See, you naysayers? There was something in that clawback business after all!
So, lemme see.... 800,000 divided by 3000 investors.... hmmm...
![thinking :thinking:](./images/smilies/eusa_think.gif)
I had this in my post and then edited it out somewhere along the way. The various filings from Joel's camp seem to indicate that 1,300 lost and 1,300 won. \I think the government either contented over 1,000 winners or losers, but I don't remember which. It seems...odd...that a ponzi would end up with a ratio of 1:1. But I did not see it say anything about a dollar figure on either end: just how much they clawed back so far. The losers to winners might be 1:1 but the actual losses to winnings could be dismally on point with other ponzis. In the end, is the dollar figure that matters. For sentencing, it seems that Joe's camp desperately wants to believe that a 1:1 ratio is favorable for him. This is the kind of logic my sister and brother-in-law have used. "I only robbed Peter to pay Paul. I could have robbed Peter and Phil to pay Paul, but I didn't. " You don't get a cookie for that.Tednewsom wrote:EXCELLENT!
See, you naysayers? There was something in that clawback business after all!
So, lemme see.... 800,000 divided by 3000 investors.... hmmm...
Result = 266.67 (rounded up) which raises the obvious question of "wasn't the minimal cost to invest in the thousands range?" - The thread started with a cost of $19,000 to invest in just 1 machine.Tednewsom wrote:EXCELLENT!
See, you naysayers? There was something in that clawback business after all!
So, lemme see.... 800,000 divided by 3000 investors.... hmmm...
In theory there are no net winners within the statue's reach (7 years), but in this case some have decided to take advantage of settling to salvage some gains (30% discount). BTW, the $800K not withstanding, demand letters have yet to be sent. Then we'll see how the bulk of *winners* respond. Turnips and all.all the OTHER 'winners' are just as much 'losers' as the real 'net losers' because they now face court action effectively trying to squeeze blood out of turnips
Indeed..but that's for starters... peremptory (Voluntary) if you will...no demand letters issued yet. I would think the vast majority of those who profited are holding back????Tednewsom wrote:Looks like a couple people missed the sarcasm.
As should be obvious, $800K is a comparative pittance compared to the total losses.
"People! All going-- somewhere! E-e-e-e-each with their own thoughts... their own per-son-alities...!" -- Bela Lugosi in GLEN OR GLENDA? (1952)![]()
Some may have just wanted to avoid having to deal with any sort of future litigation. I recall a time when I had to submit a claim in court against the plaintiff (totally unrelated to his suit), and one of the defendants sitting next to me in the courtroom started chatting me up about the claim I filed. Next thing I know, the plaintiff's attorney is approaching me, stating that my claim is going to be honored since they reached a settlement to drop my chatty defendant from the suit in return for him paying off my claim. Easiest claim I ever had to work.Tednewsom wrote:Yes, for whatever reasons.
I would have thought that it might signify hope that the pool of available money to be clawed back is not just limited to the net winners. It seems to suggest that the receiver has found some evidence that the clawback funds went to other relatives, directly or indirectly, and that he feels he can make an argument to the court for recovering from these sources as well.worried wrote:This is what I was afraid of: " and their families."
In the alternative, the ratio comparison so far is:The Observer wrote:According to those proponents of the 1:1 ratio of winners to losers, only 33 people got taken by Ed and Joel. I guess all of the other investors broke even.
Read this page carefully..Page 49worried wrote:I went and looked at the receiver website and found these interesting bits in the receiver 3rd fee application:
on page 49 of 52:
Prepare Schedule of Investor 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (33) Early/ Late Net Winner Investors and their families.
This is what I was afraid of: " and their families"
Assuming all unique (in other words, those billing points didn't include the same person twice), the new comparisons:grimreaper wrote:There is a TOTAL of 155 investors (winners)
I added the emphasis of course. I hope BHM learned his lesson.... and those same cynical bloggers BHM referred to have been on here in the last year and a half cautioning continuously about clinging to false hope that there will be a lot of money available to pay 'losers' back.BeverlyHillsMan wrote:I know Joel Gillis personally, as well as his partner, Ed Wishner, as I have since 2004 when I was referred to NASI by a friend ..... That situation continued until the end of 2011, by which time I had long since recouped my original investment and was well into profit. I was then in a position to purchase substantially more ATMs. During the course of the next 18 months, I increased my position to 250 ATMs.
Before doing so, however, I did significant due diligence in 2011 on Joel and Ed and NASI. I saw these blogs (the ones that were written before then, at least) but I observed that they were nothing more than vague suspicions and innuendos based on no firsthand knowledge whatsoever. Nevertheless, they gave me the jitters. Are these cynical bloggers the sophisticated ones and am I the goat?.... Thus endeth the lesson.