Source: https://www.bustathief.com/charity-scams-fake-charities/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:13:15+00:00

Document:
Most of us have the gift of human compassion. Whether it is the victim of September 11th or the little orphan across the street we are glad to help out. Unfortunately, thieves know that and take it to their advantage. Before you give anything to a charity, perform your due diligence before you contribute.
Many scam operations were popping up when hurricanes were roaming through the lands of America and the tsunami disaster that swept across the Indian Ocean, striking coastal regions of Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Burma and Malaysia. Be wary of fake donations during a crisis. Sadly, but low life scammers turn disasters into their own money making opportunities. Setting up a phony charity is pretty easy, so below are some tips to avoid charity scams and fake charities.
Before contributing also use these following resources to help you on your way. Even a single dollar is a dollar too much if it comes into the scammers wallet.
1. James L. Clifford (“Clifford”) (CRD # 1419478) is an individual who has been licensed in Maine as a sales representative or agent since at least 1985. His last known address is 955 Eastern Avenue, Holden, Maine 04429.
2. From December 4, 1997, to the present, Clifford has worked as a sales representative or agent at the Brewer, Maine, branch office of Investors Capital Corp. (“ICC”).
3. Pearl P. Schoppe (“Ms. Schoppe”) was a life-long resident of Orono, Maine, and the valedictorian of the 1936 graduating class of Husson College in Bangor, Maine.
4. In May of 1996 Ms. Schoppe established a living trust (the “Schoppe Trust”) with herself as trustee and with two of her relatives designated as trustees upon her death. The original trust document directed that upon Ms. Schoppe’s death, after payment of any of Ms. Schoppe’s debts, expenses and taxes, and certain distributions, the remainder of the trust property was to be held in trust for Husson College with income distributions to fund a scholarship program.
5. Ms. Schoppe was conservative with her investments. She essentially bought only certificates of deposits and fixed annuities.
8. Ms. Schoppe died on January 19, 2000.
9. On March 7, 2000, in Singer Island, Florida, Clifford and John T.”Dock” Houck, II, CEO of National Heritage Foundation, (“NHF”) completed the paperwork for “National Heritage Foundation Inc. FBO Pearl Schoppe FNDTN” to purchase a $150,000 variable annuity from Conseco Variable Annuity Insurance Company through ICC, using funds from the Schoppe Trust.
10. On May 11, 2000, Clifford sent an additional $50,000 from the Schoppe Trust’s checking account to Conseco to add to the variable annuity.
11. The subaccounts chosen by Clifford and Houck were largely more-risky growth funds, when Ms. Schoppe’s stated intent and investment history dictated the use of more conservative income-producing investments.
12. The variable annuity sold by Clifford to the foundation was unsuitable for the charitable purposes expressed by Ms. Schoppe. There was no tax benefit and no value to having a death benefit on the life of Mr. Houck to offset the higher costs and reduced liquidity of the investment.
13. Clifford received $12,600 in commissions on these transactions. In addition, Clifford has paid himself trustee fees exceeding $42,000.00 from the trust assets despite the fact that he appears to have provided little if any valuable services to the trust.
14. Since the purchase of the variable annuity in March of 2000, Husson College has received no scholarship money from the Pearl P. Schoppe Foundation.
15. Under federal law, variable annuities are securities and the offer and sale of variable annuities is regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) under the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
16. The NASD is a national securities association registered with the SEC under §15A and in accordance with the provision of §19(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
17. NASD Rules are filed with the SEC and promulgated under §19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NASD rules apply to “all members and persons associated with a member. Persons associated with a member shall have the same duties and obligations as a member” under the association’s rules. NASD Rule 0115.
18. ICC is a member of NASD and Clifford is a person associated with ICC.
19. NASD Rule 2310 requires that a member have reasonable grounds for believing that a recommended purchase is suitable for a customer based on the facts disclosed by the customer including the customer’s investment objectives.
20. By virtue of his training and experience, Clifford knew the requirements of NASD Rule 2310. Through his customer relationship with Ms. Schoppe, Clifford knew her investment objectives and the charitable purpose for which she established the Pearl P. Schoppe Foundation. Thus, Clifford intentionally or knowingly failed to comply with NASD Rule 2310. 32 M.R.S.A. §10313(1)(B).
21. By using funds of the Schoppe Trust to purchase an unsuitable investment, Clifford engaged in unlawful or unethical conduct in the securities business. 32 M.R.S.A. §10313(1)(G).
22. Pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. §§10313 and 16702, the Securities Administrator may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, issue an order to revoke the license of a licensee or impose a bar on a licensee if the Securities Administrator finds that the order is in the public interest and that the licensee: (1) has engaged in unlawful, unethical or dishonest conduct in the securities business; or (2) has intentionally or knowingly violated or failed to comply with a rule under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Notice is hereby given that the Securities Administrator intends to issue an Order to Revoke Clifford’s Agent License and Censure Him or Bar Him from Association under 32 M.R.S.A. §§10313(1) and 16702(1).
If Clifford wants to request a hearing in this matter, he must do so in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this Notice of Intent. 32 M.R.S.A. §§10708, 16702(1).
The National Heritage Foundation/Congressional District Programs and their salesmen are under investigation by Federal and State agencies.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact the owner of the NHF, JOHN HOUK, at (561) 301-3891 or dock@nhf.org.
JOHN T. HOUK III, JANET H.
Pennsylvania. At all times material to this Complaint he has been married to Nancy P.
times material to this Complaint she has been married to J. Behrmann.
(21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of South Carolina.
the father of John T. Houk III and Janet H. Ridgely, and is the father-in-law of Julie L.
active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of the other Defendants.
Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
Paragraphs 1-10 of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
NHF within the State of Virginia.
13. At all times material to this Complaint, Mariam M. Houk, John T.
officers were members of Houk’s immediate family.
16. Beginning in late 1996, J. Behrmann was introduced to Houk.
respect of these charitable giving matters.
bankruptcy relief in January of 2009.
— at NHF, and to make substantial contributions of cash and property to Highbourne/NHF.
benefit of worthy causes and organizations identified by the Behrmanns.
and causes identified by the Behrmanns.
amount of approximately $1.09 million.
representatives and agents) was introduced to Houk. Houk represented and assured Ms.
tailored charitable giving plan, program and strategy that advanced and satisfied Ms.
other Defendants in respect of these charitable giving matters.
substantial contributions of cash and property to DAFoundation/NHF.
and implied representations, assurances, promises and commitments published to Ms.
Ms. Anderson was not materially misleading.
property to DAFoundation/NHF that would be tax-deductible in the year of Ms.
promote Ms. Anderson’s charitable giving goals, and (ii) would not imperil Ms.
hold the exclusive right/power to advise NHF as to subsequent donations that Ms.
and causes identified by Ms. Anderson.
DAFoundation/NHF. At no time did any of the Defendants or their agents provide Ms.
Anderson with any notice or warning of any of these.
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
call to Houk, and was assured by Houk that Highbourne/NHF would not be impacted.
changed its name to National Foundation, Inc.
Foundation entity, Houk was discharged from at least two follow-on positions (at St.
contributors various allegedly tax deductible options).
beyond that which was justifiable.
dominance and control of NHF is that he does not want to repeat his mistakes of the past.
approximately $1 million to CDP.
dominated and controlled by the Houk family.
vendor of NHF’s software. This loan has fallen into default and has not been repaid.
misleading (including NHF’s investments in one or more “mutual funds”).
and at least one substantial unauthorized payment was made by a NHF employee.
indebtedness then owed by NHF to an institutional lender and/or other NHF creditors.
confiscated, and in the case of DAF/NHF approximately $1,010 million was confiscated.
committed by NHF and the Defendants prior to the bankruptcy filing.
would not have made the initial and subsequent contributions.
NHF to violate the proscription against private inurement set forth in IRC §501(c)(3).
materially into the future as this litigation continues.
of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
effective charitable giving strategy that fulfilled Defendants’ manifest goals.
their initial and subsequent contributions to their DAFs at NHF.
initiating and continuing charitable giving plans, programs and strategies through NHF.
material and salient matters described in Paragraph s 33, 38 and 39 of this Complaint.
manner consistent with that which had been represented to Plaintiffs.
with that which had been represented, promised and committed to Plaintiffs.
strategy through NHF that would fulfill Plaintiffs’ manifest charitable giving goals.
engaged in providing such services to donors across the country.
confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
Plaintiffs were not materially misleading.
subsections A through L), 38 and 39 of this Complaint.
plans, programs and strategies that satisfied Plaintiffs’ manifest goals.
responsibilities associated with being fiduciaries for the benefit of Plaintiffs.
prudence, (v) utmost fidelity, and (vi) ethical behavior and conduct.
duties owed to Plaintiffs as more fully described above.
Defendants to be used primarily for personal, family and/or household purposes.
Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
Defendants, jointly and severally, treble their actual damages.
complained of in this Complaint.
misconduct, and receipt of improper personal benefit.
Defendant(s) who received any such advance of litigation expenses from NHF.
Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
If I made this post was for you warn of what awaits you at Mike Hotel for theft in any case, I noted that feelings among Thais vis a vis the tourists do not exist (not tourist! translation: maytchay naktongtiao rao tcheu BAHT-MAN may ?.

References: §15
 §19
 §19
 §10313
 §10313
 §501