I have just emailed Rob

[abarth_1200]

and he replied,

I was asking about purchasing a new Lummi and was enquiring about his stock, he told me he has Wee SS and Ti are ready to ship with the new XM-L emitter he is building, although he has no locators in stock.

Now I know of all the bad things flying around on this forum, but I have succesfully purchased 2 lights from him (2 years ago) with no problems, he was very proffesional in every step.

I dont see why I shouldnt hand over payment for a new Wee Ti, he has done nothing wrong by me.

What are your thoughts?

[morimotom]

i received an email advertising lights he has ready to ship, presumably the same lights he is referencing in his email response to you.

my question is why he is unable (unwilling) to use these lights to fill existing orders, such as mine and all the others who have placed orders and received nothing.

that, in and of itself, should be enough reason to not send him money. the fact he has done nothing wrong by you doesn't change the fact that he has done wrong by a great many people.

[mglamb]

I dont see why I shouldnt hand over payment for a new Wee Ti, he has done nothing wrong by me.

What are your thoughts?

Here's my thoughts: if you do go ahead and place an order, I sincerely hope that Rob uses your money to fill the oldest outstanding order that he's sitting on and that you don't receive a thing until all orders preceding yours are filled. Since you have so little sympathy for the current victims of Rob's criminal actions I think you would benefit from joining them. Maybe then you'd get it.

[Nyctophiliac]

Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

Lummi has certainly been operating a dangerous business model over the last few years. It would seem not enough of the profits have been reinvested in the company to re stock and therefore generate more income etc etc. As is obvious, this situation has got worse, and now they struggle to generate the money needed to fill previous orders. On top of that, some of the work is outsourced and open to delays beyond their control. Nightmare!

But not insoluable - the amounts coming in will eventually enable them to fill the backlog, but ONLY if every new light sold is an actual finished product - off the shelf - ready to ship - no mess no fuss etc. Otherwise the problem just gets worse.

To be completely disspassionate about it is the only way to proceed. This is a business. When the outgoings become less than the income for an extended period or the debts become too high, then the business goes into liquidation - that's how it's done in the UK. That means that everyone who has paid for lights simply becomes a Creditor of the liquidation guarantor. In my experience the Creditors never see their money, or at least only see a very small part of it. ( This has just happened to me with another company to the tune of thousands of pounds - my accountant told me not to hold my breath for payment anytime soon as the bigger the creditor the more likely any recompense - and my amount owing is very small in the scheme of company debt!).

So the only way for anybody to get these paid for lights is to hope that Lummi keeps going until the back orders are filled. There is no other way.

I completely understand the anger generated here, I would find it hard not to feel it myself in the circumstances. But, other than letting off steam, I feel that it will not solve this problem. The only person who can solve this is Lummi and Rob. That's it.

To abarth 1200 - if Rob says he has the light, and you like it, then buy it. If he's doing the right thing you will get your light ASAP, and maybe your purchase will help the others get theirs.

To mglamb - I don't think abarth was being unsympathetic to those still waiting ( The 'victims' if you will ) merely asking for opinions. I don't feel that anybody would be well served if Lummi sell no more lights.

Good luck to ALL concerned.

[fugleebeast]

I wouldn't accept a light from Rob knowing that it should be going to someone else. That goes against my morals.

There are options other than this community funding Rob's continued mistakes.

[mglamb]

I wouldn't accept a light from Rob knowing that it should be going to someone else. That goes against my morals.

There are options other than this community funding Rob's continued mistakes.

Well said! That's exactly the point I was trying to make. And the concept of continuing to give Rob new orders in order to wishfully have him complete old prepaid orders seems like a kind of extortion or blackmail. Maybe he should take some of the profits from his new iPhone gadget sales and clean up his shit before moving on to new horizons.

[Nyctophiliac]

Well said! That's exactly the point I was trying to make. And the concept of continuing to give Rob new orders in order to wishfully have him complete old prepaid orders seems like a kind of extortion or blackmail. Maybe he should take some of the profits from his new iPhone gadget sales and clean up his shit before moving on to new horizons.

I think that's exactly what he has done - ploughing some of the money from the new sales into supplying the lights to those on the backlog. He'd be insane not to, really.

I am not saying that Lummi's business plan was a good one, not in any way. Nor am I condoning the wait that some people are experiencing ATM. But hopefully he has learnt his lesson, and certainly appears to be trying his hardest to fill the old orders ( slow business as we have seen in this forum ) and for us to discourage those that wish to purchase products from him serves no purpose except to feed the anger directed at him. Lummi closing down will not help those owed.

Morally that's a complicated issue and you will have to make up your own minds.

If there are other options open to him, I can't think what they are.

[richpalm]

After everything that's been posted about this guy, and no one sics the British authorities on him? I don't get it... I'd be screaming bloody murder if he took my money.

Rich

[nbp]

I can't figure out why there are still people waiting for lights, IF Rob has finished lights sitting on the shelf ready to go to abarth1200 or any other new buyer. Two options in my opinion: either he doesn't have these lights he says he does, or he has them and truly has no intention of sending lights to those still waiting for them, having paid months ago.

No way I would give my money to Rob and take a light from him (if I got a light from him) knowing that the light has already been purchased months ago by someone else, stolen from them, and then resold to me. These lights he's selling now are essentially stolen in my opinion, so long as others have still not received theirs.

I always liked the look of their products, and I have been waiting a couple years now for Lummi to get its crap together before I would feel comfortable buying anything from them; a personal embargo of sorts. I'm still waiting.....

[abarth_1200]

I didnt look at it that way, I knew of people not getting their lights but I wasnt aware that so many people were involved that had already invested in him.

Looking at it that way I would rather see the people who are already out of pocket get their light first.

Looking at it from the other side of things, I want a lummi and I have the opportunity to get one. at the same time possibly helping others get thiers.

As you can see I am stuck on the fence as to what the right thing to do is because Rob hasnt done anything unproffesional to me. I pay for something he delivers it, at the end of the day its a business

Its also not up to me to tell Rob to not send me the light I just bought ( considering) but to the other person waiting at the top of his list

And no Im not unsympathetic, I just got lucky, others havent been so lucky. So harrass me.

Sorry guys I know its not fair and it sucks big time, I want to see Rob fullfill all his customers orders because his creations are great

[mglamb]

And no Im not unsympathetic, I just got lucky, others havent been so lucky. So harrass me.

I don't think you got lucky. From what I've seen in the last year, the orders that Rob is filling are to customers in the UK. My guess is that he's afraid of legal action if he screws a fellow citizen; outside the UK we are screwed.

Wether this is true or not, I'm sure that Rob's apologists will be along shortly to tell you that you did the right thing and that you're really helping the poor saps that Rob has stolen from so you could have your shiny new toy.

[calipsoii]

What are your thoughts?

There are a lot of people on this forum who were wronged by Rob. There are stories of people who sent money years ago and still inquire monthly about where their product is. There are probably a number of people who emailed Rob, got the same response as you, and are still waiting on their product.

By posting this, you've shot yourself in the foot. If you receive the light, you're going to have a lot of people on here displeased that you jumped the queue. If you don't receive the light, you can't very well come back to this subforum and bellyache about it, because the same people will still be sore that you tried to queue jump, plus the big red banner pretty much confirmed you weren't going to get your product anyway.

It's your call. I personally don't plan on sending Rob a single cent until he owns up to his situation and rights all the wrongs he's done.

[easilyled]

Morality aside, don't you think its risky ordering something from a source that has had a recent history of so many unfulfilled orders?
From what I've read, the same assurances about lights being in stock and available for quick dispatch have been made many times before, only for them to have been reneged on.
I would at least prefer to see a substantial number of comments indicating that Lummi lights are definitely arriving to peoples' homes, before considering placing an order.

[abarth_1200]

I think Ill watch this space, the more and more I think about it I just dont feel right as you say jumping the queue, stealing from someone else.

I think I would be far better off looking for an exotic flashlight elsewhere, aeon springs to mind.

Lets keep this thread going with your own opinions on buying new stock from Lummi when you know fine well that others are still waiting to get what they have already paid for...

[Colonel Sanders]

It's very simple really. If someone KNOWINGLY buys something that was stolen from someone else, they are no better than the criminal who stole it.

And clearly, what he is selling now belongs to others....that is the definition of selling stolen goods.

There is no moral way to rationalize buying stolen goods. No matter how you try, you are yourself a criminal in doing so.

[abarth_1200]

what he is selling now belongs to others....

OK, I have changed my mind, im not buying a Lummi until his current customers are either reimbursed or given what they paid for.

I also will not be buying any second hand Lummi products, which was another way I thought I could get a hold of one.

At the end of the day its only a torch, my dignity and moral belief is way too important.

[nbp]

You can join me in the "waiting until Lummi gets it together to buy one" camp.

This popcorn is makin' me thirsty!

[morimotom]

OK, I have changed my mind, im not buying a Lummi until his current customers are either reimbursed or given what they paid for.

I also will not be buying any second hand Lummi products, which was another way I thought I could get a hold of one.

At the end of the day its only a torch, my dignity and moral belief is way too important.

the most difficult thing about his predicament, is that people like you have the opportunity to purchase a truly innovative product with virtually no wait. they aren't the smallest, they aren't the brightest. but they are certainly the best combination of size and output around.

i sympathize with you, and respect your choice to ask your questions publicly. i also think calling you a criminal because mr. cheetham has taken from so many without delivering a bit of an overstatement.

sitting here at my desk, the only influence i have is to make public my experiences and hope others don't fall victim. worst part is, i still just really want that light!

maybe if you paid you would have a light in hand next week.


but maybe not.

then what?

[flashflood]

I don't get it... I'd be screaming bloody murder if he took my money.

Here's what I don't get:

Situation A: You order a flashlight from Gadgets, Inc. They've always been legit, but a few months later you find out they've become a scam. Naturally, you're angry.

Situation B: Dozens of people have warned you that Gadgets, Inc. has become a scam. Naturally, you seriously consider sending them money anyway.

As the old saying goes: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

[Nyctophiliac]

the most difficult thing about his predicament, is that people like you have the opportunity to purchase a truly innovative product with virtually no wait. they aren't the smallest, they aren't the brightest. but they are certainly the best combination of size and output around.

i sympathize with you, and respect your choice to ask your questions publicly. i also think calling you a criminal because mr. cheetham has taken from so many without delivering a bit of an overstatement.

sitting here at my desk, the only influence i have is to make public my experiences and hope others don't fall victim. worst part is, i still just really want that light!

maybe if you paid you would have a light in hand next week.


but maybe not.

then what?

then its pitchforks and blazing torches at midnight...no, the other kind!

+1 on calling a customer a criminal being too much in an OTT kind of way.

[easilyled]

It's very simple really. If someone KNOWINGLY buys something that was stolen from someone else, they are no better than the criminal who stole it.

And clearly, what he is selling now belongs to others....that is the definition of selling stolen goods.

There is no moral way to rationalize buying stolen goods. No matter how you try, you are yourself a criminal in doing so.

At what point does someone become a criminal for knowingly entering into a completely separate contract with someone who has a reputation for not delivering goods?

Was person no. 2 a criminal after the first non-arrival comment? Or was it person no. 6 after the first 5 non-arrival comments? Where do you draw the line?

I really don't agree with your logic. Whilst Lummi's business practices are clearly causing a lot of suffering to those who he has let down, and for who I am very sympathetic towards, each customer enters a separate contract with Lummi at their own risk.

They are not criminals by law or in any other way for doing so, if they choose to.

[Colonel Sanders]

C'mon, easilyled and others! ...don't take from the simple and logical statement that I made something that I didn't actually say...I have a wife for that!

It's black and white what I said. If someone sells me a car that I know for a fact beforehand was actually bought and paid for by someone else then what I'm doing is aiding the theif...I'm making their crime pay off for them.

Read the law. *Knowingly* buying stolen goods is a crime (well, at least in the US.)

At what point is it a crime? Simple, at the point that a person knows that the goods they are to receive are stolen. And clearly, that is now the case here at this point.

That said, I've learned to never underestimate the power the human mind has to rationalize that which it wishes to believe. We are very good at that. That's how we start down these slippery slopes to loss of morality. If we think hard enough, we can always come up with a way to skirt morality and rationalize it in our hearts so that we can still sleep at night...or that's the plan anyway.

[Colonel Sanders]

FWIW, a little story. A fellow I know once bought many thousands of $$$ worth of appliances for a house he was building from another fellow who had a pristine reputation in the appliance business for decades. These goods were to be delivered much later when the house was to be nearing completion.

Well, the house got built and fellow #2 (who was given the money when the goods were ordered) could not come up with the goods. Later it was learned that for quite some time he had been supplying customers with goods from money gotten from those who were most recently ordering (and paying) for goods. Fellow #1 did not know this until after he could not get his goods. Fellow #2 is now in jail and will soon be in prison for the rest of his life (he had done this to many folks and it added up to millions of $$$.) Fellow #2 had been living in a big fancy house, driving a big fancy Mercedes, and had lots of toys prior to this....all paid for by folks like fellow #1.

Now, what if there was a fellow #3 who DID receive his appliances (at an EXCELLENT price, btw!) and let's say that he KNEW for a fact beforehand that fellow #1's money would be what actually bought his stuff and that his money would be shoved into fellow #2's new boat? Fellow #3 has now knowingly partaken in the ponzi scheme. Is that moral? Is that even legal? Perhaps fellow #3 should have turned fellow #2 in to the authorities and walked away. Now, he finds himself in court. Had he turned #2 in then the ponzi scheme would have fallen apart earlier and many of #2's victims would not have been.

True story, btw. Fellow #1 was me. I lost $64,000 so perhaps I'm a little sensitive to this subject.

When someone takes the money, spends the money, and therefore doesn't deliver the goods or service...that's illegal in a big way and often results in their imprisonment. Ask Bernie Madoff.

[Nyctophiliac]

A sorry tale Colonel, I hope you were able to overcome the loss eventually.

I feel that what would have stopped either of these situations from happening - in fact it would have stopped me losing thousands as above in post 4 - is a policy of cash on delivery, the old C.O.D. - or even half up front the rest on delivery. But in these days of internet purchasing and never seeing the vendor eye to eye, that seems an unlikely goal.

What a mess!

[easilyled]

C'mon, easilyled and others! ...don't take from the simple and logical statement that I made something that I didn't actually say...I have a wife for that!

It's black and white what I said. If someone sells me a car that I know for a fact beforehand was actually bought and paid for by someone else then what I'm doing is aiding the theif...I'm making their crime pay off for them.

Read the law. *Knowingly* buying stolen goods is a crime (well, at least in the US.)

At what point is it a crime? Simple, at the point that a person knows that the goods they are to receive are stolen. And clearly, that is now the case here at this point.

That said, I've learned to never underestimate the power the human mind has to rationalize that which it wishes to believe. We are very good at that. That's how we start down these slippery slopes to loss of morality. If we think hard enough, we can always come up with a way to skirt morality and rationalize it in our hearts so that we can still sleep at night...or that's the plan anyway.

By your definition, as soon as the first person that didn't receive a light when they were supposed to, made that public, then anyone who ordered after that was a "criminal". So there are probably about a 100 criminals now, according to you. I'm not sure that they'd appreciate being labelled like that.

Your definition of "Stolen goods" is emotive, but not accurate.

The fact is that if Rob has not sent a light that he is supposed to have sent, it doesn't make another one that he sends out stolen. If the seller (Rob) deems that this is a new light, then that is what it is.

Every transaction is a single transaction between buyer and seller in law. The new buyer cannot be responsible for what happened in transactions between the seller and another purchaser.

[Colonel Sanders]

"By your definition, as soon as the first person that didn't receive a light when they were supposed to, made that public, then anyone who ordered after that was a "criminal".

Nope, that's not what I said but if by what I did say someone feels that I've criminalized them, then so be it...that's just their conscious talking. They know what they knew or didn't and what their motives were....and their heart will convict them if need be. They don't need me for that.

Their is really no need for me to rehash it. Either you're open to logic or you rationalize against it.

The OP asked for opinions and that's all I offer. Regards to those who've been stolen from. I hope it works out for you somehow.

"What goes around comes around"....

[easilyled]

"By your definition, as soon as the first person that didn't receive a light when they were supposed to, made that public, then anyone who ordered after that was a "criminal".

Nope, that's not what I said but if by what I did say someone feels that I've criminalized them, then so be it...that's just their conscious talking. They know what they knew or didn't and what their motives were....and their heart will convict them if need be. They don't need me for that.

Their is really no need for me to rehash it. Either you're open to logic or you rationalize against it.

The OP asked for opinions and that's all I offer. Regards to those who've been stolen from. I hope it works out for you somehow.

"What goes around comes around"....

You are arguing from an emotional point of view, not a logical one.
I understand that you may feel annoyed if people continue to buy from Rob when others have not received their goods but calling them criminals is simply not accurate and way over the top.
For the record, I have not bought any lights from Rob for years and I don't intend to.

[Colonel Sanders]

No emotions here. I have no dog in this fight and it's no skin off my back one way or another. These are just names on a computer screen to me.

The OP asked for opinions and since I was bored at the moment I gave one. Again, I could care less if the OP buys a light from Rob. That's on his conscious, not mine.

And again, I called no individual a criminal. I said "If someone KNOWINGLY buys something that was stolen from someone else, they are no better than the criminal who stole it." If that infers to someone that they are a criminal in my view then that sits perfectly well with me.

My above quote is in no way inaccurate or over the top, IMO. It seems that would be inaccurate and over the top to say otherwise, IMO.

I have never bought a light from Rob....not in years or in my life.

Eeeeeneyway...Ya'll have fun buying lights from con-men...or defending them being such, if that's what suits you, and may the force be with you.

[easilyled]

Eeeeeneyway...Ya'll have fun buying lights from con-men...or defending them being such, if that's what suits you, and may the force be with you.

2 separate issues entirely.
Lummi's actions can not be defended.
If people wish to continue to purchase from him, in my opinion they are pretty unwise under the circumstances.
Perhaps you could justifiably say that it also leaves a bad taste, considering all the heartache that others have suffered from him. However they would not be criminals. Plain and simple. To infer so is inaccurate.

[Colonel Sanders]

"For the record, I have not bought any lights from Rob for years and I don't intend to."

Really? Why not? J/K! I don't blame you. Might end up .

Think we've beatin' this one to death enough yet?
You get the last word Easy. Later.