Harkey Investor Letter - March 22, 2013

 From: Dan Harkey <dharkey@pointcenter.com>

Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Subject: Attention All Investors

To: 

Attention All Investors: 

Lloyd Charton recently filed paperwork with the U.S. Trustee in the Point Center Financial Chapter 11 reorganizational bankruptcy to become a member of the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee.  

As did 13 other investors who were also creditors. There were several others who missed the cut-off because Harkey failed to submit a complete and honest list to the bankruptcy court. There are still numerous creditors that Point Center has failed to identify, primarily those tied up in trust deed investments and the NFL pool who deposited their funds with Point Center.

He then argued to have his personal lawyer, David Lally be appointed as the lawyer for the Committee and have himself appointed as chairman of the Committee.  

Charton, a prominent Orange County litigator, made the acquaintance of hundreds of attorneys in his career. David Lally, was suggested by Charton and was personally interviewed by investors and plaintiffs' attorneys along with other candidates. As it turned out, Lally proved himself an extremely sharp bankruptcy attorney and was the right individual for the job. He successfully argued to lift the automatic stay, and has been on top of every move that Dan Harkey and his gang has made. Who, other than Dan Harkey and his gang, would have a problem with that?

Shocking, in light of the fact that Lloyd is not an unsecured creditor of Point Center.

Interesting statement considering that Charton is listed by Point Center as an unsecured creditor. Factually speaking, individuals who hold both secured and unsecured assets can be both secured and unsecured investors. Nothing shocking in that. 

What Lloyd and his wife Stella are trying to do is to place themselves in a priority position above other members of his plaintiff group.

Members of the bankruptcy court's Creditors Committee have a fiduciary responsibility to ALL unsecured creditors regardless of whether they are plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Point Center Financial and Dan Harkey or not. No one member of the Committee (there are 7 in this case) has the individual power to preempt the others. What Charton brings to the Committee that the others lack is a lifetime of legal expertise and information as to the inner workings of Point Center Financial based on years of evidence gathering and trial preparation. This should not be troublesome for Dan Harkey if his hands are clean.

This is a clear case of conflict of interest.  

Harkey has not substantiated this allegation and failed to clearly define the mechanics of any conflict were it to actually exist.

His clear motive is to get his and Stella’s money back first, prior to other investors with no regard whatsoever for his own co-plaintiffs.  That is, of course, assuming that he had any regard for them in the first place other than spend their money to help him finance the lawsuit.

This is both factually untrue and legally impossible. Harkey placed Point Center Financial into Bankruptcy. He has not yet placed the 70 other entities that he is sole manager of into Chapter. What ever assets remain in Point Center when the time comes will ultimately be divided pro-rata and according to Judge Albert's ruling. To suggest otherwise insults the Court and the legal process.

Harkey appears to be overly obsessed with Charton to the point that he presumes to read Charton's mind with respect first to motive and then to Charton's regard for his fellow investors. This can be characterized as grasping at straws for Harkey's comments have no merits and he fails to produce a factual basis for his remarks.

Where was Grant, Genovese & Baratta, LLP in this effort?  Absent!  While Lloyd Charton postured for preferential court positioning, the plaintiffs’ lawyer was kept muzzled and shackled.  

Plaintiffs' counsel wisely chose a bankruptcy attorney to act in their and their clients' best interests. Most individuals have no experience with personal or corporate bankruptcy. This is also true for most attorneys unless they specialize in this area of law. Only an uninitiated individual would make such ignorant statements.

His co-plaintiffs who are bearing the cost of litigation for Charton’s vendetta against Point Center were left unrepresented, with their pockets picked while Lloyd took advantage once again. Haven’t co-plaintiffs paid enough for Lloyd Charton’s perceived “Cat Bird Seat”?

Again, factually incorrect and not substantiated with anything other than hysteria.

Why didn’t Lloyd Charton move to be on the creditor committee on behalf of all his co-plaintiffs?  

Charton joined the Creditors Committee not only for his co-plaintiffs, he joined for the benefit of all unsecured creditors. That is the responsibility each committee member assumes.

Watch their belated lamentations fall on deaf ears if Lloyd Charton gets his first and they get nothing!  I have no clue why the plaintiffs don’t call Grant, Genovese & Baratta to demand equal status.  A tiger does not change his stripes as evidenced by the all telling 1996 LA Times article 

One would assume that Dan Harkey is lost in a time warp. The year is 2013. Charton's actions will speak for itself as will the facts that will be presented to both the bankruptcy and civil courts.

that reveals Lloyd’s true nature . . .

“The splash case, replete with lawsuits, suggestions of possible criminal wrongdoing and sensational media coverage, has inspired a class Charton performance.”

“This was kind of a circus atmosphere . . . it was horrendous”

“Charton, who has hosted his own radio show and carries press credentials, has made a living with unexpected moves that throw opponents off balance”

“Detractors say Charton is drawn to the glory of the big case but is sometimes put off by the spadework.”

“I didn’t leave any client in the lurch,” Charton said.  “As far as I was concerned, the deal was done.”

Just as in the litigation against Point Center, Lloyd Charton is now trying to get other members of the Creditors’ Committee to pay for his fight.

The meaning of which exists only in the mind of Dan Harkey...

Dan Harkey

President

Point Center Financial, Inc.

7 Argonaut │ Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 │ Toll-free: 1-800-544-8800 Ext. 6201 Direct/Fax: 949-276-6201 www.pointcenter.com

Real Estate Broker - CA Dept. of Real Estate #00745721

Join me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/danharkey

Sullivan Response - March 12, 2013

The following message is Danny Sullivan's response to Dan Harkey reprinted in its entirety. Only Mr. Sullivan's email address has been redacted for privacy. The Harkey letter can be found by clicking here.

On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Danny Sullivan <{redacted}@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks for the email Dan. Next time, just pass on all of the emails for the rest of the investors and I can cc them on everything we discuss. I'm not at all concerned with what I wrote and only you know the truth Dan. You've committed fraud and you obviously are twisting the truth at this point to futher disrupt the due process. What I fail to understand is if we're the ones stalling, why did PCF file BK? 

The fact that other investors failed to sue you exhibits how clueless they are about what you've done. Those of us who are seasoned through the school of hard knocks know better than to turn a blind eye to the corruption that has gone on here. As far as my attorneys losing control of their clients, I do not answer to them. I am my own individual and I wanted to speak my mind to you personally. I'm glad you responded because now I've gotten you to reflect a little bit and you lashing out in defense tells me I'm in your head.  

Apparently you do not recall our conversation that I quoted in my deposition from 2009 regarding liquidating these dwindling assets. Your exact quote at that time was to "put on my big boy pants and make a big boy decision, pony up the cash calls, and hold the property." You also had stated you had people that would buy out my position for 20k - pennies on the dollar in your words  (I had 72k in.) You never performed Dan and I ended up with a whopping 3 cents on the dollar. I don't think there's much more damage you can do than that to investors. That reeks of failure and even the most distressed assets I sell are nowhere near that level of losses. The only losses that were that bad were part of Jay Miller's mess and Estate Financial's fallout, all of which was fraught with corruption and deception. Which means DCP and likely your other loans were filled with.... Inflated appraisals, collusion, corruption, short funded loans, impounds that weren't there as advertised, etc.etc etc. I don't really care if you put me on blast to the world Dan. No one knows me and no one cares. It just looks more and more like you are trying to scramble which means at least now I am getting to you. 

You asked me the other day if the DCP loan was my only concern. Are you admitting you screwed up then? I have no interest in any other loans and I did not invest in other loans, so why should I be concerned with other loans? I am too busy trying to make up for the losses I've incurred so I can't spend my life chasing you down and researching every wrong move you made. What I do know is that I lost my ass on this deal and PCF did not heed any warnings that I had expressed early on. Ultimately, it took years to finally foreclose and then you guys gave yourselves a 150% raise upon taking back the property as an REO. After a few years of bobbling the property and managing dirt, you finally sold it at the rock bottom of the market for a paltry 4 million when the original appraisal reflected 72M in value. That's a pretty big disparity in my opinion, one which you cannot blame on the market. 

I'm not trying to start a pissing match with you. We obviously disagree and that's fine by me. I'll let the attorneys and the court handle it at this point and you can go back to whatever you were doing as well. In the meantime, consider for just a second how many lives you've affected. If you have no soul then it won't affect you. In hindsight, I take back what I said. I won't smile when you die and that was wrong to say. I forgive you for you were lured by greed and self preservation. I hope someday you concede that you made a wrong decision and ask your maker for forgiveness.

Danny Sullivan

Harkey Investor Letter - March 12, 2013

Last things first...  At the end of this blog entry we have posted the second in a series of emails Dan Harkey selectively circulated to certain investors. Many of these folks are unaware that Point Center is in bankruptcy and that their investment portfolio is in a shambles. Immediately following the Harkey letter is a response from Danny Sullivan, who Harkey refers to in his message.

In the email, Harkey complains of a "never ending" court battle but fails to disclose that the long trial delays were by Dan Harkey's own hands. He and his counsel's refusal to comply with over 18 Motions and related Court orders compelling him to produce documentation, not making himself and employees available for depositions, created more delay than any other aspect of the case against him to date. The case could and should have been done years ago.

With respect to "relentlessly torment, badger, and harass Point Center and its employees", I wish to quote Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Many investors, not just plaintiffs in the current civil trial, believe they were defrauded and have demanded that Harkey abide by his "absolute obligation to repay". Many investors are confused about the creation of CalComm Capital and what role it played in their investments. Many investors wanted to talk to their counterparts about Harkey's fees and management practices but were told to pound sand. These people have every right to be upset,  challenge Dan Harkey and his staff, demand, and receive the information that they requested comprehensively and in a tangibly useful format.

Dan Harkeys claims of "preferential treatment" is an empty dodge designed to misdirect your attention from his own unjust enrichment. Freezing investor assets while paying himself fees in itself compromises the preferential treatment that he proclaims. Doesn't paying his wife, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, from assets frozen to investors seem like preferential in treatment?

But isn't the civil lawsuit like preferential treatment? No. The civil lawsuit is about seeking justice. The plaintiffs wanted to approach each investor but their efforts to acquire Point Center Financial's investor contact list was blocked by Dan Harkey at every turn. Furthermore, many investors at that time were kept distracted by events in residential real estate and were not willing to consider the core issues the civil lawsuit contemplated.

With respect to the constant waste of your money Harkey had no business paying his legal expenses from investor funds. Anyone experienced in business maintains errors and omissions insurances and/or contingency reserves paid from profits. Investor money was not Harkey's to dip into as he saw fit. To actually speak of wasting your money is equivalent to an admission of Harkey's inappropriate use. Furthermore, if plaintiffs in the civil case prevail, investor funds are excluded from collection because they are investor property held in trust.

Harkey uses ancient history not relevant to the current issues at hand. He speaks of a 1996 LA Times article, he blames the real estate industry, he refers to email "extracts" from 2008 from targeted investor plaintiffs that he calls "disgruntled". If you knew then what you know now, wouldn't you be disgruntled?

The letter from Lee & Associates raises an interesting issue. Who is the buyer? Has Dan Harkey ever revealed to investors who the buyers are, the selling price, details of the sale, how much back taxes are due, what the agent/broker commissions are, or who will be receiving the proceeds? If history is any example, the answer is no. Why? Because ignorance is bliss and Dan Harkey is counting on complete investor submission regardless of the outcome.

The email from Mark Van Mourick of Optivest to the Orange County Register's Morgan Cook is no more than a put-up job from a Harkey Crony who admittedly worked with Dan Harkey for over 20 years, contributed thousands to Diane Harkey's political campaign, and was paid by Harkey to bring investors into Point Center (above and beyond what he earned in investor commissions.) Mr. Van Mourick never examined plaintiffs evidence and he failed to disclose that his meeting with plaintiffs' counsel was for his deposition. Like his friend Dan Harkey, Mr. Van Mourick was recently sued by a Point Center investor for fraud. His credibility is suspect. Birds of a feather...

We'll examine another Harkey misdirection, the "economic meltdown" in another posting on another day in detail. Suffice to say that predatory commercial lending and loan servicing practices bears little relationship to the implosion caused by the residential lending community and their loan bundling/rating practices. The reality is that banks that failed or were seized did so because they did something wrong. Harkey is trying to sell you the sizzle without giving you the meat. Where's the meat, Dan?

At the close of Harkey's letter he refers to two contrived investigations. Harkey maintains both web sites at Point Center in Aliso Viejo, CA and both are designed to misdirect your attention from his depleting your assets to pure rubbish. The sites use typical political hack techniques to personally denigrate their target. You should ask yourself three questions: What is the credibility of the information presented, why do I care about this other investor, and what if anything has Dan Harkey done to live up to his "absolute obligation to repay" me?

Harkey's tactic to entice investors to contact plaintiffs counsel would be humorous if it wasn't so sad and pathetic. Here the man who claims to be "embroiled" in a "never ending battle" inappropriately using fear tactics to manipulate investors (and by proxy plaintiffs' counsel). He coins the fear-phrase "preferential representation" then feeds it to you as an imperative. This isn't a game. It's very serious business and the stakes are high. A success in the civil action against the Harkeys and Point Center lays important ground work for the benefit of other investors.

Please read on...


From: Dan Harkey <dharkey@pointcenter.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:20 PM
Subject: Attention All Point Center Investors
To:

Please review the attachment

--------------------------------------------

Dear Investor,

As you are well aware, Point Center Financial has been embroiled in what seems to be a never ending battle with a small band of disgruntled investors for the past five years. This group is led by Lloyd and Stella Charton.  Lloyd’s group continues to relentlessly torment, badger and harass Point Center and its employees as though some miraculous new result will be achieved that will gain them special and preferential treatment. Point Center continues to treat all investors equally and will not give in to their requests to get their money back sooner and in larger amounts than that which other investors are entitled. This constant persecution wastes the time and money of all parties including Point Center, you and the perpetrators themselves.

This methodology is what Charton is noted for.  In a 1996 article from the Los Angeles Times Lloyd Charton is “Noted for Splashy Tactics”. An excerpt from the article reveals “The splashy case, replete with lawsuits, suggestions of possible criminal wrongdoing and sensational media coverage, has inspired a classic Lloyd Charton performance.” And “Charton, who has hosted his own radio show and carries press credentials, has made a living with unexpected moves that throw opponents off balance.”

Does this sound familiar? The only problem for Lloyd is that his strategy is backfiring on him. Enough research discloses the truth. Lloyd and Stella’s group, including Steve Cash, Kurt Sipolski and Danny Sullivan may want to re-assess their sleazy tactics.

You will see by the attached letter from Lee & Associates that you and your fellow investors are about to lose a viable sale. It seems that either Mr. Cash cannot be controlled by his lawyers in getting him to cooperate so that your property can be sold, or they and Lloyd are using Mr. Cash to create disruption. In any case, the inability to sell your property costs Mr. Cash’s fellow investors money. Very ironically, not only are the investors being held hostage by him but so are his fellow plaintiffs who share the same investments and coincidentally the same attorney. Perhaps the old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” doesn’t quite fit.

Point Center cannot just sit idly by when it receives the vitriolic communications such as what was received from Danny Sullivan last week. Excerpts include that I “… should fade off into existence before you get thrown in jail and raped” and “When things get bad for me I say – at least I’m not that piece of shit Dan Harkey. I will smile the day you die Dan.”

In response to him we wrote: “A few like you want to blame me for the largest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. People like you will not admit that the borrower who owned real estate defaulted, not point center. Your hatred is like most who refuse to take responsibility for their decisions. I like you have lost. However, in your case I would like you to agree to subordinate the return on capital to Lloyd. He is your savior, your lord, and guides you. All his correspondence is about preferential payments to him and not you. Please acknowledge this is ok.”

You would think that Lloyd and Stella’s group would turn to their own lawyers rather than spew venomous comments. This is evidence that Grant, Genovese & Baratta have lost control of their clients as they fail to rein in their use of email and My PCF for filthy, down and dirty purposes.

We have completed and attached a synopsis of the economic events and what famous people had to say before, during and after the start of the mid 2007 meltdown. How could anyone expect Dan Harkey and Point Center to have advance awareness if many famous economists and leaders in the USA did not?

You are encouraged to contact Catherine Convey-Harrison to quit the games. Express the urgency of getting your investments back now rather than allowing Charton etal. to gain preferential representation over you. Her contact information is:

Catherine Convy-Harrison, Esq.

Chad J. Brandel, Esq.
Grant, Genovese & Baratta, LLP
2030 Main Street, Suite 1600
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone:  (949) 660-1600
Facsimile:   (949) 660-6060
Email:  catherine@ggb-law.com”

We will continue to provide you with updates as we obtain them. We also invite you to view www.lloydchartoninvestigation.com and read about the Lloyd and Stella Charton Retreat investigation at  www.theretreatinlagunainvestigation.com. Thank you for your continued confidence and support.

Best regards,

Dan Harkey

President

Point Center Financial, Inc.

7 Argonaut │ Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 │ Toll-free: 1-800-544-8800 Ext. 6201 Direct/Fax: 949-276-6201 www.pointcenter.com

Real Estate Broker - CA Dept. of Real Estate #00745721

Join me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/danharkey

Attachments:

Van Mourick (Optivest) email to Morgan Cook (OC Register)
Hart (Lee & Assoc. broker) letter to McNamee (realtor)
Major Economic Events v2_final - (Harkey)
Harkins email to C. Convey-Harris (GGB)

UPDATE: Danny Sullivan has granted us permission to publish his response to the above letter from Dan Harkey:

On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Danny Sullivan <{redacted}@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks for the email Dan. Next time, just pass on all of the emails for the rest of the investors and I can cc them on everything we discuss. I'm not at all concerned with what I wrote and only you know the truth Dan. You've committed fraud and you obviously are twisting the truth at this point to futher disrupt the due process. What I fail to understand is if we're the ones stalling, why did PCF file BK?

The fact that other investors failed to sue you exhibits how clueless they are about what you've done. Those of us who are seasoned through the school of hard knocks know better than to turn a blind eye to the corruption that has gone on here. As far as my attorneys losing control of their clients, I do not answer to them. I am my own individual and I wanted to speak my mind to you personally. I'm glad you responded because now I've gotten you to reflect a little bit and you lashing out in defense tells me I'm in your head. 

Apparently you do not recall our conversation that I quoted in my deposition from 2009 regarding liquidating these dwindling assets. Your exact quote at that time was to "put on my big boy pants and make a big boy decision, pony up the cash calls, and hold the property." You also had stated you had people that would buy out my position for 20k - pennies on the dollar in your words  (I had 72k in.) You never performed Dan and I ended up with a whopping 3 cents on the dollar. I don't think there's much more damage you can do than that to investors. That reeks of failure and even the most distressed assets I sell are nowhere near that level of losses. The only losses that were that bad were part of Jay Miller's mess and Estate Financial's fallout, all of which was fraught with corruption and deception. Which means DCP and likely your other loans were filled with.... Inflated appraisals, collusion, corruption, short funded loans, impounds that weren't there as advertised, etc.etc etc. I don't really care if you put me on blast to the world Dan. No one knows me and no one cares. It just looks more and more like you are trying to scramble which means at least now I am getting to you.

You asked me the other day if the DCP loan was my only concern. Are you admitting you screwed up then? I have no interest in any other loans and I did not invest in other loans, so why should I be concerned with other loans? I am too busy trying to make up for the losses I've incurred so I can't spend my life chasing you down and researching every wrong move you made. What I do know is that I lost my ass on this deal and PCF did not heed any warnings that I had expressed early on. Ultimately, it took years to finally foreclose and then you guys gave yourselves a 150% raise upon taking back the property as an REO. After a few years of bobbling the property and managing dirt, you finally sold it at the rock bottom of the market for a paltry 4 million when the original appraisal reflected 72M in value. That's a pretty big disparity in my opinion, one which you cannot blame on the market.

I'm not trying to start a pissing match with you. We obviously disagree and that's fine by me. I'll let the attorneys and the court handle it at this point and you can go back to whatever you were doing as well. In the meantime, consider for just a second how many lives you've affected. If you have no soul then it won't affect you. In hindsight, I take back what I said. I won't smile when you die and that was wrong to say. I forgive you for you were lured by greed and self preservation. I hope someday you concede that you made a wrong decision and ask your maker for forgiveness.

Danny Sullivan

Harkey Investor Letter - March 8, 2013

The following letter was passed on to us by various investors and we are publishing it here with our analysis and comments accordingly. Our comments will be italicized in green to differentiate ourselves from Harkey.

From: Dan Harkey <dharkey@pointcenter.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Subject: Attn: All Point Center Investors
To: 

Please review the attachment

--------------------------------------------

Dear Investors,

As previously reported, Steven G. Cash and other members of the “Lloyd and Stella Charton Group” continue to impede Point Center’s ability to timely sell properties and maximize recovery to you.  

Steve Cash is a Point Center investor. He is also one of 86 plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against Dan and Diane Harkey, Merri Gwen Melanson, and Point Center Financial - the Harkeys' company in the Orange County California Superior Court - Case #: OCSC 30-2008 00114401.  The Case was titled by the Court as "Charton vs Point Center Financial" however for brevity it is often referred to as "the Charton case" or "Charton v PCF".

Lloyd Charton was a successful and prominent Orange County attorney who was in retirement when he began to suspect wrongful dealings by Point Center Financial. As a result of Charton's investigation he formed a group of investors who filed the aforementioned lawsuit in late 2008. Lloyd's wife, Stella, a cancer survivor, is not actively involved in the lawsuit except as a plaintiff.

Every investor who opposes the agenda of Dan Harkey is bundled into a "Charton Group" or "Charton Gang" regardless of what relationship the individual investor has to Lloyd Charton himself. This tactic serves two purposes. It misdirects the reader's attention from Dan Harkey and his questionable activities and allows him to play the role of victim persecuted by a conspiracy of "disgruntled" investors. Harkey falsely accuses Charton and the imaginary 'group' of any number of contrived grievances, none of which he actually substantiates.

For example: Harkey accuses the imaginary "Charton Group" of impeding the sale of properties. This, however, is factually untrue as no "Charton Group" exists. There is a group of investors who were sued by Point Center Financial for failing to sign documents that would permitted Point Center to transfer their individual trust deed interests into an LLC in exchange for a non-voting 'financial' position. This would give Harkey sole control over the disposition of their collateral property. The majority of these investors are not plaintiffs and have no relationship to Lloyd Charton as illustrated in the listing of recent Point Center lawsuits against investors that you can review by clicking here. 

Of the 35 cases listed, perhaps three (3) are plaintiffs in the civil case. Each was sued individually, not as a 'group'. None, other than the plaintiffs, had knowledge of the others.

Unfortunately, their goals are furthered by attorneys afflicted with conflict of interests and no sense of urgency. Ultimately, this costs you (not Point Center) money when buyers cancel transactions, accounting costs continue, new property taxes come due, expenses for taxes, insurance and maintenance expenses accrue.  At this time Mr. Cash is single-handedly preventing two transactions from closing.  Please make no mistake, he is fully aware of this fact.

Steve Cash has a mind of his own and marches to the beat of his own drummer. His position on Dan Harkey and Point Center Financial can be found by clicking here. Point Center has an old civil case pending against Mr. Cash. Mr. Cash is no different than the 3,000 other investors. He wants Dan Harkey to pay him his money back, not from investor funds, but from Dan Harkey's own pocket. So, other than serving as a co-plaintiff in 30-2008 00114401, Mr. Cash's actions with respect to Point Center Financial are strictly his own.

In short, it appears Dan Harkey conjures Lloyd Charton, Steve Cash and other investors as bogeymen to use and abuse as tools to misinform and misdirect investors from Harkey's own failures, bad dealings, and mismanagement.

Harkey fails to support his assertion of "attorneys afflicted with conflicts of interest" nor is he able to support deficiencies regarding "urgency". If Steve Cash chooses to object and resists Point Center he may or may not be creating a conflict between himself, his fellow plaintiffs, and/or his fellow property investors. This has nothing to do trying the civil case at hand to which plaintiffs' attorneys are focused on. Dan Harkey confuses the issues.

"Ultimately, this costs you (not Point Center) money..." may or may not be true. Did Dan Harkey ever perfect even one of the "personal guarantees" and insurances that he represented would protect your investment in the unlikely event of a default or foreclosure? Why then should investors pay for Harkey's misrepresentations on loans to unqualified borrowers?

For those of you who may have forgotten, this started with Lloyd and Stella Charton demanding preferential treatment to recover all of their investment before you would receive your share. You are invited to see the “Plaintiff’s Demand for Special Treatment” PDF attachment. You may email us should you wish to see the actual emails containing the excerpts in the document. We declined their request and re-asserted our intentions to treat him the same as all investors as to their pro-rata share. 

I can't speak for Lloyd Charton, but if you examine the history and documentation of these allegations of "preferential treatment" you will find one investor who becomes suspicious of bad dealings and wants out of the investments and his money returned. Harkey fails to mention that he refused to allow an examination of his records, as allowed by law, until he was sued to do so.

If any of you (back in the day) suspected something was up with your investments that stories of a bad economy did not adequately explain and an examination of your investment broker's records supported your concerns, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume you would have asked for your money back too? 

If your investment broker-lender was your neighbor and friend, wouldn't you first try to find a low key solution that gives your friend the opportunity to do the right thing, make corrective changes in his business practices and preserve his reputation in the eyes of his other investors? Is this preferential treatment or cutting your friend the benefit of the doubt and giving him an opportunity to do the right thing?

And if the friendly approach failed to work, wouldn't you start making repeated demands and find ways to get his attention, to think about the consequences of his actions? Wouldn't you try to engage in and reach a mediated settlement? And if the settlement agreement Harkey drafts for your signature materially deviated from the agreed terms what other recourse would you have than seek justice through the courts.

If your only recourse was to file a lawsuit, wouldn't you want to discuss the matter with other investors, see if they felt the same, and ask them to join with you to help fund what has now turned into a long and protracted litigation?

All of the above seem like reasonable concerns evolving naturally into a serious civil action. Not the preferential treatment that Dan Harkey would have his readers subscribe to.

Dan Harkey is being sued for fraud, breach of fiduciary trust, misappropriation, elder abuse, and running a Ponzi scheme. There are reams of evidence and analysis to support the allegations. Under the circumstances, beating the drums of "preferential treatment" seems disingenuous and contradictory. 

I wonder how many times Dan Harkey wishes now that he had simply repaid Lloyd Charton his money?

I suggest that you communicate your sense of urgency to the attorneys who represent the Lloyd and Stella Charton group. Do not allow these rogue few to hold you and your investment hostage. Because the same law firm represents investors who wish to sell and those few who do not, you should ask yourself who’s interests are they representing?

This is another misdirection. If the investors really agreed with Harkey they would have happily signed his documents and this matter would not be a point of discussion. They didn't sign which speaks for itself. This has nothing to do with the civil case at hand to which plaintiffs' attorneys are focused on. This has everything to do with the futility in signing documents for mismanaged assets whose loss on principal will be so great after Harkey extracts his cut that not signing seems better than caving in.

Many investors who wanted to speak to the other investors involved in their assets, asked Point Center for their contact details, and were summarily denied. Many investors want to replace Point Center and Dan Harkey as their manager but are unable to do so because he not only withholds the contact details of fellow title holders but also the roster of National Financial Lending pool and Mortgage Note members whose votes are essential in displacing Harkey from their assets.

Harkey can say what he wants about investor revolt and plaintiffs attorneys. One thing is for sure, in the absence of Point Center protecting the fiduciary interests of its investors, the investors are looking out for their own best interests as are their attorneys. No conflicts there.

This situation is very frustrating for Point Center as well, 

As would be expected under the circumstances.

but we continue work on your behalf 

It would appear, based on our analysis of the available information and public records that Dan Harkey continues to work on his own behalf, and history indicates he has failed to act in the best interests of his investors.

as Lloyd continues his diatribe.

Where is the documentation to support this statement?

  Please rest assured we are doing everything that can be done to get properties sold in this difficult market.  

The residential real estate market is operating at 2005 pre-bubble levels, levels that peaked in 2007. What Harkey avoids mentioning is that it is difficult to sell the grossly overvalued properties they control, but continue to accrue fees on (but fail to pay property taxes on until looming tax sales force them to dispose of the assets at their true market value.)

I encourage your participation by calling:

           

Catherine Convy-Harrison, Esq.

Chad J. Brandel, Esq.
Grant, Genovese & Baratta, LLP
2030 Main Street, Suite 1600
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone:  (949) 660-1600
Facsimile:   (949) 660-6060
Email:  cjb@ggb-law.com

We will continue to provide you with updates as we obtain them. We also invite you to view www.lloydchartoninvestigation.com and read about the Lloyd and Stella Charton Retreat investigation at www.theretreatinlagunainvestigation.com. Thank you for your continued confidence and support.

Best regards,

Dan Harkey

President

Point Center Financial, Inc.

7 Argonaut │ Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 │ Toll-free: 1-800-544-8800 Ext. 6201 Direct/Fax: 949-276-6201 www.pointcenter.com

Real Estate Broker - CA Dept. of Real Estate #00745721

---

This email (including any attachments) may contain privileged, confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for use by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete this email and any attachments immediately. CA Dept. of Real Estate Broker #00745721

Dan Harkey Rantings

Disinformation, propaganda, misdirection, spin, deception, circumvention, deceit, defraudation, dirt, duplicity, equivocation, falsehood, fraudulence, dissimulation, hypocrisy, insincerity, juggling, lying, mendacity, pretense, snow job, sophism, treason, untruth, hogwash. There are many names for it but the idea is to bend your mind to a point of view that contradicts reality.

When I was a child and my youngest sibling got under my skin, I would wrestle him to the ground, punch his arm repeatedly, then call for my mother to save me. Mom would arrive, spank the tar out of my brother, then admonish him for bothering me. In short, I committed assault, lied to my mother, then stood by and watched my handiwork unfold upon an innocent victim. This is what the adult Dan Harkey is doing.

Harkey recently launched a new disinformation campaign. It is designed to inflame his investor base and misdirect their attentions away from himself, his Point Center bankruptcy, the civil trial against he, Diane Harkey, Gwen Melanson, and Point Center Financial for fraud and elder abuse. He conjures boogymen then points his finger and says what bad people they are while abusing his fiduciary responsibilities, and the court system.

A few investors who question Dan Harkey, his methods, and his motives are getting the tar beaten out of them (verbally) by other investors who, preoccupied with more pressing issues, never bothered to listen to the victims before unloading on them. They are being bullied by Harkey lawyers who use lawsuits to intimidate investors into submission.

We respectfully submit this "Disinformation" section of the blog for discussion and analysis.