The former states, as a conclusion of law, that
"Defendent Camelback Consign & Design, L.L.C. participated in, profited from and furthered a scheme of deceptive acts and practices in connection with the the sale of merchandise, thereby engaging in unlawful practices under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. 44-1521, et seq.
"While engaging in the acts and practices alleged above, Defendent Camelback Consign & Design, L.L.C. acted willfully as defined by A.R.S.44-1531 (B)."
The latter duplicates the forgoing text, but replaces Camelback Consign & Design, L.L.C. with Michael S. Burns.
The judgment against Camelback Consign & Design, L.L.C. states that it is now forbidden to engage in any and deceptive acts or practices, fraud, false pretense, false promises, misrepresentations, and/or concealment, suppression or omission of material fact in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.
In short, it is henceforth forbidden to break the laws that it already broke. How's that for a firm stand against illegal activity?
The court awarded the State a judgment of $217,414.53 with interest of 4.25% annually, plus another $41,124.13 with interest of 4.25% annually for attorney's fees, to be deposited in the Consumer Protection - Consumer Fraud Revolving Fund. Finally, it also awarded a judgment of $250,000 with interest of 4.25% annually, as a civil penalty.
The total judgment amounts to $508, 538.66.
The second judgment awarded the State, made Michael S. Burns, "jointly and severally" responsible with Camelback Consign & Design, L.L.C. for the judgment of $217,414.53 with interest of 4.25% annually. The court added, as a civil penaty against Burns, another $20,000 with interest of 4.25% annually.
Thus, Michael S. Burns and Camelback Consign & Design, L.L.C. owe the State a total of $528,538.66 at an interest rate of 4.25% annually.
So what is so terrible about these admittedly high dollar penalties?
1. Michael S. Burns had several employees who worked with him for years. How is it possible that the State failed to charge these individuals as co-defendants?
2. One of the aforementioned employes was Justin Burns, who was eventually elevated to a managing member of Camelback Consign & Design, L.L.C. How is it possible that a managing member of the firm and a participant in its business dealings over at least a year escaped any and all legal responsibility for the illegal actions of the firm?
3. The court had the ability, according to the Arizona Republic, to sanction Michael S. Burns by refusing him the right to own and operate a consignment business in the future. Why on earth would it allow him to return to the same line of work in which he had heartless plundered so many innocent victims?
4. The judgment neglects to reference exactly how the State intends to enforce this judgment.
Text of the Default Judgment as to
Defendant Camelback Consign & Design, L.L.C.
Defendant Michael S. Burns
From: Anglen, Robert (Arizona Republic & Call 12 for Action)
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: