Your unsigned letter was received yesterday…Coincidentally I called and requested a K1 which it appears I never received. Dana assured me to expect the K1 in my email by end of day, Friday, October 7, 2016. Like many things connected to your efforts, it too never materialized. Am I surprised?
Permit me to reiterate…
I DO NOT CONSENT TO YOUR OFFER TO CONTRACT!
I shall add this further insult in the form of one more unsigned letter in which you pose as the legitimate fiduciary of the investment in which you claim you hold controlling interest as the general partner.
You seem to have a short memory. As I told you in our last conversation, I do not trust you or your company. The reasons for which I have documented in the link below.
Based on our last conversation, I advised you my doubts, as expressed could be resolved with proper verification of your claims of control and authority. As I told you, as the fiduciary, the matter was totally in your hands if you wished me to accept the validity your claims.
None was forth coming.
Now you are back with your hands outstretched…and it is easy to understand your predicament, looking at a very recent credit assessment.
Permit me to be very clear Mr. Patterson, you wanted to be in control of the investment as the general partner, well based on your claims, it appears you have it.
I found it intriguing that one of the first things you did one of the continuation of “bad,” decisions”…my opinion mind you, was to eliminate the need to audit the investment. You claimed by doing so saved the partners expense.
And now with no audits, nothing but your word, and add in your wild eyed assumptions that you have the authority to commit your limited partners to a usury rate interest rate is beyond any reasonable and legitimate logic.
So putting all of these facts together, I am confident any reasonable person would also object to being treated in such a ridiculous manner.
In short…don’t expect me to bail you out for your “bad decisions!” As a attorney, you of all people know full well the implications of your actions.
September 10, 2015
Regarding: the matter of Rock Hill Associates (NY), Ltd
Lemon Creek Advisors – I do not consent
Full Details provided at the link above.
To Whom it May Concern,
This is to advise you that I do not consent!
You were advised of my position in a phone conversation with Mr. Chip Patterson. I expressed my concern over the legitimacy of the manner in which the related transactions were handled.
• 06 LCA MPF 10000 offer AShlandCHecmicalOffer12-21-09
• 07 LCA MPF 50000 offer 2010_10_07_18_29_22
Item 06 refers to a $10,000 offer and item 07 a $50,000 offer to purchase our interest in Rock Hill Associates Prior to the subsequent message listed as item number 02.
• 02 LCA Rockhill Associates Capital Call
I find it extremely suspicious that prior to notification of the purchase of the Rock Hill Partnership, by Lemon Creek Advisors or McKenzie Capital, which ever is the real purported new owner of this partnership, we were offered notified us first $10,000 for our interests in November of 2009, and then when we did not respond, about a year later, in October 2010, $50,000.
When coupled with the latest announcements and capital calls, I find it difficult to reconcile how a unit of partnership could be worth $50,000, and then a relatively short time later, the organization which purported to own the partnership, is asking for $900 a year additional capital from the investors to continue to maintain their most recent purchase.
It simply does not make sense!
On that basis I was prompted to call and ask questions. I received a call back from Mr. Chip Patterson, purported to be one of the partners and when presented with the question expressed above, he responded, to the effect, “I made a bad decision.”
Considering all of the number of companies which are related to Mackenzie Patterson Fuller, LP and the fact that Lemon Creek Advisors seems to be an integral part of the corporate complex involved,
Isn’t it odd that the message from Lemon Creek Advisors bears no authorized signature, which fails to identify by which corporate officer the message was issued?
So there you have it… I am not satisfied with the information provided. I am providing one last opportunity for those involved to resolve this matter quickly. I require a full explanation regarding prior purchase offers with complete transparency and proof that all of the related transactions have been legitimately and lawfully consummated as represented. I also require certification from the Securities and Exchange Commission to confirm what has been represented in the documentation provided is duly recorded and registered.
Please respond with the requested information by close of business no later than September 26, 2015
Very truly yours,