Inspired Films Aka Latte-Da Ltd Partnership Aka Blue Hill Avenue Partnership Investment Fraud, Illegal Broker Activities, Big Promises, No Returns ripoff Jacksonville Oregon

This is to add that a formal Cease and Desist Order was issued by the State of Minnesota on December 2, 2004 against Cahoots Productions, Inc. and Blue Hill Avenue Ltd. Partnership and Mike Erwin for selling unregistered securities. A Consent to Entry of Order was voluntarily signed by Mike Erwin basically waiving his rights to a hearing to contest the Order which is an undeniable admittance of guilt. As stated earlier, other formal Cease and Desist Orders have been issued by the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, California, Missouri and Illinois that I know of. There may very well be others as well.

May I just add too that I the securities attorneys with whom I've been conferring all agree that I have a very good case against the movie company, Mike Erwin and Max Kirishima and against their attorney, Howard Harris. There is no lack of wrongdoing and violations committed by all.

I would appreciate any and all investors in these entities coming forward to share their stories and getting their names to me through the site's authorized personnel so that we might be in contact.

Thank you.

Hmmm, Jay of LA, and does that sound like a badly written 'bit part' by bad film makers.

So, Jay, how much money did you invest, hw long did you wait for a return, as you suggest patience (the con artist song, be patience now, while I make my escape), and what rewards/profit did you make on your investment.

In sharing this information with us, tell us about the specific movies you innvested in, lets see the colour of the money.

Now watch closely folks, as the silence to my response tells us that Jay is as phoney as the investment profits. Mind you, maybe Jay is just being patient in making a reply.

These guys are crooks, pocketing investors money, screwing them all, and if they say they are sending out reports to all investors, excluding Miss Anderson, of course, maybe they will share a list of investors with us. Maybe some 'happy' comments from some of them, with more exact names than 'Jay from LA'.

Naturally, the list of happy investors is as visible as all the paperwork sent to Miss Anderson, as was the case with all the paper work promised to me.

They are accused of being crooks, yet no suit to protect 'their good innocent names' (excuse me while I choke on laughter), and that is because bogus lawyers (to assist you spotting a bogus and crooked lawyer, simply rely on the facts that it will be 99.99% of them) and crooks rarely want to go into a court of law, where all paper work would be produced, as well as all the 'happy investors'.

This is a case you will never see in court. Well, till Miss Anderson drags them there screaming and kicking, then we get to see crooks get banged up.

Hey Mike, here is an idea, call an investors meeting and let everyone have their say. Where is nothing to hide, why hide it.

As someone who has known Mike Erwin and Max Kirishima for a few years, I can personally vow to their credibility, integrity, and good intentions. In all the time that I've known Max and Mike I've found them to be hard working visionaries and inspired entrepreneurs. I am 100% confident in the their honesty for I've seen that integrity in action! Ms. Anderson should have patience with her investment in their films.

I would just like to share with the public the previous actions taken against the film company citing them for selling unregistered securities by unlicensed brokers. Please note that they have been cited by the following states: Wisconsin, Illinois (noted via on-line record by Minnesota Attorney General's Office), Pennsylvania, California, Missouri, and soon Minnesota. To view a copy of the Order issued in Wisconsin noting actions taken in the above states, please REGISTER YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS: [DELETED]
[Place your comments below and be sure to include your FULL contact information so Rip-off Report can contact you.]
www.wdfi.org, click on "Orders" in the left-hand menu and it is listed under "Cahoots..."

Insofar as Mike's claim that their attorney has responded to my correspondence, my attorney's correspondence as well as a letter from the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, to date there has been nothing received from their attorney. This claim is as false as Mike's claim that their attorneys have provided me with paperwork. It's all fabrication and make believe. It amounts to a feeble attempt to cover their back ends and make them appear legitimate. This only adds to their lack of credibility and produces doubts as to their character and ability to tell the truth; essential elements to consider when investing in their projects.

Pursuits continuing with updates provided.

Mike Erwin is not entirely honest when he remembers the details of our telephone conversation, and in remembering, he is indeed somewhat economical with the truth.

The facts are that I asked Mike Erwin, and his Lawyer, for copies of the paperwork read and signed by Bette Anderson, thus proving that she had in fact understodd and accepted the risks involved, and as yet, Mike Erwin and slippery Lawyer (is there another kind), neither of you have replied to me with this paperwork.

Bette Anderson has also made repeated requests to you for this same paperwork, which has not been sent to her, either now or in the past, and with no paperwork, does this paperwork exist, your claims regarding Miss Anderson are as worthy as the words on your invisible paperwork.

As to investors losing their shirts, and then you saying "oh well, these are the risks", and with practically no investor seeing a cent from you, one is not jumping up and dpwn wanting to invest in your next silent epic.

The fact is your investors got fleeced, one way or the other, yet your web site boasts of trips to Hong Kong on 'money gathering trips', and this suggests that while your investors have less in their pockets than they did yesterday, you do not seem to be sharing in the loss side.

Its pretty shoddy when investors are called the crooks, when in fact it is they who are ripped off, and shame upon American business, when they view all investors as suckers to be taken for a ride. Your kind gives business and investment a bad name, spoiling the pitch for all honest brokers.

Own up Mike, she invested, there was little or no legality here, and in losing her money, and that of others, stop blaming the investors for your bad business sense. Finally, and if all the movies had been so warmly received, I checked this out and found no one in the reviewing world who knew of these movies, with my requests to you for these reviews going ignored.

Bette is the loser here, perhaps even cheated, and you are no gentleman when you turn the fire on here for demanding her money back.

For supposed professionals in their field, I can't believe how slippery and evasive these men are.

First I'd like to address the fact that there have been NO papers forwarded to me as I have requested numerous times from Mike who has referred the request to his attorneys, Waterman & Harris. I have received NOTHING from them. This claim is totally bogus. I wonder if they would sit back and accept the fact that they never received any paperwork on a major investment of theirs? If they truly had documentation, I would have received it by this time. I have been requesting it ever since I began investing the money to no avail. This is a serious violation and not an irrational request on my part. Their attempt to trivialize this issue shows their lack of respect for and adherence to investment requirements.

And note that no formal financial statements were ever issued nor have there been K-1 forms issued for filing by the investors which is a requirement by the IRS. Does this not stir some doubt about the legitimacy of this investment?

As far as the brokers are concerned, their word was relied upon by the investors since Mike and Max did not speak with the investors. The brokers' words were representative. Who else was there to speak to or believe? Mike has indicated to me in the past that he accepted responsibility for the activities of the brokers who were raising money for them as it occurred under his watch. There had to have been some contractual agreement between them. Mike is just plain wrong in now denying any liability for the brokers' activities. You can be sure that Mike and Max were all too happy to accept the money the brokers raised. You can't have your cake and eat it too. My inside source has indicated that the amount of money taken in was enormous including what the brokers skimmed off the top. Mike's response is just a cowardly cop-out to escape any appearance of wrongdoing. Mike and Max are implicated in this fiasco too.

Of interest is that communication was discontinued with me once the film company relocated to Oregon and changed their name. It leaves one to speculate that they were hoping I would lose track of them.

I included the names of all entities that are associated with Mike Erwin and Max Kirishima as frankly I'm not sure of the whole current structure of the company and where one division leaves off and another begins. As you can see, they have assumed many names and identities.

I'm not being vindictive nor irrational. I'm merely acting responsibly in looking after my investment money and seeking answers to very viable, essential questions which anyone else would do in my situation, including interested governmental agencies. There have been indiscretions and violations committed without a doubt. They have issued refunds to investors which they failed to acknowledge. The refunds must have been based on something.

This is not the end of my pursuit by any means.

For supposed professionals in their field, I can't believe how slippery and evasive these men are.

First I'd like to address the fact that there have been NO papers forwarded to me as I have requested numerous times from Mike who has referred the request to his attorneys, Waterman & Harris. I have received NOTHING from them. This claim is totally bogus. I wonder if they would sit back and accept the fact that they never received any paperwork on a major investment of theirs? If they truly had documentation, I would have received it by this time. I have been requesting it ever since I began investing the money to no avail. This is a serious violation and not an irrational request on my part. Their attempt to trivialize this issue shows their lack of respect for and adherence to investment requirements.

And note that no formal financial statements were ever issued nor have there been K-1 forms issued for filing by the investors which is a requirement by the IRS. Does this not stir some doubt about the legitimacy of this investment?

As far as the brokers are concerned, their word was relied upon by the investors since Mike and Max did not speak with the investors. The brokers' words were representative. Who else was there to speak to or believe? Mike has indicated to me in the past that he accepted responsibility for the activities of the brokers who were raising money for them as it occurred under his watch. There had to have been some contractual agreement between them. Mike is just plain wrong in now denying any liability for the brokers' activities. You can be sure that Mike and Max were all too happy to accept the money the brokers raised. You can't have your cake and eat it too. My inside source has indicated that the amount of money taken in was enormous including what the brokers skimmed off the top. Mike's response is just a cowardly cop-out to escape any appearance of wrongdoing. Mike and Max are implicated in this fiasco too.

Of interest is that communication was discontinued with me once the film company relocated to Oregon and changed their name. It leaves one to speculate that they were hoping I would lose track of them.

I included the names of all entities that are associated with Mike Erwin and Max Kirishima as frankly I'm not sure of the whole current structure of the company and where one division leaves off and another begins. As you can see, they have assumed many names and identities.

I'm not being vindictive nor irrational. I'm merely acting responsibly in looking after my investment money and seeking answers to very viable, essential questions which anyone else would do in my situation, including interested governmental agencies. There have been indiscretions and violations committed without a doubt. They have issued refunds to investors which they failed to acknowledge. The refunds must have been based on something.

This is not the end of my pursuit by any means.

For supposed professionals in their field, I can't believe how slippery and evasive these men are.

First I'd like to address the fact that there have been NO papers forwarded to me as I have requested numerous times from Mike who has referred the request to his attorneys, Waterman & Harris. I have received NOTHING from them. This claim is totally bogus. I wonder if they would sit back and accept the fact that they never received any paperwork on a major investment of theirs? If they truly had documentation, I would have received it by this time. I have been requesting it ever since I began investing the money to no avail. This is a serious violation and not an irrational request on my part. Their attempt to trivialize this issue shows their lack of respect for and adherence to investment requirements.

And note that no formal financial statements were ever issued nor have there been K-1 forms issued for filing by the investors which is a requirement by the IRS. Does this not stir some doubt about the legitimacy of this investment?

As far as the brokers are concerned, their word was relied upon by the investors since Mike and Max did not speak with the investors. The brokers' words were representative. Who else was there to speak to or believe? Mike has indicated to me in the past that he accepted responsibility for the activities of the brokers who were raising money for them as it occurred under his watch. There had to have been some contractual agreement between them. Mike is just plain wrong in now denying any liability for the brokers' activities. You can be sure that Mike and Max were all too happy to accept the money the brokers raised. You can't have your cake and eat it too. My inside source has indicated that the amount of money taken in was enormous including what the brokers skimmed off the top. Mike's response is just a cowardly cop-out to escape any appearance of wrongdoing. Mike and Max are implicated in this fiasco too.

Of interest is that communication was discontinued with me once the film company relocated to Oregon and changed their name. It leaves one to speculate that they were hoping I would lose track of them.

I included the names of all entities that are associated with Mike Erwin and Max Kirishima as frankly I'm not sure of the whole current structure of the company and where one division leaves off and another begins. As you can see, they have assumed many names and identities.

I'm not being vindictive nor irrational. I'm merely acting responsibly in looking after my investment money and seeking answers to very viable, essential questions which anyone else would do in my situation, including interested governmental agencies. There have been indiscretions and violations committed without a doubt. They have issued refunds to investors which they failed to acknowledge. The refunds must have been based on something.

This is not the end of my pursuit by any means.

For supposed professionals in their field, I can't believe how slippery and evasive these men are.

First I'd like to address the fact that there have been NO papers forwarded to me as I have requested numerous times from Mike who has referred the request to his attorneys, Waterman & Harris. I have received NOTHING from them. This claim is totally bogus. I wonder if they would sit back and accept the fact that they never received any paperwork on a major investment of theirs? If they truly had documentation, I would have received it by this time. I have been requesting it ever since I began investing the money to no avail. This is a serious violation and not an irrational request on my part. Their attempt to trivialize this issue shows their lack of respect for and adherence to investment requirements.

And note that no formal financial statements were ever issued nor have there been K-1 forms issued for filing by the investors which is a requirement by the IRS. Does this not stir some doubt about the legitimacy of this investment?

As far as the brokers are concerned, their word was relied upon by the investors since Mike and Max did not speak with the investors. The brokers' words were representative. Who else was there to speak to or believe? Mike has indicated to me in the past that he accepted responsibility for the activities of the brokers who were raising money for them as it occurred under his watch. There had to have been some contractual agreement between them. Mike is just plain wrong in now denying any liability for the brokers' activities. You can be sure that Mike and Max were all too happy to accept the money the brokers raised. You can't have your cake and eat it too. My inside source has indicated that the amount of money taken in was enormous including what the brokers skimmed off the top. Mike's response is just a cowardly cop-out to escape any appearance of wrongdoing. Mike and Max are implicated in this fiasco too.

Of interest is that communication was discontinued with me once the film company relocated to Oregon and changed their name. It leaves one to speculate that they were hoping I would lose track of them.

I included the names of all entities that are associated with Mike Erwin and Max Kirishima as frankly I'm not sure of the whole current structure of the company and where one division leaves off and another begins. As you can see, they have assumed many names and identities.

I'm not being vindictive nor irrational. I'm merely acting responsibly in looking after my investment money and seeking answers to very viable, essential questions which anyone else would do in my situation, including interested governmental agencies. There have been indiscretions and violations committed without a doubt. They have issued refunds to investors which they failed to acknowledge. The refunds must have been based on something.

This is not the end of my pursuit by any means.

In response to Ms. Anderson:

The information regarding the $600,000 Ms. Anderson invested came from her Attorney in London with whom I spoke in great detail. In an effort to secure a refund of Ms. Anderson's investment, he informed me that she had made a number of investments which had not worked out totaling $600,000. I do not know Ms. Anderson's financial position other than what is reflected in her answers of questions put forth in our Subscription documents. In these documents, Ms. Anderson asserted that she was, in fact a qualified investor, and had made similar investments in the past. If she was not a qualified investor as stated, then apparently she signed our subscription documents falsely. With respect to paying attention to the clients, I have spoken with Ms. Anderson on a number of occasions as well as her attorney. Further, I have reported all updates regarding the sale of the film(s). Further, Ms. Anderson asserts that I have ignored her when in fact for many months I spoke to and e-mailed Ms. Anderson until she became what I consider to be irrational in her claims and aggressive in her attacks.

Again, I feel deeply for Ms. Anderson despite her attacks on me and a number of completely innocent, unrelated people to this predicament. I do not, and did not employ Mr. Brown who was an independent contractor. I never made any promises to Ms. Anderson as reflected in her statement that neither Mike Erwin nor Max Kirishima EVER spoke to me personally about anything involving my investment prior to... . This statement clearly invalidates Ms. Anderson's previous claims that we made big promises to her about how much money she would make. Yes, I have referred Ms. Anderson to our attorneys on a number of occasions as I had no other solutions for her problems other than that referral. I have always been kind and courteous and as accommodating as possible in relation to Ms. Anderson.

Yes, all investment went to Waterman and Harris per our subscription documents. Again, I cannot speak for Steve Canino, who was an independent contractor marketing our offering. Mr. Canino and all of the independent contractors associated with us signed a document stating that they would follow the guidelines as set forth by our attorneys so as to remain within SEC guidelines for a Regulation D offering. Beyond that, I cannot control the actions of Mr. Brown or Mr. Canino. If they did what Ms. Anderson says they did, I admonish them. I do not know whether brokers laughed about Ms. Anderson although I seriously doubt it. I certainly have not as I feel for her. However, each and every cent invested in the films was spent on the films. Brokers, as Ms. Anderson states had no access to funds remitted by investors. In her first posting, Ms. Anderson claimed that I had made big promises and was a con-man. Now she clearly states that I never spoke to her until after the fact. Therefore, is she not posting complaints against the wrong person (s)?

Ms. Anderson has received all of her papers and telephonic communication from me on a number of occasions. Recently, I have caused these papers to be sent yet again to Ms. Anderson.

Ms. Anderson is correct in stating that she has not received second quarter reports with respect to the film. We have just received the statements from distribution about which we are preparing statements and updates to send to our group of investors.

With respect to our recent silence, it is difficult to deal with the level of vitriol evidenced from Ms. Anderson in this situation. Ms. Anderson seems to be so upset that she strikes out against innocent bystanders and smears the names of innocent people. She included the names of a neighbor in Oregon and business associates in unrelated businesses as con men and big promisers. Now, in this recent rebuttal it is not me who is the liar as asserted originally but the brokers. Perhaps it is the brokers and their friends and neighbors and business associates who should be slandered on this site.

Perhaps Ms. Anderson is correct in stating that I do not have appropriate knowledge to make the claims that he has about me. I only know what Ms. Anderson stated in her paperwork, what her attorney told me in conversation and what was reflected in conversations with her. Other than that, I make no claim to know anything about Ms. Anderson.

Yes, Ms. Anderson's filing this report earned a response but only because she smeared innocent people and companies irresponsibly. These people and companies had nothing whatsoever to do with Ms. Anderson's dilemma. I have responded to numerous e-mail correspondences from Ms. Anderson, and have spoken to her, and her attorney on occasion. It simply reached a point wherein Ms. Anderson expected repayment and we simply sighted our memorandum and the risks inherent in a motion picture investment.

Yes, Ms. Anderson does make up information and she does file inaccurate reports for no reason. I site specifically her maligning the good name of Sam Baldoni, Inspired Films and Latte-Da Productions. These organizations and people are innocent bystanders and totally unrelated to this matter. The fact that Ms. Anderson irresponsibly named these people would show, I think , a bit of irrationality and vitriol. Clearly, her rebuttal to my rebuttal brings in new people who are at fault. Ms. Anderson will have to deal with her irresponsible assaults on Mr. Baldoni, Waterman and Harris and the companies in question. You simply cannot malign innocent people in that manner.

Our company has marketed its offerings only in States which it is legal to do so. There were occasions wherein we received cease and desist from certain states which we immediately honored. Our company has no actions against it by any governmental agency. As to complaints filed against us, I have no knowledge as to these complaints and would like to know specifically from which states these have been issued. Beyond that, all I can say is that this is hearsay. We have had only one instance in which we have had a challenge with a particular state. This state in question contacted our attorneys regarding our representatives contacting investors in this state illegally. The state threatened to file suit against us until we showed them that we had, in fact already sent the subscription documents and check back to the investor in question. This is our only instance of this type, and was resolved with no litigation or censure from the state beyond the original warning. As stated before, our representatives were independent contractors, but required to sign a statement forbidding them to go outside our attorney's guidelines. Guidelines clearly stated that representatives were not to call certain states forbidding this type of offering.

I disagree with Ms. Anderson that anyone in her position would demand a refund. Ms. Anderson knew the risks of the investment if she read the memorandum. There are pages after pages of warnings to investors in this document. Further, she signed and filled out a detailed questionnaire which indicated she knew the risk and was qualified to take the risk. My friend is a commodity trader who has had irate trading clients file complaints against him on a number of occasions. This is commonly done in stocks and commodities and is governed by bodies dedicated to this. In all cases, my friend has been deemed with no fault as the traders knew the risks. It is difficult to face losing money. I too have lost money in this venture.

I shall give Ms. Anderson the last word as to rebuttals and shall not dedicate any more time to this he said, she said matter. Our attorneys have responded to letters from both Ms. Anderson and the State of Minnesota (sent to us at the request of Ms. Anderson).

I wish Ms. Anderson well, and sincerely hope that the situation can be rectified, the films sold profitably and profits therein distributed to the investors.

In response to Mr. Erwin's expose, may I first say that it is riddled with lies, inaccuracies and misinformation.

With regard to my having placed $600,000 in other investments, this is a total lie. I don't know where he got this insane figure, but I would challenge him to prove it. I have never had $600,000 in my life. Believe me, I could provide many witnesses to prove that I have never had that much money. He is totally out of line in making that claim. It shows the level of understanding of their investors. Maybe they should have been paying more attention to the facts instead of fabricating wild assertions with no basis and picking numbers out of the air.

The money I invested in Blue Hill Avenue and Cahoots amounted to a relatively small sum of actual cash which I had sacrificially saved as well as the rollover of my IRA and my mother's inheritance to me which came at the time of this investment and which I was urged to invest by one of the venture capital brokers, Bobby Brown. Bobby Brown also made claims of the potential of making over one million dollars on my investment money and I have my notes to prove it.

I was NOT a qualified investor under the SEC rules. Despite the brokers, Bobby Brown in particular, being aware of it, they proceeded anyway in violation of the SEC guidelines.

I also happen to have been privy to a wealth of information by a broker who worked along side the Rand Chartkoff group who would testify to the pocketing of money by the brokers and to comments made about me, especially with reference to the last check I sent in which was a desparate plea by a Steve Canino for money for post production costs in order to make it suitable for Artisan to accept. I was instructed to make the check out to Waterman & Harris, the film company's attorneys. Isn't that interesting. I was told by the independent broker that the other brokers were joking about the money they extracted from me and said, "It should have been more!" I scraped together the $15,000 out of desperation to help ensure that the deal went through. THEN I NEVER RECEIVED ANY RECEIPT OR PAPERWORK FROM THE FILM COMPANY OR THE ATTORNEYS TO WHOM THE CHECK WAS MADE OUT. So, who's implicated here? Who's the wrongdoer and who's the wronged?

The independent broker above also told me about how the other brokers were taking in money and not issuing unit ownership for them. He cited an exact instance for me in detail about a gentleman who forwarded money and it was pocketed with no "units" issued towards the purchase of the intended film. The broker saw it himself and would testify to that fact.

I'd say the lack of paperwork and acknowledging my ownership in these movies is very critical. BELIEVE ME, THERE WAS NO PAPERWORK ISSUED. ANY CLAIMS THAT MIKE ERWIN MAKES THAT I RECEIVED PAPERWORK ARE TOTALLY FALSE. I have kept every scrap of paper from the very beginning of my association with anyone at this film company including names, phone numbers and the claims made by the brokers to me.

Please note that neither Mike Erwin nor Max Kirishima EVER spoke to me personally about anything involving my investment prior to the brokers being dismissed later on. The brokers were the only ones who communicated with me.

Mike Erwin has cut communucation off from me since early 2004 since I intently began requesting documentation evidencing my investment. He has continually referred the matter to his attorneys, Waterman & Harris, for them to follow up on in locating the paperwork "in storage." Nothing has been produced to date and it is because, I believe, they have none. What would you surmise? I possess copies of all of my cancelled checks evidencing every penny I invested.

The brokers were taking in money as fast as they could according to my reliable source. There were only promises of paperwork to come but nothing was provided.

Mike Erwin, et al have not reported to me the second quarter earnings from Artisan due out June 30, 2004 which were promised, and there has been no follow-up on the two documentary films he told me they were about to close on and that they expected revenue from. I have documentation of many projects in the works that were talked about that would bring potential profit. Many, many promises have been made throughout the course of this investment but nothing delivered.

Mike's recent silence speaks louder than words. How irresponsible is it when you have made an investment and the owners won't communicate with you. That shows total arrogance and disregard for the investors.

There have been no financial reports issued and I haven't received the proper IRS investment forms to file with my income taxes. I don't know of too many companies or corporations who could get by with that, do you?

Believe me, I speak the truth. Mike Erwin does not have the appropriate knowledge to make the claims about me that he has. He is grabbing at straws out of desperation. He is the one who needs to be genuinely concerned.

It's too bad that I had to file this report to elicit a response from Mike Erwin. Obviously he has simply been ignoring my inquiries and requests up until now attempting to avoid the truth and its consequences.

There are serious issues involved here and violations committed. I did not make up this information. I don't file superfluous reports for no reason. I have solid information from my Attorney General's office that at least two or three other state Attorney General Offices have had complaints filed against this film company. I'm not the only one with legitimate concerns. I also know for a fact that they have refunded money to other investors previously.

It's time to refund my money now - all of it. Anyone in my situation would demand the same.

There are so many irresponsible and inaccurate accusations in this "con artist" report that it is difficult to even begin to refute the misinformation.

The bottom line is that Ms. Anderson has made an investment which has not made a profit. She has asserted dramatic misinformation in a most irresponsible way, including names of people and companies who had no relationship whatsoever to the principals in the investment she made. She has done this despite a number of telephone conversations in which the principals informed her that they were still working to make the investment successful and that many things were, in fact happening to create a successful investment for her.

Ms. Anderson is angry because she invested $600,000 on various investments ($314,000 of which Ms. Anderson alleges is invested in our limited partnerships), none of which have panned out for her. In this particular case, Ms. Anderson invested in a limited partnership under a Regulation D offering. Despite Ms. Anderson's irresponsible assertions, this is a legal offering under the Securities Act of 1933. Further, not only is it legal, but it requires the investor to read a detailed memorandum including a number of Caveat Emptors on each page.

To be exact, the language utilized on virtually every page of the offering memorandum is as follows in capital letters and bold print:

"An investment in the partnership is highly speculative, involves a high degree of risk and is suitable only for persons who are able to assume the risk of losing their entire investment. Prospective investors and their advisors should carefully consider the following risks and closely review the entire memorandum including exhibits before subscribing for units."

As you can clearly see, the document basically says, don't do this deal, you will probably lose your money! Further, Ms. Anderson completed a questionnaire of over twenty pages of questions designed to prove to our attorneys (who are also con artists according to Ms. Anderson) that she was indeed a qualified investor according to the SEC definition of qualified investor and that she understood, beyond a shadow of doubt, the risk of losing her money in its entirety. Further, the memorandum details the many ways she could lose her money. Ms. Anderson signed a statement that she understood the risks and that she wished to make the investment despite them. Most importantly, the memorandum makes no big promises as Ms. Anderson alleges. Since I had never spoken to Ms. Anderson until well after the fact, I simply could not have made promises as she irresponsibly reports.

There was no promise of repayment, no promise of profits in this relationship. Ms. Anderson invested in two motion picture projects. There was no promise that the films would even be completed or distributed, which is detailed in the memorandum numerous times as high risk.

Not only did the films get made (on time and on budget) but they both won numerous awards and were reviewed as excellent films in publications such as the Los Angeles Times and Hollywood Reporter, which rarely reviews independent films.

Ms. Anderson invested in Cahoots Limited Partners and Blue Hill Avenue Limited Partners. Both films were made. Blue Hill Avenue received a theatrical release by Artisan Entertainment and Cahoots will soon go out on DVD and has been sold to Showtime. The producers have not yet reached a point wherein revenue has been generated beyond distribution expenses. Nonetheless, there is every indication that the films will create revenue despite the fact that no guarantee was ever made as such by myself or Mr. Kirishima. We are the producers of the films.

Over the last five years, Independent films have suffered a terrible market. There was no way of predicting this. Despite this, we have not retreated or hidden under bankruptcy but continue to work in a very tough market to profit our investors.

Ms. Anderson makes outrageous claims as to having information that brokers are "pocketing money". This assertion is highly irresponsible and slanderous. More importantly it is not the case. All revenues collected were utilized in the production of the films and subsequent distribution and marketing efforts. The cease and desist order referred to had nothing to do with government agencies or legal challenges. It simply was a separation of parties doing business with proprietary information and is common in businesses. Yet Ms. Anderson conveniently and predictably paints it in a negative light.

Again, the offering was generated by Securities Attorneys and professionals in such matters. Ms. Anderson again makes irresponsible and venemous claims in this regard. Ms. Anderson even had an attorney from England telephone me recently. When I questioned him about our securities laws in the United States, and whether he had read the memorandum, he replied that he had not and did not know about all the papers Ms. Anderson had, in fact signed to make this investment with a sound mind, understanding her risks without any shadow of a doubt.

Ms. Anderson asserts that she was not a qualified investor. Her investment of over $600,000 in various businesses, all risky, and a considerable amount in these films would lead one to doubt that assertion. Our attorneys simply would not have accepted her investment. Simply, Ms. Anderson is angry that her investment did not work out. Investments are simply not guaranteed, no matter how bad you want them to be. I simply cannot control the market for films, despite the fact that since 1989 we enjoyed many successes producing independent films.

Ms. Anderson has, as have all of our investors, received copies of her certificates of ownership of units in the limited partnership. Again, irresponsible assertions of "embezzelment" here reflect reactionary behavior and sour grapes.

Yes, Ms. Anderson requested the return of her money. Our SEC approved, Regulation D memorandum did not state "Ms. Anderson, if the risky investment you are making doesn't work out, just give us a jingle and your money will be returned". While we regret the downward change in the market for films and are still working hard to rectify the result of our efforts, I feel it highly irresponsible of Ms. Anderson to have made such assertions and have such expectations.

We have not strung Ms. Anderson along. In fact, I have spoken with Ms. Anderson on a number of occasions and informed her that despite the fact that I had no legal obligation to do so, I would attempt to begin to get some of her investment back as she had lost all of her money in bad investments. I did not make any promises here however, and told her all was based on current work on other projects. Ms. Anderson thanked me for my kindness and consideration. Literally, the next week, her lawyer called from London threatening me, until he realized she had signed what she had signed.

Again irresponsible, Ms. Anderson asserts knowledge of certain projects being made by the companies. This is all irresponsible hearsay.

As stated before, Artisan Entertainment, a highly respected distribution company, is releasing the film Bluehill Avenue in which Ms. Anderson invested. We have not as yet received revenue from Artisan Entertainment, having received only two statements from them that the film has still not made a profit. When we do receive revenues from Artisan, these revenues will be immediately disbursed to the investors owning units in the Limited Partnership.

We contend that Ms. Anderson has received the investment documents she asserts she has not. As with all of our investors, Ms. Anderson's original investment was reviewed in great detail by Waterman and Harris and determined to be acceptable or unacceptable according to the guidelines set forth by the SEC. After acceptance each investor received executed certificates indicating ownership in the limited partnerships. Ms. Anderson received the same.

Ms. Anderson's most grievous and irresponsible assertion is that of including individuals and companies which have no relationship to the matter she is addressing.

I find it amazing that someone can simply hook up to a web site and begin to disparage someone's name and reputation for simply no reason, or a horribly irresponsible, irrational one. In this instance, Ms. Anderson accuses Sam Baldoni, Latte-Da Productions and Inspired Films as participants. Neither Mr. Baldoni nor the two companies mentioned herein were parties to this business and Ms. Anderson must be accountable for her irresponsible charges and disparagement of these companies and this individual.

I can assure whomever is reading this, that Mr. Baldoni, Inspired Films and Latte-Da Productions are respected entities in the entertainment industry and conduct business on the highest level within the industry. But, on this web-site, if I'm mad at Steven Spielberg, or Tom Cruise, I can simply pull up a website and accuse them as irresponsibly as I wish for all the world to see.

In closing, I would simply ask readers of the posted material to consider the ire of an investor who lost her money in an investment that had great promise. This is painful, no doubt, but part of business nonetheless. When you buy shares of Microsoft from your broker and they go down in value, (even $314,000) the choice to make that investment was yours, and not the responsibility of the broker. Further, Microsoft cannot be held accountable for market variations adversely affecting their business. Stuff happens.

Bette Anderson described herself as an experienced investor who had previously invested in similar investments when she completed the 25-page investment questionaire. She made her investment into Cahoots and Bluehill Avenue knowing the risks involved. Cahoots Productions lived up to their side of the bargain and made two high class, quality, festival-winning motion pictures. Cahoots Productions has not given up on these films and is still aggressively marketing them. To date, we have not had the success that we and the investors had hoped for. This was a risk all investors acknowledged and willingly undertook. Cahoots Productions still believes the films will generate revenue for its investors.

Cahoots Productions sees the only problem is Bette Anderson's impatience and her refusal to accept the risk she originally agreed to accept. Cahoots did and will live up to its side of the bargain. It made the films and marketed them.

Lastly, I would ask readers to consider how you might feel if you had worked hard to accomplish a goal but fell short of your expectations due to market conditions. Despite your hard work and honesty, a disgruntled person posted a high number of irresponsible and inaccurate claims about you online, what would you do? With Badbusiness.com and places like it, it can happen to you.

Sincerely,