And now you are moving the goalposts. Previously you maintained there would be no trials - period. What you are not understanding is that the filing of a lawsuit is the initiating of a trial. There is no other way that the receiver will get into court unless he initiates a trial by filing a lawsuit. You have have been holding out in the past that all the receiver has to do is ask for summary judgment from the court and he will get it. You have maintained that the defendants will not get a right to defend themselves.grimreaper wrote:I have maintained that there will be>>NO TRIALS, law suits not withstanding
What form it acutally takes and what it results in may not be a full-blown trial as you may be thinking of, but that isn't what you have been saying. It just goes to show that you don't really know what you are talking about.
Well, let's look at the possibilities:15-CV-05737...Do your really think this will go to trial? Same with the other three mentioned.
(1) August 10 shows that Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Stephen D. Marks, Esq., Attorney for Barbara Adler. Ms. Adler has obviously lawyered up. And she must have done this at some point in time prior to the summons and complaint being served so that the receiver's attorney knew where to serve the summons. Apparently the defendant is entertaining the idea that she wants to defend herself in court.
(2) September 03 shows that the judge approved an extension for the defendant to respond to the complaint filed against her. Looks like her attorney is making some attempt to defend her.
(3) Nowhere in that docket does it show that the receiver has moved for a summary judgment to be issued. If this is the surefire, hands-down winning strategy for the receiver as you have described it, then why hasn't he already done it?
Does any of this mean that this particular case is going to head into a full trial with witnesses, testimony, cross-examination? No. Anything can still happen in this case and still will. The defendant may decide to not fight the case in court and not contest a summary judgment claim. She may decide to prolong the proceedings until such time that she feels she can get better terms in a settlement with the receiver. She may fight it out in a full blown trial. The receiver may decide to drop the trial if things are not going his way in the courtroom due to evidence or testimony. The point is Grim, neither you or I know what is going to happen in this case. The only thing we (or at least I know and you are stubbornly refuse to admit) is that the receiver had to initiate a lawsuit, not a summary judgment to get the ball rolling.
What was I wrong about? There were 155 net winners investigated but only mention of 33 actually actually being collected against. The 155 were mentioned as being billed, but I did not include them in my ratio calculation since there were no funds collected from them. When we get solid reports that funds were collected from these 155 (which is a figure you calculated based on your interpretation of the receiver's report) then I can re-do my ratio again.grimreaper wrote:ou failed to admit you were wrong here didn't you? I pointed out there were 155 net winners investigated, but you want to bash me and ignore your ignorance. How convenient.
And when and if we get to add the 155 to the ratio, we are still going to fall well short of the 1:1 ratio that you claimed would be the final result.
And you have failed to answer this question:
If anything is convenient, it is you ducking this question.Well, if it does not come from the clawbacks, where is the receiver going to get the money?grimreaper wrote:Correct me If I'm wrong, but the receiver has stated that compensation would NOT be based on nor derived from the proceeds of the claw back.
But before you answer that, I would like to see the source of the statement above that you are relying on.