Sunday, October 19, 2008

Val Southwick Restitution Update: Trustees and Attorneys Leave No Stone Unturned

The LDS Church even coughs up 200 thousand bucks

We'd like to highlight an interesting story in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune, reporting on the efforts of court-appointed trustees, receivers and attorneys seeking victim restitution from Boss Godfrey's bestest buddy, the notorious Ogden Ponzi swindler, Val Southwick. These collector fellas are leaving no stone unturned. They've even recovered $200,000 of Southwick's tithing from the LDS Church:
The return of tithing from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was negotiated by Salt Lake City attorney Robert Wing, the court-appointed receiver who is charged with recovering the money. Southwick was a member of the church and used that affiliation to give investors confidence that their money was safe with him. The agreement covers any monies given to the church from 2000 to January of this year and releases it from any further claims.
"They were great about it," said Wing. "They don't want money that's been stolen."
$200,000 down; $449,800,000 to go.

16 comments:

Valeri said...

It will be nice for our own little crook Godfrey to have an old pal to mentor him when he lands in the joint. By then Val will know all the ropes and will be able to guide little Matt on who to shack up with and who to stay away from.

Curmudgeon said...

Once again, we need to remember, I think, that Mr. Godfrey was one of Mr. Southwick's victims, not someone involved in Southwick's criminal scam other than as a victim. That raises legitimate questions about his business judgment, perhaps, but no more than that.

BTW, kudoes to the LDS church for returning the tithe money from Southwick. It was the right thing to do.

ozboy said...

Mr Curmudgeon

I think that Mr. Godfrey went beyond victim hood when he publicly endorsed Mr. Southwick's character and honor after Val's crimes started to appear to the public. Our honorable? mayor was quoted about how their families were long time close and how Val was a real honest guy and this was probably some minor misunderstanding. Birds of a feather type chatter as I recall.

Curmudgeon said...

Oz:

Again, that seems to involve his judgment, both personal and business. If I had a long time friend who was nabbed in something like Southwick was, I know I'd want to believe that he'd made mistakes rather than stolen. I'd be wrong, but that would, as I said, put my judgment in question. It would not make me complicit in the fraud.

disgusted said...

curm your right but i just wonder.
i wonder if godfrey and his family were some of the few lucky ones that got all their money back just before the house of cards came down. might explain godfreys support.
also wonder if southwick was a big financial supporter of godfrey and or of godfreys other political oriented extended family members.
sorry rudi just cant help myself.

Curmudgeon said...

disgusted:

All I know is what I read in the papers, and I think the SE reported that Godfrey lost a considerable sum in the Southwick scam, as did some other Godfrey family members. As I recall.

Jason W. said...

Wrong, Good Old (?) Curmudgeon: Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey said he lost "some money" to his swindler buddy, but he decried Southwick's jail sentence and postulated that the system would let go A MURDERER OR RAPIST to make room for the fat crook. I also heard your candidate for District 10, Addled Ed Allen, sayinig the same thing, though he never mentioned if he were stupid enough to "invest" with a GONDOLA BOY con artist like Southwick.

THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL NLUE

Its true, just ask the admin. said...

I know for sure that Mr. Stake pres. Ed Allen got some of this money when he ran for the senate in 1998.

skeptical said...

curm, why should we even believe Godfrey when he says he lost money to Southwick? I don't remember that the paper stated that as fact-- it was just a quote.

Thelma said...

Curm, while I appreciate your almost always contradicting whatever may be written here, I must note on this particular subject the old saying: "You can't cheat an honest man". If mayor Godfrey was indeed cheated by Southwick then it follows that he himself is not an honest man. You seem to be defending his honor by attributing the mayor's lack of honor to an error in judgment.

Personally I think he has a problem in both areas.

Curmudgeon said...

Thelma:

I don't think it's true that you can't cheat an honest man, or that the mere fact of having been cheated means you're dishonest. Honest people get cheated all the time. Open the paper today, and read the stories about people in danger of foreclosure who get cheated, flat out bilked, by these so-called "foreclosure rescue" companies. The marks are gullible, but not dishonest.

The kind of scam Southwick was running played largely on the greed, not the dishonesty of his marks. He was promising big returns fast, and for a time, he provided them. [Most ponzi scheme operators do, at first.] And folks got taken in, glittering visions of huge fast profits in their eyes. That makes them gullible and greedy, but not dishonest. Most of them now, I suspect, would ruefully admit they lost sight of that old market adage, "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is." Gullible, yes. Greedy, sure. Dishonest, no, at least not simply because they got scammed.

PPK said...

Dishonest yes, when they sign on the dotted line of the mortgage note that clearly states they can and will be able to pay their outlined payments, even IF their interest rate goes up. Greedy, yes, they wanted the home no matter what. Gullible, yes, they wanted the home no matter what. Dishonest yes, because the mere fact they are being forclosed on means they could NOT, in fact, keep making payments even IF (as they did) the interest went up...including due to late payments, etc. It IS dishonest. Sorry.

Is this right? said...

Sunday and todays Standard Examiner editions both contained "our view" on the upcomming vote. Where the "paper" endorses one canidate over another.

Isn't this ethically wrong? I don't think I've ever seen CNN endorse a Canidate. Isn't the media suppose to report the news and not try to influence their watcher/readers?

I also couldn't help but notice that both endorsments have been for the incumbent republican in office.

Curmudgeon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Curmudgeon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RudiZink said...

Two reader comments moved to new article

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved