Opinion ID: 2608924
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: drew.

Text: Joseph Drew is a 78-year old widower. His sole sources of income are social security, state longevity bonus and his permanent fund dividend. Drew was approached by Caucus representatives in the Seattle airport. At this time, he joined the organization in exchange for $75. After Drew returned home, Toni Jennings began calling him, asking him to lend money to Caucus. Jennings proposed a five-year loan at 10% annual interest. Jennings told Drew that [Caucus] would pay him sufficient interest on the promissory notes for him to support himself. Drew lent Caucus a total of $45,000, his life savings. He received two non-negotiable, unsecured promissory notes, one for $40,000 and one for $5,000. Both bore interest at 10%, with interest payable quarterly, and were for a five-year term. The $5,000 note was payable on demand within seven days in the event of an emergency. Drew subsequently demanded emergency payment on this note, but did not receive it. Drew testified that he would not have lent the money to Caucus without the notes and the interest, as well as the belief that he would be repaid. He believed he was making an investment. While the hearing officer noted that Drew was confused at times, he was clear in his testimony that he thought he was investing his nest egg. Moreover, Toni Jennings assured [Drew] several times that their outfit was much more safer than the bank was because the banks in the United States are all going broke, and that he would get more interest than he would from a bank. Drew received no prospectus or financial statement from Caucus, suggesting its ability or inability to repay.