ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[notorial dissent]

I guess it was a good thing I was sitting down then. Not really terribly surprising, since there will be a criminal complaint tied to this, and their financials will figure prominently in it I hadn't really expected them to share either.

I'm more curious about how they got the preliminary so quickly.

[grimreaper]

I guess it was a good thing I was sitting down then. Not really terribly surprising, since there will be a criminal complaint tied to this, and their financials will figure prominently in it I hadn't really expected them to share either.

I'm more curious about how they got the preliminary so quickly.

By taking the 5th, they're weren't going to contest the TRO....so it's a done deal. Criminal charges are next.

[Tednewsom]

Graybar Country Club, here we come.

[ghensuijuris]

Ed & Joel filed their responses to the portion of the TRO which order them to disclose their finances. They both plead the fifth. Hold on while I contain my surprise.

The preliminary injunction also came through. There's an entry on the docket which indicates that there will no longer be a hearing.

Thanks. No surprises here...we now have Preliminary Injunction with receiver and SEC in the driver's seat now. I don't understand taking the 5th? They have been ordered to provide all info on personal finances...not to *testify* in their own behalf.

The preliminary injunction allows both individuals to continue to use their financial resources to maintain their living standards, pay their bills, open new bank accounts, feed their attorneys' trust accounts. Until there is evidence to the contrary, apparently nothing criminal has been discovered by the SEC team. Brilliant strategy, at least to have time to dissolve assets.

This is unlikely to make those who have been harmed happy, but a presumption of innocence exists in the courts, at least in the public view. We watch, await further revelations, and suffer the losses; consequences of gullibility and greed. I'm so sorry for the hope lost by the trusting investors. And we are prohibited from attempting to get in front of the SEC claims.

[webhick]

The preliminary injunction allows both individuals to continue to use their financial resources to maintain their living standards, pay their bills, open new bank accounts, feed their attorneys' trust accounts. Until there is evidence to the contrary, apparently nothing criminal has been discovered by the SEC team. Brilliant strategy, at least to have time to dissolve assets.

They can only use "new funds", that is funds procured after 9/30 and unrelated to the scam. It really bothers me that Ed can still operate his accounting firm. I know, innocent until proven guilty, but shouldn't his CPA license be revoked or something? Oh wait, I'm trying to find him in the the CBAC and he's not there. I guess he's not a licensed CPA.

[notorial dissent]

I guess he's not a licensed CPA.

Well, now there's another surprise for you.

[ghensuijuris]

New funds, those unrelated to the scam, makes me reel. One may wonder how resourceful these men are, as we are faced with their incredible hubris. Having a license requires one to conform to rules devised by attorneys (usually). I can relate to the idea that constraint might thwart the freedom required to operate in the ether. Another strategy is that one is so expert in an endeavor, the artistry supersedes rules. Due diligence required.

[Tednewsom]

Oh wait, I'm trying to find him in the the CBAC and he's not there. I guess he's not a licensed CPA.

I'm shocked. Shocked.

Actually, I am shocked at how unimaginative these bastards were. The entire charade is straight out of "Captain Billy's Whiz-Bang Joke Book and Scam Guide," first published in 1911, with amended editions in 1933, 1947 and 1958. Seriously: this "National Automated Systems" ATM rip-off was laid down step-by-step as if Wishner and Gillis were working an old playbook. Nothing they did was new; everything they did during the course of the Ponzi was literally by the book.

[grimreaper]

Oh wait, I'm trying to find him in the the CBAC and he's not there. I guess he's not a licensed CPA.

I'm shocked. Shocked.

Actually, I am shocked at how unimaginative these bastards were. The entire charade is straight out of "Captain Billy's Whiz-Bang Joke Book and Scam Guide," first published in 1911, with amended editions in 1933, 1947 and 1958. Seriously: this "National Automated Systems" ATM rip-off was laid down step-by-step as if Wishner and Gillis were working an old playbook. Nothing they did was new; everything they did during the course of the Ponzi was literally by the book.

This certainly wasn't a *MADOFF*. I agree, this was a *straight up* Ponzi and it will be very easy to identify the elements of fraud here. A slam dunk if you will. Now days, the SEC has become very adroit at picking these apart, and this one will be a no brainer for the courts. I just don't see any feasible defense here....just basic tactics (taking the 5th for example) that will be as effective as spitting in the wind.

[grimreaper]

Until there is evidence to the contrary, apparently nothing criminal has been discovered by the SEC team. Brilliant strategy, at least to have time to dissolve assets.

Well, apparently there was sufficient evidence to implement an injunction? They were required to REBUTT this evidence and they failed to do so.>>>>>>

PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE

Latin for "at first view."

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail.

[notorial dissent]

Until there is evidence to the contrary, apparently nothing criminal has been discovered by the SEC team. Brilliant strategy, at least to have time to dissolve assets.

Well, apparently there was sufficient evidence to implement an injunction? They were required to REBUTT this evidence and they failed to do so.>>>>>>

PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE

Latin for "at first view."

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail.

The fact that the didn't rebutt the complaint by the SEC means they basically admitted it. The legal challenges, at least that part of it is over with.

[ghensuijuris]

Yes, evidentiary (per the civil minutes) statements were provided sufficient to grant a TRO, and an injunction. While I would not defend the actions taken by defendants, I anticipate a lengthy process with little gained at the conclusion regarding fair returns to the injured parties. Basically I see this as a civil suit thus far, not a criminal suit. That defendants are allowed to remain 'in business' and not incarcerated supports my position, I reckon. And the source of the 'new funds' is far too vague to preclude laundering of stashed assets. So I see this one miles away, and stretching for years. Just my opinion, but I have sustained major losses through deceit of a similar nature.
Some of us are far too embarrassed to stand up for a head count of our position, in these sorts of issues. Feelings are not facts, however. Yet the plaintiff (the people) will ascribe falsehoods which will be unrefuted. And that will become 'evidence', in the end. Attorneys have a license to twist and turn words, a talent not far from the defendants methods. But their primary duty and obligation is to honorably be officers of the court. Bless them, and may they succeed in undoing this disastrous manipulation of NASi clients.

[grimreaper]

Deleted

[grimreaper]

Yes, evidentiary (per the civil minutes) statements were provided sufficient to grant a TRO, and an injunction. While I would not defend the actions taken by defendants, I anticipate a lengthy process with little gained at the conclusion regarding fair returns to the injured parties. Basically I see this as a civil suit thus far, not a criminal suit. That defendants are allowed to remain 'in business' and not incarcerated supports my position, I reckon. And the source of the 'new funds' is far too vague to preclude laundering of stashed assets. So I see this one miles away, and stretching for years. Just my opinion, but I have sustained major losses through deceit of a similar nature.
Some of us are far too embarrassed to stand up for a head count of our position, in these sorts of issues. Feelings are not facts, however. Yet the plaintiff (the people) will ascribe falsehoods which will be unrefuted. And that will become 'evidence', in the end. Attorneys have a license to twist and turn words, a talent not far from the defendants methods. But their primary duty and obligation is to honorably be officers of the court. Bless them, and may they succeed in undoing this disastrous manipulation of NASi clients.

Only for the time being. Incarceration coming. Just a matter of time. The legal process has to take it's course..inexorably..but it will prevail. DEAD MEN WALKING.

[Tednewsom]

[notorial dissent]

Yes, evidentiary (per the civil minutes) statements were provided sufficient to grant a TRO, and an injunction. While I would not defend the actions taken by defendants, I anticipate a lengthy process with little gained at the conclusion regarding fair returns to the injured parties. Basically I see this as a civil suit thus far, not a criminal suit. That defendants are allowed to remain 'in business' and not incarcerated supports my position, I reckon. And the source of the 'new funds' is far too vague to preclude laundering of stashed assets. So I see this one miles away, and stretching for years. Just my opinion, but I have sustained major losses through deceit of a similar nature.
Some of us are far too embarrassed to stand up for a head count of our position, in these sorts of issues. Feelings are not facts, however. Yet the plaintiff (the people) will ascribe falsehoods which will be unrefuted. And that will become 'evidence', in the end. Attorneys have a license to twist and turn words, a talent not far from the defendants methods. But their primary duty and obligation is to honorably be officers of the court. Bless them, and may they succeed in undoing this disastrous manipulation of NASi clients.

You seem to be confused about a number of things. First, NASI is now and officially an ex-parrot, it is under full receivership, the "boys" who are not yet defendants in a criminal matter are not in control of any of the company, its assets, or subsidiaries. Now they may have had other funds from other sources, and one of them had an unrelated business, but my recollection was that the the original order froze all their assets as well. At this point the receiver is going through NASI to determine what is there and what can be salvaged. My suspicion is that it will take about two years to close this down as that is about the usual time in cases like this. My further suspicion is that we will start to see criminal indictments in about six months time, as that is also the usual course of events.

[grimreaper]

the "boys" who are not yet defendants in a criminal matter are not in control of any of the company, its assets, or subsidiaries. Now they may have had other funds from other sources, and one of them had an unrelated business, but my recollection was that the the original order froze all their assets as well

Makes you wonder WHERE they got the funds to hire an expensive law firm to defend them? As I understand it, the new injunction requires ALL PARTIES who were sent a copy (Read >>the defense team) and have taken money in excess over $5000 since the initial TRO was issued, are required to FREEZE that money! In all probability any funds given to them will be taken back..so where on earth are they getting their money? There's NO WAY they're going to get it from recovered funds like the receiver will. Perhaps Gillis put up his HOME as collateral, but that can be taken from him if convicted and I think that asset is frozen as well. I find this very puzzling.

[Tednewsom]

We're assuming either Gillis or Wishner has shelled out any dough to lawyers at all. Remember, these guys fleeced hundreds of people over nearly twenty years-- and, for all the criminal activity, made several quite wealthy. I should expect there are lawyers in that bunch who feel they owe them a big favor (too old for clawback)... or Gillis has worked his silver tongue on some sucker attorney who thinks he can win and collect a big fat payout on contingency.

[grimreaper]

We're assuming either Gillis or Wishner has shelled out any dough to lawyers at all. Remember, these guys fleeced hundreds of people over nearly twenty years-- and, for all the criminal activity, made several quite wealthy. I should expect there are lawyers in that bunch who feel they owe them a big favor (too old for clawback)... or Gillis has worked his silver tongue on some sucker attorney who thinks he can win and collect a big fat payout on contingency.

Couldn't have made anyone wealthy...receiver will insure that. Clawback will, at a MINIMUM, take back all profits made in the statute of limitations period...and they LOST their PRINCIPAL! Doesn't mater if they were in at the beginning....profits will be reduced BIG TIME. How the hell are these guys going to be compensated for spending up to 2 years defending a LOST CAUSE???

[MarvinGardens]

Deleted