quote:

Originally posted by Uplandhunter:
I have been following this as it progressed because I knew the hunter that was taken by BWW and Heathington.

Has there been any new developments by Drummond? I don't think any hunting operator or (booking agent) should be allowed to get away with something so blatant. Any updates?

Basically I've got all of the information I can gather without Heathington of Blair giving me the name of the the "mythical" landowner that allegedly has the money. That information has been passed on to certain people directly involved and they have asked me to not give any details at this time.

WOW! This is one interesting story! Great work by the good guys on this! I certainly hope that Blair and Heathington get what they deserve. I certainly respect the family that paid the $70,000 and their responses. They have certainly taken the high road on this. Hopefully, justice will prevail and Blair and Heathington get what they deserve in the end, even though I feel it won't be enough no matter what it is!

quote:

Basically I've got all of the information I can gather without Heathington of Blair giving me the name of the the "mythical" landowner that allegedly has the money. That information has been passed on to certain people directly involved and they have asked me to not give any details at this time.

Good job, Drummond!

$70,000 scam? Gentlemen this is even bigger. I also have been ripped off by Larry Heathington.I have been reading this forum and the story is the same. Yesterday another man has been also ripped off who called me. The total that I can tell from 4 hunters is $200,000.Three sheep hunts and one deer hunt. I also have suid Larry and have a judgement. Good digging by one other gentleman on this forum.There is another law suit in the works by yet another hunter.Combine the bookings by Blair and this is getting really big. I like to get information on the Attorney General angle if all of us begin to file complaints the Arizona AG will do something. We as a hunting fraternity should not let these guys get away with this. Others will follow and copy Larry and Jeff. Severe and complete punishment is very appropriate. How about mail fraud? Did anyone check on this? The more this gets out in newspapers and forums these guys will both be brought to justice.Please continue to help and exchange ides.

quote:

Originally posted by Wild blue yonder:
I also have been ripped off by Larry Heathington.

Uh, wow. The plot thickens.

I wrote a story in Successful Hunter of a "guided" elk hunt that was booked with Larry Heathington. Larry showed up the first morning and gave some lame excuse that he now had to go elsewhere (with someone who was paying more we found out) and then he left us with the local Williams plumber who did not know the area or even how to hunt.

As for Blair, he has never booked for me but once used a photo in his brochure that was one that I had taken of a client with a large set of moose antlers. I called him and he claimed I was mistaken and it was one of his clients. When I told him it was taken in front of my lodge he gave me the excuse that he got the photo from another Alaskan guide. I called that guide and he said he knew nothing of Jeff Blair.
I reported it to the SCI ethetics committee but since Jeff was a big donator they claimed there was nothing unethetical about using someone else's photos and that Blair would be reprinting the brochure.

There are a lot of good folks in this industry but there are also a lot of pitfalls and ways to seperate folks from their money. Do your homework and check references.

quote:

I reported it to the SCI ethetics committee but since Jeff was a big donator they claimed there was nothing unethetical about using someone else's photos and that Blair would be reprinting the brochure.

The usual excuses we get from the so called "ethics" committee at SCI.

How shameful!

+1.

Have they ever actually helped anyone?

Remember in "The Godfather" when Michael says to Tom "I'm talking about a cop that's mixed up in drugs. I'm talking about a dishonest cop and a crooked cop who got mixed up in the rackets and got what was coming to him. That'd make a helluva story. Now, we got people in the newspapers, right, Tom? They might like a story like that."

The newspapers might like a story like this involving these 2 crooks, no? Anyone know any reporters?

How about a "made for TV" expose'?

SCI ethics committee is an oxymoron

"I reported it to the SCI ethetics committee but since Jeff was a big donator they claimed there was nothing unethetical about using someone else's photos and that Blair would be reprinting the brochure."

It would make interesting reading if the letter you received informing you of this were posted on this forum.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
How about a "made for TV" expose'?

In an age of political correctness, I have to wonder if the media would even care to air a story in favor of hunting/hunters.

Plus 1 on what Bill Q asked. Show us the letter from SCI 458Win if you please. Looking forward to read it and see who it was signed by. Thanks.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
"I reported it to the SCI ethetics committee but since Jeff was a big donator they claimed there was nothing unethetical about using someone else's photos and that Blair would be reprinting the brochure."

It would make interesting reading if the letter you received informing you of this were posted on this forum.

Bill Quimby

Bill and Larry, It has been awhile and I don't know if I still have the letter. A large, well organized corporation like SCI is more likely to have kept records. You do keep records don't you?
I probably still can find the brochure of Blair's, along with the original photo of just the hunter, ( that Blair used) and another with me standing beside the hunter. Both were taken with my lodge in the background.

But what good is it going to do? Are you going to ban Jeff at this stage ? Or fire the group that made the decision?

It's long past and if you tell me that your ethics committee has changed I will believe you.

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
"but since Jeff was a big donator

Wonder if he will have any money left over after legal defenses to 'donate' to SCI this coming year.
For that matter it would be interesting to see if he would even show his mug at a place like the Dallas SCI convention.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Bill and Larry, It has been awhile and I don't know if I still have the letter. A large, well organized corporation like SCI is more likely to have kept records. You do keep records don't you? I probably still can find the brochure of Blair's, along with the original photo of just the hunter, ( that Blair used) and another with me standing beside the hunter. Both were taken with my lodge in the background. But what good is it going to do? Are you going to ban Jeff at this stage ? Or fire the group that made the decision? It's long past and if you tell me that your ethics committee has changed I will believe you.

458Win

I’m not doubting what you say you were told. But it sure would interesting to read how all the lawyers on the SCI Ethics Committee would say -- in response to a member's official complaint -- that a booking agency can ethically use your photos in its advertising without your permission, just because it is a major donor to SCI's auctions.

Bill Quimby

Bill, They did not give me a reason for their decision, they just said they did not find it un-ethical.
if you really want me to I will be at our cabin this week, where I might have the paperwork, and can look it up for you. But your records would be most likely to show why and how they came to their decision.
As I said though, as far as I am concerned the statute of limitations should be over.

To use a photo of one of your hunters Moose to advertise for someone eles hunt certainly seems unethical to me

All I can say after reading this is wow!

Quote;
"I wrote a story in Successful Hunter of a "guided" elk hunt that was booked with Larry Heathington. Larry showed up the first morning and gave some lame excuse that he now had to go elsewhere (with someone who was paying more we found out) and then he left us with the local Williams plumber who did not know the area or even how to hunt.

As for Blair, he has never booked for me but once used a photo in his brochure that was one that I had taken of a client with a large set of moose antlers. I called him and he claimed I was mistaken and it was one of his clients. When I told him it was taken in front of my lodge he gave me the excuse that he got the photo from another Alaskan guide. I called that guide and he said he knew nothing of Jeff Blair.
I reported it to the SCI ethetics committee but since Jeff was a big donator they claimed there was nothing unethetical about using someone else's photos and that Blair would be reprinting the brochure."

458Win:

Your first post: “ ... I reported it to the SCI ethetics committee but since Jeff was a big donator they claimed there was nothing unethetical about using someone else's photos and that Blair would be reprinting the brochure."

Your third post: “ ... Bill, They did not give me a reason for their decision, they just said they did not find it un-ethical.”

It would interesting to know how you concluded that the committee judges ethics based upon the size of a donation, or why you believe a single donation out of the hundreds SCI gets each year would make any difference to the lawyers who volunteer to serve on that committee.

“ ... But your records would be most likely to show why and how they came to their decision.”

Don’t know why you think I would have access to the SCI Ethics Committee’s confidential records, or have any insider insights for that matter. I’m just one of 50,000 members. Although I live in Tucson in the winter, I’ve visited the club’s headquarters no more than seven or eight times since I retired a dozen years ago.

Even when I produced the club’s publications as an independent contractor from 1983 to 1999, all I ever knew about the Ethics Committee came from its news releases that we published in Safari Times to announce sanctions against members.

Bill Quimby

May I suggest that this thread is about Blair and Heathington and not about SCI and its ethics committee. There have been multiple threads and will be others) in which SCI ethics are debated.

The focus on this thread, IMHO, should be about passing along information (and collecting the same) so that an apparent wrong gets corrected and future hunters get that for which they paid.

And, Phil, Larry and Bill, no one has the slightest doubt that you folks are great guys. Instead of pissing up wind at each other and at SCI, why don't ya'll nominate someone you trust to the ethics committee. AR has lots of members who also belong to SCI. I'm one.

Perhaps another thread should be started to promote a person beyond reproach to the board, etc. I don't know the election process, but I'd like to learn it and I'd certainly vote for someone who didn't confuse contributions with ethics, if that ever has been the case.

Somebody want to start that thread?

That said, with the new allegations of fraud appearing here, I'm beginning to wonder if a booking agent can not know that multiple hunters have been scammed by one of his outfitters. I'd love to see a forensic accounting of the money trail.

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
How about a "made for TV" expose'?

In an age of political correctness, I have to wonder if the media would even care to air a story in favor of hunting/hunters.

I have contacted advertisers from Blair's website with links to this thread and a polite suggestion that their advertising dollars may be better spent elsewhere

quote:

why don't ya'll nominate someone you trust to the ethics committee.

I wonder if the family involved would provide us with an update.

I have ordered all of the documents involving the litigation against Heathington. I am hopeful that they will be delivered tomorrow. These are likely to give us more information on this matter. If so, I will post details .

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
How about a "made for TV" expose'?

In an age of political correctness, I have to wonder if the media would even care to air a story in favor of hunting/hunters.

I spoke with my old college friend who is a journalist about an earlier case reported on AR- about the guide from New Zealand who was ripped off by a non paying hunter.

She said he would not go near a story on hunting, because of her personal position on hunting, and she did not want to support it in any way.


She is a FOX anchor and one of their best known personalities, so if she won't do it, on that network, one can only imagine the CBS, NBC and NY Times "journalists" not wanting to investigate.

(My apologies to all the non-US members for references to US television networks- you may already know the media is very left oriented in the US).

Judge - I think that Bill Q's and my comments were to the same fact you mention. Seems that 458Win was bringing up SCI, the ethics committee and such to stir the pot, turn it into another SCI bashing thread instead of staying on the subject. Adding hearsay and personal opinions of his concerning SCI were quite evident. That's the way I saw it.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
May I suggest that this thread is about Blair and Heathington and not about SCI and its ethics committee. There have been multiple threads and will be others) in which SCI ethics are debated.

The focus on this thread, IMHO, should be about passing along information (and collecting the same) so that an apparent wrong gets corrected and future hunters get that for which they paid.

And, Phil, Larry and Bill, no one has the slightest doubt that you folks are great guys. Instead of pissing up wind at each other and at SCI, why don't ya'll nominate someone you trust to the ethics committee. AR has lots of members who also belong to SCI. I'm one.

Perhaps another thread should be started to promote a person beyond reproach to the board, etc. I don't know the election process, but I'd like to learn it and I'd certainly vote for someone who didn't confuse contributions with ethics, if that ever has been the case.

Somebody want to start that thread?

That said, with the new allegations of fraud appearing here, I'm beginning to wonder if a booking agent can not know that multiple hunters have been scammed by one of his outfitters. I'd love to see a forensic accounting of the money trail.

Too bad no one knows Stossel, he seems like he might be interested.

I know him, what is it you think he would be interested in? He fries a lot of really "BIG" fish, don't know if this would be in that catagory?

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Too bad no one knows Stossel, he seems like he might be interested.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
I know him, what is it you think he would be interested in? He fries a lot of really "BIG" fish, don't know if this would be in that catagory?

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Too bad no one knows Stossel, he seems like he might be interested.

Well, probably you're right, it's only a few hundred thousand dollars, certainly less than a million. It just seems to me he sometimes steps outside of the box and might have been interested in how people can be screwed out of so much money and the legal system seems to ignore it. After all, he's never done an episode on SCI either as far as I can tell. Tell me is it true that it takes $500 to file an ethics charge with SCI now?

Gato - Sorry, I have no idea about the $500.00 question, but will not comment further so as to keep the thread on track as suggested by some here.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
I know him, what is it you think he would be interested in? He fries a lot of really "BIG" fish, don't know if this would be in that catagory?

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Too bad no one knows Stossel, he seems like he might be interested.

Well, probably you're right, it's only a few hundred thousand dollars, certainly less than a million. It just seems to me he sometimes steps outside of the box and might have been interested in how people can be screwed out of so much money and the legal system seems to ignore it. After all, he's never done an episode on SCI either as far as I can tell. Tell me is it true that it takes $500 to file an ethics charge with SCI now?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Gato - Sorry, I have no idea about the $500.00 question, but will not comment further so as to keep the thread on track as suggested by some here.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
I know him, what is it you think he would be interested in? He fries a lot of really "BIG" fish, don't know if this would be in that catagory?

Larry Sellers

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Too bad no one knows Stossel, he seems like he might be interested.

Well, probably you're right, it's only a few hundred thousand dollars, certainly less than a million. It just seems to me he sometimes steps outside of the box and might have been interested in how people can be screwed out of so much money and the legal system seems to ignore it. After all, he's never done an episode on SCI either as far as I can tell. Tell me is it true that it takes $500 to file an ethics charge with SCI now?

Larry,

Gato is 100% correct, one of the major reasons I left SCI is the "Ethics Process"

Steve

quote:

She said he would not go near a story on hunting, because of her personal position on hunting, and she did not want to support it in any way.

That figures! It seems as though most of our so-called journalists are made from the same leftist cookie cutters! (American universities.)

Someone needs to tell these leftist conformist morons that not only is hunting a legal activity, it's also beneficial to the ecosystem.

quote:

Too bad no one knows Stossel, he seems like he might be interested.

John Stossel! Perfect! He's libertarian!

Hopefully someone will recognize that our main concern here is simple: We just want these good people to be treated right and given their money back!

Yep, that's the media today. Tweeking the news or ignoring it outright to suit their own agenda.

I just got an e mail with all of the documents related to the litigation. I have not had time to review in detail. I did scan them quickly and noted the following:

1-The sheep hunts all were sold for different prices. These prices ranged from $48,000 to $70,000.

2- BWW was the agent for at least one if not more of the other hunts.

3- Default judgments were entered on all cases it appears. This means the defendants did not respond.

4- I know Heathington's last known address.

I am going to review them in detail when I have more time.

I have another tidbit. One of the clients, William Osuchowski, actually flew to Mexico on 11.14.09. Guess what? There was no one to meet him.

Wow!
I found this thread wildly addicting to read and if nothing else it would make a great movie script if Hollywood cared about us hunter types. As a Psychiatrist I hear a lot of interesting tales however, this one is truly one of the best (Sorry it cost 70k to tell). I think that it is amazing how people can continue to be in such denial of the truth. I agree with the many posters "Do what’s right! Plain and simple" I have taken care of many patients that have never paid me probably knew they never would or could and I treated them right as I would anyone else. I feel for everyone who lost money however, your story will help me if I every make enough money to book a real African hunt someday. Keep the faith there are still a lot of good people out there.

Brad

To the attorneys: How does one fail to respond to multiple law suits and stay in business in the USA? Are there no liens or other avenues to attach the income that these criminals continue to collect from unsuspecting clients?

To this day, I still can't comprehend losing $70k to 1 crook that remains in business and another one that's probably lying in a pile of empty beer cans in his trailer. What a scam they were running!!!

BWW was not a party to the litigation. He has not been effected by the litigation directly.

I doubt they have made much progress in collecting the judgments. The judgments totaled well over $200,000.

The judgments are as follows:

Henriksen $70,000 plus costs and interest
Manning $49,000 plus costs and interest
Osuchowski $61,026 plus costs and interest
Peterson $48,000 plus costs and interest