ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[Lost Income]

Exactly. Joel & Ed were focused on growing their wealth, not ethics, they had the smarts reqd for continuously increasing the qty of investors as needed for 19years, and as a result can afford lawyers to delay and reduce the consequences. So we can only hope that our legal system is capable of quickly seeing this, and enforcing appropriate restitution and sentencing.

[Tednewsom]

The dozens of nice-nice letters telling how loving and generous old Gillis is makes it seem to me that his lawyers are pushing the "Brooklyn Madoff" line.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/1 ... 79331.html

Philip Barry, according to his defense, just wanted to make people happy, so he continued his Ponzi for two decades+. He didn't live large, he just made family and neighbors temporarily happy with their monthly scammed checks. Sure, he knew it would collapse, but he just had to keep the grift going. He was, as Curly Howard always said, "a victim of soycumstants."

Gillis's lawyers should've read the case more carefully. The "poor poor pitiful me" defense did not exactly work for Mr. Barry in court. He got 20 years in the slam.

So, 800 victims, and a total robbed of about $50 million earned Barry 20 years. I figure by those stats, Gillis and Wishner ought to rack up a well-deserved 60 years apiece. Let's hope they both live to 150, and make a lot of license plates.

[Lost Income]

Joel & Ed have little defense. Their lawyers earn a little more money dragging this out by putting the nice guy spin on, which in return helps Joel & Ed enjoy a little more time outside the cell to get their financial affairs in order. First Joel & Ed do the wrong thing for money, then Lawyers do the wrong thing for money, and so until the legal system grows some balls the bad guys are winning here.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Joel & Ed have little defense. Their lawyers earn a little more money dragging this out by putting the nice guy spin on, which in return helps Joel & Ed enjoy a little more time outside the cell to get their financial affairs in order. First Joel & Ed do the wrong thing for money, then Lawyers do the wrong thing for money, and so until the legal system grows some balls the bad guys are winning here.

I don't believe it's the "legal system's" alleged lack of balls. The paid participants in the process are doing what should be expected of them, which should involve rigorous inquiry and equally rigorous defense.

[worried]

Well... my point, toward the end of my last post (the idea was occuring to me as I was typing), was this:

Is the Receiver missing something by NOT chasing down the hundreds of onesy-twosy, long-term owners? Is EVERY, SINGLE one of them a verifiable, ACTUAL, unique, person? Or, are some of those entries in the list 'ghost' investors, little more than a name linked to a bank account, or a mail/post-box to which a check could be sent and then collected by Joel/Ed?... Is that an unrealistic idea?...

Why were they so fixated on continuing to collect new money AND, AND!, continue to send checks out? They even opened a new bank account after the original one was locked down by the SEC/FBI, so they could continue to write checks! Either both of them became certifiably, psychotically, deluded into thinking their business was REAL,... or... they were hiding money somewhere.... ... ...

I think there's a pretty good chance that among the 'losing' victims, especially the BIG LOSERS, there must be some people that not only are WILLING to volunteer time to help the Receiver chase leads, but they actually have the smarts and credentials for the Receiver to not mind letting them help... it WOULD be FREE after all!.... just sayin'...

[worried]

How many other people do you thing Joel & Ed blatantly did this to.

I finished keying in the victim list that was attached to Joel's rebuttal. There are a total of 8 people who sent NASI money and did not receive anything. It totals close to $600k. Of course, that list was generated in May, so it may have changed by now.

Actually, if I'm interpreting the Loss List correctly, I count exactly 71 investors who received NOTHING, but gave a grand total of $4,125,170.82 (there was one really odd number: $92,170.82). The amounts from each investor clearly show a mixture of $12k and $19.8k contracts being sold. I saw, as I was skimming through the list looking for these, that there were quite a few who look to have received only a month or two of payments as well (but didn't include them in this total).

That's OVER 4,000,000 $ that went missing in the last month!!... These people didn't get a single payment, yet OTHERS did... hmmm... I wonder how Joel prioritized which ones got paid?... .... I would be looking real hard at the SMALLER, long-term investors that got paid on that final month when these people did NOT. I think a lot of that money went somewhere where Joel/Ed could get to it later.... Can anybody tell me why I'm wrong?

[Lost Income]

Joel & Ed have little defense. Their lawyers earn a little more money dragging this out by putting the nice guy spin on, which in return helps Joel & Ed enjoy a little more time outside the cell to get their financial affairs in order. First Joel & Ed do the wrong thing for money, then Lawyers do the wrong thing for money, and so until the legal system grows some balls the bad guys are winning here.

I don't believe it's the "legal system's" alleged lack of balls. The paid participants in the process are doing what should be expected of them, which should involve rigorous inquiry and equally rigorous defense.

If you were on the loosing end of this, you wouldn't think that wealthy crooks confessing to an obvious crime should require rigorous defense.

[webhick]

Actually, if I'm interpreting the Loss List correctly, I count exactly 71 investors who received NOTHING, but gave a grand total of $4,125,170.82 (there was one really odd number: $92,170.82). The amounts from each investor clearly show a mixture of $12k and $19.8k contracts being sold. I saw, as I was skimming through the list looking for these, that there were quite a few who look to have received only a month or two of payments as well (but didn't include them in this total).

You're right. I was filtering for just zeroes and not zeroes and blanks.

That's OVER 4,000,000 $ that went missing in the last month!!... These people didn't get a single payment, yet OTHERS did... hmmm... I wonder how Joel prioritized which ones got paid?... .... I would be looking real hard at the SMALLER, long-term investors that got paid on that final month when these people did NOT. I think a lot of that money went somewhere where Joel/Ed could get to it later.... Can anybody tell me why I'm wrong?

Joel can, but it'll involve new math and a trip to Vegas on your dime. I vaguely recall one document which said that Wishner pulled out a ton of money as the scheme collapsed, possibly a couple hundred grand. I tried to find the reference again last night, but I fell asleep. 55 hours at work does a number on your ability to stay awake once seated.

Keep in mind that the government seized half a mil out of the collective bank accounts at the end. NASI also bounced $2.8m in checks, only some which might have cleared after they raised the 4.1m. Banks often publicize their policies on which checks clear first, when bouncing is inevitable. Every bank that I've personally dealt with will clear as many of the large checks as possible and let all the smaller ones bounce. So, a big-time investor with 100 ATMs who just invested in another 50 will most likely not have a rubber check, since it would be like $30k. Poor Sally First Timer who just bought one ATM would only get a measly $200 so hers would be rubber.

ETA: My brain is frying and I think I missed your point the first time. If the checks were sent out in waves, with people Joel wanted paid sent first and others sent in subsequent waves, then you might be onto something.

[worried]

... If the checks were sent out in waves, with people Joel wanted paid sent first and others sent in subsequent waves, then you might be onto something.

That would narrow the list of 'winners' to look at. I emailed the Receiver at the email given on the website but all I got was an automated 'thank you for your email'... I'm just as guilty as anybody else of having hare-brained ideas sometimes, but, this just bothers me. There had to be a REASON for them to be so desperate to keep checks going OUT... and their reported smugness (by posters like 'snookered') just makes me even more suspicious....

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

If you were on the loosing end of this, you wouldn't think that wealthy crooks confessing to an obvious crime should require rigorous defense.

Sorry, but you're wrong. If I were on the short end of this, I still would believe that those who plead guilty are entitled to the best defense they can afford and/or be provided.

You really think we should let defense counsel disavow their sworn obligation as a result of their clients being wealthy and/or crooked?

[worried]

If you were on the loosing end of this, you wouldn't think that wealthy crooks confessing to an obvious crime should require rigorous defense.

I completely understand the depth of your frustration. It's the very fact that this result was pre-ordained as soon as Joel and Ed started their scam in 1996 that is maddening. There's no way around it, and it's a common experience of all crime victims: the victimization continues through the legal process (and even beyond sometimes). Maybe it will help to realize this? You're not alone, and I'm positive that the prosecutors and SEC and FBI agents working this case not only personally agonize over knowing you're being victimized even now, but they ALSO know very well, as JRB keeps pointing out, that they have to EXPECT the defense to uphold their SWORN duty to try ANYTHING to serve their client.... I'm starting to take some solace in seeing how desperate they are by the nature of most of their claims.... For example, claiming that the Loss Analysis is basically voided due to missing payments to one investor is ridiculous. The 'loss' part of the sentencing recommendation is based on a RANGE of dollar losses and I'm sure the prosecutor can easily argue that, unless Joel/Ed can come up with more examples that they haven't been able to find themselves, the payments found will either have no effect on the sentencing, or at most, bring it down one notch... that's a big difference from throwing the whole thing out and trying to base the sentencing loss on ONLY their 'official, reported' income (which is laughable as well, right?)... So, yes they're continuing to victimize you and 2400+ other people, that's what they do. And, as I pointed out a while ago, due to their age, they've basically already won. Their lawyers may be offering up desperate arguments to delay sentencing, but Joel/Ed already won the game. They lived how they wanted until they got old enough to not care. All that's left for US is to try to find the money,... and get over it eventually, otherwise they will continue to victimize you without even trying anymore... Just think of the family members who wrote those glowing character references. Just think of the DEPTH of betrayal Joel/Ed perpetrated on them that they will have to come to grips with eventually (if they can at all)....

Spend your time and energy like I am, trying to figure out where the damn money went. I know that a LOT of victims out there have to be smarter and more resourceful than I am. If more people actively snooped around I'm sure somebody would find something or come up with better ideas than mine....

Einstein is popularly credited with saying "imagination is more important than knowledge"... in this case, I have more imagination than knowledge, but every little bit of information we get out of the Receiver is more knowledge. And, imagination MAY be important, but knowledge sure HELPS.

[Lost Income]

Thanks for your input, your right. Even though its become obvious that Joel & Ed systematically victimized everyone and are far from broke, the crooks won having enjoyed the high life for many years into old age, and so now the only real justice left is hoping the legal system can strip Joel & Ed of enough to help give something back to their victims. By now if the Receiver's Team can't find anything significant, and the crooks aren't telling, seems like the only real penalty will be for the courts to demand so much restitution that it forces Joel & Ed to sell everything they can get their hands on to pay for it.

[The Observer]

The thing to keep in mind here is that the extreme lengths to which Joel is pushing to avoid a long prison stay is an indicator that this is a "loss" that Joel does not want to suffer. So Joel is still capable of "losing".

[Lost Income]

Yes, your right. But at their old age, it just seems far more just that these crooks suffer financially loosing everything to help pay back what they stole, which is why I'm so bent on our legal system retrieving money one way or another.

[Lost Income]

If I wanted to send a letter explaining my dealings with Joel prior to NAS crash and our hardships afterward, does anyone know where/whom I would send it (preferably email) so that it would reach the right people before sentencing?

[Judge Roy Bean]

If I wanted to send a letter explaining my dealings with Joel prior to NAS crash and our hardships afterward, does anyone know where/whom I would send it (preferably email) so that it would reach the right people before sentencing?

The prosecutor's office is the right entity but email would not be the proper channel; a good old-fashioned letter would be appropriate IF your attorney gives it his or her blessing first.

[Lost Income]

Thanks, I understand. Unfortunately after loosing money I'm not in a position to pay an attorney to review factual information I feel the judge would appreciate, so better I keep it to myself rather than risk the attorneys that crooks can afford trying to spin it into causing me more grief.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Thanks, I understand. Unfortunately after loosing money I'm not in a position to pay an attorney to review factual information I feel the judge would appreciate, so better I keep it to myself rather than risk the attorneys that crooks can afford trying to spin it into causing me more grief.

You shouldn't contact the judge directly; that would be seen as exparte communication. After conviction, at some point the court may call for "victims statements" to be taken into consideration for sentencing.

This is obviously not legal advice, but the issue becomes what "factual information" the prosecutor gleans from your communication that might come back to haunt you.

[worried]

Well, there's a new report from the Receiver on the Receiver website...

It's more of the same... a fair number (15) have settled. The total recovery from settlements/clawbacks is just over 2.8M now... if the total loss was 125M, then that's just over 2%, but a couple hundred thousand has gone to the Receiver and Counsel.

So, looking back at previous docs, the Loss Analysis lists 1300 people, but another doc had stated that 660 total winners had been identified (a much smaller number tagged as being large enough to go after). But, the total number victims is supposed to be 2400+ (or at least 2000 at the time of the bust... this is the number of checks that were going out to victims at the time according to the Receiver). So, using 2400 (an FBI agent personally told me at the beginning of the bust that she had 2400+ names of victims), that's almost 600 people missing. Now, I KNOW they didn't all exactly break even. I doubt that ANYBODY exactly broke even because of the random amounts that Joel was sending out. They all have to be either winners or losers. If they're not in the Loss list, then they have to be winners. ... Now, grimreaper would take this to mean that he was RIGHT after all about the ratio of winners:losers (talking in terms of PEOPLE only and not CONTRACTS). I was waiting for him to realize that if that were to turn out to be true (like it seems to have), then that means the vast majority of 'winners' would be too small for the Receiver to go after because the inescapable math of ponzi is that there can only be a small fraction of winning CONTRACTS.... But, I never, never suspected that HUNDREDS of ponzi victims would ALSO be so self-disciplined that they wouldn't, after several years of collecting checks after breaking even, eventually give in to 'greed' and buy more contracts.... "Self-Disciplined Ponzi Victim" just seems like such an oxymoron to me. But, maybe it's not. Maybe there really ARE that many people out there that adhere to the 'diversification' rule. Good for them if that's true. Bad for the 'Losers' though, because the vast majority of the 'losses' are held by all those little winners... And, the Receiver apparently has his hands full just trying to take ownership of a few portable dressing rooms and chasing the last of the 20 BIG winners he identified...

I'm still suspicious that not all those little winners are REAL... and why doesn't the Receiver account for them? Maybe one of those lawyers that is representing a group of NASI victims can do something useful and request the full check ledger and start investigating those 'little winners'...

[Hyrion]

Now, grimreaper would take this to mean that he was RIGHT after all about the ratio of winners:losers

I thought Grim was claiming a 1:1 ratio of winners:losers.

total number victims is supposed to be 2400+
...
660 total winners

That's a 1:3.6 winner:loser ratio.

a fair number (15) have settled
...
the last of the 20 BIG winners he identified

I assume that means 15 of 20 big winners identified have settled leaving 5 outstanding.

Factoring in what the current target winners are into the equation (and assuming all recovered from) with a presumption that the receiver will decide to stop there, the collection ratio of winners:not collected from is:

• 1:152

I'm going to have to go back and review Grims predictions to see if my memory of a 1:1 prediction is accurate.

I'll let someone else cover the math on the money that went in vs the money recovered ratio to verify Grims prediction on that.

Edited to add:

I estimate that there are 1000 winners and 1000 losers. 2000 total, since that was the total # checks issued prior to the melt down.

I suppose Grim could claim he was right and after the meltdown a whole lotta winners became losers. Of course, that would mean all but 660 invested sufficient funds after the meltdown to become losers.