ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[grimreaper]

At the risk of repeating myself à la JRB.

This is a complicated little dance for which only the first steps have been taken, the music hasn't even really started yet.

The first steps were taken by the SEC completely out of the view of the pubic eye and with the initial complaint, the preliminary investigation(s), the informational subpoenas to NASI and eventually culminated in filing their petition with the court. The court reviewed at it and eventually issued the TRO that was the first public act. At this point nothing much, at least as far as the participants of this french farce are concerned is going to happen until the show cause hearing is held and an order is generated. Now I will go out on a limb here and make a prediction, the SEC will get their order and the TRO will transmorgrificate in to a Preliminary injunction, at which point there will be a lot more investigation and they'll probably start calling/contacting the "investors" at that point. A lot is going to depend on what they find and how hard it is to piece together when they start digging, but at some point they will have to go back in to court and convert the Preliminary injunction in to a permanent one, and I will be honest and say I'm not sure of the actual point in time when the receivership will be created, but it will happen somewhere in there and will have to happen before the receiver can really do anything.

Long story short, nothing much on the "investors" side is going to happen until all the hearings and court wranglings are done, and a lot of that will depend on how NASI and the "boys" deal with their impending doom. They could attempt to drag this out a while.

Basically nothing on the "investors" side is going to happen until all the paperwork is done and that could still take a fair amount of time. So practice some patience and get your papers in order. To put not too fine a point on it, there isn't much else you can do at this point.

These things do not EVER move quickly, so don't expect this one to be any different.

I think this case will move forward in an orderly fashion. We have already seen the SEC show what they have and it's very compelling. Gillis doesn't have have a sufficient defense that will fend off the Juggernaut of the SEC. So in my mind its' a *done deal*. As far as investors go>>> This scam is pretty simplistic and doesn't contain any complex transactions *a la Madoff*, so we should see something investors can deal with fairly soon....within 6 months or less. Just my take.

[notorial dissent]

Quite true, it will move forward at an orderly pace, if you're a snail. Agreed also, I don't think that the "boys" have any kind of defense, but it sounds like they are going to try something when it gets to court, which at most will only drag things out further. I don't know if they're going for the old "we're too dumb, stupid, honest, fill in the blanks, to have done what you claim" or "the it was all a terrible misunderstanding/mixup" defense, but it sounds like they are headed in that direction. I'm expecting an innocent and dumb ploy to start, but we'll see. I agree, I don't think they have any kind or shape of defense but there are still two courts and a jury that have to be convince of it. So it may be a done deal, but not one any time in the immediate future, unless they just fall over and admit everything and take what they can get, which would require a lot more smarts than they've shown, or luck that they're likely to have. Stranger things have happened however, but I wouldn't count on it.

[snookered]

A little of what the boys have to look forward to. I would assume they will do time in Federal Prison, where they will have to serve 85% of their time. They can become "educators"... on how to steal people's money.

Ed is 67 years old and Joel is 64. I hope they never get out, if they get in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWlXDQDLXg

[grimreaper]

Quite true, it will move forward at an orderly pace, if you're a snail. Agreed also, I don't think that the "boys" have any kind of defense, but it sounds like they are going to try something when it gets to court, which at most will only drag things out further. I don't know if they're going for the old "we're too dumb, stupid, honest, fill in the blanks, to have done what you claim" or "the it was all a terrible misunderstanding/mixup" defense, but it sounds like they are headed in that direction. I'm expecting an innocent and dumb ploy to start, but we'll see. I agree, I don't think they have any kind or shape of defense but there are still two courts and a jury that have to be convince of it. So it may be a done deal, but not one any time in the immediate future, unless they just fall over and admit everything and take what they can get, which would require a lot more smarts than they've shown, or luck that they're likely to have. Stranger things have happened however, but I wouldn't count on it.

Sorry couldn't resist

[Lost Income]

I'm surprised that Ed's Accounting Firm which helped facilitate this mess, is not included in the businesses that the SEC has listed being part if this. Maybe we'll all still get our 1099's for 2014 from Ed's Accounting Firm.

[Lost Income]

I'm also surprised that Joel & Ed can afford to hire an attorney and shop at the grocery store, if the SEC has locked up all their assets as they say they have. So any money that the SEC is letting Joel & Ed spend on anything, is taking away from money that could be used to settle the debt with investors.

[The Observer]

I'm also surprised that Joel & Ed can afford to hire an attorney and shop at the grocery store, if the SEC has locked up all their assets as they say they have. So any money that the SEC is letting Joel & Ed spend on anything, is taking away from money that could be used to settle the debt with investors.

I am sure there are some legal and constititutional problems with allowing the SEC to starve Joel and Ed or blocking their ability to retain legal counsel. I am sure that, in practicality, the freezing of assets is not able to interefere with all our scamsters accounts and they will have some ability to feed, clothe and house themselves and their legal dependents.

And, of course, the freeze is not so omnipotent that it will be able to lock up unidentified assets or what is held by others for Joel and Ed if they were smart enought to move their ill-gotten gains to safer harbors.

[grimreaper]

I'm also surprised that Joel & Ed can afford to hire an attorney and shop at the grocery store, if the SEC has locked up all their assets as they say they have. So any money that the SEC is letting Joel & Ed spend on anything, is taking away from money that could be used to settle the debt with investors.

I am sure there are some legal and constititutional problems with allowing the SEC to starve Joel and Ed or blocking their ability to retain legal counsel. I am sure that, in practicality, the freezing of assets is not able to interefere with all our scamsters accounts and they will have some ability to feed, clothe and house themselves and their legal dependents.

And, of course, the freeze is not so omnipotent that it will be able to lock up unidentified assets or what is held by others for Joel and Ed if they were smart enought to move their ill-gotten gains to safer harbors.

Those attorneys he's hired are going to charge him a BUNDLE! It would be interesting to see where he's getting the funds, since his assets are frozen.

[grimreaper]

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as otherwise ordered by this Court,
an immediate freeze shall be placed on all monies and assets (with an allowance for
necessary and reasonable living expenses to be granted only upon good cause shown
by application to the Court with notice to and an opportunity for the SEC to be heard)
in all accounts at any bank, financial institution or brokerage firm, or third-payment
payment processor, all certificates of deposit, and other funds or assets, held in the
name of, for the benefit of, or over which account authority is held by Defendants
Nationwide Automated Systems, Inc., Joel Gillis, and Edward Wishner and/or Relief
Defendants Oasis Studio Rentals, LLC, Oasis Studio Rentals #2, LLC, and Oasis
Studio Rentals #3, LLC, including but not limited to the accounts listed below:
Account.......etc"

[Tednewsom]

I always love those "including but not limited to" clauses, but there's no specification in the order for "Mrs. Joel Gillis" or "Mrs. Ed Wishner"... nothing for "Fuel Doctor"... not a mention about "Post-Bust Family Trust So My Kids Can Carry On My Good Work" ... nothing for "Scam-a-Roonie Enterprises"... or "Hidden Swag LLC," "Hidden Swag II LLC" or "Hidden Swag III -- Electric Boogaloo LLC."

"Gosh, your honor, I didn't know that was supposed to be included, too."

[The Observer]

I always love those "including but not limited to" clauses, but there's no specification in the order for "Mrs. Joel Gillis" or "Mrs. Ed Wishner"... nothing for "Fuel Doctor"... not a mention about "Post-Bust Family Trust So My Kids Can Carry On My Good Work" ... nothing for "Scam-a-Roonie Enterprises"... or "Hidden Swag LLC," "Hidden Swag II LLC" or "Hidden Swag III -- Electric Boogaloo LLC."

But that is the purpose of the "including but not limited to" phrase: so that any future assets identified can be considered subject to the TRO. Whether the TRO will be considered effective against a bona fide innocent purchaser is another question (Ex: Joel's wife sells a Beemer to a guy answering her ad in the Penny Saver. Does he lose the car back to the TRO and lose his dough because he was unaware of Mrs. Gillis' potential connection to NASI?) This is still early in the game and we can't expect a TRO that will be aware of all the games and hidey-holes that Ed and Joel created over the last 19 years. I can't recall if Fuel Doctor was referenced by the SEC docs, nor do I recall if Ed's quitclaim of the house to his wife was in the filed documents. If not, then SEC and the receiver should be notified that these are entities and assets that should be looked at for inclusion in the TRO.

As far as the spouses being included in the TRO, they will be allowed to offer a defense that they were not involved and will be presumed innocent until such evidence can show otherwise. If they have benefited directly from the scam (and they most likely have), then it will be up to the receiver to identify what assets or monies were obtained from scam money and can be attributed to them. Given the fact that they are probably senior citizens, I would not be surprised if the court allows them access to their property and belongings until the dust settles on this situation. And other factors may come into play if there are pre or post-nuptial agreements protecting separate property that came into being prior or during the marriages.

[Tednewsom]

I like the part (a couple pages back) where Mrs. Gillis warns her relatives never to invest in NASI...

[grimreaper]

Interesting observation on NASI Victim Blog

http://nasivictims.wordpress.com/

There is a poll of ATM investors that has 65 owning ATM contracts (as of this posting). 35% own more than 10 ATM contracts and 20% own more than 20 ATM contracts. Not that this is necessarily representative of all investors (perhaps covering 30,000 ATMs and 3000 investors?) but intersting none the less. If there are 30,000 contracts and 3000 investors, that would ave out to 10 ATM contracts per investor.

[Tednewsom]

That's sounding like a believable average, between the low end (three or four units) and the high rollers. There were a number of people who apparently owned dozens or even hundreds. Early on here, a rah-rah pro NASI poster said a good friend of his had 1000 units, and eventually 1500. The writer could well have been full of crap, but it does seem that some of the more recent suckers this last year laid down a couple million apiece, which would certainly put their numbers into the scores, possibly hundreds.

[notorial dissent]

Unfortunately, those numbers do sound all too credible. I suspect that when the final figures come out that some of them are going to be very surprising, and disturbing.

[webhick]

The local paper is reporting that Joel & Ed have been arrested: http://www.valleynewsgroup.com/final.pdf

[Tednewsom]

Looks to me more like the reporter used the word "arrested" rather loosely and inaccurately, i.e., no mention of what organization did the arrest (County Sheriff? LAPD? FBI?), nor the charges, nor whether the boys got bail. Although, we can hope.

[grimreaper]

Looks to me more like the reporter used the word "arrested" rather loosely and inaccurately, i.e., no mention of what organization did the arrest (County Sheriff? LAPD? FBI?), nor the charges, nor whether the boys got bail. Although, we can hope.

Nothing new..they weren't arrested. Article dated 10/09. The author simply characterized the release of sealed court document as an *arrest*>>WRONG.

[notorial dissent]

I would say news in real brief. Looks like they just cut and pasted from the court documents more than anything else and then paraphrased a bit, adn I'm not sure but what they got the paraphrased parts wrong.

[webhick]

The receivership site has more information up about the receivership. It's general info, but useful for victims nonetheless. I found this bit interesting:

Isn’t receivership just like bankruptcy?

No. While there are many similarities in what is ultimately accomplished, they are fundamentally very different. Bankruptcy laws are written to protect debtors from legal action by creditors and involve volumes of rules, regulations and specific procedures. Receivership is an “ancillary remedy” – which means there must already be some legal proceeding taking place (e.g. fraud, foreclosure action, partnership dispute). A receivership is designed to protect creditors, typically has broad rules and the court is allowed to use its “equitable” powers of fairness rather than adhere to rigid limitations.

In short, bankruptcy protects debtors while receivership protects creditors.

I've been checking both dockets almost daily and there's really nothing to note going on in either one yet.