ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[notorial dissent]

grimreaper:
Why does this fine distinction matter to you so much? Am I, or others, missing something I/we should be concerned about?

No, worried, you/they aren’t/haven’t. Grimmy has not only been wrong, but wrong on most everything he has posted, and most of what he has posted at best and kindest rises to the level of mis-information.

The Receiver getting anything back from the “investors” or anyone else for that matter, is not/never a certainty. They fact that he has gotten what he has, is in my books somewhat amazing. For whatever reason, some of the “investors” voluntarily returned funds, but judging by the dollar amount, it has been a small, need we say it, insignificant number of them to date, and there doesn’t seem to be a rush for the next batch to step up even with the 30% sweetener.

The plain facts are, that the Receiver can demand anything he wants from the “investors” or the affiliates, or anyone else that he thinks had their hands in the cookie jar, BUT, enforcing that demand will be up to the court, and that will entail a hearing, which for the verbally challenged, is a trial, unless the “investor” in question just blows it off and they get a default judgment, but that still requires a hearing/trial. It just doesn’t happen, our legal system is not set up that way.

The only way the Receiver will EVER be able to reach funds the “investors” have if they are truly net winners is by taking them to court, AND WINNING, assuming they don’t settle, which could happen, but so far there doesn’t seem to be a stampede to do so.

Now for one other little bit of bad news which Grimmy so kindly posted.

Importantly, the Receiver has considered whether the Clawback Claims
should be pursued on a contingent fee basis. After careful consideration, the
Receiver determined that the net recovery will be greater if counsel is paid on an
hourly basis.

What this says to me is that the Receiver has done the math and figures that they will come out ahead getting paid by the hour rather than on a percentage basis. This is NOT good news. Sorry, that handwriting is writ large and is not good news. I've read altogether too many statements just like that in years past, all with the same end result.

As to where current costs and expenses are coming from, they are coming right out of the corpus, and at this point recovery is just about covering costs. If they have to go to court it will rise considerably.

[grimreaper]

Oh, girls, girls, stop. You're both pretty.

Ted...at this point I'm not concerned how I come off...obviously I'm Persona Non Grata on the board and that's
NO PROBLEMO with me.
BTW...no family members have been contacted yet...I suspect it'll be a matter of time, since it appears they're going after low hanging fruit first.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
BTW...no family members have been contacted yet...I suspect it'll be a matter of time, since it appears they're going after low hanging fruit first.

Folks - we should believe any of this?

Given the many absurd versions of legal issues as grimmy has posited, this sounds too much like another attempt to mislead visitors to the thread. The "beware, you winning investors, you can't win" diatribe is just so tempting to not keep repeating.

Grimmy - as an old Texas saying goes, when you want to get out of a hole, stop diggin'.

A brief analysis:

A: We're required to believe in an assertion from a questionable source - that grimmy has family members involved. Granted, proving that would require a revelation that I would not recommend anyone make, but it clearly demonstrates a way to conveniently post information in a way to reflect things that are, in the evidentiary sense, worthless. One only has to wonder if the alleged family has been listening to him and following this thread. That could make Thanksgiving dinner interesting.

B: To accept the above, we're also required to believe he or she has intimate knowledge of whether or not the alleged relatives have actually been contacted yet. If they have, does the term "hearsay" come to mind?

Neither A nor B is palpable evidence of a fact and cannot be legitimately considered as real.

C: The "appearance" that they're going after "low hanging fruit first" is a gross assumption on his or her part. This is incompetent; we have no evidence on which to make a determination as to the "height" of the fruit.

Given the record, there is no evidence that grimmy has any value-added analysis of the situation and finally, questionable motive on the part of the poster ultimately destroys any credibility.

As I've said for months, if you're involved, get competent legal counsel. Do not clutch onto what people like grimmy are trying to portray as reality on the Internet.

[grimreaper]

I will say this only once...

*Everything I have said about family members is TRUE.
*I have >>>NO AGENDA to mislead those here.
*Take what I say as MY OPINION.
*I have never advocated NOT relying on legal advise.
*There is no defense for those deemed to have profited from a Ponzi scheme.
*I have never predicted how much money will be recovered, but MY OPINION is that it will be
more than *pennies* on the dollar.
*I sympathize with ALL investors, but *Caveat Emptor* applies.
*Thanks TEDNEWSOME

[Gregg]

Good point. When I say *no trials* I'm not saying they aren't within the realm of being *a possibility*..that's absurd, but I'm convinced that there simply won't be any for the reasons Ted states here AND the fact there's no legal defense to get you *off the hook*. If there are any errors/false claims in the receiver's calculations/determination of profit or loss, then that can be adjudicated in a hearing where the judge will rule on the merits of the investors claim. But this really amounts to MODIFYING an existing judgment or lawsuit. No *trials* as characterized above...yes, this my OPINION.

Bullshit, there is always a legal defense...with just 30 seconds of trying to come up with one, let me offer this...

I'm an old retired investor on a fixed income, of limited means, but I did come across this little gem and made, oh let's say $50,000 of clawback subject return over a few years, and mind you that money stopped more than a year ago, unlike my current expenses.
I don't have many investments, never had the money for them except in this one, my former job provided the services for retirees of a money class and I took it one year. The guy who taught it was a fully accredited financial adviser licensed by the state, holder of an accounting certificate and certified financial planner. (currently doing 35 months at Lompoc for elder fraud, BTW) and he convinced me to put every penny of my meager savings into this can't miss investment that his friend was running, not normally available to little guys like me, but he would get me an "in".

So, I liquidated an IRA and bought 2 machines, and used the returns, until they stopped when the scam collapsed, to pay my day to day expenses. Since they stopped I have struggled to get by, but I manage, thank goodness my house is payed for, aside from less than $1,000 in savings, its my only asset, it's worth, on paper, $75,000. I can only afford to have a lawyer in this case because part of my retirement includes pre paid legal services.

So, who wants to be the farm on this, if it goes to trial, either way? Is a jury gonna take a truly innocent "net winner" and throw him out of house and home? Note, he got involved because of the advice of an outwardly expert adviser, sanctioned by the industry and State, anyone think that might be enough to be called "a defense"?

Aside from his many other errors in how the real world works, our commentator makes many glaring errors because he fails to even recognize the vocabulary of the various fields and professions he speaks of with so little credibility.
A trial may be called "begun" at many different stages by laymen, the technical definition I would defer to the opinion of someone who practices law, or is qualified to do so. A defense is, to me at least, some reason why what the complaint states is not wholly true, and that doesn't mean it has to work, or is even very good, but as I think I've shown above, there is at least one coherent defense to being a big winner in the ponzi fraud game, even if you pocketed a few checks above what you put in.

My own biggest problem with our friend is that, on more than several occasions, he has openly taunted and questioned to opinions of genuine experts to the point of being like a heckler in a crowd at an expert performance. He has tried to lecture law to attorneys, accounts to accountants, forensic reconstruction to people who have done it more than a few times and I took personal offense at least once myself on his counter to my views on some banking detail or another, the area in which I earned my doctorate and one of my master's degrees. All this without taking into account that the long time regulars of this board, of which he was distinctly not at the time, have seen dozens and in some cases HUNDREDS of ponzi schemes rise, fall and the aftermath both legal and financial. Which is just all a fancy way of saying he was a first rate no-it-all prick a few times or more.

I am, and have never apologized for being, an arrogant son of bitch myself. I allow myself that indulgence because, well, it works out more often than not, to be honest. I do kind of understand what he's aiming for and missing so wide. On most matters outside my chosen fields I defer to the views of the experts, and as for building cars and, oddly enough, central banking, I pretty much don't feel inadequate to participate in the discussions with people widely held to be expert. As a hobby I've spent more than 10 years studying scams and online fraud, which is longer than I spent by far earning any one of my degrees, and as such feel as if I know more about them than most people. In perfect frankness, I don't like being mocked about how I feel about building cars, central banking/economics/accounting, or analyzing scams by many people, least of all by someone with all the style and subtlety of a 14 year old boy in a brothel with a gift certificate.

As Forrest Gump would say "and that's all I'm gonna say about that"

[Gregg]

Regarding how receiver would be paid, I found this:



Importantly, the Receiver has considered whether the Clawback Claims
should be pursued on a contingent fee basis. After careful consideration, the
Receiver determined that the net recovery will be greater if counsel is paid on an
hourly basis. The Receiver does not
anticipate controversial issues of law or fact
with the Clawback Claims, other than perhaps the accounting of
transfers performed
by the Receiver's staff. Because
any debate over the amount or
timing of transfers would primarily involve work by the Receiver and his staff, rather than counsel, the
anticipated time expended by counsel on any given Clawback Claim would not
necessarily support the amount of fees paid under a typical contingent fee
arrangement. Moreover, as noted
above, once judgments are obtained, the Receiver
will use his business judgment in
pursuing collection and managing the fees and
costs associated therewith, including potentially engaging a third-party agent to
pursue collection for a contingent fee based on the amount collected. Accordingly,
the Receiver believes the net recovery for the receivership estate will be greater if
his counsel is compensated on an hourly basis, subject to Court
approval, rather than
on a contingent fee basis

It's unclear WHERE funds are coming from right now, but this doesn't rule out claw back proceeds as a source either.
It simply states compensation will not be based on the % recovered.

Are you not undull enough to see the "between the lines" part of that?

First, this is all just a matter of how much is gonna get paid in the end, the lawyer is asking the question "am I billing you by the hour or by the cut?" and is, humbly, suggesting that he be paid by the hour. This MIGHT be because, and he has been to a few of these himself so he knows, if he's paid by the hour and never recovers a dime, or is he recovers less than his own costs, that he's going to be paid, and if the estate of the scam doesn't cover it, the United States Department of Justice will. I know quite a few lawyers and if there was a good chance of big money being found, every one of the ones I know would be humbly suggesting the contingency billing. Just saying' In civil cases it is normal and customary for lawyers to bill on contingency and no one would normally question one who did. Its so normal, in fact, that one suggesting not being paid that way merits asking why not, at least to me. Unless of course, you think lawyers as a generalization are more altruistic and less money driven than most others.

And for the Nth time, the only way the receiver is not going to be paid out of the money he recovers is if he doesn't recover enough to pay his own bill, at which time the government will pay the rest. But the important part is, and I'm gonna emphasis it, as my pal Arlo says "with feeling this time"

Before ANY victim gets paid a penny, the receiver will be paid in full, out of the funds he recovered!


Believe it or not, there is not a "ponzi victim fairey" who pays the lawyers if you leave a horse's head under your pillow.


oh come on, that was funny!

[Judge Roy Bean]

I will say this only once...

...
*There is no defense for those deemed to have profited from a Ponzi scheme.
...

Utter nonsense.

Let's hope you live up to the first part of your post.

[The Observer]

That this says to me is that the Receiver has done the math and figures that they will come out ahead getting paid by the hour rather than on a percentage basis. This is NOT good news.

I know quite a few lawyers and if there was a good chance of big money being found, every one of the ones I know would be humbly suggesting the contingency billing.

There in a nutshell is why this is not going to be a cakewalk of summary judgments with tons of money flowing in voluntarily from the ranks of the net winners.

[Hyrion]

SETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT IS NOT A *DEFENSE*. A Defense implies arguments as to the application of the law and why this law does not apply in a particular case.

There you go again.

In my humble non-legal layman opinion, you're misrepresenting the Law again.

From http://thelawdictionary.org/defense/

What is DEFENSE? That which is offered and alleged by the party proceeded against in an action or suit, as a reason in law or fact why the plaintiff should not recover or establish what he seeks; what Is put forward to defeat an action.

Bolding mine to highlight that you are very mistaken that establishing facts is not a defense.

You stated:

I have >>>NO AGENDA to mislead those here.

Whether or not you intend to mislead others, you are misleading them when you misrepresent the Law or Legal Process.

[Tednewsom]

"Reading between the lines"... hmmm... okay...

So, as I see it, the consensus is that this "grimreaper" guy is an evil & obnoxious disinformation tool of the NASI boys sent here by Satan to confuse the poor floundering suckers who've lost their money. Millions of dollars have been lost by those pathetic victims who've read the 105 pages here but only paid attention to his posts, thereby cheating themselves out of the right to legal representation and damning themselves to poverty. By posing as a "relative" of suspiciously unnamed scam victims, this "grimreaper" chap deviously undercuts faith in the legal system and is a general all-round buzz-kill.

AND (!!!) there's this alleged "Receiver" (how aptly named!) who has the unutterable gall to charge a fee for his so-called "recovery." This old guy is obviously twice as evil as the original pair of creeps, because this "Receiver" pretends to be looking for assets to pay victims, all the while insisting on being paid. Paid! Where is this gleep's sense of social responsibility? There's been this massive crime, and this guy wants to pay his own bills? The nerve of some people! I'll bet I could go out and find countless experienced investigators, forensic accountants, legal secretaries and website designers who would love to work on this case free for four or five years, just for the sheer challenge of it. This guy and all his friends get to have all the fun of deciphering Wishner's hieroglyphics, looking under Gillis' mattress, plugging gizmos into cigarette lighters and changing clothes in an RV-- AND they want to scrape money off the top to pay for their time? Aww, man. Thieves.

[Hyrion]

Your hyberbole and sarcasm notwithstanding:

... this "grimreaper" guy
... disinformation
... confuse the poor floundering suckers who've lost their money ......

... or confuse the net winners ....

... those ... victims

.... or net winners

... only paid attention to his posts, thereby cheating themselves out of the right to legal representation

Ironically, if no one spoke to correct the misrepresentations of Law and Legal Process that Grimreaper continues to make... you're absolutely right: anyone else reading this thread would only have Grimreapers representations to go by - unless of course they were smart enough to get their own Lawyer.

It is only because some of us do speak to correct Grimreapers misrepresentations of Law and Legal Process that other readers have a different point to consider.

[AndyK]

...
AND (!!!) there's this alleged "Receiver" (how aptly named!) who has the unutterable gall to charge a fee for his so-called "recovery." This old guy is obviously twice as evil as the original pair of creeps, because this "Receiver" pretends to be looking for assets to pay victims, all the while insisting on being paid. Paid! Where is this gleep's sense of social responsibility? There's been this massive crime, and this guy wants to pay his own bills? The nerve of some people! I'll bet I could go out and find countless experienced investigators, forensic accountants, legal secretaries and website designers who would love to work on this case free for four or five years, just for the sheer challenge of it. This guy and all his friends get to have all the fun of deciphering Wishner's hieroglyphics, looking under Gillis' mattress, plugging gizmos into cigarette lighters and changing clothes in an RV-- AND they want to scrape money off the top to pay for their time? Aww, man. Thieves.

Sounds like you're asking a highly qualified, experienced attorney to forget about paying his bills, feeding his family, and so on just to satisfy your sense of moral indignation. Why should this person do so when they could go back to their regular legal practice?

It's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or deliberately obtuse. If you bothered to take a few minutes to review bankruptcy law and the legally defined role and compensation of the receiver, you might come close to comprehending what is actually happening. Also, remember that the receiver is under the close scrutiny of the court and has to justify every cent billed before getting paid.

[The Observer]

I don't think there is any consensus here that grimmie is an evil agent for anyone. I think the only "consensus" among the regulars is that grimreaper is wrong about a great many things that he opines on here, despite the fact that he has been proven wrong time and time again. I can only think of one person who has offered their opinion that grimmie has some motivation for doing this to protect someone else. That is hardly a "consensus." My own personal opinion is that he just has a driving need to be seen as some sort of "expert" on this situation, so has insisted on sharing his incorrect information.

It is just not his arguing about the lack of a defense for net winners. He had raised the issue of the receiver's compensation several times and how it is not going to come out of net winners' proceeds or that the receivership has unlimited funding to go after net winners. He has been told before that he is wrong, that the receiver will be paid out of the corpus of NASI funds, including whatever is recovered from net winners.

Which allows for a crude segue to your other issue, Ted, of your perception that the regulars think that the receiver is "evil" for collecting what is due him. I am not sure why you think our analysis of how much this is going to cost the net losers in receiving reimbursement means that we think the receiver is "evil." Given the knowledge and experience that the regulars have here regarding how a receivership works and is financed, it is only to be expected that the bottom line for any reckoning is likely not to result in good news. But that does not mean that we think the receiver is "evil", no more so than a biologist's comments on a lion killing its prey indicates that the biologist thinks the lion is "evil." He or she is just making observations about the nature of the lion and how it feeds itself. And that is what the regulars here are doing. All of the regulars here understand and accept that the receiver is to be paid, and certainly do not think that this reimbursement is out of line.

If your perceptions are the result of "reading between the lines", might I suggest that you stick to reading the lines instead?

[Tednewsom]

Sounds like you're asking a highly qualified, experienced attorney to forget about paying his bills, feeding his family, and so on just to satisfy your sense of moral indignation. Why should this person do so when they could go back to their regular legal practice?

Gosh. Y'think?

Also, remember that the receiver is under the close scrutiny of the court and has to justify every cent billed before getting paid.

Goshers times two. Y'think? All that work and he ought to be paid? Wow. Sounds pretty radical.
Or perhaps you should shuttle back a few pages and look at the high dudgeon other people have gone into that the Receiver actually gets paid for figuring all this out.

Yes, my friend. Sarcasm. Perhaps I should be more clear.

[The Observer]

Or perhaps you should shuttle back a few pages and look at the high dudgeon other people have gone into that the Receiver actually gets paid for figuring all this out.

I can't recall any post, let alone "a consensus" of posts that showed posters being in "high dudgeon" about the receiver being paid. How about you backing up that perception with a sample or two?

[Hyrion]

Or perhaps you should shuttle back a few pages and look at the high dudgeon other people have gone into that the Receiver actually gets paid for figuring all this out.

I can't recall any post, let alone "a consensus" of posts that showed posters being in "high dudgeon" about the receiver being paid. How about you backing up that perception with a sample or two?

Ironically - if Teds response was directed at Grimreapers comments with regards gimmies apparent expectation that the Receiver not be paid out of the recovered funds....

• Teds sarcasm would make sense

It's inappropriate for Ted to be directing the comment at those who are pointing out the reality of the situation to Grimreaper that the receiver (and all associating costs on the project) will be paid out of the corpus/estate including the recovered funds.

That's why I identified his response as both sarcastic and hyperbole. It's also misdirected. Perhaps this is just another way for Ted to attempt to defend Grimreaper - a redirection of the implied intent by Grimreaper onto others.

[notorial dissent]

Ted, I think you had best stick to playing it straight and avoiding comedy and/or sarcasm, since you don't do either well.

If you really want to bother to check, I believe that you will find that the only one making any real noise about the Receiver getting paid or how the Receiver is getting paid is Grimmy. The rest of us live in the real world and know how these things work, and both myself and Observer have previously commented on the not at all salubrious news that the Receiver has chosen to get paid by the hour rather than on commission.

[Lost Income]

All this bantering is great....but thanks to our lazy legal system the crooks are still on the street spending money, little money has been recovered which the receiver is spending from, and at this rate the outcome is becoming less and less important.

[Hyrion]

It's been speculated Grimreaper has a motive that's related to the strong-line positions he takes. I think I might have a possibility for that if it's true.

Let's assume he's being honest that he has family members who were involved in the scheme. Let's also assume he cares about those family members and has their best interests in mind as he researches and posts on the subject.

Three of his key positions (as I understand his postings) are:

• 1: There will be lots of funds recovered

• 2: It's inappropriate for the receiver to be paid out of the funds recovered

• 3: The net winners will have to pay what they received above and beyond what they spent because if they don't willingly do so they will face summary judgement and be forced to do so without a trial anyway

Given Grimreapers positions and the two assumptions - I'd say there's at least one significant net loser in Grimreapers family. As an example, his grandfather could be out all his retirement funds.

If there are an insignificant amount of funds recovered then said family member is out a LOT of money - perhaps Grimreaper is already helping said family member financially and doesn't look forward to doing so through the unforseeable future.

If the receiver is being paid for labour/costs out of the funds that were clawed back then there will be less funds to distribute to said family member.

The more net winners get to keep their winnings, the less funds to distribute again.

If his family members were net winners then I could understand why he'd be concerned with position 3 - "if you end up having to pay out the full amount of "winnings" anyway, why bother to pay a Lawyer additional costs to try and fight it" would be the logical thought. So he could be counseling said family members not to fight, said family visiting here and responding with "but the quatloosians say that a defense is possible", and Grimreaper getting frustrated because we quatloosians are "interfering" with him trying to help said family member.

Of course, what kind of situation said specific individual really is in and which course best fits them should really be a discussion between said individual and their own Lawyer.

But... if the family consisted of only net winners, there is no explanation for positions 1 and 2. If his family are net winners, why would Grimreaper care about how much funds - relative to little or lots - would likely be recovered? Why would he care how much of said recovered funds went into the pockets of the receiver?

Of course, Observer could be absolutely correct. Grimreaper could have no pony in the show at all and everytime he's claimed family is involved he's been less than honest. Instead, as Observer pointed out:

Plain old hubris. He is the Internet version of the guy in the local bar who has an opinion about everything and insists that he is right.

[Hyrion]

All this bantering is great....but thanks to our lazy legal system the crooks are still on the street spending money, little money has been recovered which the receiver is spending from, and at this rate the outcome is becoming less and less important.

Would you prefer a "lazy", slower, full accounting of what actually occurred before sentencing so sentencing could be appropriate?

Or would you prefer a "rushed", faster, mistaken filled accounting of what's occurred such that might actually end up with the case being dismissed and the guys not only walking free now - but in the future as well.

Personally - I'd rather they walk free now and spend time in prison later then manage to avoid any prison time at all because the case was so badly managed.