Responses to the MSA responses
Posted: 29 Mar 2002 1:11 pm
Responses to the MSA Responses,
My life's work has been that of an educator, and I quickly recognize that the Forum's primary function is to educate through the exchange of information. However, I am surprised by how often Forumites "shoot from the lip," rather than first educating themselves before speaking what they infer to be fact. Many too often choose to preach. The most appropriate response to my previous postings about MSA and its owner/namesake, was provided by Earnest Bovine who quoted George Santayana's famous line, "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat it." Santayana was surely a wise man, and it is apparent that Earnest most probably is too. I would like to respond to several others who chose to shoot from the proverbial lip.
To Michael Johnstone, who asked, "Hey man - Why are you doing this?" I must inquire, "Why don't you ask me directly? My email was listed and still is, but I never received an inquiry from you. Who knows, you may become one of those doomed to repeat history, which I certainly hope is not your fate.
To David Biagini who posted a vitriolic series of denunciations then edited them away to provide only, "It ain't worth it… ". I strongly disagree; it is worth it. The message you would have gotten is, "Be careful to whom you entrust your money." If you have (or had) children, I suspect you will educate them about such a pitfall, just as your father surely warned you. Good advice, but you didn't inquire of me to learn what other warnings might be of benefit to you.
To David Wright who referenced excrement, stating something to the effect that if you don't start it, there will not be any. You are most surely "wright," (a pun), but you are 20 years too late with your admonition, as well as misdirecting it at me. The spreading of the excrement began in 1979 and hasn't been cleaned up by the perpetrator who dumped it on many of your steel guitar "brothers." If you were concerned about those brothers wouldn't you want it cleaned up, regardless of how long it took? I don't understand what the correction was you wanted me to make, but go ahead and make it.] If you feel it was never dumped or was cleaned up, why not drop me a note asking what I know about it? You didn't. If you had had the excrement dumped on you, I'd support your desire to have it removed. I'm suspicious that your idolization of the perpetrator has clouded your interest in any of this and you would prefer that its history be kept from any public scrutiny. A pity. Regardless of whether my suspicions are true or false, your desire to cover up this sordid event contributes to the events of "doom" as Santayana warned.
To Rick GM who voices concern by hinting that I have a "personal vendetta." Please check the definition of vendetta. If you had dropped me a note asking for information, you would have discovered that I'm not trying to kill a family of murderers who murdered members of my family. You would have learned that I'm just a fellow steel player who is trying to get just one member of the steel guitar community to give back what he should not have kept. If I knew you were victimized, I'd try to come to your aid.
When reading the Forum, I have noticed how often others support someone who is aggrieved, with the result being that most often an equitable solution is the result (the Emmons and Gruhn firms being the most recent examples). But, when something is said of someone they idolize as an ‘icon’ of the steel guitar community, certain Forumites seem bent on crucifying the person who is an advocate for those aggrieved. Is this hypocrisy in action or the pitfalls of hero/idol worship? What a curious conflict in ethics. I believe the Emmons and Gruhn discussions helped bring about resolution. I'll bet without the Forum's existence, it wouldn't have. I must commend you, however. You withheld judgment and requested the information. I notice that you wanted to know the other side of the story. Did you find out what the "other side" is? If so, why not share it here on the Forum?
To Dave Horner: I find it fascinating as well as sad that you would begin by admitting, "I don't know the facts about which u speak…" then proceed to make eleven erroneous assumptions about some "guy" that you can't bring yourself to identify by name. In your post you ask numerous questions. Do you expect the answers to appear similar to the Bethlehem star? In another post you appear concerned about a grudge. The word "grudge" is always viewed as negative. Most feel it is maintained because of a petty or baseless annoyance, resulting in exaggerated negativism toward someone who may not even know what they did to earn the other person's hatred or contempt. Nothing I posted is baseless or petty; everything is identified as a personal position or as fact, which is backed up with evidence. If you feel that makes it a grudge, I'll gladly plead guilty to the charge. In today's dollars, I happen to know that the victim's losses would total $100,000. If you were out any portion of this amount, I suspect you would have a real "grudge" toward the person who deprived you of it. I just "grudgingly" want those who have discovered that they are victims, to be equitably compensated.
To Randy Pettit who felt I should use my web site to "air my cause." I don't have a web site. However, the lengthy story is definitely headed to a web site; perhaps 2 of them. What I provided to those who inquired, can now be accessed at the following web site link: http:/songwriter.com/bradshaw/molberg.html
So, for those who may feel that their curiosity will reveal their identity, this link is a way to obtain the information anonymously.
Additionally, your concern that this matter has been in abeyance for 20 years is not accurate. You have just been out of the information loop for all those years. The Forum offers a place for the distribution of information and for a public discussion about it. Such discussions settle many issues and often inspire resolutions that could not be achieved in the "court system" you seem to prefer. But, I'll address that in a bit. Since you voiced a lack of interest in knowing what my issues were, no one required you to read this far into the thread or any further. Avoiding an education is your choice.
To Larry Bell: You mention the statute of limitations. That statute is 2 to 4 years for fraud, and its clock only begins ticking from the date that a victimized person realizes he was defrauded. The gathering of the needed information for a showing that fraud occurred has been a work in progress for the past 20 years. It is still ongoing. The story you are apparently referencing, as published in the now-defunct Steel Guitar World Magazine, was written by an author who chose to omit some significant chapters. Those omissions were purposeful. The publisher/editor of that magazine was informed of the omissions, but chose to disregard or ignore the information he was provided.
YOU may be running out of "patience" (as you mentioned), but if you were victimized you would likely be saying, "I'll never give up trying to get my money back." Or if you "let the past go," but then were contacted by someone who told you that restitution was being made, I'll bet you would gladly step forward and receive what had been wrongfully taken from you.
To Roy Thomson: Congrats to you. You withheld judgment and requested the information. You were the only one to do so.
To B. Cole: My congrats to you too. I commend you, for your position shows thoughtful contemplation. Your reference to the Emmons Company is also notable. I'm sure you realize that the time frame under discussion is far different. Compared to the 20+ years the people I mentioned have been waiting, this firm recognized that bad PR was going to be too damaging, or they should simply do the right thing. Thanks must go to the Forum for keeping a fire to their feet. And I have a suspicion that the depositor(s) of the Emmons Company didn't receive insulting messages or worthless stock certificates, nor was there a claim that the depositor(s) were at fault for providing the deposits in the first place.
To Jim Phelps: Virtually every point you wanted to make in your 3-19-02, 4:10 p.m. post was erroneous. Had you requested the information from me, you might have thought twice about everything you said there. Your concern about why a suit wasn't filed tells me you have never filed suit from a foreign country in U.S. Federal Court, as would be required from here and for most of the U.S. victims. From outside the U.S., a plaintiff would have had to hire an attorney in their country, then hire another one in the U.S. who was authorized to practice law in a Federal court, pay from $100 per hour (in 1981) to $300 per hour today, pay all their own expenses getting to the U.S. , while knowing that civil cases can be continued by a defendant ad infinitum. You would also be aware that this case is not a personal injury matter, where an attorney will most often accept a contingency fee (getting 33 to 40 percent of the anticipated judgment), allowing a plaintiff to avoid advancing any money. But even there (as well as in a civil judgment), collecting requires even more money for follow-up inquiries and judgment executions.
You mentioned twice that in the U.S. a person is "innocent until proven guilty." This is very much incorrect! If an ex-wife claims you failed to pay your child support, you have to prove you did! Be arrested for possession of stolen property, possession of a controlled substance, possession of a concealed weapon without a permit, have an open container of alcohol in your car, and/or be accused of being a minor in possession of alcohol, and you will quickly discover that you have to prove yourself innocent. There are many more. Get a traffic ticket and not have your driver's license in your possession and you better be prepared to prove you really have one, or you're dead meat. But back to this case which is a civil matter. Here, there is no "guilty" or "innocent"; it is the "preponderance of evidence." And the finding will be? It is either "The Court rules in favor of the plaintiff" with a judgment being rendered, or the case is dismissed for lack of evidence.
If you would have contacted me, I could have supplied this information to you confidentially, but you chose not to, while implying that a victim is responsible for what happens to them, even if they are unable to defend themselves. That kind of logic doesn't wash, as parents of raped daughters often have to deal with. Supposing your daughter advised you that she had been raped and the evidence was overwhelming that she was. After a long discussion, she, your wife and you, conclude that proceeding with a complaint to the police and the continuing court proceedings, as well as the public scrutiny of her and your family, would be just too emotionally traumatic for everyone. Suppose then, as a family, you decide not to bring it to law enforcement's attention. Does that mean that your daughter was never raped? Supposing you later learn that the rapist was attempting to date someone else you knew (perhaps even a relative), would you want to remain silent about what the scumbag did to your daughter, and not warn the other girl's parents? I really doubt that you would choose to possibly let occur to the other young woman what happened to your daughter. So, if I were to keep the information I have from my fellow steel guitar "brothers," would this not the same? I view it as identical.
To "Smike": As a professed non-Christian, you appear to have an understanding of Christian ethics. You could have also mentioned the Golden Rule. I suspect the perpetrator here would not view losing his deposit money as "a typical consequence when businesses fail." But I still see you were forgiven for your unsolicited revelation, even though you seem to simply be encouraging the fellow to measure up to his oft-voice claim of having those Christian ethics? Maybe you are a simple peacemaker who is trying to foster resolution. If so, I compliment you.
To Bob Drawbaugh: The "bones" you refer to were never "buried," and they obviously aren't your bones or you wouldn't react with callous unconcern toward the people whose "bones" have been bleaching for 20+ years. You certainly have your right to tell me to "get over it already." However, if your "bones" had been picked, I would be speaking up for you. I'm beginning to doubt that you would defend anyone who was treated wrongly. Referring to the example of the raped daughter, when would you be ready to "get over it"? These "brothers" of yours were violated, plain and simple. And as I said, this wasn't a typical business failure. When you give a customer a stock certificate in 1979 and tell them you are no longer in business, but continue to accept orders and ship guitars until mid-1983, can you call it a "common business failure"? I can't; I call it fraud.
To Bobbe Seymour: Your points are well stated.
To Tommy White: You appear to have an agenda apart from the issues under discussion. Perhaps you feel your playing prowess gives you the privilege of railing at someone whose request for the truth makes you fearful that you (and he) just might find out what it is. Perhaps you fear that your idol's ring is a bit tarnished, thus making you reluctant to kiss it the next time you see him? Your display of hysteria is apparent. Rather than recognizing that someone's motive just might be to save the character of an old friend, you appear to want him to keep quiet and avoid possibly exposing something too difficult for even you to handle. That is the process involved in a cover-up. However, your lack of intestinal fortitude, choosing not to drop a note to me to "put up or shut up," is puzzling, given your demand that another person shuts up. The "angry daggers" you refer to, are emanating more from you than from anyone else who posted.
To b0b: You got three out of your four points right, and that ain't bad. I'll correct you on one. Only a selected few depositors got the worthless stock certificates; not everyone as your statement implies. The stock was worthless when it was given and still is. The stock-gifting was a ploy to delay and fatigue the depositors. His choice of words in the gifting was calculated. The "good faith" offering didn't discharge the debt and the perpetrator never alleged that it would. To do so would have placed a value on his "gift," thus creating exposure to legal liability. That had to be avoided. He obviously got legal advice on that.
If you access all of Comstock's annual reports back to 1979, you will discover that over the past 23 years: the firm has never declared a dividend, never turned a profit, and has never been traded on any market. It has no assets, has no paid employees, pays no rent, and only lists liabilities. One of those liabilities happens to be an accumulated debt of $8,185,885. Looking at this record, any stockbroker will tell you the firm is a sham corporation, existing only as a tax shelter for the majority stockholders. With such facts, isn't it easy to understand why U.S. law has no statute of limitations on the prosecution of stock fraud? And remember, the perpetrator was a member of the Board of Directors of this corporation for a number of years back in the '80s.
If you or anyone wish to confirm Comstock's worthlessness, check out this web link: http://www.secinfo.com/$/sec/registrant.asp?cik=717410
So b0b, thank you for the Forum and the fine job you do running it. Had the Forum been around in 1979 to 1983, I doubt that any of the foregoing would have been allowed to fester for the 20+ years it has.
Jim Molberg
My life's work has been that of an educator, and I quickly recognize that the Forum's primary function is to educate through the exchange of information. However, I am surprised by how often Forumites "shoot from the lip," rather than first educating themselves before speaking what they infer to be fact. Many too often choose to preach. The most appropriate response to my previous postings about MSA and its owner/namesake, was provided by Earnest Bovine who quoted George Santayana's famous line, "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat it." Santayana was surely a wise man, and it is apparent that Earnest most probably is too. I would like to respond to several others who chose to shoot from the proverbial lip.
To Michael Johnstone, who asked, "Hey man - Why are you doing this?" I must inquire, "Why don't you ask me directly? My email was listed and still is, but I never received an inquiry from you. Who knows, you may become one of those doomed to repeat history, which I certainly hope is not your fate.
To David Biagini who posted a vitriolic series of denunciations then edited them away to provide only, "It ain't worth it… ". I strongly disagree; it is worth it. The message you would have gotten is, "Be careful to whom you entrust your money." If you have (or had) children, I suspect you will educate them about such a pitfall, just as your father surely warned you. Good advice, but you didn't inquire of me to learn what other warnings might be of benefit to you.
To David Wright who referenced excrement, stating something to the effect that if you don't start it, there will not be any. You are most surely "wright," (a pun), but you are 20 years too late with your admonition, as well as misdirecting it at me. The spreading of the excrement began in 1979 and hasn't been cleaned up by the perpetrator who dumped it on many of your steel guitar "brothers." If you were concerned about those brothers wouldn't you want it cleaned up, regardless of how long it took? I don't understand what the correction was you wanted me to make, but go ahead and make it.] If you feel it was never dumped or was cleaned up, why not drop me a note asking what I know about it? You didn't. If you had had the excrement dumped on you, I'd support your desire to have it removed. I'm suspicious that your idolization of the perpetrator has clouded your interest in any of this and you would prefer that its history be kept from any public scrutiny. A pity. Regardless of whether my suspicions are true or false, your desire to cover up this sordid event contributes to the events of "doom" as Santayana warned.
To Rick GM who voices concern by hinting that I have a "personal vendetta." Please check the definition of vendetta. If you had dropped me a note asking for information, you would have discovered that I'm not trying to kill a family of murderers who murdered members of my family. You would have learned that I'm just a fellow steel player who is trying to get just one member of the steel guitar community to give back what he should not have kept. If I knew you were victimized, I'd try to come to your aid.
When reading the Forum, I have noticed how often others support someone who is aggrieved, with the result being that most often an equitable solution is the result (the Emmons and Gruhn firms being the most recent examples). But, when something is said of someone they idolize as an ‘icon’ of the steel guitar community, certain Forumites seem bent on crucifying the person who is an advocate for those aggrieved. Is this hypocrisy in action or the pitfalls of hero/idol worship? What a curious conflict in ethics. I believe the Emmons and Gruhn discussions helped bring about resolution. I'll bet without the Forum's existence, it wouldn't have. I must commend you, however. You withheld judgment and requested the information. I notice that you wanted to know the other side of the story. Did you find out what the "other side" is? If so, why not share it here on the Forum?
To Dave Horner: I find it fascinating as well as sad that you would begin by admitting, "I don't know the facts about which u speak…" then proceed to make eleven erroneous assumptions about some "guy" that you can't bring yourself to identify by name. In your post you ask numerous questions. Do you expect the answers to appear similar to the Bethlehem star? In another post you appear concerned about a grudge. The word "grudge" is always viewed as negative. Most feel it is maintained because of a petty or baseless annoyance, resulting in exaggerated negativism toward someone who may not even know what they did to earn the other person's hatred or contempt. Nothing I posted is baseless or petty; everything is identified as a personal position or as fact, which is backed up with evidence. If you feel that makes it a grudge, I'll gladly plead guilty to the charge. In today's dollars, I happen to know that the victim's losses would total $100,000. If you were out any portion of this amount, I suspect you would have a real "grudge" toward the person who deprived you of it. I just "grudgingly" want those who have discovered that they are victims, to be equitably compensated.
To Randy Pettit who felt I should use my web site to "air my cause." I don't have a web site. However, the lengthy story is definitely headed to a web site; perhaps 2 of them. What I provided to those who inquired, can now be accessed at the following web site link: http:/songwriter.com/bradshaw/molberg.html
So, for those who may feel that their curiosity will reveal their identity, this link is a way to obtain the information anonymously.
Additionally, your concern that this matter has been in abeyance for 20 years is not accurate. You have just been out of the information loop for all those years. The Forum offers a place for the distribution of information and for a public discussion about it. Such discussions settle many issues and often inspire resolutions that could not be achieved in the "court system" you seem to prefer. But, I'll address that in a bit. Since you voiced a lack of interest in knowing what my issues were, no one required you to read this far into the thread or any further. Avoiding an education is your choice.
To Larry Bell: You mention the statute of limitations. That statute is 2 to 4 years for fraud, and its clock only begins ticking from the date that a victimized person realizes he was defrauded. The gathering of the needed information for a showing that fraud occurred has been a work in progress for the past 20 years. It is still ongoing. The story you are apparently referencing, as published in the now-defunct Steel Guitar World Magazine, was written by an author who chose to omit some significant chapters. Those omissions were purposeful. The publisher/editor of that magazine was informed of the omissions, but chose to disregard or ignore the information he was provided.
YOU may be running out of "patience" (as you mentioned), but if you were victimized you would likely be saying, "I'll never give up trying to get my money back." Or if you "let the past go," but then were contacted by someone who told you that restitution was being made, I'll bet you would gladly step forward and receive what had been wrongfully taken from you.
To Roy Thomson: Congrats to you. You withheld judgment and requested the information. You were the only one to do so.
To B. Cole: My congrats to you too. I commend you, for your position shows thoughtful contemplation. Your reference to the Emmons Company is also notable. I'm sure you realize that the time frame under discussion is far different. Compared to the 20+ years the people I mentioned have been waiting, this firm recognized that bad PR was going to be too damaging, or they should simply do the right thing. Thanks must go to the Forum for keeping a fire to their feet. And I have a suspicion that the depositor(s) of the Emmons Company didn't receive insulting messages or worthless stock certificates, nor was there a claim that the depositor(s) were at fault for providing the deposits in the first place.
To Jim Phelps: Virtually every point you wanted to make in your 3-19-02, 4:10 p.m. post was erroneous. Had you requested the information from me, you might have thought twice about everything you said there. Your concern about why a suit wasn't filed tells me you have never filed suit from a foreign country in U.S. Federal Court, as would be required from here and for most of the U.S. victims. From outside the U.S., a plaintiff would have had to hire an attorney in their country, then hire another one in the U.S. who was authorized to practice law in a Federal court, pay from $100 per hour (in 1981) to $300 per hour today, pay all their own expenses getting to the U.S. , while knowing that civil cases can be continued by a defendant ad infinitum. You would also be aware that this case is not a personal injury matter, where an attorney will most often accept a contingency fee (getting 33 to 40 percent of the anticipated judgment), allowing a plaintiff to avoid advancing any money. But even there (as well as in a civil judgment), collecting requires even more money for follow-up inquiries and judgment executions.
You mentioned twice that in the U.S. a person is "innocent until proven guilty." This is very much incorrect! If an ex-wife claims you failed to pay your child support, you have to prove you did! Be arrested for possession of stolen property, possession of a controlled substance, possession of a concealed weapon without a permit, have an open container of alcohol in your car, and/or be accused of being a minor in possession of alcohol, and you will quickly discover that you have to prove yourself innocent. There are many more. Get a traffic ticket and not have your driver's license in your possession and you better be prepared to prove you really have one, or you're dead meat. But back to this case which is a civil matter. Here, there is no "guilty" or "innocent"; it is the "preponderance of evidence." And the finding will be? It is either "The Court rules in favor of the plaintiff" with a judgment being rendered, or the case is dismissed for lack of evidence.
If you would have contacted me, I could have supplied this information to you confidentially, but you chose not to, while implying that a victim is responsible for what happens to them, even if they are unable to defend themselves. That kind of logic doesn't wash, as parents of raped daughters often have to deal with. Supposing your daughter advised you that she had been raped and the evidence was overwhelming that she was. After a long discussion, she, your wife and you, conclude that proceeding with a complaint to the police and the continuing court proceedings, as well as the public scrutiny of her and your family, would be just too emotionally traumatic for everyone. Suppose then, as a family, you decide not to bring it to law enforcement's attention. Does that mean that your daughter was never raped? Supposing you later learn that the rapist was attempting to date someone else you knew (perhaps even a relative), would you want to remain silent about what the scumbag did to your daughter, and not warn the other girl's parents? I really doubt that you would choose to possibly let occur to the other young woman what happened to your daughter. So, if I were to keep the information I have from my fellow steel guitar "brothers," would this not the same? I view it as identical.
To "Smike": As a professed non-Christian, you appear to have an understanding of Christian ethics. You could have also mentioned the Golden Rule. I suspect the perpetrator here would not view losing his deposit money as "a typical consequence when businesses fail." But I still see you were forgiven for your unsolicited revelation, even though you seem to simply be encouraging the fellow to measure up to his oft-voice claim of having those Christian ethics? Maybe you are a simple peacemaker who is trying to foster resolution. If so, I compliment you.
To Bob Drawbaugh: The "bones" you refer to were never "buried," and they obviously aren't your bones or you wouldn't react with callous unconcern toward the people whose "bones" have been bleaching for 20+ years. You certainly have your right to tell me to "get over it already." However, if your "bones" had been picked, I would be speaking up for you. I'm beginning to doubt that you would defend anyone who was treated wrongly. Referring to the example of the raped daughter, when would you be ready to "get over it"? These "brothers" of yours were violated, plain and simple. And as I said, this wasn't a typical business failure. When you give a customer a stock certificate in 1979 and tell them you are no longer in business, but continue to accept orders and ship guitars until mid-1983, can you call it a "common business failure"? I can't; I call it fraud.
To Bobbe Seymour: Your points are well stated.
To Tommy White: You appear to have an agenda apart from the issues under discussion. Perhaps you feel your playing prowess gives you the privilege of railing at someone whose request for the truth makes you fearful that you (and he) just might find out what it is. Perhaps you fear that your idol's ring is a bit tarnished, thus making you reluctant to kiss it the next time you see him? Your display of hysteria is apparent. Rather than recognizing that someone's motive just might be to save the character of an old friend, you appear to want him to keep quiet and avoid possibly exposing something too difficult for even you to handle. That is the process involved in a cover-up. However, your lack of intestinal fortitude, choosing not to drop a note to me to "put up or shut up," is puzzling, given your demand that another person shuts up. The "angry daggers" you refer to, are emanating more from you than from anyone else who posted.
To b0b: You got three out of your four points right, and that ain't bad. I'll correct you on one. Only a selected few depositors got the worthless stock certificates; not everyone as your statement implies. The stock was worthless when it was given and still is. The stock-gifting was a ploy to delay and fatigue the depositors. His choice of words in the gifting was calculated. The "good faith" offering didn't discharge the debt and the perpetrator never alleged that it would. To do so would have placed a value on his "gift," thus creating exposure to legal liability. That had to be avoided. He obviously got legal advice on that.
If you access all of Comstock's annual reports back to 1979, you will discover that over the past 23 years: the firm has never declared a dividend, never turned a profit, and has never been traded on any market. It has no assets, has no paid employees, pays no rent, and only lists liabilities. One of those liabilities happens to be an accumulated debt of $8,185,885. Looking at this record, any stockbroker will tell you the firm is a sham corporation, existing only as a tax shelter for the majority stockholders. With such facts, isn't it easy to understand why U.S. law has no statute of limitations on the prosecution of stock fraud? And remember, the perpetrator was a member of the Board of Directors of this corporation for a number of years back in the '80s.
If you or anyone wish to confirm Comstock's worthlessness, check out this web link: http://www.secinfo.com/$/sec/registrant.asp?cik=717410
So b0b, thank you for the Forum and the fine job you do running it. Had the Forum been around in 1979 to 1983, I doubt that any of the foregoing would have been allowed to fester for the 20+ years it has.
Jim Molberg