So we have this writer for Practical Sailor Magazine who starts to talk
to everyone. Every boat owner that was at the factory in 1992 when the
company went broke. His name is Tom Gannon. Gannon decides write a piece about
our company, Nor'Sea Marine and in particular, me. Practical Sailors first
article comes out on October 15, 1994. It is titled "Alive, But Not Well:
Nor'Sea Marine"
In fact we were alive and well. He knew that. He
just didn't care about the customers we were building boats for. He knew
that his story would cause a complete panic for the customers that were under
construction at our new facility.
We had just finished the Annapolis Boat Show a couple of days
earlier and as a result of this article, we did lose all our boat show orders.
(about 9) The article grinds our factory to a complete stop. We had 13 new boats
in production and we were thriving. Soon everyone would be out of a job.
Fine people with homes and families to feed. Customers would suffer greatly.
Spending money to fly out and visit. Spending money to get their boats done.
lots of stress and anger because of this inaccurate article.
We
had closed up shop (see Jeff Daniels) in May 1993 and moved to our new factory.
It had been 18 months since we had moved with our crew to the new building. We
had during those eighteen months, finished most boats that we were behind on and
settled lawsuits from Glen Justice, Whit Gilman and Fred Booth. These lawsuits
were history before this article was published but the article never mentions
that fact. In fact The article never mentions many things that would have put a
different light on our situation.
You would expect a magazine like
Practical Sailor to offer a full accounting of any story. People who subscribe
to Practical Sailor believe this magazine to be truthful and their
reporting based on facts. Shouldn't the goal of a magazine like this be to
present both sides of any issue? To reveal facts that they know about? To get
the story straight?
What would you think if Practical Sailor wrote a
story about a company going broke and left out many important facts that would
have changed the opinion of the reader?
What if they wrote about things
that would give the reader an impression that some sort of criminal behavior or
hidden fraud was a goal, yet INTENTIONALLY left out pertinent information that
would have not given that false impression?
That's what Tom Gannon did to our company. (You decide)
I say intentionally because Tom Gannon knew all these facts. He had
been told by the owners and everyone he talked to before this article
October 15, 1994. He decided, in my opinion, to omit these facts because
his intention was to put Nor'Sea out of business. Without regard to the
stress and financial difficulties he knew he would cause the boat owners
who were having boats being built in October 1994. No regard for them at
all.
If any of what I'm saying is true, should Practical sailor be held
libel for money damages? Many attorneys think so.
One of the owners
who was having a boat built at our factory in October 94 was Alain Provost. He
wrote this letter to Practical Sailor:
(After the October, 15, 1994 article
came out)
TUCSON, NOVEMBER 3rd 1994
TO THE EDITOR OF PRACTICAL SAILOR
BOX 819 NEWPORT, RI 02840
HAVING ORDERED A 27 FOOTER FROM NOR'SEA MARINE IN MARCH
OF THIS YEAR AND HAVING MADE THE REQUIRED PROGRESS
PAYMENTS, IMAGINE MY CONSTERNATION AND ANGUISH AS I
READ YOUR ''ALIVE BUT NOT WELL'' FOUR PAGE ARTICLE IN THE
OCTOBER ISSUE. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED BOB EEG AT THE FACTORY TO LET HIM KNOW I WAS FLYING OUT THE VERY NEXT DAY AND EXPECTED TO MEET WITH HIM.
WHAT I SAW WHEN I GOT THERE WAS THE SAME THING I SAW
BACK IN MARCH AND DURING MY TWO SUBSEQUENT VISITS -
AN ACTIVE OPERATION THAT CERTAINLY SEEMED HEALTHY WITH
12 HULLS, INCLUDING MINE, AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF COMPLETION AND WHAT I HEARD WAS A BOB EEG WHO, WHILE NOT DENYING THAT HE HAD SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH AN EX-EMPLOYEE IN THE PAST, IS DISTRESSED AND ANGRY ABOUT THE ONE-SIDED AND LACK OF FACTUAL ACCURACY OF YOUR ARTICLE.
(THAT EX-EMPLOYEE APPEARS TO BE ONE OF YOUR MAIN SOURCES)
I CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE ELEVEN OTHER CLIENTS BUT MY BOAT
IS ON SCHEDULE FOR A DECEMBER DELIVERY AND THE WORKMANSHIP AT EVERY LEVEL IS TO BE COMMENDED.
IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS I FEEL YOU OWE NOR'SEA MARINE SOMETHING.
PUBLISHING AN UPDATE, SINCE YOUR ARTICLE
IS BASED ON EVENTS DATING BACK A COUPLE OF YEARS, WOULD
BE SOMETHING.
SINCERELY,
ALAIN PROVOST
XXXX SWEETWATER,
TUCSON, AZ. 85745
(602) XXX-XXXX
(602) XXX-XXXX
Well, by then it was too late for
anything. The business was ground to a halt and Alain's statement about 'one
sidedness and lack of factual accuracy' was right on target.
Lets have
you decide. Ok?
First I don't deny going broke in 1992. Its not pleasant
for anyone but what I do object to is the characterization of the whole thing.
While I could have gone bankrupt and walked away, I did stick with it and did
what I could to have everyone get a boat.
Starting with the October 15,
1994 article I will write what the article said, what really happened and what
Tom Gannon intentionally left out.
(or lied about)
Practical Sailor:
"Three separate lawsuits against
Nor'Sea Marine and Robert Eeg are an indication that all is not well with
the Southern California builder of the popular Lyle Hess
double-enders"
Glen Justice
Jim
Montgomery
Whit Gilman
What Gannon FAILS to
mention:
A. The G. Justice lawsuit was over and settled in
May 1994. This was a full 5 months before the Oct. 15 article. Justice and
I had come to an agreement on the $100,000 short fall he owed me. The
prototype boat he had ordered (prototypes cost more) was in the note section of
our agreement as costing $272,000 not $172,000. We asserted that Justice
missed a 9-1-91 payment of $100,000 and we all agreed that no contract existed
and the contract was cancelled by a judge. The rest is secret because of
differing opinions and court order. All I can say is $100,000 would have made a
big difference in our production. My attorney Michael Moad in the
article:
In Justice's case Moad said, Eegs understanding
was that the doctor was advancing money not only for his 37 footer but
also to help with start-up costs for the new model. After coming up with part of
the money, Moad said, Justice suddenly withdrew his support, "He just dropped
the ball on Mr.Eeg"
That's true. (In my
opinion)
B. Glen and I had talked about buying the Sam L
Morse Co. He had the money that Sam was asking, Sam was anxious to sell it to
me. When Jeff Daniels quit and started calling customers from his home in the
evening he panicked Glen into withdrawing from our deal. Soon Glen was suing me
and I received a letter from his attorney stating that Glen doesn't want to go
into the boat business anymore and I had better go bankrupt if I knew what was
good for me. They hoped I would walk away, they could get the assets of Nor'Sea
and Jeff/Glen would be the new owners. (In my opinion and the opinion of
ex-employees who called me at home after over hearing these
conversations.)
No mention is made of any of these events
by Tom Gannon. Lets continue...
Since we were now $100,000
short because of the missed payment I decided to sell Glen a Nor'Sea 27 we had
almost finished, at a loss, just to generate some cash flow. I sold it for a
cheap $58,000. We launched it at Dana Point,Ca. just before we shut down. Glen,
his wife and I sailed it on its maiden voyage to Newport where his slip was. The
boats name was "SABA". Nice boat.
My Attorney Michael Moad
again in this article:
Moad said Eeg blames much of his
trouble on a former "key employee" who not only ran an inefficient shop
but later bad-mouthed Nor'Sea to current and prospective customers and 'stoled
some of his customers away from him'.
....It is his understanding that
the plant is "back up and running".
Now that's true. Read
Jeff Daniels.
Whit Gilman. Whit who was a slow-pay, no pay
(see Boat Building Basics)and had a boat coming to him. His boat was
$90,000 including some late fees that were due. He had paid off and on, a total
of only about $64,000 depending on HIS cash flow since August 26, 1988. (told
you he was a slow pay). He owed more than $26,000 on the boat plus some large
late fees. We had been struggling with Whit for close to 5 years for him to get
going on his boat. To pay us in a timely manner. We had started and stopped this
boat well past the stage of Lost Cause. We had even started a new hull for him
(3 times) and the last one, he picked a green hull which we had laid up and
started to replace his Lost Cause hull that we had sold to raise cash in the
last days when he couldn't pay us anymore money on his order.
Of course Tom Gannon doesn't breath a clue about any of
this
in his article.
I like Whit and he told me
personally that he would have done the same thing to try and keep the ball
rolling. Whit would be bothersome at times and some of the things he did
were just plain wrong. He did call me on a regular basis filling me in on what
was going on and who was saying what. He's the one that told me that Tom Gannon
was going to really try and shut our plant down. "Boy, that guy sure hates your
guts, Bob!"
As Jeff was finishing Pepper and Van Wesep at a
new shop that Jeff set up, Whit Gilman and others were getting phone calls from
Jeff telling them to pull their boats from my new factory and bring them to Jeff
for finishing. So on December 6th 1993 I was served with a Ex-parte summons from
Whit's attorney to take possession of a boat that was already sold to someone
else. I had to show up in court the next day to state my case for keeping a boat
that Whit Gilman said he owned. Never mind that Whit still owed me close to
$30,000 on his boat, he wanted it so Jeff could finish it. My attorney was so
confident that Whit would lose he just advised me to show up and present my
story. I showed up and didn't even have to say a word. After listening to Whit's
attorney, the judge said no way. It was obvious on its face that Whit's attorney
was trying to pull a fast one. The Judge saw that right away. He dismissed the
case after 5 minutes.
Whit still jokes about me kicking his
ass in court. I continued on his new green hulled 27 and he was happy. In July
of 1994 I gave Whit a boat called Windsong for the payoff of $55,000. The boat
was booked at aprox. $130,000 and considering Whit had paid us some $65,000
already, he was happy to take the boat and settle our disagreement. So I had
settled our lawsuit with Whit Gilman in a fair way long before the October 15,
1994 Practical Sailor article but Tom Gannon never mentions that fact. He knew
it yet failed to mention this important piece of information.
Something else he never mentioned was that after Whit agreed to take
the boat we gave him to drop the lawsuit in July 1994, Whit still tried to get a
second Nor'Sea 27 out of our shop on March 21, 1995 that was scheduled for
delivery to J. McLaughlin on the east coast. Jeff had apparently talked Whit
into trying for this second boat, even though Whit had already settled and
had agreed to take 'Windsong'. Now what possessed Whit Gilman to try and
take away someone else's boat, when 9 months previously he had agreed (and
wanted) to take Windsong to end our conflict?
Why did he
want a second boat that belonged (and was Documented) to someone else?
Maybe greed? Less than honest? It sure caused me to spend more money on
attorneys to protect our customer. We once again prevailed. Whit was now
faced with a lawsuit himself from the real owner of that boat.
Whit wisely dropped the suit but it made good press for Tom
Gannon when he wrote about it in his error filled follow up article "Nor'Sea
Still under Siege" on July 15, 1995. Tom Gannon doesn't question why would Whit
Gilman try for yet ANOTHER persons boat when he had already taken legal custody
of a finished boat 9 months earlier?
Doesn't that strike
you as odd? Gilman goes on to say in this piece: "I still haven't
dropped my lawsuit about the original boat, the fraud", Gilman says.
There was no fraud. Gilman had already accepted Windsong on July 13,1994
as HIS boat. He paid the loan off and it was legally his. For him to try and
take another persons boat 9 months later shows his greed and lack of integrity.
(lets use Whit's own words: less than honest.)
For Tom Gannon not to reveal this information also shows his
bias. What do you think?
Would the Practical Sailor Article have read
different if Tom Gannon
had mentioned that I gave Whit a boat, He was paid in
full....yet,
Whit later tried to take advantage of the situation and try to
seize
someone else's Documented boat. Sure it would.
Tom Gannon doesn't mention a single word about this. His story
was written
solely to disparage our company.
How about this large intentional lie from Tom Gannon:
On at least one occasion, Eeg generated cash by helping a client
apply for a new boat loan before the boat was built. Montgomery had
previously applied to Ganis Corp, the well known marine lender, for a used
boat loan to buy Sundance. When he (Jim Montgomery) changed his mind after
returning to Michigan, Eeg, he said, filled out a new application and signed the
clients name and submitted it to Ganis in October 1992. "The new boat actually
did not exist", Montgomery said.
"I just made a big mistake". The non-existent boat was then
documented with the Coast Guard, Montgomery said.
Now this is a
devastating paragraph that is totally untrue. If you read the Jim Montgomery
section of this website then you will find out that Ganis did the loan on
Bungearn, (see photo labeled Jims boat). Jim did change his mind after a couple
of weeks. We told Jim that we could not build another new Nor'Sea 27 until the
Ganis loan was paid off. 10 months later, Jim then went to a local Detroit Bank
named NBD Bank where he lived at the time and using my original paperwork for
"Bungearn" dated January 10th 1992 (he may have just changed the date to October
1992, I don't know) he then submitted this paperwork to this bank in Detroit for
a loan to pay off "Bungearn". We had no knowledge of this loan. Jim Montgomery
was actually SUED by this bank in Detroit Michigan on April 11, 1994 for FRAUD.
Duane M Beeman the Attorney at Law for NBD Bank alleged:
A. That
Montgomery represented to NBD that the collateral for the loan was a 27 foot
Nor'Sea watercraft.
B. That Montgomery represented to NBD upon making
application for the subject loan that delivery of the boat to Montgomery had
already occurred in January 1992. (then it refers to the copy of the original
Purchase Order for the legal, normal Ganis/Bungearn boat that I sold and
delivered to Jim in 1/92)
C. Montgomery represented to NBD that the
watercraft was stored at Jefferson Bach Marina, St. Clair Shores,
Michigan.
(What a liar! Already in the water at the Marina!
HaHaHa....)
D. In fact, Montgomery did not have possession of the subject
watercraft at the time of the loan from NBD on October 13, 1992 and does not
have possession as of the date of this complaint.
E. In fact, the
watercraft did not exist at the time of the loan from NBD and does not exist as
of the date of the complaint.
F. The false representations made by
Montgomery to NBD relative to the watercraft induced NBD to make subject loan to
Montgomery.
G. That Montgomery.......has perpetrated a fraud upon NBD for
the purpose of obtaining funds from NBD.
H. In an attempt to further such
fraud and to avoid detection, Montgomery made approximately 14 payments to NBD
for a
boat which Montgomery now claims to have never
had.
********
So in reality I have done nothing wrong. All I did
was sell Jim Montgomery a boat he named "Bungearn", collect the legal check from
Ganis Corp, a normal everyday transaction.
I never "filled out a new
application and signed the clients name and submitted it to Ganis". Jims loan
was from his local Bank in Detroit Michigan, Ganis nor I had anything to do with
it! The legal Ganis loan was in January 1992. The "October 1992" loan that Jim
obtained was from the NBD Bank of Detroit Michigan. A loan that even Jim
Montgomery himself agrees I knew nothing about.
But if you read what Tom
Gannon wrote, it seems that I am the guilty party. It alleges that I signed
these false documents and submitted these papers for this October 1992 loan.
(like I hopped an Airliner and flew
to Jim Montgomerys hometown, Detroit
Michigan, and took a cab over to NBD
Bank)
Not a single bit of truth in those allegations. Tom Gannon knew
that.
Tom Gannon knew in April 1994 that Jim Montgomery was being sued
for FRAUD by the NBD Bank of Detroit Michigan. That was a full 6 months
before the October 1994 Practical Sailor article. Why didn't he mention this
lawsuit against Jim Montgomery? Didn't Tom Gannon think it was
valid? If you
had read about the NDB Bank in Detroit Michigan suing
Jim Montgomery for
FRAUD wouldn't that have an impact on this one
sided article? Tom
Gannon never speaks a word of it.
(They won a money judgement against Jim Montgomery)
Do you now believe me when I say that Practical Sailor intentionally
left out this true story about Jim Montgomery being sued for fraud by the NBD
Bank for Fraud and made up this false story about me being the one who "Signed
the clients name and submitted it to Ganis in October 1992". ??
I have
copies of the NBD Bank lawsuit against Jim Montgomery in case anyone wants to
see it, I can fax it over to you.
After the Article I called Ganis and I
explained this story to them. They said this guy called them out of the
blue (Tom Gannon) and they really didn't know what to say. Because the loan for
Jims first boat 'Bungearn" was a normal and legal boat loan and they didn't
understand what the problem was.. See the photo of Bungearn in the water after
Jim bought her.
After this Slander about Jim Montgomery's Detroit loan
was published in the October 15, 1994 Practical Sailor my attorney called Tom
Gannon to complain about this total fabrication that Gannon apparently just made
up. Tom said he would correct it in a follow up, when they do one. Gannon did a
follow up article on July 15, 1995.
INCREDIBLE AS IT MAY SEEM, ACE
REPORTER TOM GANNON STILL CONTINUED
LYING AND SLANDERING ME!
(from the
July 15, 1995 article)......
this is just after the civil trial
where NO fraud was found against Bob Eeg.....(Jim Montgomerys lawsuit
against me)
' just about all parties agreed that Montgomery's case
was damaged by his own role in obtaining a new-boat loan for the 27 before the
boat actually had been built. As Moad put it, "Mr. Montgomery's hands were not
entirely clean in the transaction as a whole". Montgomery, who said his original
intention was to buy a used Nor'Sea 27, admits that he represented to Ganis
Credit Corp. in February 1992 that he had taken possession of a new model to
obtain a larger loan. "When I got the loan I knew there was no boat." said
Montgomery.
{ well that's not true. See the photo of Nor'Sea 27
"Bungearn". That's a real boat, that had a real loan from Ganis Credit Corp. on
it. I sold it to him and picked up the check myself from Ganis as I always
did}
Gannon continues to his slander......
"Eeg maintains he
has no first hand knowledge of what transpired between Montgomery and Ganis. "We
had nothing to do with that loan and we can prove it." he said after the
trial.
{I was talking about the NBD Bank of Detroit Michigan that
Jim Montgomery secretly used to pay off the Ganis loan with. I was not talking
about the GANIS loan when I said I didn't know about the loan. Of course I knew
about the Ganis loan, see the photo of the Nor'Sea 27 named "Bungearn". What Tom
Gannon should have written was: " Eeg maintains he has no first hand knowledge
of what transpired between Montgomery and NBD Bank of Detroit Michigan" But Tom
Gannons intention is to make me look like the guilty party.)
So
because of Practical Sailors lie
It made me look like I did something illegal.
(when I did nothing wrong)
But Tom Gannon continues on the wrong track at full speed ahead...
Instead
of calling the NDB Bank in Detroit Michigan (where Jim Montgomery lives) and
talking to Duane Beeman, the correct person, he decides to call Peggy at Ganis
Corp here in Southern California, where we have been getting regular boat loans
for 10 years.
(This is the place where we did the loan on "Bungearn", a normal
routine
loan. Read the section on Jim Montgomery)
He puts Peggy on the defensive by telling her that I had claimed I
knew
nothing about 'Bungearns" loan.
Here's the section from Practical Sailor.....
'But that's not what Ganis says. According to Ganis vice
president Peggy Bodenreider, Montgomery's application included several
documents that indicate Eeg was aware of the loan. "We have a
Manufactures Invoice, signed by Robert Eeg. dated February 13, 1992, and
a Purchase Agreement, dated January 10, 1992, also signed by Mr. Eeg," she said.
The last 3 digits of the hull number listed on the invoice indicate that the
boat was completed in February 1992. Furthermore, in order to document the boat,
Ganis required a builders certificate, a signed notice that a boat existed. "We
did have a Builders Certificate and filed it right away. We sent it to the Coast
Guard, "Bodenreider" said. Ganis has a receipt from the Coast Guard
documentation office that the Builder's certificate and notice of mortgage was
received on March 12, 1992, she said. Bodenreider said Eeg's usual
practice was to personally deliver loan papers for his clients and pick up
the check (made out to the builder)." He knew about it (the loan),"
Absolutely-no doubt in my mind."
(I have no doubt either Peggy. Of course
everything you say is true
because it was the regular "Bungearn" loan you did
for me. Tom Gannon
was just calling the wrong party. He should have called
the Bank in
Detroit Michigan and talked to Duane Beeman, but instead he put
you
on the spot. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for your company's
good
service even to this day for us)
So after reading Practical Sailors quote from Peggy, it make me
a liar in
the eyes of the reader. This is unacceptable negligence
on behalf of
Practical Sailor Magazine.
So we have this total fabrication created by Tom Gannon of
Practical Sailor magazine. A respected publication that obviously does no
homework when writing an article. (in my opinion)
Tom Gannon knew about
the Lawsuit filed on April 11, 1994 AGAINST JIM MONTGOMERY for fraud and money
damages, yet Tom Gannon never mentions anything about it in his article of
October 15, 1994, more than 6 months later. After my lawyer called him on the
carpet about the Montgomery/NBD BANK loan we knew nothing about, Tom Gannon
STILL prints this tremendously harmful fable in the follow-up article of July
15, 1995.
(By the way. The NDB Bank on Detroit Michigan did win a money
judgment
against Jim Montgomery)
Would you buy a boat from me after reading this? Do you think Practical Sailor did a good job researching this subject? Do you think the Practical Sailor should reimburse boat owners that were harmed by these inaccurate stories?
(on a side note: Jim Montgomery knows now and knew then that
we were talking about his secret NBD BANK loan when we said we didn't
know about the "loan". Yet Jim posts the Peggy/Ganis statement above on
his website, knowing its not true. But it does the harm he intends
against
our company.)
It gets better......
Tom Gannon knew that Whit Gilman had taken 'Windsong' as his boat in
July, 1994. Yet never mentions this in the October 15th 1994 article.
What Tom Gannon does say is this, in reference to Windsong:
........In fact the title to this boat, like that of Sundance, was
not completely clear. Eeg had taken a $60,000 loan against it from Ganis (in
December of 1991, as a new boat). The loan is outstanding. When last seen,
Windsong, vintage uncertain, was in the water at Dana Point......
(vintage uncertain? Is Tom Gannon for real?)
Now Tom Gannon knew that the loan was paid off in full. Paid off
after I made 31 payments (on time) and gave the boat to Whit Gilman for the
payoff in July 1994. But Tom Gannon paints a different picture.
In fact, Tom Gannon fails to mention that the original buyer of
Windsong went bankrupt and couldn't pay us for his boat.
How would you like to build a radically custom boat for a
period of 18 months, working hard, expecting to finish the boat and make your
small profit, (see boat building basics) and then find out the buyer is going
bankrupt?
That's what happened to us with Gene Bleasdale. Gene's boat was
ordered in 1989 and the last payment we received from him was on
7-23-1990. When I called to ask him for the next progress payment (of
$12,000) no one was answering the phone. I left messages but he wasn't returning
my calls. Finally, after two weeks of trying to get him, he called and said he
just didn't have any money. He told me that the State of California and the
Internal Revenue Service had seized all his assets and frozen all his accounts.
He painted a very grim picture. He said he owed a half million in back taxes and
wouldn't be able to continue the boat project.
We were half way thru a boat that booked out at approximately
$125,000. Gene had paid us about $68,000 at that point and this boat was about
to be labeled a LOST CAUSE. (see boat building basics)
We really needed to finish this boat and move on. Genes money
problems were going affect our money situation. This trouble was a major setback
for us and would actually contribute to our future money problems.
In any case, I decided (against the odds) to wait and see if Gene
could recover. Weeks went by, then months. Then after waiting for more than a
year, I decided to go ahead and use our company money to finish the boat. In
December 1991, after more than a year and a half I finished the boat and
obtained a $60,000 loan from Ganis Corp. on it. I put the entire check into the
Nor'Sea company checking account to help us recover some of our lost money. I
made the payments of $650.25 (loan number 344-280748) for 31 months before
giving the boat to Whit Gilman for the payoff of $56,311.26 in July 1994.(as a
settlement to him in full)
Never mentioned by Practical Sailor...
I maintained a slip for this boat at Dana Point Harbor at a
cost of $288 a month, plus $55 a month for insurance and the $650.25 a month for
the payment. Add another $1200 a year for bottom paint and maintenance and in
those 31 months I spent $34,000 that I didn't want to spend.
So I lost a lot of money on this boat.
Eventually, Gene
filed bankruptcy and the trustee for the bankruptcy court, thru Genes accounting
firm, Seiberlich Accounting Corp, asked us to write a letter (10-13-93) stating
that Gene had lost the boat due to liquidated Damages. We did so.
I felt
sorry that Gene had these problems. But did I cause these problems?
No.
Tom Gannon, in the Oct. 15, 1994 Practical Sailor article says this on
Gene Bleasdale:
.........In fact, Gene Bleasdale of Glen Ellen,
California had been waiting for that particular boat since 1989. "Its a tragic
story, like the others," Bleasdale began his account to Practical
Sailor.
...........In 1991, after many delays, he said Eeg told him "I need
$12,000 to finish your boat"...
... and finally Bleasdale was informed by Eeg that he'd
borrowed $60,000 to finish the boat and there was a lien on for that amount
against it. In his last conversation with Eeg, he said, "He told me I had no
interest (claim) on the boat." We were going to call it Encantadoro
(Enchantress), "Eeg named it Windsong......
I called Gene after
the article (Oct. 15, 1994) came out if he explained to Tom Gannon during his
phone interview, did he mentioned his bankruptcy? Gene said he told Tom Gannon
about everything, including the Bankruptcy and about the Liquidated Damages
letter I had written at the request of the Seiberlich Accounting Corp. Gene
wondered why his statements were not mentioned and claimed that some of what he
said was taken out of context by Tom Gannon.
So once again we have Tom Gannon of Practical Sailor leaving out
important
information and creating his own 'Spin'.
(To harm our
company)
So Tom Gannon of Practical Sailor knew about Gene going bankrupt. Yet
never mentions that fact. Tom Gannon never mentions that Gene couldn't pay
us.
If people can't pay you, would that effect your business?
So Tom Gannon of Practical Sailor knew that the only "Tragic Story" was really Nor'Sea Marine who lost a great deal of money in 1991, because of Gene Bleasdales financial troubles. That this money loss actually contributed to our going broke the following year.
Why didn't Tom Gannon write something more accurate like
this:
"Boat builder Bob Eeg of Nor'Sea Marine, patiently waited
for more than a year to get at least a small progress payment out of financially
troubled customer Gene Bleasdale. When all else failed, Bob finished the boat
himself, obtained a $60,000 loan on it and deposited the entire amount in the
company checking account to try and recover from the losses this project had
created. Bob ended up spending more than $34,000 until he could sell the boat
for the loan payoff 31 months later. Bob figures that the loss to the company is
more than $50,000. What a tragic story for Nor'Sea Marine."
Tom Gannon would never write something in our favor.
Tom Gannon again purposely leaves out more important facts
Here's more that prove a lack of critical thinking skills....(my
opinion).
During our negotiations with Jim Montgomery many deals were
tendered to try and settle with him. Back and forth. Faxes, phone calls, letters
to his or my attorney. One of many possible solutions was that Jim
Montgomery would take Windsong to settle with us. In one fax he sent me, he
wrote a tentative agreement that he hoped we could all agree to and then wanted
me to read it over. Part of it concerned Windsong:
......."Also, I agree to give Jim Montgomery the option of purchasing
Windsong, Vessel No. 981663, and the 3 axle EZ-loader trailer..........for a
total purchase price of $104,300.......etc, etc....
.........If Jim decides to exercise his option of purchasing Windsong
and the trailer..............
Now Jim knew that I owned Windsong and it was documented in my name.
(Documentation number 981663). He also knew that it had a loan (lien) on it for
$60,000 from Ganis. He knew that a documented boat has a hull number assigned to
it and that hull number cannot be changed.
Yet, this is what Tom Gannon wrote in the Oct. 15, 1994
article:
......."Jim Montgomery, who says Eeg sold a new 27 that he'd been promised (and had paid for) offered him the boat (Windsong) in 1993 as a replacement. "Give me $25,000 and I'll put your hull number on it," he quoted Eeg as saying. Montgomery said his lawyer advised against it....."
Now if you read the section on Jim Montgomery, you would know that
the NBD Bank of Detroit Michigan was looking hard to REPOSSESS Jim Montgomery's
boat. The boat with his hull number.(NMI004020292)
So if this
statement from Jim Montgomery is true how could I have paid off the note of
$60,000 on Windsong when Jim says I asked for only $25,000? That would
still leave an amount due on the loan of $35,000.And if I had changed the hull
number to Jim Montgomery's number wouldn't the NBD Bank know it when Jim
Documented the boat with the Coast Guard? Sure they would. (they would
have repossed it, because Jim Montgomery
defaulted on his loan and they were
suing him for FRAUD)
In either case, perhaps Tom Gannon should have smelled a phony story
and perhaps picked up a phone to check it out. (Duh? 2 minutes)
After all, Tom knew that boat had a loan on it from his own
statements in the Oct. 15, 1994 article:......Eeg had taken a $60,000
loan against it from Ganis (in December 1991, as a new boat). The Loan is
outstanding......
Tom Gannon must have 'forgot' what he wrote. ya, that's it.
So we have Jim Montgomery telling a fabrication to a writer that
doesn't have the common sense to see that the numbers just don't add
up.
Gannon writes it anyway. Without thinking and without checking.
But one thing it does.... It makes me look bad. Gannon's
intention.
How long would it have taken Tom Gannon to make a quick phone call and at
least get the other side of a story?
Would you write a couple of articles
without asking questions of both sides?
Here's more....
A.] ...... "Eeg picked up the molds for the 27 fairly cheaply (less than $2000, says Lyle Hess) and set up shop first in Laguna.....
Tom missed a zero. I bought the molds for less than $20,000
not less than $2000. In fact after buying the molds and tooling in 1980, I set
up the factory in Laguna Hills, Ca. After getting all the equipment, tooling,
fixtures, parts, building, employees and making patterns for the new interior
and improvements we had spent $100,000 to build and sell our first boat
for $38,000.
Again, a 5th grader, doing a story would check with both sides.
Just to be
competent.
B.] ... "Charlie was grilling him," says Jeff Daniels, Eeg's
production manager at the time. "He called him a terrible liar, Bob reached into
his desk for his pistol, cocked it, pointed it at him and told him to get
out." As pepper left to file a complaint with the Rialto Police he made
what the Rialto police called an incident report the next day) Daniels says Eeg
pointed the gun, a Glock, at him and told the production manager, "Its all your
fault" that Nor'Sea had fallen behind and gotten into trouble."
Well I
admit that "some" of this is true. I was very stressed out. In those few
days before Jeff quit and took 2 of the boats with him, I realized that
Jeff was really working for himself and to the companies detriment. I was half
dozen boats behind; employees were out of work; parts and materials were
being stolen as fast as rats leaving the Titanic; I was up to my eyebrows
in debt; I was under pressure to file Bankruptcy immediately and have the
23,000 square foot building locked down (an option I rejected); the
phones were ringing off the hook. So the last thing I needed was
Charlie Pepper 2 inches from my face.
Jeff had missed Charlies delivery date, the boat was not completed,
we were out of money and Charlie was understandably upset.
Jeff wrote most of the checks. He ordered and paid for all parts and
materials on a daily basic, ordered the payroll from "Paychex" and signed those
checks also. As money came in it was deposited in the company account that Jeff
wrote checks against. Parts and materials arrived daily, and payroll once a
week.
The first clue that Jeff had 100% abandoned the company was when
Charlie was yelling something like "Where's the $8,000 I sent you guys 6 weeks
ago?"
I looked over at Jeff and nodded to him for the answer. Jeff says "I
don't know". Charlie went ballistic, he jumped up in my face. I pulled the
Glock from my desk and without cocking it (you can't cock a Glock, its
hammerless) and without pointing it at him, told Charlie to get out. That's what
happened. The story about me pointing a gun at Jeff Daniels the next day is a
total fabrication. I did get into a yelling match with Jeff about the situation
and I let him work for a couple of weeks getting Van Wesep and Peppers boat out
to his new shop.
I regret throwing Charlie Pepper out of my office that way.
Sorry about
that.
C.] ......Heritage Marine had gone Bankrupt.....Heritage had build
about 180 of the 27 foot pocket cruisers....
Where did Tom Gannon get this stuff. Make it up as he went
along?
Well Dean Wixom did not go bankrupt. They (He and his brother Stan)
had decided to sell their property and get out of boat building. They actually
built about 135 of the boats. (skipping some of the hull numbers when people
cancelled, etc.) Some kits and some complete boats. Of course a simple phone
call would have cleared all this up before being foisted off as
'Fact'.
People reading Jim Montgomery's website will note Tom Gannon's
quote:
"I have never before seen fraud of this magnitude in the boating industry"
(Jim Montgomery says that Tom Gannon told him that personally.
Their real
pals)
My question is: Where's the fraud?
Did any Bank take me court? ....No.
Who did they take to Court for Fraud?......Jim Montgomery
Does Tom Gannon consider Jim Montgomery actions in obtaining
this NBD Bank
loan questionable?
Apparently not.
I didn't plan to build boats from 1980 to 1992 then go broke. Nobody
plans going Bankrupt, now do they. But I feel I did the right thing to get the
handful of boats left in the factory and out the door.
All the while fighting an irrational 'Stalker" who just wouldn't
take his
boat. Jim Montgomery.
Plenty of boat builders went under after the luxury tax and resulting
boat
recession of the early 1990's.
40,000 boat building jobs were lost nationwide.
How many boat builders put their house and credit on the line
when things
got tough? I did.
So in my opinion, Tom Gannon has no call making a statement
like
that.
Here's a man that obviously wrote falsehoods.
Here's a man that obviously had an agenda when he wrote.
Should Practical Sailor Magazine be considered unbiased and
truthful?
Not in my opinion.
More later......