Will Homero's Stimulus check for all his herd go towards his fines?

While Homero's name is still on the lawsuit its been dropped.   This is about Uncle Stu and whether anyone will get paid from his scamming.

Deadline passed to settle Audet v. Garza and it looks like its going to trial in June.

In this time of giving can you muggles spare $10 to get your family members the best tacos in Vermont? 
https://titostaqueria.com/titos-gift-certificates/titos-gift-certificate-1

I guess there is going to be a settlement or trial.  Not sure which one.  Trial will be in December if no settlement is reached.  Stay Tuned.  Love the Classic Homero.  BTW...He lives near San Antonio supposedly in a town called New Braunfels.  Not sure I believe the courts, but whatever.  How the fuck is he out?  His supervised release was supposed to be at a halfway house in San Antonio until October.  My VINE system hasn't told me he is out yet, but who knows.

I don't know what he is capable of doing but I bet he has all his money in trusts and things where it can't be touched.

All I gotta say is DAMN Theresa!  $300,000 in hashlets and an unfortunate $100,000 in chargebacks.  I'm probably not allowed to post the document for various reason so just go read it on your own but here is the summary of what happens next. 

Finally, as the Court discussed with the parties at the conclusion of oral argument,
although the trial remains scheduled for August 5, 2020, and the Court has set other trial-related
deadlines, there is some uncertainty about these dates at this time because of the current
pandemic. In addition, the Court recognizes that the briefing schedule set forth above will
require the parties to incur additional time and expense in litigating this case. Therefore, if the
parties would prefer to use the next month or two to engage in any settlement discussions, the
Court is prepared to accommodate such a request, and would even consider moving the trial date
Case 3:16-cv-00940-MPS Document 206 Filed 05/04/20 Page 17 of 18
18
if that is necessary. Should the parties wish to make such a request, they must file, within 14
days of this ruling, a joint statement certifying that (1) counsel have conferred with their clients and
each other, (2) the parties wish to proceed to mediation, (3) the parties are willing to participate in
settlement efforts at such mediation in good faith, and (4) counsel believe that a mediation stands at
least a reasonable chance of resolving the case without trial. Any such statement should also indicate
whether the parties seek the Court’s assistance in arranging for a mediator (i.e., a U.S. Magistrate
Judge or Court-appointed Parajudicial Officer) or whether they wish to pursue private mediation on
their own.

If a settlement does not work the Judge has specified he would like a bifurcated trial.  He wants to first have a trial to see if Stuart Fraser is liable and then have the damages trial.  This could get pricey $$$.  What you wanna bet he settles?  Not sure how wealthy he is but maybe he doesn't have enough to settle with?

getting closer to a trial in the Audet v. Garza/Fraser lawsuit.  Looks like July maybe?

I wonder how the halfway house is with no visitors or toilet paper?

I think it went a roundabout way, but I think most of the time Paypal was involved.  A lot was purchased from the 3rd party resellers.

The Latest argument dated February 8th from Uncle Stu's attorney is that 10 of the class members received chargebacks from their credit cards so therefore the class action is too difficult to accurately quantify.  What a bunch of BS!  I never received a chargeback BTW.

Is there a way to get by their paywall?  I hate articles like that.

On the flip side you could interview those that made it big and still have problems.  Did you hear about the lady in Santa Barbara California whose husband was one of the original tinkerers with bitcoin.  She had millions but her husband was dying from some terminal illness and scammers were swatting her house and doing various things to extort bitcoin from her. 

HE'S FREE!  well sorta...He's in a halway house in San Antonio supposedly.  He was released on the 17th.  Fuck you Josh!

we might be on our way to wrapping this up. Latest court order from yesterday:

ORDER. As discussed on the record at today's telephonic status conference, the Court will hear argument on the motion to decertify the class as to damages on April 24, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Jury selection is scheduled for August 5, 2020 with evidence to begin thereafter. The joint trial memorandum and any motions in limine will be due by July 1, 2020. Responses to any motions in limine will be due by July 15, 2020. The parties are directed to refer to the Court's instructions for joint trial memoranda on the Court's website (http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/content/michael-p-shea). The Court will hold a pretrial conference on July 21, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 1/14/2020.

This is what the Judge has to say about doxxing:

ORDER. The [182] motion to seal is DENIED. Plaintiffs ask the Court to seal the entirety of the 667 page declaration because portions of it contain "potentially personally identifiable information." At most, this justifies redacting the personally identifiable information from the declaration. To obtain approval to file a document under seal, and thereby block a court document from public view, a party must make a particularized showing of good cause why the Court should depart from the strong presumption against sealing court records from public inspection. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 59799 (1978) (directing lower courts to weigh[] the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 12022 (2d Cir. 2006). A court must generally decide motions to seal on the basis of a careful review of the particular portions of each document a party wishes to file under seal and after considering whether the requested order is no broader than necessary to serve the interests that require protection. See U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2D Cir. 1995); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 2019 WL 2814839 at *1 (2d Cir. 2019) (vacating District Court's order for failure to conduct a particularized review of the documents to be sealed). If Plaintiffs wish to renew their motion to seal, they are directed to file a redacted version of the Declaration along with a memorandum making a particularized showing of good cause for sealing each redacted portion, so that the Court can fulfill its obligation to ensure that the requested order is no broader than necessary to serve the interests that require protection. The Court will hold a telephonic status conference on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. to discuss the [184] joint motion for extension of time and other scheduling matters. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 1/10/2020.

He was on every crypto site begging for business.  I think he was just an opportunist on the paycoin deal.  I don't think he truly cared about any crypto in particular.

Since I am just trying to document the activities in this case there has been a major mistake made by the attorneys in Audet v Garza case# 3:2016-cv-00940.  If you are interested you can pm me since I'm not allowed to post what it was.

I vaguely remember someone had a website and they actually sold the Hashlets separately on their website.  I don't know what kind of agreement they had but I remember there were are few resellers, but really only one that was significant.

Who is Mr. Grimes?  Last interesting document in a long while. 

https://docdro.id/XQaPxef