Index

January 30, 2022 response

Re: Survey #2 while Front Sight Restructure on HOLD for Member Input and Consensus (1/30/2022, 12:01 a.m.)

Dr. Piazza,

If you will permit me a short digression, I believe Abraham Lincoln to be our worst president because he tore the country apart to limit states’ rights and accelerate the power and growth of the federal government. However, like other politicians, he had a way with words. He once said:

If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.

You find yourself at a similar crossroads now: You can continue your scorched-earth approach to empire-building, or you can allow truth and freedom to predominate. Reading the questions on your second survey, we seem to be on the road to empire.

You ask:

Question #1: Were you aware that Front Sight has been profitable every year throughout its 25 year history, has never canceled a scheduled course, and built the Front Sight facility, a million dollars at a time with its cash flow?

Answer: No. Are you saying that each of these statements is truthful and accurate? Congratulations may be in order, but what is the point of this question? It seems not to get us anywhere nearer to a resolution.

Are you aware that this question gives rise to other, more important questions? If Front Sight has been profitable every year throughout its 25 year history, where did that money go? Why is Front Sight in financial straits now? How could Front Sight be profitable all these years at the same time (according to you) it was running a deficit because you generously did not charge what it costs to run the facility? And finally, if it was profitable for 25 years doing things the old way, why do you need money now to continue operations?

Your answer probably will involve a reference to a con man, but that in turn raises questions of its own. You previously implied that Front Sight was in financial difficulties because it did not charging members for costs incurred in training (insurance, range fees, etc.). Now you state that Front Sight has been profitable. So, which is it: Has Front Sight be running at a deficit for years or has it been profitable for years?

You ask:

Question #2: Were you aware that even though Front Sight has been profitable every year throughout its 25 year history, and built the amazing Front Sight facility, a million dollars at a time with its cash flow, Front Sight has never been able to secure first tier (institutional banks like B of A, Wells Fargo) or second tier (pension funds, hedge funds) construction financing to complete the resort for the sole reason that Front Sight is in the firearms training business and those lenders have strict, discriminating policies against lending to gun related businesses?

Answer: No. As an aside, as intelligent as you must be, you must realize that compound questions such as the ones you pose are not only difficult to answer but also seem designed to obfuscate and confuse.

Banks (and the entire financial sector, for that matter) are highly regulated by the government. If the government is against gun ownership or marijuana dispensaries or whatever, they will find a way to attack those sectors using the sectors they control — in this case, banks and other similar institutions.

This form of de-platforming has been going on for years, so this is not really news. However, you apparently received a loan commitment from Summit Financial and Investment Group LLC back on August 26, 2016, another from U.S. Capital Partners on November 3, 2017, and one from Romspen since initiating this litigation, yet took advantage of none of them.

There is even evidence that you continued to shop for funds even after your signed the deal with LVDF, a deal from which you expected to gain tens of millions of dollars. What in the world were you going to do with all that money? How did you expect to pay it back, on perhaps I should ask if you intended to pay it back? Were you planning to pay back some creditors with monies collected from other creditors?

In a way, the behavior of the government toward Front Sight parallels the behavior of Front Sight toward its lifetime members. One party makes the rules (and changes them at will), and the other party either has to accept them or leave the game. Not fair, you say? Exactly. The Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms without infringement, but the government typically infringes as much as it wants to. Our member contracts with Front Sight say we get training for free for life, but the Front Sight management then abrogated that contract unilaterally. And yes, that was unfair, too.

You ask:

Question #3: Were you aware that the discrimination in the lending community against gun related businesses left Front Sight, our attorneys, and advisors vulnerable to very sophisticated con men who promised $150 million dollars in construction funding at 6% interest they claimed they would source from their vast network of foreign investors?

Answer: No. Instead of blaming others, look in the mirror. Your position is akin to someone who took money from a loan shark because he refused other funding, and is now saying that everything is the loan shark’s fault. I should also point out that I do not believe you are being honest and truthful with us about the nature of your relationship with the con men who loaned you in excess of $6 million.

You ask:

Question #4: Were you aware these con men, who promised full funding to complete the Front Sight Resort, lied to us throughout the process; misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars Front Sight paid to secure the funding; and after YEARS of delays, failed to provide the promised 150, 75, 50, 25, or even 10 million dollars in funding; then claimed Front Sight was in default and filed a fraudulent foreclosure action against Front Sight to cover their tracks?

Answer: No. Are you saying that each of these statements is truthful and accurate? Please provide documentation to support these claims.

You ask:

Question #5: Were you aware from all the emails, voice broadcasts, and postcards Dr. Piazza sent you, from the day the litigation started all the way to his final call to Finish the Fight at the end of 2021, that for the last four years Dr. Piazza has been fighting to protect the organization, the facility and the members from the unscrupulous people attempting to steal Front Sight?

Answer: Yes. However, this is another compound question. Of course your e-mails have said this. Whether your claims are based in fact is the question at hand.

You ask:

Question #6: Considering these facts, do you agree that with proper incentive, Front Sight’s members should rally together and support immediate changes in Front Sight’s policies, procedures, and fees to defeat the enemies attempting to destroy Front Sight, and ensure Front Sight operates successfully for generations to come?

Answer: No. As I have attempted to communicate to you, your word is no longer good enough, so what you call facts currently are nothing more than open questions. Therefore, I cannot agree unless and until I have the facts. Also, even if I agreed with you on this point, I do not grant blanket support for changes with no specificity.

Dr. Piazza, end this charade. Tell us what you have been hiding from us. Be honest with us. Stop trying to bury the situation under a Niagara of verbiage. Speak honestly. Tell us the facts. Give us your view of the options, and solicit options from your members. There are many of us who want to save Front Sight, but we cannot do it in the face of your deceit.

Greg Raven, Apple Valley, CA