Complaint Review: Jimmy Lujan

Jimmy is in bed with David and Verlin Gradney.  These guys are all scammers.  Jimmy has no legitimate sources of funding.  Since he does not ask from proof of completed fundings, he does not value a client's requesting this information.  He has found a niche in the American Justice System where this is typically too complicated for cops, and too much of a nuisance for the FBI.  Frankly put, there are too many Jimmy Lujan's out there.  

JIMMY-

WITH ALL OF YOUR UPFRONT FEES AND NO DELIVERY YOU HAVE WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON TO YOU NOW.  YOU AND TYE ARE GOING TO SEE WHAT YOUR SCAMS HAVE CAUSED FIRST HAND WHEN OFFICIALS COME KNOCKING ON YOUR DOORS WITHIN 14 DAYS.  AND YES WE KNOW TYE DOES NOT HAVE ALL THOSE OFFICES.  WE HAVE ALL CORRECT ADDESSES AND INFO AND SO DO THE ALL THE DIFFERENT POLICING ENTITIES.

GOOD LUCK WITH THIS ONE AS I HAVE SEEN ALL THE COMPLAINTS, FEES, AND ZERO CLOSINGS.  YOUR TIME OF SCAMMING IS OVER AND SO IS TYES

SEE YA----->  HAVE FUN-------------> ENJOY YOUR TIME!!!

FIRST OF ALL ANYONE WHO PAYS A BROKER AND I MEAN BROKER BECAUSE JIMMY LUSHAM IS JUST A BROKER, FEE'S UPFRONT IS THROWING THEIR MONEY INTO THE WIND.  JIMMY ONLY TAKES FEES--PERIOD.  IS LEVEL 5 GLOBAL REAL----TYE???.  DOES LEVEL 5 GLOBAL HAVE ALL THOSE OFFICES AROUND THE COUNTRY---NO, THEY SURE DO NOT...WHAT A JOKE!!!!!  DOES JIMMY FUND LOANS???  WHO BESIDES JIMMY FOR A RESPONSE HERE HAS FUNDED A LOAN WITH JIMMY.  JIMMY PLEASE DO NOT LIST YOUR FRIENDS WE ARE SMARTER THAN THAT.

 LEVEL 5 -TYE / JIMMY = FEES AND ONLY FEES.........NO LOANS.  STAY AWAY.....BE WARNED.

1.  TAKE AS MANY UPFRONT FEES AS POSSIBLE


2.  STALL ANY AND EVERYONE TODAY


3.  TAKE SOME MORE UPFRONT FEES


4.  THINK OF EXCUSES FOR NEXT WEEK


5.  DO NOT ANSWER TO ANYONE ONE TODAY "HEY I AM JIMMY AND I AM IMPORTANT"


6.  PRETEND TO HAVE MONEY TO LEND


7.  OH YEAH TAKE MORE UPFRONT FEES-- WHOA, HOW COULD I FORGET MORE FEES


8.  BUY BOOK ON LIST OF EXCUSES...I AM RUNNING OUT OF COMMON SENSE ONES


9.  SEE WHAT STATES DO NOT KNOW ME AND ME LUSHAM SCAMS


10.MY FAVORITE --- TAKE MORE UPFRONT FEES WITH NO MONEY TO BACK THEM





TOMORROW---  RINSE AND REPEAT!   I AM SO GREAT!  JIMMY IS GREAT!  JIMMY IS THE BEST!

This a really good question as we have heard every excuse to date.  I feel this is the next one from JIMMY LUSHAM-

Jimmy has not kept one of his promises and has wasted 7 months of everone's time.  He has a weekly excuse that typically states we will have by Tuesday and when that comes around it's by Friday or Monday and this gets repeated so many times it's baffling.  He is nothing but hot air.  If you like hot air and feel $20,000 upfront for hot air is a good deal then  he is your man because you will get a lot of hot hair for 7 months plus. 

Good luck as I would not trust him with 1 buck-

The ex-client who posted the above referenced report has behaved unprofessionally and dishonestly throughout my relationship with him. He has broken non-circumvention agreements on three separate occasions, and has damaged relationships with my lending sources that have been built up over a period of ten years. He misrepresented himself, his project, his abilities and his sources of financing equity. He claimed he would have government support to the level of $6.5 million through a process that was never initiated. All of these facts can be substantiated by numerous witnesses and in writing.

 The ex-client continues to act unethically and illegally; instead of taking proper legal action, (which he has failed to do so) he posts anonymously, and slanderously on the web.  If he were confident in the veracity of his claims, he would have taken legal action against me instead of taking this course.  For the record, however, the full facts of the story are detailed below. Unfortunately, this post was brought to my attention by numerous current clients that had been contacted by this person, bragging that he got this report posted. I would  like to introduce a few points of fact that are missing on this report.

 This particular ex-client that posted the report was introduced to me as a referral for me to assist in obtaining financing for his development project. On the initial call, the ex-client requested that the person who referred him to me be cut out of the deal, and for us to split up the potential earnings equally between ourselves, because he did not feel the referring party deserved any referral fees. I immediately declined this offer and told him that what he was suggesting was unethical, and we do not operate in this dishonest and deceitful way. All referring parties and clients  sign a Non Circumvention Agreement that strictly forbids this type of dishonesty and deceit. This agreement also states that the client shall in no way communicate with and/or solicit my sources directly or indirectly without proper written approval. This is standard in most business dealings. 

 Once I had the fully executed standard Non Circumvent/Non Disclosure Agreement (NCNDA) from this ex-client (and with no monies yet to exchange hands), I gave him my lending source, as was stated in the report. Ex-client took well over 45 days of his own initial due diligence on the lending source as well as requesting referrals prior to engaging and fully executing my agreement. Ex-client came back after 45 plus days and stated that he had done all necessary due diligence on my lending source and found them to be very real and credible, as anyone who checks on my sources would see for themselves.

All information is given to the ex-client upfront to make a fully informed and educated decision whether or not to move forward prior to any monies being paid and/or contracts being signed. Before he signed and executed the NCNDA I made it very clear both verbally and in writing that in no way shape or form could I guarantee the funding for his project. No one can guarantee funding of a project upon an initial examination. I stated this numerous times with the ex-client as well as it being stated in my agreement that he had been reviewing for over 45 days. I only informed him that upon fully executing the agreement I would begin the long and tedious task of reviewing his project in full detail and assist in getting  initial documentation fully ready for funding consideration. I also told him numerous times (with his team on line as witness) that this is not something that will be done quickly in the state the project was in at that time; but that it would take considerable time and resources to achieve a successful funding.

Around the 45th plus day and after his due diligence had been satisfactorily completed, he told me that my honesty in stating the above, as well as no guarantee of funding and or any fictitious promises, backed by me putting it in writing, gave him complete comfort that I was not just looking to take his money, and that I truly had the success of his project in mind.  Upon execution of the agreement to move forward, I worked day in and day out with the ex-client and his team in getting all necessary documents in place, as well as checking for all necessary business plans, executive summary, project details, etc. I assisted in reformatting his original business plan into a much more professional and presentable format. I also spent weeks going over his numbers and assumptions all this in preparation for full submission into the lending source.

Yes, numerous calls are expected with numerous questions and answers (and of course, I would advise any client to be professional and courteous in dealing with a potential lending source). Only after complete review and satisfactory answers to the initial questions is a site visit then scheduled as in any normal business practice.  It is not a case of "this is where the process begins to take a wrong turn;" it is a true starting point to analyze the location, market conditions in the area, and team in place for a face to face meeting.  It is from this very site visit most questions get answered in a person to person and on-site evaluation that cannot be done from behind the computer.  

Prior to this site visit, one of the main contingencies for pre approval was the ex-clients ability to provide additional equity to lessen the risk for the lender. Ex-client at that time informed us he had been approved for a United States Department of Agriculture "USDA" Grant in the amount of approximately $6.5 Million USD.  He would use this "USDA Grant" for the equity requirement. Once this contingency had seemed to be in place by the ex-client, we set up a site visit to look at the project and its team for a person to person meeting.

Ex-client informed us that we would have this "USDA Grant" approval in writing and in hand upon our arrival for review in person.  Upon arrival, there was no "USDA Grant" ready for us. Ex-client stated we would have it prior to our departure some 4 days later. During these 4 days I spent numerous hours with the ex-client, his team, business owners and various town officials.  The ex-client and his team thanked me over and over again for my time and knowledge as they found this site visit to be a true learning experience for them all. I was giving them invaluable knowledge and teachings, I have numerous emails from them to show this to be true and accurate.   

Needless to say, when it was time for us to depart, we still had no "USDA Grant" in hand. We told the ex-client this was something we needed in order to comply with the initial recommendation for approval, and under no circumstances could we continue if he could not provide the equity that we had previously requested. Ex-client told us the paper work for this "USDA Grant" would be to us when we got back into the office that next week as we spent 4 days there with the ex-client.  

Yes, the ex-client covered the cost of our trip, travel, hotel and meals but we did not charge him for the time spent on site nearly a full work week working diligently with him, his team and, as they stated, providing them with an abundance of learning and knowledge they so desperately needed.

To be clear, no charge for time was billed to the client not for my time nor the lenders time coming in from abroad.  

Approximately 45-60 days had passed from the initial site visit and I was still waiting for the ex-client to provide this supposed "USDA Grant" that he kept promising on a daily basis to be coming.  This was indeed  a long delay that had no fault and or was caused by me or any of my team. I requested for approval to do additional due diligence on the supposed "USDA Grant" that the ex-client had informed me he had in place, written documents, and/or a contact person in USDA. Ex-client came back to me and finally admitted this "USDA Grant" was both fraudulent and non-existent. He had been "taken oh yet again" by some dubious people and that he could no longer comply with the USDA Grant as previously requested. Note that whoever scammed the client with the USDA Grant application was NOT in any way associated with me or my lender. And was brought forth and submitted by the ex-client.

At this time the e-client asked for my additional assistance in helping him secure the needed equity requirement of $6.5 Million as previously requested due to the fact he had presented a fraudulent and non-existent USDA Grant. (I have supporting documents and emails to evidence this)  I initially declined this offer as I stated to him that this is something I do not normally assist in, and that he needed to be proactive and bring forward what he stated he could do from the offset. Ex-client pleaded for my assistance in this matter and offered to modify my existing agreement to cover my additional time and effort for this additional request on his behalf.  

Once I started to assist the ex-client with this additional request and he found out who my other potential lending source was, he broke protocol and binding contracts in place by making direct contact numerous times to try and negotiate and solicit business direct from my source.  

A phone call was placed immediately to me from my lending source informing me of the clients repeated contact as a breach of contract and protocol by the ex-client, and for me to take appropriate action.   I immediately called the ex-client to inform him that I knew what he had attempted and gave a stern warning and advice to never under any circumstance break contracts in place, and protocol and do this again.  The next day I was informed yet again that he made contact once more with my primary lending source to try and cover his tracks of his dishonest and deceitful agenda from the day prior.  At this time, my lending sources informed me that they do not want to deal with such dishonest and unprofessional clients as this one. I also agreed, and the client was sent a cease and desist notice.

This ex-client continues to breach the binding executed Non Circumvention Agreement in place with continued calls to current clients that inform me of his actions. ( I have records from witnesses to verify this.) This report was done in spite, from a completely dishonest, deceitful person that showed numerous times that he is not one to be trusted, with a proven track record of lies.   

In response to the reports claim of speaking with other brokers who do not charge any upfront fees, most brokers merely make an introduction call and pass over information that lasts up to an hour at best. Then they sit back and wait to get paid. Hence, no upfront fee is warranted nor deemed normal under that scenario. Most brokers do not go on site for almost a weeks worth of time and teach clients the basics of financing with in-person meetings. Nor do they work a file from start to completion in giving free professional services of consulting. I have never known a broker to cover the hard costs and put up the necessary money out of their own pocket on behalf of the client.  I do not offer my expertise and time for free, nor do I cover hard cost on behalf of the client.  

I am currently seeking legal action to address any and all damages that this false report may cause my good reputation.