• Proof that Evosport is thousands in debt and soliciting customers for generation of capital

      Most of you saw that Benzboost broke the story last week on Evosport's debt and failure to deliver parts to customers. We quoted this debt as in the hundreds of thousands but now have exact up to date figures that were released by Evosport themselves. Where and why would they reveal these figures? They revealed the details in documents seeking investment from a select, hand picked group of customers in order to get money they need flowing in.

      Evosport has about $300,000 of debt with a quarter million of back orders that have not been fulfilled. They are cash strapped so they have hand picked a number of their customers to solicit for investment purposes. We have been able to get a hold of the proposal with all the details from more than one source. This investment group is being spearheaded by Jim Brady (James J. Brady of Ringler Associates) who is one of their customers. He is also a CLK63 Black Series owner and it is Black Series owners who are mostly being targeted for investment. Why Jim Brady is doing this for Evosport, we have no clue but will certainly try to find out.

      The investment documents are all detailed below. They verify that what was written previously is accurate. We now know the investment amount each customer is being asked to produce is $100k minimum. The documents are dated April 2011 so this information is as up to date as possible. Additionally, we do not know if Jim Brady has already invested as numerous sources have given us varying figures on his own commitment. It could be that he has already committed funds and that they have not been enough to pull Evosport out so other sources are being tapped.

      We feel this information is necessary to not only validate our investigative journalism, much of which was already confirmed by customers coming forward to say they had not received their parts as well as JRCART confirming his issues with Evosport, but also to warn potential investors and customers of the current situation. It is irresponsible to continue to collect money from customers who expect delivery of their parts when there are very real issues that affect if Evosport will even continue to be viable. Not to mention that Brad Otoupalik e-mailed BenzBoost with veiled threats about "slander" which this isn't, it is completely factual based on details Evosport has verified in its own documents sent out into the public. Attempting to silence this on MBworld and threaten us only caused more people to be willing to come forward in support of what BenzBoost had the courage to reveal. We will not be pushed around or intimidated by Evosport or anyone else for that matter for providing the community with the truth MBworld hides from them.

      You can verify all the information in the documents below. You can also see the questionnaire that attempts to assess just how much money the potential investor has. Evosport's fiscal information is all detailed as well as debt and pending litigation involving a damage claim to a Lamborghini. We have also been told of liens which if it becomes necessary we will look into in much further detail. Evosport is apparently in damage control mode attempting to pay off what they can which we have not been able to verify but have received some anonymous tips stating so. Additionally, one tip stated that Bob Otoupolik's credit cards have been locked but we do not know if this is true. If anyone has any information to verify this tip, do not hesitate to contact us.











      This article was originally published in forum thread: Warning to Mercedes Enthusiasts! Evosport hundreds of thousands in debt, not delivering parts started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 493 Comments
      1. alq80's Avatar
        alq80 -
        I read the Jalopnik post, and the cool thing is that it seems like people are catching on to censorship. Power to the people Sticky! And i love the comments the Jalopnik commentators put haha
      1. Mort's Avatar
        Mort -
        Evosport are doing their level best to hush you up Sticky!

        Darn you anyway! Click here to enlarge

        Good for you standing on your principals. Click here to enlarge

        Whats next? Click here to enlarge

        Into the mud Click here to enlarge
      1. Eirebenz's Avatar
        Eirebenz -
        Sticky - as per the update in the Jalopnik thread:

        Serota also said Mr. Wilk has a prior relationship with Evosport and "pretty much threatened" them while trying obtain something for the company. Nevertheless, Mr. Serota says "it has nothing to do with Mr. Wilk personally, he happened to be the one who did this."

        What's the "pretty much threatened" bit all about (if we may be so bold to ask)?
      1. JBond's Avatar
        JBond -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Eirebenz Click here to enlarge
        Sticky - as per the update in the Jalopnik thread:

        Serota also said Mr. Wilk has a prior relationship with Evosport and "pretty much threatened" them while trying obtain something for the company. Nevertheless, Mr. Serota says "it has nothing to do with Mr. Wilk personally, he happened to be the one who did this."

        What's the "pretty much threatened" bit all about (if we may be so bold to ask)?
        I'm going to bet all my pennies that it has something to do with Sticky being "aggressive". Search through all Brad's posts on MBW and the most common adjective he uses is clearly "aggressive". Anything over a bed time whisper and you are dubbed "aggressive". Click here to enlarge
      1. Benz280SL's Avatar
        Benz280SL -
        What strikes me is Benzboosts allegation about Evosport: "In FACT (emphasis added).......they decided to make money off his insurance company for bodywork repair whose cost was inflated" Thats a very, very serious allegation. If someone said that about me and/or my company - and it weren't true - I sue 'em too!
      1. P31-C63's Avatar
        P31-C63 -
        Is that like being "half pregnant"?
        He either did or didn't threaten, what a crappy lawyer he isClick here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by alq80 Click here to enlarge
        I read the Jalopnik post, and the cool thing is that it seems like people are catching on to censorship. Power to the people Sticky! And i love the comments the Jalopnik commentators put haha
        Very cool that people are catching on. It reaches a point that you keeping huffing and puffing you just end up blowing your own house down.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JBond Click here to enlarge
        I'm going to bet all my pennies that it has something to do with Sticky being "aggressive". Search through all Brad's posts on MBW and the most common adjective he uses is clearly "aggressive". Anything over a bed time whisper and you are dubbed "aggressive". Click here to enlarge
        What exactly is "pretty much threatened" ? What the hell is that? And what would I try to obtain for the company? That doesn't even make any sense the way it is written.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by P31-C63 Click here to enlarge
        Is that like being "half pregnant"?
        He either did or didn't threaten, what a crappy lawyer he isClick here to enlarge
        Haha, exactly, it makes no sense to me.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Benz280SL Click here to enlarge
        What strikes me is Benzboosts allegation about Evosport: "In FACT (emphasis added).......they decided to make money off his insurance company for bodywork repair whose cost was inflated" Thats a very, very serious allegation. If someone said that about me and/or my company - and it weren't true - I sue 'em too!
        That comes straight from JRCART sir.

        I "heard" the bodywork cost is being "re-adjusted" so tell my why would that be taking place?

        Why would the insurance company be involved? That is not something pulled out of thin air, it is from directly speaking to Jim as well as texts.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Eirebenz Click here to enlarge
        What's the "pretty much threatened" bit all about (if we may be so bold to ask)?
        I'm just guessing here, but I think it's from when I e-mailed Brad asking why BenzBoost was censored on MBW and he refused to uncensor it. So, I said I would just have to do it the hard way, you know, old fashioned hard work and then Brad wrote back, "Are you threatening me?" I told him no, I intend to not quit even though he is going to censor me.

        The post referencing that is here: http://www.benzboost.com/showthread....798#post116798

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Kind of funny you mention this as I wrote the exact same thing you just stated to Brad, and he said he doesn't like threats. Heh, me stating I would have to work hard the old fashioned/hard way he took as a threat because I refused to just lay down.
        Are they reaching or what?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Mort Click here to enlarge
        Whats next?
        Lighting my computer on fire?
      1. Benz280SL's Avatar
        Benz280SL -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        That comes straight from JRCART sir.

        I "heard" the bodywork cost is being "re-adjusted" so tell my why would that be taking place?

        Why would the insurance company be involved? That is not something pulled out of thing air, it is from directly speaking to Jim as well as texts.
        Ok, let me see if I get this right. You've stated on your website "As a matter of FACT" these things took place - tantamount to insurance fraud. A matter of FACT, sir, is not hearsay ie I "heard". Aint the same thing. Is this one of those "things" JCART refers to in his Jalopnik post " the article does have many mis-quoted or inconsistant FACTS about my(JRCART's) part of the story."
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Benz280SL Click here to enlarge
        Ok, let me see if I get this right. You've stated on your website "As a matter of FACT" these things took place - tantamount to insurance fraud. A matter of FACT, sir, is not hearsay ie I "heard". Aint the same thing. Is this one of those "things" JCART refers to in his Jalopnik post " the article does have many mis-quoted or inconsistant FACTS about my(JRCART's) part of the story."
        Did I not also say text messages? It is not hearsay, it is directly from the source involved who also stated it was true. Do you know what hearsay is? Don't play attorney when you can't even figure that out, it is a fact.

        He is referring to the Jalopnik story, not the posts here, which are in two different places. Please make the distinction.

        Yes, insurance fraud would be a huge issue which is probably why JRCART got his insurance company involved, right?
      1. Benz280SL's Avatar
        Benz280SL -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Did I not also say text messages? It is not hearsay, it is directly from the source involved who also stated it was true. Do you know what hearsay is? Don't play attorney when you can't even figure that out.

        He is referring to the Jalopnik story, not the posts here, which are in two different places. Please make the distinction.

        Yes, insurance fraud would be a huge issue which is probably why JRCART got his insurance company involved, right?
        I see. So JRCART has provided you with evidence of insurance fraud? You've published a number of documents that you contend are factual.......satisfy all and publish the "texts" as delivered to you by JRCART. Isnt that reasonable if you're going to make that allegation?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Benz280SL Click here to enlarge
        I see. So JRCART has provided you with evidence of insurance fraud? You've published a number of documents that you contend are factual.......satisfy all and publish the "texts" as delivered to you by JRCART. Isnt that reasonable if you're going to make that allegation?
        Speaking directly with the owner who has provided his account of events is not evidence? Sure is. JRCART has already stated the information is correct, if he wishes to publish his text messages that is his business but I'm not going to violate his confidence to satisfy you. Who are you?

        What is reasonable is that if I am going to report the events that took place as relayed by the primary source. That should be more than sufficient to show you the basis for what was written. So no, your request is not reasonable and would involve violating JRCART's confidence. I'm confident enough in the accuracy of what he told me that I will not reveal my hand completely as it is not necessary.

        If you want further details on his issues with the insurance company and body repair which he told me in a phone call yesterday is apparently being "re-adjusted" by parties involved, maybe try asking him?
      1. Benz280SL's Avatar
        Benz280SL -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Did I not also say text messages? It is not hearsay, it is directly from the source involved who also stated it was true. Do you know what hearsay is? Don't play attorney when you can't even figure that out, it is a fact.

        He is referring to the Jalopnik story, not the posts here, which are in two different places. Please make the distinction.

        Yes, insurance fraud would be a huge issue which is probably why JRCART got his insurance company involved, right?
        Does this resonate with you?

        "The rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined"
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Benz280SL Click here to enlarge
        Does this resonate with you?

        "The rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined"
        We aren't in court, we aren't trying this, it is as simple as reporting an eye witness account. JRCART is directly involved in his insurance issues, I hope this resonates with you.

        So, what point are you making exactly? That JRCART has been lying this whole time? He just made the insurance issues up? That he isn't a reliable source? You state you would be angry if someone stated something as fact if it wasn't true. Well, it is true, so you can stop being angry now.
      1. Yomama69's Avatar
        Yomama69 -
        I'm amused watching laymen talk about hearsay. Y'all know there are exceptions, right? There's also a best evidence rule that comes into play...as well as document authentication. It's pointless to even bring up the word "hearsay" when speaking of assertions where there is no legal claim even made.
      1. Benz280SL's Avatar
        Benz280SL -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        We aren't in court, we aren't trying this, it is as simple as reporting an eye witness account. JRCART is directly involved in his insurance issues, I hope this resonates with you.

        So, what point are you making exactly? That JRCART has been lying this whole time? He just made the insurance issues up? That he isn't a reliable source? You state you would be angry if someone stated something as fact if it wasn't true. Well, it is true, so you can stop being angry now.
        Well, just for fun, lets pretend we are in court....and you are asked to produce evidence that establishes the clams made by YOU as FACT. I gather that you are prepared to do so and look forward to that opportunity?