From: "Gary Walker" 
Newsgroups: alt.invest.real-estate
Subject: Re: Investors Needed for Texas Real Estate
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:18:02 GMT


Sorry, I'll go along with Rick here. There are many flags
here, but the most prominent, and defining rub in the or-
iginal offer is this:

"Investments starting with as little as $5000-$7000 investment with positive
cash flow"

Unless you are planning the investment recruitment of a
group the size of Rhode Island, the investment pool is
considerably under capitalized for the lofty ambitions
previously stated. These minimal investment sums are
usually a clear determinate of a scheme.

Additionally, like the Ponzi ruse mentioned, the only participants that
should be expecting a positive cash flow here, will be the founders.

Any endeavor, comparing to the size/magnitude described, would have formed a
corporation/LLC etc,
and solicited investment through regulated ownership.

But, you can post a url of the planned golf course, club
house, riding stables, recreation center, etc.... 

Thanks,

Gary





"Rick"  wrote in message
news:umqen1pi5to4c4kt33719v4g93s5kn7bad@4ax.com...
>
> On 12 Nov 2005 15:45:43 -0800, "Texas REKing"
>  wrote:
>
> >This is not a scheme, scam, con or whatever word you would use to
> >descibe something illegal. These are purchases of Real Estate. Real
> >stuff, that you can touch and see and even walk through. I have over
> >200 satisfied clients that I have made alot of money for, to include
> >myself. I was looking for another avenue to recruit potetial investors
> >but this one just seems to be a dead end. The only response I got is
> >from some guy who obviously has not ever invested sucessfully, probably
> >due to a severe case of senicism. I appreciate the lesson about Ponzi
> >however and remember, those who cant do...teach. You an effective
> >teacher.
>
> Maybe it's a dead end because people see through your scheme?  And,
> BTW, the word is spelled "cynicism" -- of which a healthy dose is
> necessary when dealing with Arizona swamp land, which your business
> seems to be just a type of offshoot.
>
> The fact that you said that Ponzi should have taken the money and run
> is quite telling.
>
> Bye.
>
>
>
>
>