Update on Mr. Escott/Children's Health Fund

[Rocky]

Would it be possible to find out if anybody has any recepts of their donation? I have connections in law enforcement that might help get things rolling if we can prove fraud.

One would have to spend one heck of a lot of money to get a case like that going.
This is, after all, the DR. and were it that simple, it would have been done a long time ago.
John's thread is not about finding legal recourse.
It is an appeal to Escott to do the right thing, pronto.

 

[Malibook]

I would like to have a complete and detailed accounting of the monies that were entrusted to you. I would like, with the permission of the members of the DR1 forum board, to send La Casa Rosada $5000.00. With the balance of the money, I would like to set-up a three or four person committee to disperse the money to worthy childen's organizations in the DR. This should not be a very difficult thing to do.Let's face it-this is not your money right? I would like you to be one of the committee members and show everybody that the monies are helping those it was intended for.

That's a great idea John but it seems quite obvious that he doesn't care what you or anybody else would like.:tired:

I would hope that he is not a lost cause and that perhaps one of these years our money will be put to good use.
I am not holding my breath nor would this change how I feel about him.:tired:

 

[Malibook]

Would it be possible to find out if anybody has any recepts of their donation? I have connections in law enforcement that might help get things rolling if we can prove fraud.

I would hope that Anoeca will come here to clarify if they gave the money back as they claimed or if they still have it as Escott claims.
Either way, they should at least be able to provide law enforcement with the amount.

I don't think the money has vanished but how many more years must pass before one can claim that the kids and donors have been screwed?
I would argue that we are way past this point.

 

[Lambada]

I too would like to congratulate johne on an excellent letter which I really hope works and gets the matter resolved.

I became aware of the discrepancy noted in Malibook's post a few weeks ago. I, too, thought the money had been returned by Anoeca , as stated. In fact when anyone asked me, that is exactly what I told them. So I made enquiries. It transpires the money was returned to the charity organiser. He subsequently reinvested it in the same company using a different account name. I understand this was meant to be a short term 'holding' measure prior to disbursement of the funds. However, the funds are still in two accounts (one dollar account, one peso account) with Anoeca, quite safe, still earning interest but have not been disbursed to aid any beneficiaries.

I am not a contributor to this particular charity. I am merely an investor with Anoeca. As such I felt I had disseminated false information that the charity money had been returned, albeit in good faith going on what I had been told and what had been posted here a year ago. I should point out that the person who posted for Anoeca also posted what he was told by the company president, so he, too, posted in good faith.

Eleven days ago I asked that the company president should make a public statement about this matter. I have yet to see one. However, I have sent a link to this thread to both the company representative who posted a year ago and to info@anoeca.org I would suggest anyone with further questions about the company role in all this should address them to the company president - cellphone 1-809-697-0760

But the real solution to the issues raised by many posters is for that money to start being distributed and doing some good. I think johne's suggestions are excellent and I fully support his attempts to get the matter resolved.

 

[Rocky]

I would hope that Anoeca will come here to clarify if they gave the money back as they claimed or if they still have it as Escott claims.

Apparently, both claims are correct.
Anoeca wanted to disassociate itself from Dominican Kids and handed the money back to Escott, who promptly redeposited said funds under another name.

 

[miguel]

Ese hijo de puto lo sabe....

One would have to spend one heck of a lot of money to get a case like that going.
This is, after all, the DR. and were it that simple, it would have been done a long time ago.

And that's the reason he doing it, because he knows that in order for us to get our money back, that we will have to spend 3 times more than the money he already have.

He is known to even take advantage of his own friends, so what makes you think he cares what a bunch of guys that are not his friends think or say about him.

WAAAAAAAAAY before he "made like a bandit", I told him and EVERYBODY here (in MAAAAAANY posts) that he should NOT be trusted, that he was in fact a worm and that there was a reason why he was the most hated man in Sosua. In fact, I know for a fact that MANY members didn't participate because HE had something to do with it.

I, disliking him like I did (and DO), decided to contribute ONLY through someone else because I just didn't feel comfortable dealing with that insect. But, the bottom line is that he was indeed the "head" of the "parade".

Mark my words, and this I have said before: He WILL give me my money back, one way or another!.

And the funny thing is that he WILL be smiling when doing so...ANNND maybe I will even post a picture of the transaction, here, wahahaha!!.

 

[Chris]

Apparently, both claims are correct.
Anoeca wanted to disassociate itself from Dominican Kids and handed the money back to Escott, who promptly redeposited said funds under another name.

And the company promptly accepted such funds after disassociating themselves. Geez, what a farce of a 'disassociation' - everyone did what they did in 'good faith' and no-one is any the wiser. Its not like the Anoeca office is so big the the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing you know!

Anyway, good luck Johne! Be sure you know and understand what you're dealing with! Its not 'normal new yorker' business although it may sound like it! :tired:

 

[Rocky]

And the company promptly accepted such funds after disassociating themselves. Geez, what a farce of a 'disassociation' - everyone did what they did in 'good faith' and no-one is any the wiser. :tired:

One could argue both points of view, that it was unethical, or that it was nothing more than standard business.
One one hand, it assures that said funds are still "available", on the other hand, it offers Escott the possibility of acting like all is well.
All is not well, of course, and 2 years of holding onto the funds has no justification whatsoever.
We can only hope that John's appeal, bears positive results.

 

[Chris]

One could argue both points of view, that it was unethical, or that it was nothing more than standard business.

Don't get me wrong Rocky, sure it is standard business. That is not to say that it is not a farce and misleading. The other side of the coin must be looked at simply in business terms. Would you trust your investment house if they routinely made such uhm .. 'misleading' statements? For me, it goes to ethics, always more important when you are in a small community.

 

[Lambada]

I also think that the company rep. who posted here a year ago thought that after the 'short term holding proceedure' the funds had physically been returned earlier in the year. When I contacted him about this a few weeks ago he was in UK on holiday & he mailed another staff member to search the accounts & that is when the info became available to me that the funds were still there.

I won't describe the exact terminology I used when I learned this because I have no wish to have this thread cut but you can probably guess...........

 

[Rocky]

Don't get me wrong Rocky, sure it is standard business. That is not to say that it is not a farce and misleading. The other side of the coin must be looked at simply in business terms. Would you trust your investment house if they routinely made such uhm .. 'misleading' statements? For me, it goes to ethics, always more important when you are in a small community.

If you don't mind, I will not address this issue in John's thread, but would be glad to, in another.

 

[Chris]

Sorry Johne, did not mean to dilute your efforts!

Again, I hope you have success and some good can come out of this! For me, I have been permanently 'soured' on this thing and the people, so, better to ignore me

You're the better person here!

 

[miguel]

Oye bien....

And the company promptly accepted such funds after disassociating themselves. Geez, what a farce of a 'disassociation' - everyone did what they did in 'good faith' and no-one is any the wiser. Its not like the Anoeca office is so big the the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing you know!

Anyway, good luck Johne! Be sure you know and understand what you're dealing with! Its not 'normal new yorker' business although it may sound like it! :tired:

Indeed, "good faith" my axx!.

There's an old Spanish saying that goes "desde que se "invento" la excusa, NADIE es perfecto" (ever since the excuse was "invented" NOBODY is perfect).

There's always a fricking excuse....The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing....I am not at fault, he is.....It' not my problem anymore, it's theirs....Blah blah blah...

I DID emailed Anaoca....No reply,
I DID emailed them again.....No reply,
I DID emailed the person I sent the money to telling her I had not heard from them.....was told to try again because they said they didn't received it/them,
I DID emailed them.....No reply,
I DID called once.....The person I needed to talk to "wasn't there",
I DID called again.....Still the person "not there",
I DID called again.....The person was "not there" and didn't know when he was coming to the office,

And all that was at the beginning of all this mess!.

 

[SKY]

Indeed, "good faith" my axx!.

There's an old Spanish saying that goes "desde que se "invento" la excusa, NADIE es perfecto" (ever since the excuse was "invented" NOBODY is perfect).

There's always a fricking excuse....The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing....I am not at fault, he is.....It' not my problem anymore, it's theirs....Blah blah blah...

I DID emailed Anaoca....No reply,
I DID emailed them again.....No reply,
I DID emailed the person I sent the money to telling her I had not heard from them.....was told to try again because they said they didn't received it/them,
I DID emailed them.....No reply,
I DID called once.....The person I needed to talk to "wasn't there",
I DID called again.....Still the person "not there",
I DID called again.....The person was "not there" and didn't know when he was coming to the office,

And all that was at the beginning of all this mess!.

There was once an investment company in Italy run by a guy named Charles Ponzi. He never returned calls either.

 

[Robert]

Scott worked hard in raising money and promoting the auction, he never started this to scam people, it just went pie shaped when it went to handing out the money. I have no doubt eventually some worthy group will get the cash. The question is who and when?

Scott couldn't careless what people say in this thread. He thinks everyone on DR1 is a dummy, including myself . He's an expert at everything and done everything. He is going to do what he wants to do, he's pig headed like that, some of you are very aware of this.

Closed.