This post is longer than I would want to write, but Gene wants to correct wacky conspiracy theories about how he first started to ask people to support him. The story has been told here, on the UFOTrail and other sites so most of us are familiar with the facts. Still, this is Gene's most thorough response. Let's break it down:
I’ve often written, originally I asked for help to assist a relative, Stephen, his wife, Helene, and their developmentally disabled son Jaret. When Stephen got into a legal jam, for reasons that’ll be explained shortly, I gave up my life savings to pay his rent, utilities, food and other living expenses.
A legal jam. For years Gene portrayed Stephen as a victim. A 2003 update attributed to Grayson Steinberg stated: "Their problems have been greatly increased over the past five years, as an elderly woman with millions of dollars in the bank and time on her hands has been harassing them relentlessly because of a failed financial deal. Her actions are completely unjustified. The matter has gone through several federal and state court actions, and my family has won every time. Yet this woman won't give up, and her actions have deprived my cousin of his disability insurance, and left his parents destitute. Creditors are constantly hounding them and they are on the verge of becoming homeless."
Gene also maintained that Stephen was to receive a settlement that would make everything right - in 2011 he defended himself against David Biedny's warning about a nonexistent settlement by stating categorically that it was real.
Gene has stated that tens of thousands in judgments against him from that time were from loans that he took out to help Stephen, that he could not repay when things did not work out. After emptying his savings - and Grayson's college fund - Gene was left destitute. Perhaps. But for someone who once was registered as the president of a consulting firm that gave investment advice, he might have been more careful.
So they got the “bright idea” to do some research of court records and they soon came to realize that what I wrote all along was true. As you might expect, they did everything possible to put a bad spin on the situation. Correcting the misstatements isn’t possible because they won’t allow me to post responses.
Gene has posted responses at the UFO Trail, JayVay, other sites. Indeed, on the UFO Trail (May 18, 2018) he wrote, "My brother-in-law died of pancreatic cancer before he could settle his case, leaving his wife and handicapped son paupers." This response made no sense since a case could be settled or prosecuted after Stephen's death on behalf of his estate. Gene's response is what led me to search for any legal action brought by Stephen - when that search turned up nothing, I found the record of Stephen's crimes instead.
I contacted Gene about the information I found because I did not want to post any comments about Stephen without giving Gene a chance to clear things up. Jack Brewer also contacted Gene before posting his thorough article on Stephen at the UFO Trail. I assume Gene would be welcome to post a response here.
There was no need to put a bad spin on the facts. Gene's own writings did it himself.
But due to the complexities of the case, he declined the offer of a public defender. On the recommendation of another relative, he hired a private attorney with experience in handling financial cases.
First, I have been a public defender and we can handle complex cases. I have been involved with more complex cases than this. Alternative counsel might have been appointed for special reasons. So that was a mistake. If he qualified for a public defender, it was because he did not have full financial resources of his own. Hiring a private attorney when your own businesses are failing (according to court records) is not a good idea.
Facing a possible prison sentence, Stephen asked for my financial assistance to help his family survive, and he offered to pay me back with interest when he received the proceeds of a stock sale that he said wasn’t part of the charges he faced from the Arizona authorities.
. . .
Unfortunately, Stephen didn’t have the resources to mount a full defense to a complicated case. Faced with the threat of spending years in prison, he pled guilty to several lesser charges. The most serious charges were dropped.
Let's be clear about this. Stephen faced 14 charges relating to theft and fraud. The primary victim was a 76 year old woman. Stephen defrauded the victim. Among the most morally egregious actions was taking over $40,000 from the victim for Stephen's father-in law's (Phillip Kaplan) care, which he used instead for himself. At that time the Phoenix police department was looking for Stephen because he had abandoned his father-in-law and depleted Kaplan's account. Apparently this did not bother either Gene or Barbara as they went on to allegedly deplete their own accounts.
There were several charges related to fraudulent financial dealings, but I would not call it a complicated case - it was pretty open and shut. Stephen admitted that his primary business (Numis Gems / sports memorabilia) was not doing well. He stated that he took money from he victims to pay for a lifestyle he could not afford - over $168,000 was still owed his primary victim and another victim was owed over $18,500.
Stephen had been through bankruptcy before. His primary business was failing. He faced massive restitution fines and jail time. Yet Gene seemingly asked no questions. Gene instead painted the victim as a vengeful woman who had harassed Stephen after losing in court. Gene described a "settlement" rather than a supposed stock sale.
He described Stephen as a victim. He continues to do this here, someone who had to accept a plea agreement rather than mount a full defense.
So while the stalkers are making a huge deal of the original complaint, they forget that one is innocent until proven guilty in the United States of America.
I find this personally offensive because I treasure the presumption of innocence. This is not what that presumption is about.
I am looking at what Stephen admitted in the pre-sentence investigation by court officers and the records of his sentencing including the massive restitution fine ordered by the court. The presumption does not apply to a guilt plea.
Stephen’s lawyer negotiated a deal that mostly involved taking money from two women under false pretenses and selling unregistered securities. Stephen would have to serve 11 months in prison, plus five years probation, and agree to restitution to his alleged victims. The fine for the securities count was already paid.
This is accurate enough - although it left out that the restitution fines totaled $186,000. Gene never acknowledged Stephen's actual status as a felon while he continued to vaguely refer to Stephen's legal problems and a supposed settlement.
After he was released from prison, Stephen was limited in the kind of jobs he could accept. He was also prohibited from owning a business while on probation.
At first, he worked at several low-end jobs, and also managed a stint as a salesperson at a car dealership. None of it produced a living wage, and I continued to supplement his income to help cover his living expenses.
By early 2010, I stopped. I couldn’t afford it anymore. I needed financial help myself.
But what about that “mysterious” Numis Gems, and what was my connection to that company?
The answer is simple enough. Stephen operated under that name for number of years, dating back to the early 1970s. He traded in gold and silver and sold collectibles.
He decided to use the name again, so he asked if he could put by name on the business paperwork so he wouldn’t run afoul of his probation. I also gave him some free radio ads, and a free web site.
Gene acknowledges that he helped Stephen evade the terms of his probation, but he is vague on the dates and perhaps implies that it occurred after 2010.
Gene became president of Numis Gems in 2004. The website was copyrighted to Gene's "Making the Impossible" during this time. Gene told me that he only helped with the web site, but the sole reason for transferring the corporate ownership was to make Gene have legal control. During various proceedings, Stephen referred to Gene as the owner of the business and sought to modify probation so that he could be employed by Gene.
Once again, until he received help from several friends and former business partners, I helped pay his family’s living expenses, such as rent, utilities, food, insurance and so forth. Although it seems to be an important issue to the stalkers, the issue of restitution to his alleged victims was never raised in my dealings with Stephen.
Why wasn't restitution discussed? Stephen was under a court judgment that entailed $186,000. Gene states that he had given Stephen around 200,000 and Gene owed tens of thousands of dollars in judgments related to this. Perhaps Gene should have discussed restitution - if they did not mention it, it says a lot about both Stephen and Gene.
But what about the proceeds of that stock sale?
Gene consistently referred to this as a settlement rather than a stock sale be when he sent out solicitations or posted on various sites. There is a difference.
Over the years Stephen described in detail the interactions between the attorneys that he hired for a percentage of the proceeds and the opposition. Whenever he was victorious and ready to distribute the money to me and several former business partners, the opposition filed yet another complaint on a different aspect of the original deal. Stephen said this was done to sidestep the statute of limitations.
I began my search to find records of a court action that Stephen had brought that could account for an outstanding case at the time of Stephen's death. I did not find anything in Arizona or federal courts. Since Gene refers to out of state attorneys in his article, I might have not have seen it if it was in a different jurisdiction - I'll look further as time permits.
However, until Gene provides specific information - and I trust that he can do so here - I attribute this to the same kind of allegation that described how a vengeful woman harassed Stephen even though he was consistently victorious in court.
Stephen died of pancreatic cancer in 2014, but he never resolved his case. He maintained until the end of his days that it was genuine. Indeed, after his death, one of the lawyers Stephen consulted left a message of sympathy on his telephone (I heard it). Helene assured me that she expected a quick settlement, a settlement that never came.
At the time of Stephen's death he was trying to find new victims to invest in a proven financial opportunity that would change their bottom line. So I do not put much trust in what Stephen maintained or a message left on a telephone.
We return to the idea of a settlement. If Stephen died in the middle of a legal action, that could be carried on by his estate. Any attorney who filed a case on Stephen's behalf would be obligated to pursue it and would be speaking to Helene about that.
In 2014 it would hardly be a quick settlement since it had allegedly been expected for ten years. That Gene had been counting on it to repay the money he gave to Stephen might have led him to look over the paperwork, particularly after Stephen's death.
An assurance by Helene without asking to look at anything more? It defies rationality, which might be a mitigating factor for Gene if we take him at his word (cough).
I have since tried to locate more information about Stephen’s case, but ran into roadblocks
All of the above, but the only roadblock would be from Helene. Certainly she would know about the status of a court case. Gene has stated that Barbara and Helene want to go into business together when things settle down. Maybe it's time for a heart to heart discussion.
Stephen’s widow was left penniless. She spends her days caring for Jaret and struggling to pay bills. She has more or less given up on the possibility that Stephen’s case, if it was real, will ever be resolved.
That’s where it stands. Maybe I was just another of Stephen’s victims all along. Regardless of the truth, there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it. I have my own problems.
I have stated that Gene may have been one of Stephen's victim - his greatest con may have convinced Gene to shield his business and give him money that Gene did not have.
The latest statement, however, demonstrates that Gene clearly knew more about Stephen's affairs than he has admitted in the past. It raises the possibility that Gene may have expected something out of it - beyond repayment - but perhaps this is a wacky conspiracy theory.
But regardless, Gene appears to invoke one of his favorite sayings, "Let's move on."
No Gene, you can do something about it. You asked for money under what is now shown to be false pretenses. To put it charitably, you told less than the full truth even about that which you now acknowledge you knew. You slandered Stephen's victims.
Just saying you have your own problems is not enough. Don't continue to treat Stephen as a victim. At least apologize to Stephen's victims and to those who gave you money based upon your representations. When I contacted Gene, he asked why I cared and said he had nothing to apologize for - it was the other way around. Gene's sense of morality failed.
The Beizer saga has long been used to justify Genes solicitations - from 2003 to his 2018 Facebook appeal. What Gene now writes only confirms how little truth means to him.
We have not stalked Gene. He stalks us for donations, it seems like almost a daily basis even after people try to remove themselves from his list. (I asked him to do this, my wife used the unsubscribe links recommended in his emails).
It was his Gene's words that led us to Stephen's true history and to look at his bankruptcy filings. Gene would not be "stalked" if he had acted with honesty or took responsibility for his actions - if he made some attempt to change his financial situation or sought help from resources other than his mailing list.
Really, Gene you spent you last $1.08 on a cheeseburger rather than to go to the food bank, enjoy a free nutritious meal at your local senior center, and register for low income senior housing?