A Message From Aero Leather USA

[ButteMT61]

Scott, why did they denie your claim?

Allen: I am not sure yet. The status says: "Claim Denied - A letter has been sent detailing the reasons for the denial."No letter yet. Probably lost it. I'm dying to see what it says. In the meantime, we've gone to the USPS here and have escalated. The woman in charge is great, and she's helping now. We've been here 17 years and I'm hoping they will resolve this soon and in our favor. I have no clue how this can be denied, but it's the gov't and nothing would surprise me now. All I know is NO MORE USPS for me.

 

[InTheWind]

Is there a way to PM on this forum? I have some information for ButteMT61.

 

[Jack Burton]

I spoke with paypal about my order and possibly getting a refund through them even though it's past their 45 day time period. (Mine was June/July of 2011)

Paypal recommended that everyone involved file a dispute even IF it's beyond their normal 45 days. In essence it would be paypals version of a class action dispute, the more people the better. I strongly encourage ANYONE that has not received a jacket ordered from Mark to call/email paypal. The more people that do it, the better the chance that paypal will actually take action.

The same should be done with Ebay.

I think everyone should go to the SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER AFFAIRS website and fill out a paper complaint form too.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Is there a way to PM on this forum? I have some information for ButteMT61.

Yes..but I think you must have 15 posts...if I remember correctly...before you can do so.

HD

 

[Phantomfixer]

...what losses?

"losses" being generic for whatever he did with the cash....

 

[InTheWind]

Yes..but I think you must have 15 posts...if I remember correctly...before you can do so.

HD

Thanks. I was going to share some local information about this whole mess but don't know that I want to put it out on a public board until I talk to someone who seems pretty familiar with the board.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

"losses" being generic for whatever he did with the cash....

..but I don't see where it has been established that there were any losses except for perhaps over 80 customers...

 

[Atticus Finch]

Atticus: I also see it differently. As a long time former prosecutor, and one who has now moved to the other side of the bench, I would have had no problem going to trial in a fraud case where deposits, or payments in full, for merchandise were made and the order never placed with the supplier. Especially if this happened in multiple situations, over an extended period of time, such as we evidently have here. In my opinion the failure to place the orders, after having received the funds with which to do so, supplies the necessary intent to defraud. PC.

Peacoat, you raise an excellent point. As I said, most fraud statutes require proof of criminal intent that is independent of the bare nonfulfillment of a contract. But, as you observe, that evidence can come in the form of a fraudulent course of conduct by the defendant. The problem is, at trial, you have to show the defendant's entire course of conduct. You can't just "cherry pick" the bad things a defendant has done and present this as his fraudulent course of conduct...you also have to include the good things. If Moye had taken everyone's money and never delivered a jacket or never placed an order with Aero, then this case would be clean as a whistle. But my understanding is that he delivered many jackets over the course of his business. In fact, he has delivered a few jackets very recently. The eighty or so breaches we have been discussing here are but a portion of his total contracts? Am I wrong? If I am, the case may be more criminal than I believed.

Atticus,
I am also an attorney, although I practice civil litigation. However, given the circumstances, it seems abundantly clear that he was collecting payment for jackets and then using that money for other things. This is more than a simple contractual breach where someone cannot deliver on a contract because their supplier can't keep up, etc.
ZF

ZF...no, Moye using money paid by customers for the jackets isn't fraud unless the money was to be held in trust for the buyers. Contractors and sellers throughout the economy comingle funds as a normal business practice. Deposits made on future production are comingled and used to finance current output. This is especially true in cyclical or seasonal business like agriculture and construction. And I would venture to say that most business failures reveal the use of customer deposits to fund things other than what the customers paid for. Also, remember that fraud statutes typically don't say anything about using breach as evidence depending on whether the breach was for good cause. They typically just say that evidence of breach alone is insuficient.

AF

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Thanks. I was going to share some local information about this whole mess but don't know that I want to put it out on a public board until I talk to someone who seems pretty familiar with the board.

Then the only thing that I can think of...is maybe Butte will post his email for you when he rejoins this thread.
HD

 

[tater]

Why would the intent have to be there 10 years ago? For several years the guy runs a legit business. For whatever reason in the current economy a couple years ago he starts having cash flow issues. So he delays a jacket here and there, "borrowing" the deposit to pay a bill, then ordering the jacket later when flush. It snowballs, and he'd delaying more and more, perhaps hoping he'll get a bolus of orders and save himself.

He can start legit, and start making fraudulent transactions later, no?

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Why would the intent have to be there 10 years ago? For several years the guy runs a legit business. For whatever reason in the current economy a couple years ago he starts having cash flow issues. So he delays a jacket here and there, "borrowing" the deposit to pay a bill, then ordering the jacket later when flush. It snowballs, and he'd delaying more and more, perhaps hoping he'll get a bolus of orders and save himself.

He can start legit, and start making fraudulent transactions later, no?

Certainly could work that way...OR...starting out legit...he could have become disallusioned with the business/customers...seen $$ (deposits-full pymts) laying around...revealing a way for early retirement savings for when it catches up with him. 80+ un-ordered (known) jackets..plus 3yrs of stringing it out..now has me wondering. Plus no new refunds seem to be forthcoming..all contact cut off. We are all speculating...know one knows all the 'facts' here..but it sure doesn't look good.
HD

 

[Atticus Finch]

Why would the intent have to be there 10 years ago? For several years the guy runs a legit business. For whatever reason in the current economy a couple years ago he starts having cash flow issues. So he delays a jacket here and there, "borrowing" the deposit to pay a bill, then ordering the jacket later when flush. It snowballs, and he'd delaying more and more, perhaps hoping he'll get a bolus of orders and save himself.

He can start legit, and start making fraudulent transactions later, no?

Yes, but what you've described above isn't fraudulent. If he's robbing Peter to pay Paul in the honest hope that he'll stay liquid until better times arrive...then he has no criminal intent. He would have criminal intent if he set up the business with the specific intent to collect money from customers and then skip town. He would have criminal intent if he knew his business would soon become insolvent and instead of trying to prevent that from happening, he just said to hell with the businees and began skimming as much as possible for himself with the specific intent to defraud the creditors.

AF

 

[Atticus Finch]

By the way...all of my posts on this subject, so far, have been academic. I haven't even broached the logistical problems of prosecuting this case. To begin with, most of the eighty souls complaining here would have to go to (I presume) South Carolina and testify at the criminal trial. And before you ask, no, a mailed affidavit won't suffice. Most jurisdictions require live testimony in a criminal action. Its that pesky Confrontation Clause, don't you know.

AF

 

[InTheWind]

Yes, but what you've described above isn't fraudulent. If he's robbing Peter to pay Paul in the honest hope that he'll stay liquid until better times arrive...then he has no criminal intent. He would have criminal intent if he set up the business with the specific intent to collect money from customers and then skip town. He would have criminal intent if he knew his business would soon become insolvent and instead of trying to prevent that from happening, he just said to hell with the businees and began skimming as much as possible for himself with the specific intent to defraud the creditors.

AF

I believe this is what happened.

 

[ButteMT61]

I believe this is what happened.

Well, it makes no sense to run a solid business for years, then internationally screw people over.Then to post here doesn't smell like someone trying to hide, does it? I simply have to believe that Mark is not this beast that intended to rip people off and ruin both his and Aero's reputation, not to mention the hobby for many. I have to see where this goes. We're all speculating, and I for one have to come full-circle and say I'm not going to crucify Mark for what I don't know. I have absolute sorrow for any and all whom have lost money and faith here.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Well, it makes no sense to run a solid business for years, then internationally screw people over.Then to post here doesn't smell like someone trying to hide, does it? I simply have to believe that Mark is not this beast that intended to rip people off and ruin both his and Aero's reputation, not to mention the hobby for many. I have to see where this goes. We're all speculating, and I for one have to come full-circle and say I'm not going to crucify Mark for what I don't know. I have absolute sorrow for any and all whom have lost money and faith here. Truly.

It's my understanding,Scott,that Mark was seriously urged by others to come up with and post his statement here and elsewhere.
HD

 

[Atticus Finch]

I've been trying to think of a way to make this all more clear. Maybe this will help. Officers frequently bring cases like this to me for possible indictment. Like here, the victims are usually very upset and are burning up the officers' phones trying to get the suspect charged. I try to listen to each case objectively as I can but at the end of each officer's presentation, I always ask them to tell me how his case is different from the hundreds of contract breach cases filed in District 3-B every year. I expain that in those cases, victims have also been left holding the bag for big bucks. And in those cases the business owner has probably been doing some borderline shady things trying to save his business. And in those cases, the suspect, ashamed and frustrated with his failure, has stopped returning phone calls and has maybe even disappeard. If the officer can clearly articulate something that shows that the suspect was...on purpose and by design...trying to rip people off, then to the Grand Jury the case goes. But if the officer can show nothing more than another poor dork floundering around, trying and failing to save his business, then the victims....mad though they may be...get to find their relief in civil court.

AF

 

[ButteMT61]

It's my understanding,Scott,that Mark was seriously urged by others to come up with and post his statement here and elsewhere. HD

OK, but why? Was it him or a family member?
---tangent---When I placed an order with Good Wear, the first thing I noticed was the order number in the email subject. Tis has been used on all communications with JC & Vickie. I have no clue how Aero does it without this sort of system in place. I'd wager just Mark's orders were tough enough, let alone all the vendors for Aero, including Aero. It's not a dig, I'm simply trying to account for the beginning of the problems people saw with mixed up orders, or orders Aero Scotland says they never got. It quite possibly just got our of control, and before he knew it, things were beyond fixing. Now, back to the post. If I were committing some intentional wrongdoing, the last thing I'd do is post here and VLJ and elsewhere. What did it gain Mark? Don't doubt your wisdom Van, just confused.
---/tangent---

 

[rippsnorter]

Actually it does. If he took in orders for over a year and never passed on the money or orders to the factory, yes that's fraud.

The key is "intent". I do not think Mark started out ten years ago with the intent of ripping people off. He had business issues, tried to cover his losses with the cash coming in....it snowballed. I am not a business man, just a humble retired crew chief, but to me it sounds like bad business, not criminal...if he was incorporated you can't touch him or his money/personal belongings.
JZ

As someone that is incorporated, this is, and is not true.

A corporation is only valid as a separate entity as long as the corporate veil is intact. I must be paid from my corporate bank account, and all funds must be accounted for as to where they're coming from and why. If at any point the corporation were to say, make a credit card payment for me personally, or any corporate funds were used by me for personal use, the corporate veil is pierced and the company cannot be called a separate entity anymore. At that point it becomes a personal extension of me, and suits can be filed against me personally for anything the corp does wrong.

I would be surprised if the money for 80+ suits were used only to cover corporate losses and were not commingled. That's if he were incorporated in the first place.

Even if the corporate veil were intact, CEOs etc can still be held accountable for their personal actions if they're criminal.

All of this is academic, the best thing to do is just to have everyone involved file a report with the FBI and the local (his local) police and see where it goes legally.

 

[jimmer_5]

If I were committing some intentional wrongdoing, the last thing I'd do is post here and VLJ and elsewhere. What did it gain Mark? Don't doubt your wisdom Van, just confused.
---/tangent---

I have to say, I don't really get the public statement myself. It reads like a carefully worded statement that was meant to give a false sense of security. I mean, it essentially says that Aero Scotland will take over fulfilling his outstanding orders, and everything will go smoothly. How can you write a statement like that when you never bothered to place 80+ orders and a large group of customers were left holding the bag? In my opinion, it was a last ditch attempt to save face, and more importantly, to delay the inevitable flood of calls and emails from furious customers.