Pretty simple explanation of the how's and why's including http://www.wikihow.com/Seek-a-Voluntary-DismissalYou might want to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit for a variety of reasons. For example, you might have settled the dispute, or you might want to sue in a different court. In these situations, you can seek a voluntary dismissal by filing a legal document with the court
•You sued the wrong person. You might realize that you named the wrong person as a defendant. You should be 100% sure that the person is not the right defendant before seeking to dismiss “with prejudice.” |
|
|
|
That's got me wondering now how exactly it all works http://ia801502.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576.docket.htmlThere I see only their attempt to certify it as a class action, but nothing about that being accepted to be so. So what happens if Uncle Stu says to these plaintiffs, okay here's $250,000 each and I will pay your legal bills now fuck off. The thing was never certified a class action (so it seems), he cuts a deal with the 4 plaintiffs, they cancel the suit against him or is it both? They get a nice chunk of change, their lawyers get 1.5 their rate, lawsuit cancelled and everyone walks away. Except all those that thought they were a party to a class action lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Say it ain't so  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_dismissalVoluntary dismissal is termination of a lawsuit by voluntary request of the plaintiff (the party who originally filed the lawsuit). A voluntary dismissal with prejudice (meaning the plaintiff is permanently barred from further litigating the same subject matter) is the modern descendant of the common law procedure known as retraxit |
|
|
|
 what? Monday, October 24, 2016
52 notice Notice (Other) Mon 1:08 PM
NOTICE by Denis Marc Audet, Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, Jason Vargas Plaintiffs' Rule 41(a) Notice of Dismissal (Kindall, Mark) What is the meaning of this? https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions
(a) Voluntary Dismissal.
(1) By the Plaintiff.
(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:
(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or
(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.
|
|
|
|
LOL! Wednesday, October 19, 2016
50 order Order Wed 3:35 PM
ORDER. The Rule 16 Pretrial Conference is hereby rescheduled to November 2, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/19/2016. (Howard, H.) |
|
|
|
Good to see it is still scheduled, way too surprises in this case. http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/court_calendars10/25/2016 02:00PM Pretrial Conference Hartford Annex Room A146, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Shea Audet v. Garza 3:16-cv-00940-MPS Securities/Commodities |
|
|
|
Something's brewing but I don't know wtf it is  Thursday, October 13, 2016
49 utility Calendar Entry Thu 9:28 AM
NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Rule 16 Pretrial Conference set for 10/25/2016 02:00 PM in Hartford Annex Room A146, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Michael P. Shea (Johnson, D.) WHEN COURTS GO ALL CAPS YOU BEST BELIEVE IT'S SERIOUS BUSINESS! Anyone in the area care to drop in? |
|
|
|
Standard fare below. Still no Homero. One submission signed by him and nothing else. He either rolled over, or tried to off himself and is committed to a nut house, in order to get out of this. Just not getting any of it. Not even his lawyer's name is filed anywhere as defence for him. Wednesday, October 12, 2016
48 order Order Wed 1:34 PM
ORDER. Defendant Stuart A. Fraser filed a41 Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. On or before, November 4, 2016 , Plaintiff shall either file a response to the motion or file an amended complaint in which plaintiff pleads as many facts as possible, consistent with Rule 11, to address the alleged defects discussed in Defendant's memorandum of law. The Court will not allow further amendments after November 4, 2016. If Plaintiff chooses to amend and if Defendant renews the motion to dismiss, Defendant may incorporate by reference any prior briefing. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/12/2016. (Howard, H.)
47 order Order Wed 12:10 PM
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER. As set forth herein, a Rule 16 Pretrial Conference is ordered in this matter for October 25, 2016 , at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/12/2016. (Howard, H.)
46 order Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Wed 12:08 PM
ORDER. Plaintiff's35 Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Selection of Counsel is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the attached. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/12/2016. (Howard, H.)
|
|
|
|
Plaintiffs got their extension Friday, October 07, 2016
45 order Order on Motion for Extension of Time Fri 4:14 PM
ORDER. The Plaintiffs'44 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Defendant Fraser's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED . Subsequent time extensions shall be granted only for good cause under Local Rule 7. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/07/2016. (Howard, H.) Still no word from Homero. Got to think that the 90 days buried somewhere is in play. 30 days would have been right now 6th October. If so, another two months before we hear from him. Very puzzling. Maybe it is time for Shinners to up date his lawsuit blog with what is going on including Homero's seemingly non-participation. Quick checking to see if there is a protective order covering Homero to explain the non publishing of his movements, shows that there is one, but it does not appear to be specific to Homero.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
5 order Protective Order Thu 10:52 AM
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 6/15/2016. (Shafer, J.)
I am starting to feel cheated.  the lead actor in our thriller has yet to appear |
|
|
|
Thinking about that, I can see that definitely playing out. Homero throwing Uncle Stu under the bus. Uncle Stu assembled this army of lawyers, for what? Just this petty lawsuit? Homero hasn't surfaced once except for some shit one page submission which he even signed himself. Not a peep thus far. Now we know what a snake Homero is. Fitting his little wife's car with tracking devices, we have seen Homero having full access to Uncle Stu's WiFi and Internet accounts. All in the email dump, monitoring the Fraser families activities in Miami, who's lap top is downloaded how much data, which websites visited, usage and billing? of Uncle Stu's credit cards etc. etc. So we have Homero's bizarre dead silence in the matter, Uncle Stu's phalanx of top tier lawyers, Homero's ability to snoop and record everyone's private affairs, so where does that leave us? Back to "...I'll take what's under the apron for 5 million Alex..." or "...I'll take the get out jail card for nothing Alex..."Something is definitely going on somewhere. make it good Homero, not only for us but for Elon too! |
|
|
|
Yes something definitely fishy going on, thought it was the 8th October for some reason. Now I see he asked for the 6th and was denined. There was a calculation which I cannot find right now, where it said something, 30 days or 90 days. Not related to those docs. I don't know WTF is going on with Homero, but as usual a cluster fuck even in his own case. Stoopid bastard cannot do ANYTHING right! Now I am wondering if it is related tot he SEC Tuesday, April 26, 2016
order ~Util - Set/Clear Flags Tue 3:50 PM
ORDER. Pursuant to the Court's telephone conference with counsel, the Court hereby STAYS this litigation for a period of six months. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 4/26/2016.(Oakes, A.) That puts us at 26 October. Whole thing is getting bizarre. One squeak only from his lawyer in all this time and that is it. Too much silence, got to think something is happening behind the scenes? Uncle Stu with his army of legal vehemently denying anything stand up straight and forward saying so, Homero, cowering in the corner whimpering with just one single input from his lawyer and that is it. Whole picture doesn't make sense unless of course... ' my client was an abused child blah blah.... got married young blah blah.... met this elderly gentleman in this small town vermont....blah blah blah...became too close to him ..... blah blah blah..... as a result became addicted to prescription drugs and fast cards and glass dildos blah blah blah .... please mr SEC he has young children let him do rehab and community service to make everything right ... blah blah blah...!"Would not be surprised if some bullshit is festering in the back room over there with this con artist. Pretty sure the feds can nudge Judge Michael P Shea into seeing things there way. Don't know right now what is going on. But there better be a spectacular ending to all of this,after all this time , or I want my money back! |
|
|
|
Well if the calculations are correct Homero needs to answer tomorrow. Finding it odd that not one anything from his legal team other than a request for extension signed by him. Even that and the acceptance of it is not clear whether it is tomorrow or another 2 months time. The response or court order is in the files on page one here. Very unclear his participation to date. Really what repsonse can he provide 'i didn't do it' ' its not my fault the trolls did it' how in the world with the mounting (mounted?) evidence not only in this case but the SEC's case, can he squirm out of this? 'im insane please forgive me' 'jesus told me to do it' . Really very interested to see what his response will be. Got to be out of left field at minimum. On the other side plaintaiffs have asked for an extension to respond to Uncle Stu, which is expect of course. Tuesday, October 04, 2016
44 motion Extension of Time Tue 5:23 PM
MOTION for Extension of Time until November 4, 2016 to file a response to Defendant Stuart A. Fraser's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint by Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, Jason Vargas.(Kindall, Mark)
Att: 1 Text of Proposed Order
|
|
|
|
Actually I think we are wasting our time. Pretty much everything is in the complaint: http://ia601502.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576/gov.uscourts.ctd.112576.1.0.pdf #32 The detailed defense is to all of these claims we are high lighting again. Their defense is that there is no proof to any of this and all he was, was a minority financial backer with zero input. Their contention is that it needs to be proved he had control, against that specific law, if he is to be held liable. Nothing else matters as far as the defense is concerned. So I don't know what the next step would be for the plaintiffs in this regard. Also checking back the files, seems Homero's extension was accepted to the 8th October. Long before the plaintiff's next step is required. So now the ball is in Homero's court. How will he respond and what will he say. Try to implicate Uncle Stu, thus bolstering the plaintiff's claims, or shoulder the entire thing himself, keep Uncle Stu's record clean, maybe get his legal bills paid off in return, declare bankruptcy, spend some time in the hole for his crime, and that ends that. SPEED IT UP HOMERO, WE AIN'T GO ALL DAY ! |
|
|
|
All right there, nice and neatly summarized: https://archive.is/0vo3g#20%here is what I am thinking, we will create a equal partnership (50/50) in our holding company "Geniuses At Work Corporation", you can have the voting power (I dont care).
but the two have financial dealings which see Garza selling a 41% share of his operation to Fraser
Stuart Fraser of Cantor Fitzgerald
Text messages and emails between Garza and Stuart Fraser reveal a friendship dating back an unknown number of years. Seeing him as the father he never had, Garza texts Fraser:
Just wanted to thank you for all your have done. Much of who I have become today is because of you. I did not have much of a father growing up, and you have very much been that for me throughout much of my life. Love you buddy, josh
More than love, Garza comes across as desperate for the admiration and respect of his mentor. Not only does Garza buy Fraser a car for Christmas, but the two have financial dealings which see Garza selling a 41% share of his operation to Fraser as well as organising various loans.
Discussing one of their deals, Garza writes to Stuart and includes a document detailing his investment in GAW Miners:
Hey,
Take a look at this when you get a chance, I would like to get things cleaned up between us.
Like I mentioned, my goal is to get the 200k loan paid to you by July 4th. And the 210k loan to Scott by July 18th.
While there is still time on both loans, I would like to get them cleared up.
Regarding the deal between us. If you remember our original agreement was 240k over a 24 months period to be equal partners on any "new venters" in the same time period.
90k of the 240k has been paid to me, I have shown that in the table in the spreadsheet. Leaving a balance of 150k owed to me.
I have invested 85k of my cash in to GAW Miners to date. Our records show you have invested 135k (outside of the 400k in loans being paid back to you). Please let me know if you have a different amount.
That would make a 50k difference in our equity investment (in your favor). We can handle this one of two ways. Either I can have the company send back 50k to you, this would equalize our investment at 85k.
Or, you can send me 50k of the 150k balance to me (reducing your balance to me to 100k) and I will invest that in to GAW Miners to match your investment of 135k.
Either is fine with me, let me know what you want to do.
Naturally, depending on the outcome, we need then need to clean up the balance still owed to me. I would like to either continue the 10k a month payments, or handle it in some other way.
Our equity of GAW Miners would stand at 41% each. Leaving 18% to be used to raise additional money, employees, etc.
Let me know if I missed anything, I would like to get this behind us
Josh
Discussing money that Garza alleged Stuart Fraser needed to keep out of sight, he writes to his staff members Juliette Dunlevy and Dan Pease:
Hello,
Stuart needed to keep money “out of sight” a few weeks ago, so he borrowed it from me.
Because of that, he is not in a position to move any money around for a few months.
As such, he has asked that the company pay me back, and he will pay back the company in a few months. The amount is 150k.
Please characterize it as a loan to him.
Thank you for your attention and discretion. And yes, even millionaires borrow money from each other
Lamenting the sale of almost half of GAW Miners to Stuart Fraser, Garza writes:
I was thinking after our call.
We should figure out how we want to handle things between us going forward, for not other reason so that we are on the same page. We dont really ever talk about it, but we should, its has not be revised for years.
I think its important that we figure how we want to handle things as new things have been developed (some with your investment, and some without) And it will become confusing if we dont sort it out now. LIke you said, money changes everything.
I propose a simple solution, we split every system and company in half. I am both aware of the value of all you have invested in the past to get us here. As well as the value of the systems and companies (GAW Labs and VP) I have built. In its current course (even without Dan), GAW Labs will have over 3m in contracts by the end of the year.
The exception would be GAW HSI, which would you would own 80% of. I dont feel right about splitting GAW because of what you have invested. But I will continue to grow its value.
Going foard, here is what I am thinking, we will create a equal partnership (50/50) in our holding company "Geniuses At Work Corporation", you can have the voting power (I dont care). I will put in everything I have built:
– My equity stake in CP
– Any patents Joe or I create
– My entire voice platform
– The new App system (the one we talked about at Mt snow)
– smart-tech
– GAW Labs
– Joe deal (I know you probably figure this is assumed, but the equity in GAW Labs (voice system) is how we are doing the deal)
In other words, I would split every deal and every system I have developed with you.
Here is what I would like:
– 10k per month investment paid to Geniuses at Work Corporation for 24 months (to pay myself with). I have coninued to lower my salary over the last few years (not complaining about)
– Forgive the hillcrest debt (around 230k)
– Allow me to live down the investment you made in GAW in the past. I feel so bad every time its brought up. I will still/always continue to try and recoup your losses.
– The 150k that you have already agreed to, per the term sheet we reviewed at your house. But I would like for this to only be a "*one time*" infusion. On other words, its *not* perpetual, and there is *no* exsepction of farther investment
– Help with Howard on CP
Hope you feel these are fair and reasonable terms. They are meant to be a starting point of a discussion. I think its important that we clear this up and move forward.
I am sure you get tired of hearing it. But I can never thank you enough for all you have done and continue to do. I am proud of everything we have done this year. GAW HSI, Smart-Tech, and GAW Labs are all cash flow positive. And we could have not gotten here without your support.
I cant tell you how important it was for me to feel like I could "do it"!
Garza gets no response from Fraser, so he emails him again and again. Finally, Garza relents and wishes to continue with the original deal he made with Fraser to which Fraser says thanks. Garza writes:
I thought a lot about it.
Obviously I never thought when I made the deal that I would end up giving up half a company this successful. But, like you said, it could have gone either way. And one of the many things you taught me was to always honor your deals, the good and bad ones.
Yes I have worked hard to build this company, but I would not here where I am today without you. No question in my mind.
So in light of all that, let's finish the deal as planned. You can pay out the rest of the cash to me, and I will issue you the 41% you deserve. If it's cool with you, let's keep each of us at 41% so there is equity avaliable for investors.
Sounds good?
|
|
|
|
 Subject: RE: ICO/Paycoin release draft - Please Review Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:09:23 -0500 From: STUART FRASER < aukster@msn.com> To: Josh Garza < josh@btc.com> maybe I should be "identified" as a founding Investor? ...said Stuart Fraser, co-founder/early investor and Vice Chairman...... Subject: RE: ICO/Paycoin release draft - Please Review Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:56:31 -0500 From: STUART FRASER < aukster@msn.com> To: Josh Garza < josh@btc.com> sureSubject: Fwd: ICO/Paycoin release draft - Please Review Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:54:52 -0500 From: Josh Garza < josh@btc.com> To: Stuart Fraser < aukster@msn.com>
are you cool with this?It does not say its coming from cantor *Josh Garza* *CEO- *GAW Corp ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Harrison Wise* < harrison@wisepublicrelations.com<mailto:harrison@wisepublicrelations.com>> Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:46 PM Subject: Re: ICO/Paycoin release draft - Please Review To: Josh Garza < josh@btc.com <mailto:josh@btc.com>> Cc: Amber Messer < amber@geniusesatwork.com<mailto:amber@geniusesatwork.com>>, Christina Sarracino < christina@wisepublicrelations.com<mailto:christina@wisepublicrelations.com>>, John McCartney < john@wisepublicrelations.com <mailto:john@wisepublicrelations.com>> Also, let's not forget that we also need blessing on Stuart's quote as
noted in the latest draft:“Although relatively new, cryptocurrency is shifting the economic paradigm and that is reason enough for traditional financial organizations to start taking this seriously,” said Stuart Fraser, Vice Chairman and partner, Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. “With the marrying of innovation, technology, finance and regulation - I believe that cryptocurrency can provide a value proposition that has never before been contemplated in global commerce and thus has the real possibility of being a viable mainstream currency accepted by the masses around the globe.” Thanks H Harrison Wise Wise Public Relations, Inc. <http://www.wisepublicrelations.com> P: 212-777-3235 <tel:212-777-3235> M: 917-805-3213 <tel:917-805-3213> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Josh Garza < josh@btc.com<mailto:josh@btc.com>> wrote: I think its ok (there is nothing wrong with it) I would just question the content. Assuming regular every day people are going to read it, why not write it that way? Mention that is will work with credit cards, and hundreds of thousands of merchants? I just dont think it really says anything (in its current form). Maybe I dont get it. Anyways, thats my view *Josh Garza* *CEO- *GAW Corp On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Harrison Wise < harrison@wisepublicrelations.com<mailto:harrison@wisepublicrelations.com>> wrote: Josh - need your blessing/input on this release draft asap - https://docs.google.com/a/wisepublicrelations.com/document/d/1PW_PHrKUjCJPJYQvqZ_KstkXK8DnZSr-YI5lE58V57Q/editPlease advise. H Harrison Wise Wise Public Relations, Inc. <http://www.wisepublicrelations.com> P: 212-777-3235 <tel:212-777-3235> M: 917-805-3213 <tel:917-805-3213> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Harrison Wise < harrison@wisepublicrelations.com<mailto:harrison@wisepublicrelations.com>> wrote: Josh - need your feedback/blessing on this asap: https://docs.google.com/a/wisepublicrelations.com/<http://wisepublicrelations.com/>document/d/1PW_PHrKUjCJPJYQvqZ_KstkXK8DnZSr-YI5lE58V57Q/edit Our plan is to release widely on Monday and we need to get this into hands of relevant tech media and those we met with yesterday by Tomorrow/Friday morning to properly queue it up. Please feel free to make any edits directly to this shared doc or let us know what changes need to be made. Best, Harrison Harrison Wise Wise Public Relations, Inc. <http://www.wisepublicrelations.com> P: 212-777-3235 <tel:212-777-3235> M: 917-805-3213 <tel:917-805-3213>
|
|
|
|
"minority investor" "just a financial backer" "no control whatsoever" "knows nothing about the crypto space"  Hand crafted with love and care by Stuart A Fraser http://archive.is/VWRa2  "Although relatively new, cryptocurrency is shifting the economic paradigm and that is reason enough for traditional financial organizations to start taking this seriously," said co-founder and early investor, Stuart Fraser, Vice Chairman and partner, Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. "With the marrying of innovation, technology, finance and regulation -- I believe that cryptocurrency can provide a value proposition that has never before been contemplated in global commerce and thus has the real possibility of being a viable mainstream currency accepted by the masses around the globe." |
|
|
|
Right here, another clear cut example: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/12/01/bitbeat-under-fire-gaw-miners-ceo-garza-takes-on-his-critics/As for the charge that GAW is a Ponzi scheme, Mr. Garza pointed out that his principal partner, Cantor Fitzgerald Vice Chairman Stuart Fraser, in whose name the patent for one of Wall Street’s most important bond trading programs is listed, has “got more to lose than all of us combined.” He added, “Why would a guy that already has a ton of money, and would get thrown in jail if he was involved in anything sketchy, be involved in a scam?” Nice words to rope everyone in to the fraud "partner" " principal partner" even, "founder" ... etc. so what was the public supposed to know back then? That was really, it was all white lies, there is and never was proof that Uncle Stu was nothing more than a hands off silent partner? C'mon Mr. Judge. Got Uncle Stu changing that other press release to make it sound like he was more involved that he was. Which of course we all only find out now, long after the fact?? Q:
What is a principal partner?
A:
Quick Answer
A principal partner in a business is the partner that represents the firm. Usually, a principal partner's decisions are representative of the all the partner's interests, and often speaks on behalf on the entire firm.
Little White Lies, to lure in more money isn't fraud? |
|
|
|
Thanks for securing the docs. bit disappointing in my view. Pretty much a whine-fest over and over, "minority share holder" only "financial backer" over and over gain, pretty clear their tactic to drill that home into the Judge's mind. The thing is thought this is of course all after the fact. Before the picture was pretty clearly painted wall street blog, press releases words used "partner" "founder" [his own words], his linkedIN had "gaw miners" under current [cannot find or recall if it indicated a title] Homer's words my "best friend" "my partner" etc etc. All early on when it was used to rope people in. I even posted the blurb here from the email recently discovered Uncle Stu insisted he be called a partner or early founder or some shit like that. So that is the picture that was painted to the public before it broke. Now whether after the fact suddenly Uncle Stu can throw his arms in the air and say well I had zero involvement whatsoever and was just a "minority shareholder" and only a "financial backer" seems to me to be a bit late. It may very well be true and it may very well not be provable at all that he had any control over this primary whatever it is they call it. But isn't it too late? Are not the victims of the fraud a result of him the not saying strongly enough BEFORE they were roped in that they had zero control and zero input on the direction? The wsj blogs, the press releases, the others, sure didn't make it crystal clear back then before people invested and lost everything. He can't have his cake and eat it too. I think that might be what it all hinges on. Yes now today, there is no proof at all that he had any control whatsoever, no but before, the picture sure was painted that he was deeply involved and more than a hands off financial backer. More than likely many people trusted it all thinking that "what could go wrong" with such a prominent experienced respected businessman involved. I will be interested to see the outcome of this aspect. Technically and legally is it correct that under that specific, we find out only today, well after the fraud has been committed that indeed he had zero control and was indeed nothing more than a financial backer therefore it must be dismissed, or because before the fact, it was painted by himself and Homero that he was much more than that, more important and what really counts in this particular case and in the charge against him by the plaintiffs [actually have to read again what it is they charge him or accuse him of in this respect]. At the same time I am wondering if this too is nothing more than a tactic. Yes, lets accuse Uncle Stu of this outlandish claim that we all know is not true or correct and is definitely not provable, in order to make him vehemently deny it, which then will force Homero to come in and try to point the finger at Uncle Stu in order to share the blame? So they are intentionally pitting him against Homero in order for Homero to spill the beans for them? Uncle Stu pleads complete ignorance, Homero enters the fray with "some" proof that Uncle Stu knew "somethings" etc. LOL. If so quite crafty. One thing is for sure and I read them myself as I am sure many others did, its not as cut and dry as this defense makes it seem to be. Uncle Stu most certainly did not cut him 200,000 dollar check, fuck of to Cape Cod and twiddle his thumbs and "on occasion ask a for numbers" or whatever. There are complicated discussions about shares in all of this, in GAW, in Zenminer, in Great AUK, in the town house he was renting out, all between Uncle Stu and Homero. Share swap talks, loan swap and debt between the business entities, etc. How to payback, off-set, forgive one from another. Quite complicated and quite a lot more involved than just some silent partner who wrote a check once or twice and sat back and had no further involvement. Lot of information in those emails about all of this. So on the one hand a lot more financial involvement than the defense makes out, a lot more involvement in creating an impression he was involved in it all vs. that specific law quoted where it must be shown that he was actually in control some way or another. Overall in my view the defense is seems rather thin. Zero idea legally the importance of harping over and over again that that definition in that specific law of "control" cannot be met because it never was, is the crux of the matter. Again need to read the overall accusation whether plaintiff's claim is that he did have control and should have known better and nothing more. Which I don't think the charge is at all. Maybe a very small part of it. Very interesting to see how it plays out. Lying Fucker Homero, still needs to appear and we have to see what he says about it all. So they have to respond to this by the 18 October. Cannot see immediately when Homero's time is up [it it is the 28th or 9th] which ever case plaintiffs wil delay in order for Homero to say what he has to say then proceed from there. Here one has to wonder if they are in cahoots. Where Uncle Stu's lawyers have advised Homero not to say a single word about his involvement [pay off maybe? foot his legal bills?], do not implicate or fortify plaintiff's claims or else. Or if they really are completely disassociated and no longer on any terms and Homero will spill the or some beans, so that Uncle Stu shoulders some of the claimed funds, which for sure no matter what Homero's defence is, he will be liable for. This aspect will be the drama we seek: what will Homero do? edit: no edit - no apologies atrocious structure going on in that wall of text. |
|
|
|
Uncle Stu's big day in court. Tuesday, September 27, 2016
43 misc Affidavit Tue 5:35 PM
AFFIDAVIT re 42 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 41 MOTION to Dismiss Signed By Sarah L. Cave filed by Stuart A. Fraser.(Cave, Sarah)
Att: 1 Exhibit A,
Att: 2 Exhibit B,
Att: 3 Exhibit C,
Att: 4 Exhibit D
42 respm Memorandum in Support of Motion Tue 5:24 PM
Memorandum in Support re41 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Stuart A. Fraser. (Cave, Sarah)
41 motion Dismiss Tue 5:22 PM
MOTION to Dismiss by Stuart A. Fraser. Responses due by 10/18/2016 (Cave, Sarah)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
