Complaint Review: Robert Angona - Carl Haggerty & MJG Merchant Capital Group

The following is a copy of the legal notice sent to Robert Angona and Carl Haggerty of MJG Merchant Capital Group. They ignored this letter from our NY counsel, as well as numerous other request for return of our deposit after they breached all their signed agreements, and did not close the venture.

As a side note* I received a call from Robert Angona to my telephone voicemail last Friday, July 10, 2009. In the message he left, which we have uploaded to the computer to burn a disk., he proclaims that he and Haggerty will "take care of", return the $5000 deposit (IF), we remove the information about them from the Internet. He said it "even" bothered him. Of course they cannot be trusted to do anything they say so we will not remove or amend anything, without the return of our funds. They were informed and of course did not return the money.

These are Two people who's word and reputation mean nothing to them. They have no issue with lying to your face, breaching any agreement they choose, and stealing your money. DO NOT involve yourself with them in anyway.

We will now file our court action and they will eventually have to pay. We will continue to provide information on a regular basis. Once we file our action we will provide the actual agreements they issued and signed, and then of course BREACHED!! I will also provide a copy of the check written to them for closing deposit.



Dear Mr. Haggerty:

This firm has been retained by Art Williams and Stephen Smith in connection with agreements that you and Robert Angona signed to provide financing to Mr. Williams' company and the $5,000 deposit Mr. Williams gave you as a deposit on the $15,000 closing fee you had insisted on. It is our understanding that Mr. Williams paid this $5,000 deposit in December 2008, but that the funding transaction which had been agreed upon was never consummated. Although failure to provide this funding constitutes a breach of the agreements, it is our understanding that Mr. Williams and Mr. Smith were prepared to allow you and your colleagues to walk away from your funding commitment and simply insisted upon the return of the $5,000. Nevertheless, it is our understanding that despite Mr. Williams being assured on numerous occasions that the $5,000 would be returned, it has in fact not been returned.

The foregoing conduct gives rise to various legal claims, including, at a minimum, breach of contract and conversion. Although Mr. Williams and Mr. Smith could likely recover damages in a court of law, they are still prepared to walk away from this troubling situation if the $5,000 is returned. This letter shall constitute a final demand for repayment of this money. In the event such repayment does not occur with 10 days of the date of this letter, they will take further action.

Smith
Newport Beach, California
U.S.A.