Complaint Review: Presidio Group International LLC - Internet

Despite the fact that the original reporter wrote a follow-up statement trying to negate his original comments because his partners did not agree with his actions nor his content -- we still feel it is important to submit a rebuttal to this matter:

1st Paragraph: The reporter who wrote this is one of three consultants working on our transaction. His name is not Nathan Bedford Forrest (who was a civil war general). It is curious when a person who files a slanderous report purposely does not use their real name.

The reporter also purposefully misrepresented the fact that the basis of our transaction is with 144A bonds, which under Federal Law requires brokers and agents to be fully licensed with the SEC. None of the consultants on our transaction turned out to be licensed. Because of their unlicensed status, they are not qualified to do further work on the bonds (which is probably a good thing based on their lack of English writing skills). They are only allowed to receive limited fees, which is an issue they take exception to . . . but they should not blame us for such problems.

2nd Paragraph: We have only one contract between our groups, which (by their own admission) does not actually bind PGI as a party thereto. None-the-less, PGI has agreed (several times in writing) to honor the intent of the contract. No payment has been made to date only because the party they brought to the transaction (the buyer) has yet to perform. Once performance is made, commissions will be paid. Again, they are upset over non-performance, but it is their referral that still has to perform first. The only fees that have been cut were potential fees for future sales and trades outside of the original contract -- which we were negotiating on. In reality no agreement was ever made. One member of their group even noted that technically we had no legal responsibility to pay them for future deals. What is also ironic is that when we tried to negotiate future payments for them, but insisted that all payments had to be in accordance with US laws and regulations the consultant who made this original report objected; he noted that this would severely limit their payment since they were not licensed brokers.

3rd Paragraph: We did add an extra consultant to the equations because it was the consultant who originally put our two groups together. References about Ken Zimmerman trying to skim off the top are utterly untrue . . . Mr. Zimmerman is not the President of PGI; Mr. Zimmerman was not the party drafting our contracts; nor was Mr. Zimmerman ever a suggested 4th Party in any of the contract offers (ours or theirs). Lastly (despite the verb tense they used), neither Mr. Zimmerman nor anyone else is pocketing any money because to date, their referral has yet to put the money on the table to buy any of the bonds.

4th Paragraph: We are honoring the intent of the only contract that is in writing. The only other items that were in writing are the proposed offers for future sales no final/mutual agreements. If we had lied or cut a written agreement in half (as implied), this issue would be tried in a court of law, (not by an unprofessional, unlicensed person hiding under a pseudonym).

5th Paragraph: Lying, cheating stealing, crooks and liars . . . again, all is ramble. Additionally, one of their group has already gone on the record in writing that they should have accepted our last contract offer which demonstrates our good faith efforts (and both of the other partners to the group have denied the allegations in the original report). This is simply a transaction where future negotiations were terminated and one member of the opposing side (who purposefully fails to accurately represent the whole situation) is choosing to slander us as a means to limit our outside options and force us back into negotiations. We assume that the true professionals who read these reports can also properly read in between the lines.

Jameson K. Kauhi,

President: Presidio Group LLC

since filing this report issues have been resolved so please disregard the first report.