From: Anglen, Robert
Date: Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:40 AM
Subject: Story on camelback consign
To: Glenn Michaels
Story is in today's paper. Your blog is mentioned prominently in the story. Thanks for all of your help. Here is a link:
AG HORNE FILES CIVIL SUIT AGAINST
|My Consignment Vampire complaint went to the AG on 10/27/13. Ten months later, the AG finally acted. But only after many, many more were defrauded, the Arizona Republic published three significant articles, and Channels 12, 5, and 15 covered various aspects of the story on at least five separate occasions. Oh, and about six months after the BBB finally got around to giving Camelback Consign & Design its lowest possible rating: F. Frankly, the AG has proven himself to be more of|
gentleman than I would be in his position. I mean, after all, the AG filed a civil lawsuit against a demonstrably uncivil vampire.
Here's the good news! For shamelessly retaining what most likely will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars of valued antiques, art, furniture and accessories a great many consignors, the AG intends to put Burns out of business for good! Hurrah.
Note to AG (1): The Consignment Vampire was locked out his "business" around the end of May by his landlord. That was three months ago. How hard can putting Burns out of biz be?
Note to AG (2): Just what penalties does your office plan to pursue against Justin Burns, the son of Michael S. Burns, and - as you know - his employee during much of the period that consignors' items were vanishing, and as of the first quarter of 2013, a member/manager of Camelback Consign & Design LLC?
Note to AG (3): Same question as #2, above, regarding Vera Manuz, sales associate since 2010. Multiple victims have asserted to me that Vera signed checks in Mike's name or listened to their wails of woe regarding bounced checks or lied on Mike's behalf in instances that they themselves were able to verify. She was almost always nearby when I dealt with the Consignment Vampire. It's hard to believe that she wasn't actively enabling his fraudulent activities.
"The suit carries no criminal penalties and seeks to prohibit Burns from doing business again in Arizona. It asks that he return money and property to customers he is accused of defrauding and pay a $10,000 fine for each violation of the state's Consumer Fraud Act."
Note to self (2): Find out if the AG could press criminal charges against the Consignment Vampire even after filing a civil suit.
"To prove criminal fraud, authorities must show that business owners deceived customers or encouraged their employees to lie."
What happens if Burns is "officially" put out of business by the AG? Will that really stop him from finding someone - say a son - to serve as a front for him in an Arizona-based business? Would it prevent him from taking his obviously successful business plan to another state and setting up there?
Assuming that the AG wins its suit against Michael S. Burns, what reason do those harmed and all those lacking significant legal knowledge have to believe that the office of the AG will effectively enforce the judgment? Given the secrecy maintained by the AG's Office over the last few years, how would they even know if it were being enforced... until their respective lucky numbers were drawn from the AG's lotto?
Hell's bells, I wonder the AG's staff ever managed to get its hands on the files that Burns reportedly turned over to "representatives" of his former landlord, William Roach. It will surely be a nice challenge to determine who lost what and ensure that the right items are returned to the proper claimants without having reference to those files.
Personal experience suggests that the Consignment Vampire was far better at making promises than remembering to keep them.
Turns out that Attorney General Horne will be out of a job shortly. (He lost his primary race to a Republican opponent.) So on top of everything else, I'm wondering if the next AG - whoever that turns out to be - will have any interest in taking a fresh look at a (c)old case for which Mr. Horne - the former AG - was primarily responsible?