Drew Morrison dba CityGuru of Seattle Path Investments Group, LLCPath Auction LendingPraesto Community Fund STOP before investing money with Drew Morrison and CityGuru of Seattle! Seattle Washington
Are you about to invest money with Andrew (Drew) W. Morrison and/or into one of his business ventures such as CityGuru of Seattle, Path Investments Group, LLC, Path Auction Lending or Praesto Community Fund?
STOP until you have done your due diligence. Know what previous investors know before you put your own money at risk!
Start your due diligence by checking the Public Records. Public Record Case No. 13-2-03663-1 in the Supreme Court of Washington, King County, reveals Mr. Morrison was found to be in default of a $500,000 Promissory Note, funds that consisted of the Investor's life savings and retirment funds.
In the above case, Mr. Morrison had taken IRA/retirement funds from an investor with the promise of investing/managing them into the companies, real estate and/or ventures names above. Instead, the Investor received no return on investment, no accounting or records of where the money went, as he attempted to follow and understand the quick shuffle that Drew Morrison preformed from new venture to new venture with nothing to show for it afterwards.
When Drew Morrison focused his attention and funds on a new venture, CityGuru of Seattle (Formerly known as On The Go Technologies), the Investor demand withdrawal of his funds and refusal to participate in the new venture. After several promises and no facts (or money) to present, the Investor filed a formal complaint against Drew Morrison in which the Complaint filed with the Superior Court of Seattle named numerous possible offenses that could provide serious consequences for Drew Morrison. This letter of complaint from the Investor's Counsel is available upon request and will reveal several charges that might cause you to think twice before giving Morrison or CityGuru your money.
In an attempt to side-step more serious charges, Drew Morrison agreed that he owed the Investor almost $500,000 in funds and agreed to sign a promissory note to that effect. However, before signing the Promissory Note, Drew Morrison demanded the Investor release him of all liability and potential charges by counter-signing a Release Agreement which, in essence, agreed not to hold him responsible for any wrongdoing.
Once the Release Agreement was executed by the Investor who simply wanted his retirement funds and life savings back, Mr. Morrison's own Counsel claimed the Promissory Note was void and null because the Investor had not given "consideration" in return. It seems Drew Morrison had "forgot" to inform his own Counsel of the Release Agreement which was as the Court agreed "Consideration" given in return for the Promissory Note.
In effect, this was a show of Mr. Morrison's true intent: which was to never pay back the funds. It was also a demonstration of Drew Morrison's character and methods he may resort to when raising and mismanaging business funds.
However, the Superior Court of Seattle agreed with the Investor that Drew Morrison, indeed, had entered into a contractual agreement to repay the Investor his full due. A Judgment was awarded against Drew Morrison is now on record stating many of the facts of the case that are freely available for your own due diligence and consideration.
In all liklihood, Drew Morrison used these retirment funds as seed money for his new start-up in Seattle called CITYGURU, catering to travel and hospitality professionals. A self-styled Gangnam, along with little bow-tie and expensive clothing, Drew Morrison considers himself a guru of sorts in founding start-up companies. He is no doubt, a superb Salesman and BS artist; all the more reason you should do your due diligence in checking out his background and previous investors before signing your own money to him--regardless of the wealth he promises.
If you are adventuresome with your money, do your due diligence and then secure all your investments with him or his affiliates using first deeds of trust on real property owned by Drew Morrison and Affiliates. Better yet, invest your money in other sources where you will not have to resort to having Counsel represent you in getting your money back.
Along with Drew Morrison, you may be propositioned by his affiliates as well in raising funds for CityGuru of Seattle. This would be a logical tactic of Drew Morrison's if it becomes public knowledge of his business style. Knowing who these affiliates are may help you to protect yourself. They will be, of course, associated with the start-up company, CityGuru, and may be but not exclusive to: James A. Billmaier, CEO of CityGuru, T. Olin Nicholus, CFO of CityGuru, Susie Paik, Director of Operations for CityGuru and Quentin Incao, Advisor for CityGuru.
Should you decide to give your money to Drew Morrison or his company, CityGuru, may we recommend the following?
1. Do a thorough background check and Public Records and contact Previous Investors (but don't use his referrals). Check out Andrew (Drew) M. Morrison, CityGuru of Seattle, Washington, Path Investments Group, LLC, Path Auction Lending, and Praesto Community Fund (All of these companies/non-profits were fronts used by Drew Morrison to raise business funds).
2. Ask LOTS of questions....and if you don't understand his answers....ask the question again or try to re-phrase it. Remember: Drew Morrison prides himself in his Selling Tactics and his double-speak can put any politician to shame.
3. Ask for all promises and commitments from him in WRITING. If Drew Morrison refuses to do so, that is all the reason you need to walk away.
4. NEVER sign over money to Drew Morrison or CityGuru unless it is SECURED with Real Property that you will have recourse to in the event he falls short on yet another promise. You should then ask your attorney if he/she would invest their own money in return for the security being offered. If no, then you probably should reconsider.
5. NEVER sign a Promissory Note with Drew Morrison. Though it is a legal Promise; he has already demonstrated--it means nothing to him.
6. NEVER sign a PPM or Private Placement Memorandum with Drew Morrison. By nature, these documents are legal license for you to lose money, and is the perfect excuse for the likes of Drew Morrison to lose it for you.
7. IF you are gutsy enough to give Drew Morrison money, DEMAND written accounting/fiscal information of him and his company EVERY month...and hold him accountable for doing so! IF you get this accounting data--have your Accountant to review it thoroughly and ask your Accountant if he would be satisfied with the report if it was HIS/HER own money?
8. Drew Morrison is a likable guy...do yourself a favor and enjoy his company; let him buy the drinks and expensive dinners and wow you with all his latest dreams of grandeur--but KEEP YOUR MONEY IN THE BANK WHERE IT IS SAFE!
3 Updates & Rebuttals
JUDGMENT RE-INSTATED AGAINST DREW MORRISON
#4Author of original report
Wed, September 16, 2015
What started as an attempt to evade responsibility for a debt, backfired on Defendant Drew Morrison, dba CityGuru, Seattle resulting in a Judgment against him for fraud, conversion, misrepresentation, criminal profiteering and violation of the Washington Consumer Act.
In August, 2013 the Superior Court of King County, Seattle awarded a Summary Judgment 13-2-03663-1 SEA against Drew Morrison for breach of contract; defaulting on a promissory note for $489,181.
Drew Morrison filed a Motion to Vacate the Judgment arguing a technicality of insufficient process service. The Court overturned the Judgment in March, 2014.
Due to several conflicting facts that Drew Morrison introduced in his motion, investigations resulted examining closer many of his previous business transactions leading up to the default on his debt. The resulting facts were such that the Court agreed to the Plaintiff's Motion to Amended Complaint against Drew Morrison including allegations of fraud, conversion, misrepresentation, criminal profiteering and violation of the Washington Consumer Act.
In the proceeding discovery process and subpoenas, Drew Morrison defied Court orders on at least three occasions in which the Court found him in Contempt of Court.
Drew Morrison's definance to Court orders only resulted in continuing investigations--and more evidence supporting the Plaintiff's allegations.
In its own Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in the case of 13-2-03663-1-SEA, the Court agreed to re-instate the Plaintiff's Judgment against Drew Morrison in August, 2015 to include damages in the amount of $971,442.
Red Flagg
Seattle ,Washington,
Drew Morrison dba City Guru of Seattle Does Not Tell the Entire Story
#4Author of original report
Sun, April 27, 2014
If you are a prospective investor or creditor to either Drew Morrison who was named as the Defendant, or any of his business ventures, it is important that you look closely at the smoke screen created by the Defendant in his rebuttal to this report as well as in the subject case. This should be a part of your due diligence. After all, one day you, too, could be contending with these same circumstances.
The facts are simple and straight forward:
1.) The Defendant, clearly signed the Promissory Note in question. His act of signing/execution of the Contract were evidenced by a Notary Public.
2.) He executed this contract twice: the first time when he signed/notarized the original note and again when the Plaintiff agreed to modify the terms of the Note in good faith to work with the Defendant after he failed to make his first payment due.
3.) When the Defendant failed to pay the first payment due in accordance to the revised payment plan he had requested, and offered no intentions or plans of paying at all, the Plaintiff had no other alternative but to file Complaint for breach of contract.
4.) At the Defendant’s request for consideration, the Plaintiff agreed and signed the Defendant’s own Release Agreement, assuring the Defendant that upon signing the Promissory Note he would not be held accountable for questionable and potentially far more serious business practices leading up to the dispute.
5.) Knowing the Plaintiff was in legal process, the Defendant evaded due process of summons servicing, presuming with the intent of later challenging the inevitable Judgment on grounds of default. The Judgment was awarded to the Plaintiff on August 23, 2013 as a Summary Judgment (not a default) on grounds that the Defendant had no substantial arguments (his only argument was that he was not given “consideration”—obviously ignoring the Release Agreement he demanded of the Plaintiff) nor did he bother to attend the hearing whereas he would have had the opportunity to represent his own interests (again, part of the evasion tactic).
6.) Six months after the Judgment award--and only after the Plaintiff continued collection efforts--did the Defendant challenge the Summary Judgment. Had he approached the challenge on the original grounds of Breach of Contract, his Motion to Vacate the Summary Judgment would have certainly been denied. Rather, the Defendant effectively challenged the Judgment with an elaborate concoction of accusations and allegations intended to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court, enough to vacate the Judgment for further deliberation.
7.) Since the Plaintiff did not have the opportunity of oral argument before the Court (basically no defense against the allegations), and the Defendant was not required to produce evidence or proof of his allegations, he was effective in his tactic to confuse and cloud the real issue at hand: his debt to the Plaintiff. Consequently, his motion to vacate the summary Judgment was granted.
8.) While the original Summary Judgment has been vacated, the Promissory Note remains in full power and effect. It is imperative to remember the premier material fact of the case is: The Defendant signed and notarized a Promissory Note—not once but twice—acknowledging and agreeing to the debt he owes the Plaintiff. Any and all tactics are for the single purpose of evading that responsibility.
The Defendant’s rebuttal to this Rip-Off Report, as well as that presented to the Court in his Motion to Vacate Summary Judgment, deserves close examination as it reveal much about the REAL motives/intentions of the Defendant.
A.) The Defendant clearly does not intend to honor or pay his debt—a debt that is so contractually documented that the Court originally awarded a Summary Judgment to the Plaintiff on its own merit.
B.) In his motion to vacate the judgment, the Defendant was never required to prove or provide evidence of his allegations against the Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff have the opportunity to answer and challenge these allegations. The Defendant has demonstrated his willingness to manipulate the legal system in order to avoid his debt and promises.
C.) The Defendant was audacious enough to introduce allegations of “fraud”, “forgery” and “blackmail”. While the Plaintiff certainly welcomes the opportunity to address these accusations with a public scrutiny of any “evidence”, the Plaintiff’s only fault in this matter was that of placing too much trust, confidence and money into the wrong person.
D.) In his rebuttal to this report, the Defendant admits the companies mentioned (Path Investments Group, LLC, Path Auction Lending, etc.) are no longer in business. He argues that because his present company, CityGuru, Inc. of Seattle is in a different line of business from those companies that “they don’t even relate in the slightest”. Yet, the Defendant was the founder of these failed companies, and he used them to acquire funds from the Plaintiff.….is he now suggesting that he owes nothing to the Plaintiff because they are no longer in business?
E.) In his rebuttal to this report, the Defendant also states that his current company, CityGuru, Inc. of Seattle “has zero involvement in this and never will.” The money trail from his failed companies to CityGuru, Inc. indicates otherwise. Continuing investigations and legal actions will be challenging the Defendant upon his statements here.
F.) A prudent investor doing his due diligence in regards to CityGuru, Inc of Seattle might be advised to read and consider another Rip-Off Report (No. 1140542, titled: “CityGuru of Seattle, a.k.a. Drew Morrison, A Seattle CityGuru”). Should you have already—or be contemplating—investing money with this company and/or its Founder and Officers, this report may offer you insights that could save or prevent loss of your investments.
G.) If the reader happens to have had similar experiences with the Defendant or the companies mentioned here, please report your own facts under “Also a Victim?” provided for by this website. Knowledge is an Investor’s BEST friend.
anonymous
Washington,Judgment overturned
#4REBUTTAL Individual responds
Mon, April 07, 2014
If you view the docket number, you'll see the judgment was overtuned. As far as all the other accusations. They are Gary "Buckley" Woolever's version of the truth.
The companies that were around during the time in question (4-5 years ago) aren't in business and one of them, Gary was a manager/member in. Since that time, Drew has been working a field so different, they don't even relate in the slightest.
CityGuru has zero involvement in this and never will. Gary and his friend (who he says posted this) have just thrown blanket darts to try to hurt others with zero appreciation for the wreckless abandon a post like this may cause.
This site makes it all to easy for anyone to slander anyone else, through a simple process of a valid email and a mouse-click and does not take any time or care to corraborate any statements or accusations. This advocates a personal agenda more then it does the reporting of information.