or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Longmont Man Indicted On Suspicion of Charity Fraud
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Longmont Man Indicted On Suspicion of Charity Fraud - Page 5

post #121 of 1523
A call was made to the Boulder County Jail which has said that bail has been set at $500,000. It can be provided by a bail bondsman subject to their individual policy (10% or whatever). Bail has not been met and Schifter remains behind bars as of now.
post #122 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridapoolboy View Post

I'm sorry to see this happen, but if he is guilty, then I really have no sympathy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

I'm sorry to see this happen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

What are you sorry about exactly? Because given the tone of your post, you sound a little like you're sorry that he's being brought to justice. You should be sorry that he scammed all those people, but rejoice in the fact that he's now being prosecuted for it.

Your removed the critical last part of floridapoolboy's sentence, and then mischaracterized everything he said in attempt to paint him as an apologist.

I think what is happening here is that the person in question is not here for people to vent their rage at. So now some have to misdirect their rage at some others who actually are here, even if said others had absolutely nothing to do with these alleged scams. And FWIW, I don't know a single one of the participants, I'm just an outside observer reading this thread and shaking my head at some of what I see going on.
post #123 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

A call was made to the Boulder County Jail which has said that bail has been set at $500,000. It can be provided by a bail bondsman subject to their individual policy (10% or whatever). Bail has not been met and Schifter remains behind bars as of now.

Interesting piece of information, Chu. I'd been wondering how the bond issue was going to play out.
post #124 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

As I recall you were an active participant (cheerleader) in many of the Raffles and again from memory even co-sponsored one or two of them. Your insider knowledge as to MLS's intended use of the funds gave you an advantage over those of us who were just assuming that this was a philanthropic endeavor by MLS.

Have the investigators contacted you?

Rob, I had no "insider information" as you suggest. I posted from memory a conversation from several years ago. I added to, and clarified, here:


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...7&postcount=95

JosephF has made a good point. I am now walking away from this thread.

There is nothing anyone can do at this point, as this entire situation is between the AG's office in Colorado and MLS to sort out this entire mess.

I still hope that the charities get the moneys due them.
post #125 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Actually, you are misrepresenting some posters on this thread when you say that Schifter has stolen from charities. What has been said is that Schifter has stolen charity money. People donated money for charity, and Schifter stole that money. Hence, he stole charity money. You were the one who misconstrued this as Mark stealing from charities.

Please read the below quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarpon View Post

The law is tougher on those that steal from charities than those that steal from sleaze merchants.

So obviously your whole paragraph has been debunked. Now would you be man enough to admit it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Which in fact, he sort of did, if money was collected for charities, it was indeed intended for those said charities, and stealing this money, pretty much sums up to stealing the money belonging to charities, hence, Mark stole from charities... Not how I'd have put it, but still valid imho.

So now you're completely contradicted your own statements in the first paragraph. First you say Mark didn't steal from charities, now you say he did. So which one is it?

The D.A. obviously doesn't share your point of view. This is what he said: "This scam not only defrauded Colorado consumers, but it also preyed on their generosity."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14...#ixzz0gnhOaFcF

I suppose we should trust your "expertise" over the district attorney's?

It's stupid to dwell on this point anyway, but all around, you've been wrong on every count.
post #126 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Now, we've all heard about some people who had prepaid finally getting their speakers - typically the LS series. Granted they had prepaid but that prepaid money was long ago spent. So where did the money come from to finally buy what was needed and assemble those speakers? I don't think it came from AV451 profits. At least not profits the way most see them. I think they came from other long time suppliers not being paid what was owed them. KyaDawn, it's like if I owe you $5K and instead of paying a supplier I've been doing business with the $15K I owe him, I instead stiff him, take the money that ought to have gone to him and use part of it to finish off your speakers. Hence, in order to make right for customers who've been waiting for what's due them, he's going to screw somebody else. Consider for a moment if you will that Santiago of Colombia hasn't posted in a very long time and he used to be a frequent, "Hola Marcos" type of guy.

Agreed, like rock_bottom said, Mark's whole business seemed to be run like a Ponzi scheme or musical chairs. It wouldn't be surprising for him to be shafting one party to fulfill commitments to another. In fact, it would be surprising if he wasn't.
post #127 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark View Post

Goneten - I remember Bob

My friend, I was beginning to think I was the only one.

Regards,
post #128 of 1523
Great news about Schifter's bail and him not being out of jail

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyaDawn View Post

Please read the below quote.

So obviously your whole paragraph has been debunked.

Actually, no, that's one poster, who are the other ones? Besides, I'll restate my observation that when people donate money for charities, and someone steals that money, he has stolen charity money, hence stole from charities. The theft of charity money is no different under the law than the theft from any other organization or property. You can't be charged with "stealing charity money". You're charged with theft or whatever the legal term is.

Arguing that the charity raffles were under false pretense and so Schifter didn't steal from charities or charity money is imho pushing it. Funds were donated for charity, not for Schifter, the fact that Schifter never intended to give that money to charity doesn't change the fact money was donated for charity and was never actually donated because someone decided to keep it for himself. Say whatever you like, that money belonged to the charities people thought they were donated to...

They did mention: "Charitable fraud" though... Anyhow, we're trying to split hairs. Did he actually steal from charities? (As in, burglarized a charity) No. Nobody meant it that way. But he did keep money donated for those charities for himself... [edit] Question then if Schifter didn't steal from charities, as you so say (forget the meaningless word games). Something like 150,000$ was defrauded from 700 people, who should the recovered money go to? To the charities, or should it be returned to those who had donated the money? Because it seemed many thought it should go to the charities, since that money was actually charity donations... (Hence, if to the charities, then that money was stolen from the charities...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Haddad View Post

Your removed the critical last part of floridapoolboy's sentence, and then mischaracterized everything he said in attempt to paint him as an apologist.

Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridapoolboy View Post

The unraveling of AV123 is really a microcosm of the nationwide collapse that we've all been dealing with these last few years. In any such scenario there will be those individuals who were playing fast and loose and got caught when the house of cards came crashing down. MLS is, unfortunately, no different than the other investment and real estate characters whose unethical and illegal way of doing business became apparent once the money dried up. I don't mean to pre-judge the man, but if the indictments are borne out in trial then he will deserve whatever punishment the court decides is appropriate. I have no ax to grind, I'm a former customer and supporter of AV123. The only way to deal with this is for former friends and business associates to publicly distance themselves from MLS, as he is now toxic. Any support from old time friends would need to be kept private, there is no way that you can sugar coat what has been alleged. Let the system do it's job, and the chips fall. I'm sorry to see this happen, but if he is guilty, then I really have no sympathy.

I don't know, to me it does does seem like he's saying like there's a parallel to the US economical context and the fact that he stole charity money, ran illegal raffles, etc... There's not. What common ground is there with Schifter who's hosted illegal raffles for charities and who's proceeds he's kept for himself, and investors and real estate agents? Were investors and real estate agents also caught defrauding people with illegal charity raffles?

I plainly asked him what he was sorry about... I don't think this question has been answered yet. He's sorry about what? The 4 sentences before are about Schifter's friends and family, his business partners, about how he himself was his customer and his supporter, that support to Schifter should be kept private, and then he says that he's sorry. Well he's sorry about what exactly? As I said, the US housing bubble had nothing to do with Schifter's scams... I simply asked him what he was sorry about, because as I said, "given the tone of your post, you sound a little like you're sorry that he's being brought to justice."

Quote:


I think what is happening here is that the person in question is not here for people to vent their rage at. So now some have to misdirect their rage at some others who actually are here, even if said others had absolutely nothing to do with these alleged scams. And FWIW, I don't know a single one of the participants, I'm just an outside observer reading this thread and shaking my head at some of what I see going on.

Maybe, but as was said, there was many supporters who actually facilitated and made possible this scam. And while some were trying to inform others about the antics of this man and his company, there were many supporters who did exactly the opposite and outright defended, denied everything and actually attacked any who did not also support av321.gone and Schifter. Calling them liars, having agendas, vendettas, etc... That's been going on for years. There were threads four years about about Schifter, his company, and his supporters, followers, fanboys, whatever you want to call them... Surely they were not about this indictement, but that cult-like following he managed to assemble was always part of the problem...

And even after Schifter screwed people with the non existing betas, the prepayments, the defective crap and I know I'm forgetting a ton of their issues, there was a new wave of those cult like followers ready to take the place of the old supporters who had been burned by Schifter... One guy could never have pulled this off on his own, his 'community' made it possible. And even after all the issues, even after the charity money fraud was exposed, many still supported Schifter. That was a huge problem. Many still support him today, and are sorry for what this poor Schifter is going through... This idolization and blind faith, naivety as I call it, is what allowed Schifter to blindside all these people, and they've kept the smoke screen going for a long time...

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigsub View Post

...

Wow, personal attacks & failure to rebuke anything or saying anything relevant. Mark Schifter was a master in this (and I mean this sarcastically), I think your failure to rebuke anything proves that you are unable to do so because the points made were perfectly valid. I'm sure Schifter will react somewhat similarly to these accusations the way you just reacted, the way Schifter has been acted all these months.

For fun, a post by Schifter, ironically addressing me about some of their issues. (In this case, someone waiting 7+months for an X-plosiv, which never saw the light of day I believe)
Quote:


This is NOTHING NEW from that person... He has been around long enough to see us deliver on EVERY napkin sketch and great product idea we have shared... He is a hater through and through - and he proves it each time he posts about my products or my company...

One thing is clear - he does not like me - or my products -

No news flash here... same BS... new day...

He is a magnificent creator of anti-hype... I asked to meet him and show a product or two to him when I was heading for Canada... ask me if he could care enough to find out if we were full of hype or whatever else he thinks we are full of...

Like I said - no new news here... just the same hate-stuff...

Bingo and double BINGO... he only forgot his signature... sticking out his tongue tongue a few times...

In any event... we have been delivering products (some late) for a long time now - and we will continue to build and deliver fine products that are a great value in all respects... Our history is a good one - and people know that their money is well spent on our products - like many in this industry...

Funny how easy it is to hate when the Internet is involved... It's easy to spread mis or dis information too... No one can be in all places at once... we know all too well that our kind of success breeds (or even inbreeds) people that like to sling mud... No new news there either...

Enjoy your holiday... and sorry to piggy back your message like this...

All the best...

mls
________

Similarities anyone? No wonder Craig you two were buddies... You two sound soo similar. And btw, of course, many av321.gone proponents agreed that this was a smear campaign on my part and the part of others and attacked the credibility of posters instead of addressing arguments. That was the tactic of Schifter, and it pretty much well worked, because there was always a bunch of his cronies willing to also attack the credibility of anyone who ever said anything which could be construed as negative against Schifter or av321.gone... sh!t-pile someone as you could say... That was always the tactic of choice... Craig Chase all too often leading the line... And this defense is still the defense of choice for Craig Chase it seems... "the more things change, the more they stay the same"...

It's sad how some people are so easily played... And that was a HUGE part of the Schifter saga. Sure, you can call everyone besides Schifter helpless victims, but imho, as I said, I believe many facilitated and even made his scams possible. Maybe they're still helpless victims, they've definitely been used, yet many very voluntarily joined his ranks and opposed anyone who would oppose him. Does that really make them helpless victims?
post #129 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigsub View Post

Rob, I had no "insider information" as you suggest. I posted from memory a conversation from several years ago. I added to, and clarified, here:


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...7&postcount=95

JosephF has made a good point. I am now walking away from this thread.

There is nothing anyone can do at this point, as this entire situation is between the AG's office in Colorado and MLS to sort out this entire mess.

I still hope that the charities get the moneys due them.

Craig, good idea to leave this thread and let the legal cards fall where they may. Like the other 700, I am bothered by having what I thought were charitable contributions being misappropriated. Good for you for making your contributions direct. I wish I had thought to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

A call was made to the Boulder County Jail which has said that bail has been set at $500,000. It can be provided by a bail bondsman subject to their individual policy (10% or whatever). Bail has not been met and Schifter remains behind bars as of now.


Way to go Scoop.
post #130 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

Did you read the quote in post 101? He seems by his own admission to have been privy to at least some intent by MLS to withhold funds and yet, he continued to be an enthusiastic participant in and supporter of the Raffles.

This is not a condemnation of anyone but it seems kind of odd to me.

Sounded to me like some one that is trying to be very truthful. From what Craig posted it sounded to me like MLS said some thing along the lines of using some of the raffle money to cover expenses and that Craig told him he did not agree. It is a big stretch to go from that to say that Craig knew that MLS was committing fraud.
post #131 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Actually, no, that's one poster, who are the other ones?

That would be you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

You were the one who misconstrued this as Mark stealing from charities.

So now you've contradicted yourself again. First you say I was the one "who misconstrued this as Mark stealing from charities", which has been proven false, then you're trying to change your "argument" as a singular vs. plural issue. Seems like you've answered my question that you're obviously not man enough to admit you're wrong. Which you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Besides, I'll restate my observation that when people donate money for charities, and someone steals that money, he has stolen charity money, hence stole from charities.

So was Mark "stealing from charities" misconstrued or not? You're going back and forth on this one. Seems like the debate you're having is with yourself and no one else.

And again, the D.A. doesn't agree with you. He states it was "consumers" that were "defrauded". I think I'll go with the D.A. on this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

The theft of charity money is no different under the law than the theft from any other organization or property. You can't be charged with "stealing charity money". You're charged with theft or whatever the legal term is.

How does this contradict anything I said or further support any of your "arguments"?

The point that you've missed completely is Mark didn't technically "steal from charities", as I stated in my first post that you seem to have a problem with. He was indicted for stealing from the people that participated in the raffle ("theft") under the pretense that those proceeds would go to charities ("charitable fraud"), along with three other counts related to these crimes.

The silly thing is the gist of my post was saying that even though Mark wasn't "technically" stealing from charities, some of the funds that he did steal from his customers might have been earmarked for charity by those customers, and thus, he might have been taking away from money that would have gone to these charities anyway, despite not technically stealing from them. And if you had followed the thread, you would seen the points of Mark not having "stolen from charities" was not brought up to me, and in fact, my statements were in response to those points.
post #132 of 1523
You probably missed this as it was edited later on:
Quote:


[edit]Question then if Schifter didn't steal from charities, as you so say (forget the meaningless word games). Something like 150,000$ was defrauded from 700 people, who should the recovered money go to? To the charities, or should it be returned to those who had donated the money? Because it seemed many thought it should go to the charities, since that money was actually charity donations... (Hence, if to the charities, then that money was stolen from the charities...)

Enough of this pablum...

Quote:


The fact is Mark never stole from any charities as has been misrepresented by some posters on this thread. He stole from his own customers under a guise that he was representing charities. But you're missing the whole point which is even though he didn't technically steal from any charities, the money that he did stole could very well have been earmarked for charitable causes by his customers.

The money WAS DONATED FOR CHARITY. It 'could' not be donated, IT WAS DONATED. Schifter just never forwarded it to the actual charities like he was supposed to. Hence, he stole charitable donation money.
post #133 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

For fun, a post by Schifter, ironically addressing me about some of their issues. (In this case, someone waiting 7+months for an X-plosiv, which never saw the light of day I believe)
Quote:


I asked to meet him and show a product or two to him when I was heading for Canada...



Grandarf, are you in Canada? If so, do you realize your country just won the Gold Medal in Hockey in the Olympic Games?

Go do something else... like celebrate Gold!

Your over-zealousness in this thread is quite disturbing.

Craig (John)
(Please note I am *not* craigsub! )
post #134 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Great news about Schifter's bail and him not being out of jail


Actually, no, that's one poster, who are the other ones? Besides, I'll restate my observation that when people donate money for charities, and someone steals that money, he has stolen charity money, hence stole from charities. The theft of charity money is no different under the law than the theft from any other organization or property. You can't be charged with "stealing charity money". You're charged with theft or whatever the legal term is.

Arguing that the charity raffles were under false pretense and so Schifter didn't steal from charities or charity money is imho pushing it. Funds were donated for charity, not for Schifter, the fact that Schifter never intended to give that money to charity doesn't change the fact money was donated for charity and was never actually donated because someone decided to keep it for himself. Say whatever you like, that money belonged to the charities people thought they were donated to...

They did mention: "Charitable fraud" though... Anyhow, we're trying to split hairs. Did he actually steal from charities? (As in, burglarized a charity) No. Nobody meant it that way. But he did keep money donated for those charities for himself... [edit] Question then if Schifter didn't steal from charities, as you so say (forget the meaningless word games). Something like 150,000$ was defrauded from 700 people, who should the recovered money go to? To the charities, or should it be returned to those who had donated the money? Because it seemed many thought it should go to the charities, since that money was actually charity donations... (Hence, if to the charities, then that money was stolen from the charities...)


Really?

I don't know, to me it does does seem like he's saying like there's a parallel to the US economical context and the fact that he stole charity money, ran illegal raffles, etc... There's not. What common ground is there with Schifter who's hosted illegal raffles for charities and who's proceeds he's kept for himself, and investors and real estate agents? Were investors and real estate agents also caught defrauding people with illegal charity raffles?

I plainly asked him what he was sorry about... I don't think this question has been answered yet. He's sorry about what? The 4 sentences before are about Schifter's friends and family, his business partners, about how he himself was his customer and his supporter, that support to Schifter should be kept private, and then he says that he's sorry. Well he's sorry about what exactly? As I said, the US housing bubble had nothing to do with Schifter's scams... I simply asked him what he was sorry about, because as I said, "given the tone of your post, you sound a little like you're sorry that he's being brought to justice."


Maybe, but as was said, there was many supporters who actually facilitated and made possible this scam. And while some were trying to inform others about the antics of this man and his company, there were many supporters who did exactly the opposite and outright defended, denied everything and actually attacked any who did not also support av321.gone and Schifter. Calling them liars, having agendas, vendettas, etc... That's been going on for years. There were threads four years about about Schifter, his company, and his supporters, followers, fanboys, whatever you want to call them... Surely they were not about this indictement, but that cult-like following he managed to assemble was always part of the problem...

And even after Schifter screwed people with the non existing betas, the prepayments, the defective crap and I know I'm forgetting a ton of their issues, there was a new wave of those cult like followers ready to take the place of the old supporters who had been burned by Schifter... One guy could never have pulled this off on his own, his 'community' made it possible. And even after all the issues, even after the charity money fraud was exposed, many still supported Schifter. That was a huge problem. Many still support him today, and are sorry for what this poor Schifter is going through... This idolization and blind faith, naivety as I call it, is what allowed Schifter to blindside all these people, and they've kept the smoke screen going for a long time...


Wow, personal attacks & failure to rebuke anything or saying anything relevant. Mark Schifter was a master in this (and I mean this sarcastically), I think your failure to rebuke anything proves that you are unable to do so because the points made were perfectly valid. I'm sure Schifter will react somewhat similarly to these accusations the way you just reacted, the way Schifter has been acted all these months.

For fun, a post by Schifter, ironically addressing me about some of their issues. (In this case, someone waiting 7+months for an X-plosiv, which never saw the light of day I believe)


Similarities anyone? No wonder Craig you two were buddies... You two sound soo similar. And btw, of course, many av321.gone proponents agreed that this was a smear campaign on my part and the part of others and attacked the credibility of posters instead of addressing arguments. That was the tactic of Schifter, and it pretty much well worked, because there was always a bunch of his cronies willing to also attack the credibility of anyone who ever said anything which could be construed as negative against Schifter or av321.gone... sh!t-pile someone as you could say... That was always the tactic of choice... Craig Chase all too often leading the line... And this defense is still the defense of choice for Craig Chase it seems... "the more things change, the more they stay the same"...

It's sad how some people are so easily played... And that was a HUGE part of the Schifter saga. Sure, you can call everyone besides Schifter helpless victims, but imho, as I said, I believe many facilitated and even made his scams possible. Maybe they're still helpless victims, they've definitely been used, yet many very voluntarily joined his ranks and opposed anyone who would oppose him. Does that really make them helpless victims?

In your other post regarding Craig where you said he was defending MLS in regards to the raffles where you posted quotes by Craig were taken out of context. I remember the thread. Craig was referring to the amp issues that a lot of people were having with the MFW-15. Craig just said that he hoped AV123 would resolve all of the problems.

For the record I have never bought a product from AV123 nor from Tweak City Audio. I have never met MLS or Craig.
post #135 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

You probably missed this as it was edited later on:


But enough of this pablum...

The money would go back to those that participated in the raffle. i.e. the "consumers". Please note that one of the counts that Mark was indicted for is "Use of an organization's name without authorization in connection with a charitable fraud." Therefore, those charities had no association with Mark nor did they ever have an agreement. It might have been different if those charities had appointed Mark to hold these raffles for them, and he never delivered the money that was raised. In that case, Mark would have stolen the money from those charities.
post #136 of 1523
People will be permanently blocked from this, the only thread on the subject, if they continue to focus on each other vs. the subject at hand.
post #137 of 1523
So.......when does the fire sale happen???
post #138 of 1523
There is a sale on the popular MFW-15 that ends today! Get yours now!
post #139 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by goonstopher View Post

Your conclusion (more than one conversation) may be right but your logic in getting there is flawed. Prizes could simply be multiple prizes in one raffle (i.e. first, second, third place.) Or Craig could have been talking in generalities about his belief, very few people will express an ongoing belief in terms of a singularity. I could be wrong if there was just one raffle and just one prize BUT if people are going to nitpick logic and context then I want it to be fair.

Thank goodness we've never seen Craig nitpick any other poster's words here. If you really follow his words, he's very nitpicky when it comes to other people's postings about him. And then he speaks in off handed generalities when he's cornered or when it suits his purpose. I encourage you to read HOW he writes.

What's good for the goose..
post #140 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract67 View Post

There is a sale on the popular MFW-15 that ends today! Get yours now!

After all the problems with it, didn't they change the name to the DIY-15?
post #141 of 1523
Mr. Lang..did not read your post until after my post. I read you loud and clear.
post #142 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo238 View Post

Thank goodness we've never seen Craig nitpick any other poster's words here. If you really follow his words, he's very nitpicky when it comes to other people's postings about him. And then he speaks in off handed generalities when he's cornered or when it suits his purpose. I encourage you to read HOW he writes.

What's good for the goose..

Hey I could care less either way.

Craig was a nice guy when I spoke to him once and VERY giving of himself. We have no reason to call craig with the same terms as MLS. MLS is a notorious smooth talker who get himself out of all sorts of trouble, Craig also seemed to be very eloquent and sincere BUT he hasn't had the scandals that Mark has.

The charity thing, lying about the mfw failure rates and stealing thousands in pre-orders; no matter the trial outcome, MLS is in a league of his own.
post #143 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Horton View Post

After all the problems with it, didn't they change the name to the DIY-15?

*High 5*

I mentioned in another thread to consider this thing a DIY. That is what it took for me to get it going.
post #144 of 1523
Looks like MLS has burned many bridges in his time. I've spoke to his employees several times questioning what i'd read when I bought my Rockets and they were hopefull and certain that things would get better... Looks like many people bought into his B.S.
It's a shame with the quality of speakers AV123 put out for the price... that business should have been a force to be reckoned with.
post #145 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

You probably missed this as it was edited later on:


Enough of this pablum...


The money WAS DONATED FOR CHARITY. It 'could' not be donated, IT WAS DONATED. Schifter just never forwarded it to the actual charities like he was supposed to. Hence, he stole charitable donation money.

Not to get into semantics here, but the money was not donated to charity. The money was used to purchase raffle tickets which Mark said he would donate to charity. If you want to make a donation to charity you don't buy a chance to win speakers. The charity ploy was an additional incentive to the raffle ticket buyers. They thought that this game of chance they were entering had dual positives: 1) they could win some speakers and 2) whether they did or not their raffle ticket money would help orphanages, the Jimmy Fund, MSK,Katrina victims and on and on. Evidently Mark fulfilled one half of the bargain (sending the winners their speakers), he just failed miserably on the other half.
post #146 of 1523
In retrospect...
Offering competitive products at a price that was lower than it should be to maintain quality and a growing business seems a little suspicious now.
Perhaps when he was picked up, he had tickets to Rio in his pocket.
post #147 of 1523
First, I never have been a fan of MLS. He always reminded me of the leader of a Carny traveling band. Fun to watch and hang with, but you always had to have your hand on your wallet and be on your guard. I own the X-LS stand-mounts and nothing else. I am not owed anything in AV123 product. However, I did participate in a couple of the raffles until I saw Craig's lead and started to donate directly to the person or organization instead of through MLS.

Second, I consider myself a friend of Craig's. He should not be entangled with what has transpired with MLS's alleged misconduct and misfortunes. Craig has demonstrated on numerous occasions his willingness to go the extra mile to help folks out with genuine interest and concern.

We probably all would agree that MLS is contaminated and anyone who has been associated with him will undoubtedly be placed under the scrutiny of others. Everyone is entitled to be treated innocent until proven guilty. From everything I have read or seen firsthand convinces me with a high degree of certainty that Craig has never been tethered to MLS business or raffle dealings. Craig did attempt to have a design relationship with MLS but quickly reversed course and decided to go in a new direction without him. Those of you who want to spray your caustic venom of hate upon Craig apparently are doing so because of personal reasons, which are sad and demonstrates reprehensible arrogance.

Grandarf this one is for you
LL
post #148 of 1523
This thread carries the theme that other audio threads/subjects on the internet carry.

For some reason, there are those people out there that feel a need to be remembered. Finding something out others do not know. Talking the loudest. Having to have the last word. Going after others in an anonymous manner. No different in this thread, and will be repeated again.

I sometimes wonder about the edge of the line that is approached and allowed and the owners of the boards that allow it. This is not in reference to mls or av123, but rather others being discussed here. Know I have consulted with small business owners on insulating themselves, and it can be a bit of a road bump, which is not seen. Posts which are erased or may take an edit, are still out there on spider crawls/back ups/archive websites.
post #149 of 1523
Audioholics has mls indictment on their front page.
http://www.audioholics.com/
post #150 of 1523
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract67 View Post

There is a sale on the popular MFW-15 that ends today! Get yours now!

No, no ...I said FIRE sale!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Longmont Man Indicted On Suspicion of Charity Fraud