All Forum Posts by: Bill P.

I always thought that was what I was doing. I have always tried to be professional in my posts and have done my best to refrain from any "gibberish". However, I will self police myself and remove my participation from posting anything in this forum until the reciever's next report. (at least) PM me if you wish to contact me and I will respond on a personal level. I once had a lawyer that worked for me that told me it was always important to remember that being stupid isn't against the law in this country because they couldn't build enough jails. But I have found the ideas on this forum not to be of the "stupid" kind; merely the kind where people don't understand the operation of law. But since I am not an investor, I will stop worrying about the people here. Just trying to help but I can better use my time on my own projects. Thanks for all of the kind words.

Do you every follow your own advice and recognize where the buck really stops? O'Neal and Company are allegedly the masterminds of the fraud. Not Newsweek. Not BBB. Not SEC. Not Chamber of Commerce. Not State of GA. Not even you. The unfortunate fact is that so many people threw caution to the wind. Invested too much of their investment capital. Didn't diversify. But it is over, and without meaning to come across pedantic, it is in the hands of a receiver, and he is the one calling the shots. False advertising allows claims against the advertiser, not the advertising medium. You haven't been reading my posts. I do understand the enormity of this debacle, probably more the most because of my background in public accounting and my current position as a Principal of a real estate investment firm. You are correct in your assertion that I can't understand everyone's grief. I can't because that is personal with each investor. I have empaty with their loss and I have been steadfast in not lecturing about the loss. But that doesn't mean, I should allow someone like you to feed the masses concepts that mislead or give false hope to the investors either. Follow the money? That's a good concept for forensic accounting, but not as a tool to use in determining culpability. I stand corrected on this issue. I merely thought it was a typo because there is no spellchecker associated with this posts.

Help me with your logic: If Newsweek has culpability because they accepted money for an ad, do the organizations you called ( FBI, the SBC (sic) and the Greater Atlanta Real Estate Board as well as the local police and several Atlanta-based realtors ) also need to pony up some money too because they didn't raise a red flag? Could the reason that no red flags were raised be because nothing was outwardly wrong until it fell off the cliff? (Except the business plan to pay 25% every 60 days which everybody should have known was unsustainable)

While I also believe that this forum does not add value when people are called names, I also believe that everyone needs to stay within reality in pursuing an enforceable action. It serves no purpose to whip up frenzy in pointing fingers where zero culpability lies. I also think that Mr. Hays has control right now and there really is very litttle anyone can do except stay current with the situation and report any helpful information to him through email. One cook in the kitchen will get the job completed quicker.

GrrrreatLakesGal- Asking Newsweek for their ad revenue is just a variation on the theme of "Net Winners". Newsweek was not in any conspiracy to profit from Pinnacle's fiasco. Boycotts are valuable tactics over social injustices to help change policies, but it won't work in the current case. Remember, Newsweek has only an obligation to make sure that the ad doesn't violate community indecency standards (obvious porn), is not advertising anything illegal on face value (cocaine, weapons) and is not in poor taste (pictures of abortion). The Pinnacle ads do not meet any of those tests because they simply advertised a rate of return using real estate. Newsweek is not on their Board of Directors and did not know the actions (or inactions) Pinnacle was taking.

I don't want to dwell on this point, but there is a world of difference in your bag of money example and the Pinnacle situation. First, we don't live in a country where the rule of law is "finder keepers, loser weepers". The found bag of money was lost property from a theft. The money belongs to the owner. (However, we do have a process in which the money could have been turned in to the authorities and it would become legal property of the finder after X days if no one claims it.)

Anyway, my points are simply that "the laws of the Universe" apply when you are involved in the "crime", not when you are an unwitting participant. Their gains are not "ill gotten" if they played by the rules. A better premise for your "laws of the Universe" process would be for the employees of Pinnacle to return their pay if it can be proven they knew what was going on.

Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse and the postings on this subject are acedemic at best. The law will prescribe the solution that needs to be followed. It is now just a matter of waiting for Mr. Hays/SEC/Courts to move forward on their timeline.

I am trying very hard to get a handle on that above statement. I can understand that people should give back the money if they were involved in perpetrating the scam, but I do not understand why people who were just fortunate (or lucky) to get the funds back at their appointed time should be held accountable under the "laws of the universe" scenario.

Does that mean that people who got into life rafts from the Titanic should have turned around and got back on to the ship once they saw it sinking?

Should escapees from POW camps return voluntarily if some people are caught?

Does that mean that with any activity there cannot be winners and losers, because it would be unfair to the losers?

Does that mean I cannot buy a "preforeclosure" property from an owner, even though I didn't cause their demise?

These questions are not meant to be argumentive, I just don't understand the application in the Pinnacle situation. I think I have a prettty good moral and ethical compass but I don't understand the "obligation" of the net winners to comply with a return of funds.

I would appreciate other examples that you feel are close in reality to the Pinnacle scenario to understand if this is true "law of the universe" situation to you or if it is just selective application because you are a "net loser" and you are just trying to lessen your pain. (Which by the way, is fair from your point of view, but probably not valid in an aggregate sense.)

In closing, I hope these questions are read in the spirit in which they are written; and I hope answers are returned in that same spirit.

MMC - No ma'am, I am not insecure in any fashion when it comes to real estate, finance or any other business principles. I owned and sold my own regional accounting firm in the early 90s and I am currently a principal in a very successful real estate investment firm. As far as investing in Pinnacle, we never placed a dime in that program. As mentioned in one of my previous posts, we were exploring the opportunity, as we do with many across the country, and I ran across this forum via Google.

My entire purpose in being part of this forum is simply to learn a little from you guys and to educate the forum reader in regards to the parameters that Mr. Hays is likely to follow. (after I saw some of the wild *** ideas and theories that people have been proposing.) In fact, there have been some pages almost entirely devoted to a "lynch mob" mentality. I believe cooler heads will prevail in this fiasco, and that is why Mr. Hays will untangle this mess. I don't think anybody is likely to be happy with their percentage of their return, the timing of that return or the progress of the case against O'Neal & Co., but that's another story. And that it is not a condemnation of Hays Consulting, it is a part of government, the legal system and the red tape used to protect one's own *** in this litigious society.

I think the contradiction can be explained best if one assumes that there were no true earnings from the company. With that assumption, we need to make just one more..... that as an individual investor, you did not know that Pinnacle was involved in illegal activities. Now, with these two assumptions, if you had the money paid out at the end of your contract term, you triggered the threshhold for a "gain" on your contract, and that gain becomes your income and must be reported as such. However, if you simply "rolled over" your "gain" which really was just a paper entry on Pinnacle's books, there is no real gain because you never had control of the funds and Pinnacle never really produced a "gain". Only if the money was paid to you, does a real "gain" take place if the underlying company is running a Ponzi scheme. This does not mean that exceptions won't be found, or that the "gains" returned to some investors won't be recharacterized as a partnership "overpayment of capital" and be sucked back. But as I said once before, this Country is about laws and their application, not fairness.

Remeber, the "net winners" did nothing wrong except have great timing. That is their entire "crime". The last time I checked, there wasn't a penalty for that. It's kind of like the TV show "Deal or No Deal", sometimes your winnings are impacted from when you stop playing the game.

As far as karma is concerned, I also believe " that what goes around comes around" but that doesn't mean the "net winners" will be swindled as they didn't swindle this time around. They were merely lucky. That "swindle" karma comment will only apply to O'Neal and Company as they are the perpetrators of this fiasco.

In closing, I would appeal to the "net winners" to seek the advice of an attorney regarding the status of their funds if the Receiver asks for a recission of your payout. Do not simply rollover and send a check; exercise your rights and learn about your options. (Of course, you can send a check if you want, as that is within your rights as well.)

One last thing: I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving and can be thankful for something this year. If not wealth than hopefully your health or family. Life is about the glass being half full; not half empty.

MMC, I have changed my last post with the new information I received. Thank you ma'am.

I think most people on this forum do not understand basic business principals. I keep reading the logic that people are using with the "net winners". MMC and others like her are comparing apples and oranges. Let me just ask you one thing: How many people that sold their Enron stock before if went bankrupt had to refund their money as long as they were not using inside information or were directly related to the company? The answer is zero. The investors need to understand the nuances and the differences between securities law, common law, UCC law and their application to what happened at Pinnacle and what everybody is using for comparison. There is a process called disgourgement at the SEC level, but under most circumstances, it will not apply to the "net winners" here.