Complaint Review: GLENN NEASHAM NEASHAM FINANCIAL OXYBOOSTH2O! - Lakeport California

These people were sued for all kinds of stuff. I settled in mediation and recieved a large cash settlement for defamation amongst other things.

×

1 / 1

2 / 1

❮ ❯

http://www.riabiz.com/a/5063614255857664/glenn-neashams-hellish-odyssey-to-regain-his-reputation-after-being-prosecuted-then-exonerated-of-insurance-fraud

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

For whatever this is worth.The DOI investigation started on me prior to me even writing the annuity in February 2008.I fired( Actually Mike Ewing) two exworking member's of a water company I owned majority membership interest in and the woman on the day she thought she was going to be fired said to me"I can ruin you,and put you out of business I know alot of people in this town".The two of them attempted a "takeover" of my water company.The male member wrote letter's to the DOI,Allianz,and National Ethic's Bureau and defamed me,and said thing's that were completely false.They sued me for wrongful termination amongst other's things, and we filed a "verified cross complaint".The people (and a couple other's) sued by me posted stuff on the internet blogs in Lake County and other sites for about one and a half years, and  vilified me,as well as did other thing's.Prior to firing them my reputation prior to 2007 was stellar.We sued them for Defamation,Breach of Fiduciary Duty,Intentional interference with Prospective Economic Advantage,Publication of Private Facts,and Cyber Stalking/Harrasment.Instead of going to trial we went to mediation at JAMS in Walnut Creek and I recieved a significant cash settlement in April 2010.We lost our home and other property because of this frivilous suit against me.These people I understand even today,even in their church tell people they know that they got money from me.(Jeff Markham) told me this.The public never learned of the outcome of civil suit as it was never published.I will provide a copy of settlement agreement at courts request.

Prior to moving back to Lake County in 2006 to raise my family I spent the last twenty years in the Sacramento area. I was the publisher/owner of the Citrus Height's City Times, and Gold River News newspaper's while at the same time in the insurance business.I served in Rotary,member of Citrus Height's Chamber of Commerce,Better Business bureau A+ rating,National Ethics Bureau,and very active in my church(Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).I am a devoted family man and love this community.

 

These people who posted most of this stuff were sued for Defamation,Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage,Publication of Private Facts,cyber stalking and Harrasment, and Breach of fiduciary duty.I settled the case against them in mediation at JAMS in Walnut Creek in April 2010.These people were members of another company that I own membership interest in. They destroyed this business too. A matter of fact a letter written by one of them to the DOI started the frivioulous investigation on me before I even wrote the annuity in February 4th 2008.

I had a stellar reputation prior to firing them. Twenty years in the insurance business earning a good living by helping people with some of there financial stuff.This whole thing has taken it's toll and has left us broke. We lost our home,two cars,retirement plans, and health insurance. I have four beautiful children one with special needs.It's been real tough.Thing's have been real hard on my family. Thankyou, Glenn Neasham

Lou Jochim a long time client contacted me in January of 2008 and said Fran had a CD maturing early February. Fran and Lou came into my office February 1st 2008 to find out about product's similar to Lou's because he earned 10% that year.Lou was my client since 1997. On that day I did my due diligence which means gathering information with great care.I gatherered her current financial information, monthly income,home value(which was free and clear),goals, health status(which she herself said was good),what types of things are important to her as far as financial products,tax deferral,guaranteed monthly income,long term care,safe returns,risk tolerance,current financial goals,and what would you like to improve about your current financial situation?As an insurance agent I am required to make sure any products that I offer are suitable.At no time did Fran appear to be confused.I also gave Fran a brochure on a product which I felt would serve her needs which was the MasterDex 10 thru Allianz.The MD 10 was the number one selling fixed indexed annuity in the country for five consecutive years.It had the best crediting strategy of the 350 fixed indexed annuities available in California. It's a product that allows you to participate in the stock market gains with no downside risk.It also offers a fixed accont which earns about 3%-3.50% currently.This product since 1994 has averaged 8% in the equity options.It offers plenty of liquidity options. 10% free withdrawls,policy loan provisions,a 10% bonus which is paid upfront(however product must be annuitized to realize this bonus,but all gains are credited annually to the initial investment plus the bonus) on any premiums added anytime in the first five years, and 20% free withdrawls if you enter a nursing home which in Frans case would of been $44,000.00 per year for five years.After five years it can be annuitized(which means turned into a guaranteed monthly income for ten years or longer. If during the pay out phase if the policy owner dies the remaining payments will go to the beneficiary)As far as safety Allianzse the parent company is worth 1.7 trillion in assets and A+ rated by AM best.Allianzse owns Pimco,Oppenhiemer,Firemans Fund,and about 700 other companies in more than 60 countries.Allianzse is the third biggest money manager in the world, and the 15th biggest corporation in the world.Allianz of North America which this policy was underwritten by had 157% solevency which means for every dollar they have $1.57 cents in reserves.This product is designed as a legacy product or a product to provide income you cant outlive.
 
February 4th Lou, and Fran came back.At this time I did the presentation which took about one hour and thirty minutes.(presentation and completion of the application).During this time Deanna Jones was in my office for most of the presentation,as my assistants typically are. Deanna Jones testified Fran appeared "very competent" and was not at all confused during the presentation.During the beneficiary part of the application Fran wanted to name Lou the primary(he was on CD sincre 2004) and she wasn't sure who she wanted as contigent beneficiary.They finally agreed on Betty Koenig Lou's daughter. Fran was told she could change that at anytime.Deanna Jones witnessed that too)After the presentation Fran, and Lou went to the bank to get the funds made payable to Allianz.Lou Jochim called me from the bank and said the bank was giving them problems in reference to moving the money.I called Susie Robinson to talk to her per Lou's request.Susie told me she was concerned about Lou's influence, and said she doesn't have a problem with Fran her concern was with Lou.She also said Fran was confused about the investment.However Fran knew she wanted to withdrawl $175,000.00 made payable to Allianz.

I went over the product  with Susie on the phone for about five to ten minutes and Susie said "she doesn't have a problem with the annuity her  problem was with Lou" .During Susie testimony she denied me going over product with her, and my attorney never asked her if she said to me 'I dont have a problem with Fran I have a problem with Lou"The bank at no time said anything that led me to believe Fran was confused other than Fran being confused about the benefits of the annuity.They never expressed to me that Fran was incapable of understanding the transaction.When Fran and Lou came back to my office to give me the check I asked Fran if she understood the annuity and she said yes.
 
On 12/05/2008 ten months after the sell I met with Fran and Lou in my office after Lou called me to say that an investigator came to their home from the Dept. of Insurance on December 3rd to ask them some questions. During our meeting I asked Fran if she understood the investment and went over the letter the courts referred to as the CYA letter.The letter was signed by Fran and Lou and the reason for the letter was because when Fran and Lou came in for policy delivery 2/13/08 I wanted to make sure Fran was still ok with her choices of beneficiary.I've never had a  client choose someone other than a spouse or child as beneficiary.Again during application process Fran wasn't sure who she wanted to name as contigent beneficiary.After our meeting I called Lou at Fran's home and asked him if Fran has ever had a diagnoses of Alzheimers or Dementia and Lou said " no".
 
On February 5th 2008 one day after Fran bought the annuity I called the son Ted Schuber and told him what his mom did and set up a meeting with him February 6th 2008 at my office at  3:00 pm.(The date is in my 2008 planner)Ted testified under oath we met the summer of 2008. Which never happened.We only met once which was February 6th.During our phone conversation Ted said "he was concerned about his moms overall health" at no time has he ever told me his mom had alzheimers or dementia.During our meeting her health never came up again.If he would of told me his mom had Dementia or Alzhiemers I would of immediately stopped the transaction from going thru.The policy wasn't even issued yet and the client had a thirty day free look period.I would of called Allianz immediately and asked them and my FMO what do I do in this situation.I would of also contacted the client and asked further questions about her health. During my first interview Fran said she was in good health.
 
I was concerned about Lou only after the bank said they were concerned about Lou. I never understood why son Ted wasn't at least contigent beneficiary?I tried to set up a meeting with Ted and his mom  at an annual client appreciation dinner.Ted said he didn't want to do that.He loved his mom, wanted her to do what she wanted and he wanted her to be happy.The CYA letter was written because I was concerned about Fran's choice of beneficiary,I felt Ted should be beneficiary or atleast contigent beneficiary. I also felt like I needed to protect myself from having to use my E & O insurance because Ted wasn't named as beneficiary.I felt more than ever after meeting with him he should be the beneficiary. Fran's money was her's and his deceased dad's.I even contacted Fran and asked for a copy of the CD statement to show Lou was the beneficiary of the CD. He was since 2004 and I still have the postmarked envelope that show's a date of February 6th 2008.
During my conversations with the Dept. of Insurance investigator Kristian Schriber. I told her certain things that were not in her reports.She in my opinion withheld critical evidence. One was about why I had the client and boyfriend sign the CYA letter.Her response to me was "no it wasn't it was because you knew something was wrong with Fran" I said "no that's not true.Fran was completely fine during the presentation. It was a good case".The second thing was I told her I left my client with $100,000.00 in liquidity, and she Fran liked to gamble and she said "you should of left her more money to gamble with".The third thing I told her was the bank said they were concerned about Lou not Fran.In none of her reports does it mention any of this.
 
Another concerning fact is on 4/1/08 Investigator Martina Santor met with Fran and Lou.Fran told Martina she moved the money to help out with taxes and no one forced her to do it.She made her decision of her own free will.Fran further explained that she purposely removed her son Ted Schuber as beneficiary.She said that when Ted married Karen,Karen made it very clear that she believed all of Fran's assets would one day be hers and actually referred to them as hers. She no longer communicates with them,and has essentially disowned the whole Schuber family.Fran also thanked Martina for looking into suspected elder abuse,however she denied being forced by anyone.Under oath Martina said she had no video or audio recordings of the 4/1/08 meeting with Fran,however the day before closing arguments at 10:30 am Martina produced a audio tape to the court of six and a half minutes of a fifteen to twenty minute meeting(the audio wasn't complete it malfuntioned) and on this audio you can hear Fran saying no one forced her to do it and why she did it.It was not introduced into evidence and the jury didn't hear it.
 
I wish I would of testified but my attorney said the things I would of said mostly were on the twenty minutes the jury heard on the audio tapes.My attorney said the people haven't proved anything and that was one reason to rest and not call any of my twenty five satified client witnesses who were on our witness list and others who knew me and worked with me now or in the past.Alot of these things I'm telling you now were not on the audio tapes.
 
 
My witness list including but not limited to are Ed Robey,Roy Parmentier,Dennis Day,Ken Marshick,William Craig,Don Hummell,Robert Swim,Clark and Lou Miller,Gene Frazell,Jan Baker,Paul Brisco,Margie Dias,Frank Bowen,Roy Dufrain,Carlton Jennings,Pat Sanchez,Richard and Scotty Latham,Virginia Dilaberto,Vince Metzger,Bill Fargusson,Tom Engstrom,Roy Disney,Carolyn Greenlea,Lucille Ramoni,Yvonne Walter, and others.
 
Another thing the jury didn't consider was Dr.Rosaffs testimony. Dr.Rosaff said unless I witnessed her day to day activities a sporadic or one time meeting with Neasham wouldn't of known she had any problems, and the doctor said the condition she's in today has taken one year to get there as well he testified when she went to the doctor from 2005-2009 she seemed competent according to the medical records.
 
d**k Duff testified the product had alot more benefits than negatives and the product paid an average commission. d**k is an author of five financial books and has appeared on CNBC,CNN,and also has a radio show. He is an attorney of about 47 years and stills sells annuities in Colorado,and is licensed in many other states.
 
This simply was a product the client wanted and she met the criteria of the insurance company to buy this product and I earned a nominal commission to serve her and the rest of my clients for as long as they own the product. I even tell my clients that if something happens to them I will also help their spouses, or even the kids.The commission earned comes out to about one half of  1% per year for the life of duration of the policy.
 
I also called Lou Jochim three days after my arrest on 12/17/2010 at 10:42 AM and asked him again if Fran has ever had any diagnosis of alzheimers or dementia and he again said "no she doesn't".No doctors diagnoses period".I also asked him about a year and a half earlier if I asked you if Fran had Alzheimers or Dementia and he said yes you did and "no she didn't"."I asked if Fran was happy with investment and he said "yes". "She's very happy she's made money". 
 
In closing I want to say my client earned $42,000.00 in three years and seven months.Fran came to me and she's satisfied with the choice she's made according to long time boyfried Lou..She had plenty of liquidity,$100,000.00 in other accounts and access to another $17,500.00 per year if she wanted it for atleast five years or half that amount for ten years, and the annuity could of given her a monthly income for the rest of her life.Her account today has grown to over $217,000.00. I noticed no sign's at all of anything wrong with Fran in 2008.  During our annual review in September of 2009  Fran left her purse in my office and a minute or so later came into retrieve it.One of my assistants at the time Penny Patrick who worked for me on and off from 2007-2010 met with Fran prior to the meeting with me as well as during the annual review testified Fran did not appear at all cofused during the 2009 annual review. Penny is now a  medical assistant,Chaplian for years at St.Helena hospital in Clearlake and does disaster relief testified she has worked with many people who have dementia and noticed nothing wrong with Fran  during our September 2009 meeting.I haven't seen Fran since other than two times at the court house during my trial.She is remarkebly different today then in 2008 and 2009.
 
The arrest I understand for this type of thing is unprecedented.This completely ruined my business. My family and I have lost almost everything.Our house, two cars,retirement and other things such as health insurance.I've got four kids.This verdict I feel is unjust because of some of the facts that weren't introduced.Like I said I've been in business for 23 years. My client satisfaction rate is atleast 98% or better.My BBB rating was A+ while i was a member until June of this year.( I couldn't afford to renew) I've never had any disciplenary action by the Dept. of insurance prior to my arrest.I still feel I've done nothing wrong and have significantly improved my client's financial position.I plan to appeal. Thankyou, Glenn Neasham
 

as reported in the Lake County Record Bee
http://www.record-bee.com/ci_19168513?source=most_viewed

Here's an excerpt:

LAKEPORT -- A jury convicted Glenn A. Neasham of grand theft from an elder Friday afternoon, finding the local insurance agent guilty after nearly one day of deliberations.
"I think it's most of all an important thing for seniors," deputy district attorney Rachel Abelson said of the verdict. Elder abuse is "a big problem" in Lake County, according to Abelson, who often prosecutes those types of cases.
Neasham, 51, faced the felony count because of a $175,000 annuity he sold to Lucerne resident Fran Schuber, then 83, in February 2008. The California Department of Insurance (CDI) began investigating the transaction later that year and ultimately concluded the sale was illegal.

Insurance man to stand trial
By Jeremy Walsh -- Staff reporter
Updated: 04/08/2011 10:34:36 PM PDT


LAKEPORT -- Local insurance agent Glenn A. Neasham will stand trial for felony theft after a judge ruled on Friday that the prosecution "barely" established the "strong suspicion" standard during a three-day preliminary hearing. Judge Richard C. Martin said that based on the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing, the prosecution's case "has only passed that (strong suspicion) test by the thinnest of lines."

Martin presided over the preliminary hearing, which concluded Friday at the Lake County Courthouse. Attorney Mitchell Hauptman represented Neasham, and deputy district attorney Rachel Abelson represented the Lake County District Attorney's Office.

Neasham, 51, faces one felony charge of theft from an elder or dependant adult exceeding $950, as well as two special allegations, one of which stipulates that the theft exceeded $100,000.

The results of a California Department of Insurance (CDI) investigation allege that Neasham, who operates Neasham Financial, Insurance and Retirement Planning in Lakeport, acted illegally when he sold a $175,000 annuity to a local woman, then 83 years old, in February 2008.

The prosecution alleged that Neasham's client, Fran Schuber, lacked the mental capacity to enter into the annuity contract because of a documented history of Alzheimer's disease dating back to 2003. Hauptman argued Neasham was not aware of an Alzheimer's diagnosis, nor that of any other memory-loss condition, and believed the annuity was a good investment for Schuber.

The DA's Office arrested Neasham in December 2010, and Neasham pleaded not guilty to the felony charge, and denied the special allegations, in February. "As the judge said, the people have a weak case against me to say the least. Once our side of the evidence comes forward everything will work itself out. There's a lot of information the judge didn't hear at the preliminary hearing that should really benefit us," Neasham said in a statement Friday afternoon.
In making his ruling, Martin pointed out that the standard for moving a case forward from a preliminary hearing to trial is a probable cause standard requiring the judge to determine the existence of a strong suspicion that the crime was committed.

That standard is less stringent than the reasonable doubt standard that a jury would be asked to consider, Martin said.
The evidence suggests that Schuber made a $175,000 withdrawal from a certificate of deposit (CD) and wrote a check for the entire amount to purchase the annuity from Allianz Life Insurance, a deal brokered by Neasham.
Martin called the case "not your obvious, run of the mill" theft charge. "He obviously did not pocket that money himself," Martin said of Neasham, "but his actions did deprive his client, Ms. Schuber, from having access to that money for several years."

Glenn Neasham"When our evidence is finally presented at trial I will be vindicated" Glenn Neasham also said the defense doesn't put on the full case at a preliminary hearing.There's alot of witnesses and evidence that still need's to come out.
The client also had access to 10% free withdrawls every year for five years and she hasn't taken any the last three years, because she hasn't needed the money.After five year's she could turn the FULL cash accumalation value into a guaranteed income stream for the rest of her life. If she died the beneficiary would of recieved full accualation value over a five year period. Her account has grown to over $213,000.00 as of April 2011.Where's the crime and where's the theft? Sounds like she made a really good investment.

PS This also wasn't all of her money. She was left with plenty of liquidity!!!

Nothing happened in Citrus Heights other than great things. I was local newspaper publisher donated lots of my time to community things. I was also a member of Chamber Of Commerce and Rotary.I am not afraid of anything you write because it's 100% untrue and defamation.The only sham was when I fired you and you are nothing more than a vindictive fired EX employee/owner of LLC (which I am currently a working member)that has tried in numerous ways to hurt me and my family.

They launched another myspace site, and he's gotten it taken down too. He's also got messageboards to delete posts about him!!!!