ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[grimreaper]

WHAT TRIAL?? .....there won't be any trials. I REPEAT>>NO TRIALS>>> It's a DONE DEAL

And if there is a trial, just one little trial. Will you be man enough to admit you were wrong?

The future will tell.

I'm not afraid to admit being wrong. I'll be here to the end. ALL IN.

[grimreaper]

The Receiver is “anticipating” no problems with any of the legal actions. No one, including the Receiver believes that.

Well... to be fair, that's not entirely true.... the "no one" part that is.

After all, I think Grimmy has produced enough repetitions of the same statements that it should be reasonably considered that he believes it to be true there will be no problems with the summary judgements.

Now, I didn't say that *the receiver wasn't anticipating any problems* did I? I stated they
anticipated that SUMMARY JUDGMENTS would follow in the event settlements were rejected. The rationale for this has already been established as evidenced in the sample case I referred to in the Stanford Ponzi.

[grimreaper]

Just kidding guys.....
Trials galore coming ..at least 500 minimum...

[Gregg]

Anyone who profits will either have to settle or a Judgement will be rendered...unless they can demonstrate the #s are incorrect. Now., as I pointed out, this doesn't in any way insure receiver will RECOVER funds in demand.

Sorry Skippy, but that statement is absolutely wrong. Every single person who has to pay back a dime is entitled to a trial before being forced to do so.

I hate to use wiki, but its so convenient...

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution contain a 'due process clause'. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

[Judge Roy Bean]

There will NO JUDGMENTS against any of the parties unless and until one is granted by the court, after a trial.

WHAT TRIAL?? .....there won't be any trials. I REPEAT>>NO TRIALS>>> It's a DONE DEAL....yes...A DONE DEAL.

No matter how many times you say it, it is not true, Grimmy.

In the United States, you can't have a judgment without a trial.

Anyone who profits will either have to settle or a TRIAL WILL BE HELD AND A Judgement will be rendered...

Fixed that part for you. You're welcome.

... unless they can demonstrate the #s are incorrect.

Now how do you suppose they will demonstrate the #'s are incorrect, Grimmy? Over the phone? With a letter or two? How about email? Who would they argue the point with? Who would reduce the facts to judgment? Could it be the Receiver? No, that's the plaintiff ... wait, you say there's no trial, er go, there's no hearing. In your clouded misunderstanding of the legal system you seem to think the Receiver is the Judge and Jury.

Now., as I pointed out, this doesn't in any way insure receiver will RECOVER funds in demand.

Did you read this??? NET profits were subject to a SUMMARY JUDGEMENT..NO TRIALS.

You still can't read and comprehend basic legal concepts. There was a trial, and DURING THE TRIAL a motion for summary judgment was filed by the plaintiff. AFTER A HEARING the judge rendered an opinion - a PARTIAL summary judgment. And then there was an appeal which resulted in more hearings before the Fifth Circuit.

And guess what? If there is an appeal, the 9th Circuit may or may not see this case the same way - and they aren't required to.

There will be trials.

Grimmy, if you continue to prove yourself utterly nonsensical, there will come a time where your welcome here has been worn out.

You are repeatedly dispensing the same nonsense and one has to assume you have some kind of motive behind your deliberate ignorance.

In short, deliberate ignorance is outright dishonesty. If you want to retain posting privileges, you're going to have to learn to admit when you're wrong and stop this absurd effort to misinform people who visit here to get a better understanding of the situation.

[The Observer]

You still can't read and comprehend basic legal concepts. There was a trial, and DURING THE TRIAL a motion for summary judgment was filed by the plaintiff. AFTER A HEARING the judge rendered an opinion - a PARTIAL summary judgment. And then there was an appeal which resulted in more hearings before the Fifth Circuit.

Not to spoil what happens next in the plot line, but this is the part where Grimmie will attempt to walk back what he said about there being no trials. He will tell you he never implied there would never be trials. He will say what he really meant was that the trials would never be completed since the judge(s) will award summary judgments since there is no defense to being a net winner with funds that came from a fraudulent scheme. Since the trials did not result in a jury verdict, that means that there was never really a trial.

Then JRB, Gregg and ND can pound Grimmie into the ground some more.

[grimreaper]

It's now time to stop talking and sit back and see what unfolds. If it can be demonstrated that a *net winner* has taken the receiver to a TRIAL (not a hearing), I'll be the first to eat some crow here. It has to be either 1) a JURY TRIAL or 2) A BENCH TRIAL. I will be looking for either of those..if not, NO DICE. I expect those pounding me now will do the same.

Not to spoil what happens next in the plot line, but this is the part where Grimmie will attempt to walk back what he said about there being no trials. He will tell you he never implied there would never be trials. He will say what he really meant was that the trials would never be completed since the judge(s) will award summary judgments since there is no defense to being a net winner with funds that came from a fraudulent scheme. Since the trials did not result in a jury verdict, that means that there was never really a trial.

Sounds like you're equivocating now....looking for an out???
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT means NO TRIAL. A Hearing is NOT a trial.

http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... and-trial/

1.A hearing is a procedure before a court or any decision-making body or any higher authority. A trial happens when the parties in a dispute come together to present their evidentiary information before an authority or a court.
2.In the course of a legal action, hearings are normally conducted in an oral way so as to see if the issue could be resolved without any trial. Hearings are also processes to see and to decide on the discreet issues like the admissibility of the evidence to determine the proceedings of the trial.
3.When comparing a hearing and a trial, the former is shorter and also less formal.
4.When a trial is held before a group of members, it is called a jury trial. If the trial is before a judge, then it can be called a bench trial.[/b]

[grimreaper]

Now how do you suppose they will demonstrate the #'s are incorrect, Grimmy? Over the phone? With a letter or two? How about email? Who would they argue the point with? Who would reduce the facts to judgment? Could it be the Receiver? No, that's the plaintiff ... wait, you say there's no trial, er go, there's no hearing. In your clouded misunderstanding of the legal system you seem to think the Receiver is the Judge and Jury.

You just put WORDS IN MY MOUTH...never said there couldn't be a HEARING DID I???
A HEARING>>>READ MY LIPS>>>>>IS NOT A TRIAL.

[The Observer]

If it can be demonstrated that a *net winner* has taken the receiver to a TRIAL (not a hearing), I'll be the first to eat some crow here.

Uh, why would a net winner need to take the receiver to trial? We have been saying that the receiver will be having to take the net winners to trial. Defendants are not responsible for initiating legal action.

You just put WORDS IN MY MOUTH...never said there couldn't be a HEARING DID I???

And grimmie already starts moving the goalposts.

Grim, the whole point of this is not whether you call it a trial, hearing or whatever is going through your head at the moment. The fact is that there is a requirement for some form of due process where the net winners have a chance to go to court and try to oppose what the receiver is asking the court to do. You are assuming that, based on other Ponzi scams, that the summary judgment will be an automatic grant by the court, that the court will have no choice but to grant what the receiver is asking for. But that doesn't mean it will happen just because the receiver asked for it. If a net winner wants to lawyer up and contest the summary judgment request, he or she will be able to. And the court will allow the net winner to present their arguments as to why the summary judgment should not be granted. If the net winners start raising a "good faith" defense, then the receiver is going to have to go back to square one and head to trial:

C. Good Faith
1. Unlikely to be Decided on Summary Judgment: Good faith is specific to each avoidance action, so a
trustee bringing claims to avoid transfers must be prepared to address the unique facts of what each
recipient of a fraudulent conveyance knew or had inquiry notice of. Because these are fact specific issues and
involve the state of knowledge or awareness of the specific recipient, summary judgment is rare. See Brown v.
Third Nat'l Bank (In re Sherman), 67 F.3d 1348, 1355 (8th Cir. 1995) (“Good faith is not susceptible of precise
definition and is determined on a case-by-case basis.”)

Will there be a lot of trials? Most likely not. As Gregg and ND have pointed out, many people are going to stick their heads in the ground and walk away for one reason or another. They will either be judgment proof, agree to settle with the receiver or ignore all of the legal proceedings and wait to see who is going to spend money pursuing the judgment. And the receiver is going to be letting lots of people off the hook since he does not have carte blanche to go to trial with every net winner out there. (if the net winners were smart, they would all get together and plan a strategy to contest the receiver every step of the way - at some point the receiver's pockets are going to be empty and he will have to give up on pursuing judgments on the proposed clawbacks). Due to the poor record keeping and lack of audit controls, the receiver is going to have a hurdle in showing the court the amount of clawbacks that should be awarded. A good attorney is going to be able to throw up a lot of arguments in defense of the net winners on this issue alone, as well as the "good faith" defense.

[grimreaper]

Will there be a lot of trials? Most likely not.

I see some back tracking here????
There won't be>>>> ANY TRIALS. That's what I said..pure and simple and now we have BULL SHIT backing and filling. To those who are in my face on this point>>> You wannna play? You PAY>>> I'm going to make sure all of those in my face on this issue PAY THE PRICE of your pack mentality.

NO TRIALS...and now we have...*won't have a lot of trials* as a prelude to>>>NO TRIALS.

[webhick]

Will there be a lot of trials? Most likely not.

I see some back tracking here????

I must have missed it, where exactly did Observer say there'd be a lot of trials?

ETA:

I'm going to make sure all of those in my face on this issue PAY THE PRICE of your pack mentality.

You need to explain exactly what you mean by that.

[grimreaper]

Uh, why would a net winner need to take the receiver to trial? We have been saying that the receiver will be having to take the net winners to trial. Defendants are not responsible for initiating legal action.

WTF???

Receiver will get a >>>>SUMMARY JUDGEMENT<<<<<GET IT? If defendant wants to contest, they *MAY* get a subsequent HEARING. I say *MAY*. >>>NO TRIAL.....COMPRENDE???

[grimreaper]

Will there be a lot of trials? Most likely not.

I see some back tracking here????

I must have missed it, where exactly did Observer say there'd be a lot of trials?

ETA:

I'm going to make sure all of those in my face on this issue PAY THE PRICE of your pack mentality.

You need to explain exactly what you mean by that.

It's not a threat...I meant EAT CROW..as they want me to.

Observer can speak for himself? It seems those ATTACKING ME (and I'm NOT EXAGGERATING THIS) on this point are now equivocating ...trying to minimize the *TRIAL* scenario, when all along they have been saying TRIALS for net winners are EXPECTED. I maintain that there will be no trials for net winners. I've been crystal clear on this and have been BASHED to no end. Just read this thread for yourself.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Will there be a lot of trials? Most likely not.

I see some back tracking here????
There won't be>>>> ANY TRIALS. That's what I said..pure and simple and now we have BULL SHIT backing and filling. To those who are in my face on this point>>> You wannna play? You PAY>>> I'm going to make sure all of those in my face on this issue PAY THE PRICE of your pack mentality.

NO TRIALS...and now we have...*won't have a lot of trials* as a prelude to>>>NO TRIALS.

Grimmy, this is your second warning about deliberately posting misinformation. Apparently you are trying to discourage people from seeking their own legal remedy.

Whatever your motives are, you need to take the effort elsewhere.

[grimreaper]

Will there be a lot of trials? Most likely not.

I see some back tracking here????
There won't be>>>> ANY TRIALS. That's what I said..pure and simple and now we have BULL SHIT backing and filling. To those who are in my face on this point>>> You wannna play? You PAY>>> I'm going to make sure all of those in my face on this issue PAY THE PRICE of your pack mentality.

NO TRIALS...and now we have...*won't have a lot of trials* as a prelude to>>>NO TRIALS.

Grimmy, this is your second warning about deliberately posting misinformation. Apparently you are trying to discourage people from seeking their own legal remedy.

Whatever your motives are, you need to take the effort elsewhere.

Show me this DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION you speak of?
Now I ask you right here and now>>>>

Will there be TRIALS for those net winners who don't settle? Is it *DISINFORMTION* if I'm of the OPINION ..again>>>>
OPINION<<<<<that there will be>>>NO TRIALS? I didn't say NO HEARINGS..DID I?

How do you construe this to mean>>>>Winner's should not seek LEGAL REMEDY???

I have NO AGENDA here. Family members are net winners.

[Hyrion]

I find it *interesting* that *only* 1150 out of 2400 investors have completed the receiver's questionnaire. It would seem that ALL net losers would be motivated to provide information.

It dawns on me Grimmy has likely already calculated the net winners to be 2400-1150 = 1250.

This would - of course - be poor math as there's no guarantee all net loosers would have filed. But I doubt that'll deter Grimmy.

But that would certainly answer why Grimmy found those numbers interesting.

[grimreaper]

Well, you're on the right track...I was trying to imply that the # of winners is greater than most here think.
I think it could be at least 800. Caveat>>It's MY OPINION.

[Hyrion]

They (Wishner and Gillis) pled GUILTY already..LOL. As far as anyone who has profits, they're in essence saying that there is NO LEGAL DEFENSE for the presumption of fraudulent transfers. Ergo..lawyers won't be able to SUCCESSFULLY argue that *winners* aren't subject to clawbacks. ...

Utter nonsense.

There is no such thing as absolute guilt before trial.

Again - you are seriously confused and are only spreading misinformation.

Here's an example of your misinformation.

NO LEGAL DEFENSE

Continuing to repeat that sentiment over and over with increasing emphasis could easily be understood as an attempt by yourself to dispirit people from considering a defense.

And yes, I would view your selection of punctuation, bolding, all uppercase characters, changing colors and increasing font sizes to be increasing emphasis.

Yes... it's your opinion there will be no trials. You've stated that opinion - and pretty much everyone else who has spoken on the point does not agree with your opinion. Repeating your opinion with increasing emphasis won't convince others of your position any more then a petulant child screaming at the top of his lungs will succeed in convincing anyone of his position.

So - can you just accept that the Lawyers who visit here will continue to dispute your position no matter how many times you reiterate it?

I find it rather interesting you've been repeating the same opinion over and over since Thr with that increasing emphasis you appear to be fond of. Why keep insisting on stating it over and over with added emphasis if not an effort to try and convince someone - anyone - of the futility of considering a defense?

[grimreaper]

*No Legal Defense* for a Ponzi Scheme means exactly that. THERE IS NONE. Why? The distributions are fraudulent BY DEFINITION. I know many can't wrap their minds around this, but it TRUE. That' s all I mean when I say this. I didn't mean to convey that retaining legal advise is useless. In fact, I would do so. Having said that>>>> If you are a net winner in a Ponzi, there >>>IS NO LEGAL DEFENSE to get you off the hook. Can a lawyer minimize your exposure? Perhaps. But keep in mind, the receiver will offer a ONE TIME DISCOUNT of 20-30%, so you have to weigh this against paying a lawyer with an uncertain outcome. I have family facing this dilemma right now.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Show me this DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION you speak of?
Now I ask you right here and now>>>>

Will there be TRIALS for those net winners who don't settle? ...

As stated previously, for any with the means, determination and adequate counsel, Yes.

There is a legal defense in any civil or criminal cause. Trying to now couch your nonsense in "it's my opinion" has no mitigating value. You are fundamentally ignorant and/or deliberately dishonest.

Last warning, Grimmy. You've been skating on thin ice too long.