Posted 2/21/19
January 6,
2019
Attention: Attorney General, Mr. Mark Brnovich
Office of the Arizona Attorney General
Mark Brnovich, AG,
2005 N Central Ave,
Phoenix, AZ 85004
RE: CIC
13-13018 Camelback Consign and Design & State of Arizona v. Camelback Consign & Design, LLC et
al.,
CV2014-011143
Sir,
The office of
the Arizona Attorney General has failed me, failed to fulfill its duties to the
public, and failed the state. Chalk one up for predatory businesses in Arizona.
The letter
and “restitution” check for $9.06 forwarded by your office last October 15th,
just before the election, are enclosed for your personal consideration. I
reject both as shameless and utterly unsatisfactory. (I submitted a Declaration
of Loss form to the AG’s office for $27,887.96. See attachments.) I wager it cost more to send me that letter
and check than the check is worth.
I submitted
my initial claim / complaint on Oct 27, 2013. The Office of the AG mailed a
confirmation on Nov. 12, 2013.
I wrote to
inquire about progress, having heard nothing more, on Feb. 19, 2014.
On March 20, 2014,
the Office of the AG mailed me a duplicate version of the letter first received
on Nov. 12th of the prior year.
The letter
states, "We are in the process of
contacting the company to request a response. When we receive the response, we
will send a copy of it to you."
According to
MapQuest.com, the distance between the AG’s headquarters and the predatory
business I complained about was 5.84 miles.
Five months. No contact. No apparent embarrassment in the
Office of the AG. No end to the
predatory practices that prompted me to submit my complaint, either. The
predator predated right through the Christmas holiday season, targeting people
who sought to obtain money by selling their personal items, heirlooms and
collectibles.
In August
2014, after extensive media coverage – TV and newspaper – of the predatory
business, the Office of the AG filed suit against Camelback Consign and Design (CCD)
and one of its owners, Michael Burns.
Although Mr.
Burn’s son, Justin, worked for CCD full-time over the full period that I dealt
with that firm and was eventually made an officer of the firm, the Office of
the AG failed to include him in its enforcement action. How can your
Office explain that? Never mind, it doesn’t have to, does it?
Mr. Burns’
other employees of long standing (e.g., Vera Manuz), who aided and abetted his
actions, were not held to account, either.
I had many
interactions with Mike Burns. In time, I came to understand that he had
absolutely no fear of legal enforcement action either by private citizens, via
the courts, or by the police, or the AG’s office. And, as events unfolded, I
also came to understand why.
Small claims
court is slow and often time-consuming. Even if the complainant “wins,” the
court has no power to enforce its rulings. The police are legally prevented
from intervening in “civil breach” matters.
Since going to Superior or Justice Court can cost – according
to my former attorney– upwards of $30,000.00, there is no real legal recourse
for average citizens. Only patient rich folk can afford that. And how many of them need to consign their
antiques, to begin with?
In short, for
practical purposes, the Office of the AG is the only agency in Arizona with the
legal power, enforcement capacity and responsibility to take effective action
against predatory businesses on behalf of state citizens.
Failure of
the Office of the AG’s enforcement actions gives other business predators carte
blanche to pursue their own schemes with little fear of repercussion.
Judgements
against Michael S. Burns and CCD, as of 7/15/15, on the Superior Court website,
totaled $967,010.79. And he was a small-fry. A single storefront.
I’m forced to
believe that bigger, better financed entities are more successful. Likewise, smaller entities that are more
selective and strategic in their predations, are, I can only imagine, able to
plunder at will and stay out of the public eye.
The Office of
the AG informed me, when I inquired over the phone, that it acts when enough
complaints are received. But only the Office of the AG knows how many
complaints were received against Burns, because it doesn’t report to the public
about complaints and actions.
In your Dec.
4, 2018 interview on NPR affiliate, KJZZ, you said, “Especially in the Attorney
General, you want someone who is going to hold people accountable…”
You subsequently stated, in another context,
“When it comes to public dollars, people want accountability and they want
transparency.” You added, “I’m not
a policy maker, I always say that, but I do think that there needs to be some
sort of transparency and accountability because we want people to have
confidence in the education system.”
This strikes
me as odd because there is no transparency regarding Office of the AG actions. As
a result, the Office of the AG seems effectively immune to scrutiny or
oversight by citizens or lawmakers.
No
transparency? As regards Michael S. Burns
and CCD, the Office of the AG
·
Never
reported how many complaints were received or the total dollar value of claims
made against him.
- ·
Did
not report on its investigation of Burns, what it did or didn’t do.
- ·
Did
not explain why it brought a civil case as opposed to a criminal case.
- ·
Never
reported on what happened to the items for which I was not paid and that were
never returned to me. Never indicated who received them.
- ·
Never
reported on items removed from the business premises by Burns, after he closed
his business. Reportedly, he had found “warehouse’ owned by a friend, in which
to store those items.
- ·
Never
explained whether it retrieved and made use of the CCD business records obtained
by Mr. Bill Roach, then the co-landlord of the CCD business location, after I
reported their existence to the Office of the AG.
- ·
Never
explained why Burns’ son and partner was not held to account for his
participation in consumer fraud.
- ·
Never
explained by Burns’ other employees were not held to account for their
participation in consumer fraud.
- ·
Never
explained why the settlement agreement failed to prohibit Burns from owning or
participating in another consignment enterprise.
- ·
Never
explained how my “pro rata” restitution check amount was calculated. I have no way of knowing whether my
“restitution” was calculated in a reasonable manner or not. Nor whether I
received the same percentages as other victims.
- ·
Never
explained why the AG’s office required four years to achieve “resolution” of
this case.
Lack of
accountability and transparency almost inevitably generates poor customer
service and, I believe, the proliferation of the very offences the Office of
the AG is charged with addressing and, ideally, preventing. I have extensive
documentation of the former claim. The latter is a deduction.
As Arizona
Attorney General you are, I presume, responsible for the policies of your own
office. Thus, I hold you responsible for the cavalier treatment meted out
to victims of predatory businesses under your administration. As a citizen, I
expect and demand that the Office of the Attorney General maintain the same
high standards you explicitly require of others.
Such
treatment, exemplified by the communications to claimants and complainants,
explains why so many individuals I heard from about their experiences with CCD
were reluctant to file claims with the AG. They knew or intuited, as I didn’t, that
their efforts would bear no real fruit. Their time and energy would be wasted. This
results in a vicious circle, allowing predatory businesses to thrive … because
citizens don’t think anyone will care.
The Office of
the AG did not put Burns out of business. Media coverage took care of that. So
what did the Office of the AG really do on behalf of consumers? Obtain massive
judgements? Of which I, personally, received $9.06 cents after four years? This
is the protection we get for our tax dollars?
When there is
no need to act responsibly, complacency sets in. After all, the public can do
nothing and can’t learn anything either. The AG’s office need do nothing. And
what it does, based on the facts as I understand them and my personal experience,
is either bungled or ill-considered.
The AG’s office
required 10 months from the point I complained to file suit. By that time, to
judge by court records, 18 suits had been filed in Maricopa “Justice” and
Superior Courts against the firm.
The Oct. 15,
2018, communication from the Office of the Attorney General to me, attached,
suggests that there has been no real change in management priorities as compare
with the policies of your predecessor, Tom Horne, in this arena.
Consequently,
I remain shocked and dismayed at the evident disinterest of the Office of the
AG in the protecting of Arizona’s citizens from business predators. It is
simply outrageous.
The failure of the Office of the AG to
act in a timely manner, to act effectively, to report accurately and clearly on
its efforts and the outcomes of those efforts to constituents and to victims, should
be shocking. It should be a crime. The fact that it isn’t shocking and isn’t criminal
is, itself, proof that the folks inside the Office of the AG have no respect
for the folks who pay their salaries. They don’t care.
If my
experience is any indication, citizen cynicism as regards consumer protection
is completely justified.
I imagine
that this “summation” will fall on deaf ears within your Office, though I hope
otherwise.
I have
undoubtedly wasted yet more of my precious time on this letter and the issues
raised by the predations of Michael S. Burns. Still, I hope that someday, in
some way, my efforts will contribute to better protections for citizens and a
more responsive Office of the Arizona Attorney General.
Sincerely
yours,
Glenn Scott Michaels
706 West Palm Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85007
For more details, check out these posts:
