposits without knowing he could deliver guitars and that he has tried to do the right thing where MSA depositors are concerned.

The fact that nearly twenty years has elapsed since the demise of MSA does not in any way diminish the validity of the claims of depositors who lost their money. And while it is true that this issue could have been decided in court, doing so would have incurred expenses and difficulties in excess of the value of the deposits. The fact that depositors did not bring any action to court should not be perceived as acquiescence on their part.

That's the story as far as I'm concerned. We are all free to form our own opinions.

Dave Horner · Post by **Dave Horner** » 29 May 2002 6:33 am

Steve,

If the sun comes up in the morning, one might suggest it's because Reece stole the moon. I think there are more likely explanations. You have taken two facts- (1)Reece bought some stock, and (2)Reece gave away some stock, and from those couple of threads have woven a fabric which has the look and feel of the "Emporer's new clothes."

For example, you say:

* If the stock certificates where not intended to be considered as repayment for
the deposits, why did he mortgage his car and borrow against his credit cards to buy the stock? -

Indeed, why would he do that?
Your explanation is that the act was somehow evidence of insincerity and apparently conclude that the stock was somehow transformed into an IOU. That, of course, is nonsense.

The most plausible explanation for his action was and is that he did it for the reason he said he did it- as a good faith gesture with a hope that it would benefit the recipients.

You have touted yourself as a "neutral third party," and a person with "no bone to pick."
Do you suppose that many people believe that?

You are, of course, correct in saying that everyone can form their own opinions. What people can not do with impunity is make libelous comments about people and businesses.

Dave

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 29 May 2002 9:40 am

So, Dave, has the definition of libel now been expanded to include citing direct quotes from someone? I don't think so.

Yeah, giving non-marketable shares of stock sure was a "good faith" gesture -- "good" for Maurice's "faith" in his ability to avoid having to pay back the deposits.

JB Arnold · Post by **JB Arnold** » 29 May 2002 10:23 am

Steve-just a quick question-aren't you the intermediary in this dispute?

John

------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Mullen Royal Precision D-10 8 & 5
"All in all, looking back, I'd have to say the best advice anyone ever gave me was 'Hands Up, Don't Move!"
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel
www.buddycage.net

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 29 May 2002 10:34 am

Yes, I started out as a neutral party in this matter. But you know what? After reading Maurice's excuses and letters from people who actually lost money, I had no choice but to form an opinion. I think anybody who is not inextricably linked to Maurice would come to the same conclusion.

So, you and Dave are right -- while I have nothing to gain or lose in the matter, I find it impossible to be impartial. God gave me eyes to read with and a brain to think with. I intend to use both.

By the way, I want to commend Maurice for the use of the word "opprobrious". It's a word that not many are familiar with, but I'm not surprised to learn that Maurice is.

Dave Horner · Post by **Dave Horner** » 29 May 2002 10:51 am

JB,

Steve was not connected with the "old MSA" corporation which discontinued business approximately 20 years ago, and is not connected with the "new MSA" corporation which was recently formed.

Dave[This message was edited by Dave Horner on 29 May 2002 at 11:53 AM.][This message was edited by Dave Horner on 29 May 2002 at 11:59 AM.]

Post by **b0b** » 29 May 2002 11:16 am

I've been away for two days. I should have nipped this in the bud. Sorry for the delay.

This topic is closed.

------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/coolb0b2.gif" border="0"> Bobby Lee
-b0b- quasar@b0b.com 
-System Administrator