GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :)

[clownius]

Poor Homero running out of stalling tactics?

[1713538678]

1713538678

[1713538678]

1713538678

[1713538678]

1713538678

[1713538678]

1713538678

[1713538678]

1713538678

[suchmoon]

In other news:  Props 2 @suchmoon for expressing your inner woman with your new avatar.

Someone called me a donkey as if it was an insult of some sort. It's not. Donkeys are adorable so I was wearing that avatar for a while.

Someone recently said I'm "girly" or something to that effect as if it was an insult of some sort. It's not. Guess where every "macho" came from.

Just please don't call me something abstract I can't find a picture for.

So the extension was denied but it still got extended to September 23? I'm pretty sure the original deadline was sooner than that but whatever.

Only a couple of weeks to go.

Basically the defendants did got already an extension. Another extension of time will not be granted except for "good cause" or only if the defendant demonstrates in writing he could not reasonably file a request in a timely manner due to extraordinary circumstances beyond its control (natural disaster or other catastrophe such as fire, etc...).

This log is basically a FINALE reminder that the defendants have to file an answer by September 23, 2016.

After reading it again it sounds like they can STILL file for another extension by Sep 23 if they present a reasonable cause as you're saying.

Thus, the parties' Rule 26(f) Report is due by September 23, 2016. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(f). In the Report, the parties shall propose a filing deadline and briefing schedule for any renewed motion for class certification. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/6/2016. (Hillier, D.)

[truckinusa]

So the extension was denied but it still got extended to September 23? I'm pretty sure the original deadline was sooner than that but whatever.

Only a couple of weeks to go.

This is getting to be SO good.  TY @Maildir for your excellent analysis.

I have said all along that Stu will throw Garbanzo under the bus.  He has no choice.  Homero still won't even see it coming, until the witnesses have hit the stand! Stu is lying to his wife, his colleagues, his lawyers and Homero.  That's what desperate people do.

Will GAWsuit keep its peeps up-to-date with a blog somewhere?  Would be fun to follow.

In other news:  Props 2 @suchmoon for expressing your inner woman with your new avatar.

Not knowing the true nature of the relationship between Homero and Uncle Stu leaves a lot of questions.  It will be interesting to find out what those answers are.  I wonder why some investigative journalist hasn't gone after their associates to find out what was really going on?

[bitpop]

Suchmoon avatar

[sirazimuth]

Suchmoon avatar

my sentiments exactly 

[o0o0]

In other news:  Props 2 @suchmoon for expressing your inner woman with your new avatar.

Someone called me a donkey as if it was an insult of some sort. It's not. Donkeys are adorable so I was wearing that avatar for a while.

Someone recently said I'm "girly" or something to that effect as if it was an insult of some sort. It's not. Guess where every "macho" came from.

Just please don't call me something abstract I can't find a picture for.

So the extension was denied but it still got extended to September 23? I'm pretty sure the original deadline was sooner than that but whatever.

Only a couple of weeks to go.

Basically the defendants did got already an extension. Another extension of time will not be granted except for "good cause" or only if the defendant demonstrates in writing he could not reasonably file a request in a timely manner due to extraordinary circumstances beyond its control (natural disaster or other catastrophe such as fire, etc...).

This log is basically a FINALE reminder that the defendants have to file an answer by September 23, 2016.

After reading it again it sounds like they can STILL file for another extension by Sep 23 if they present a reasonable cause as you're saying.

Thus, the parties' Rule 26(f) Report is due by September 23, 2016. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(f). In the Report, the parties shall propose a filing deadline and briefing schedule for any renewed motion for class certification. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/6/2016. (Hillier, D.)

didnt prince change his legal name to a symbol? which you basically cant pronounce. you could be prince'ss or the btctalk author formerly know as suchmoon

[BitBanksy]

Just please don't call me something abstract I can't find a picture for.

If I may, your new avatar is awful... Don't take me wrong! I've nothing against the girl power movement... quite the contrary but it just doesn't fit you at all Bring us back our so loved donkey please!!!


 

[suchmoon]

Pink is the gawsomest color, no question about it.

[bitpop]

In other news:  Props 2 @suchmoon for expressing your inner woman with your new avatar.

Someone called me a donkey as if it was an insult of some sort. It's not. Donkeys are adorable so I was wearing that avatar for a while.

Someone recently said I'm "girly" or something to that effect as if it was an insult of some sort. It's not. Guess where every "macho" came from.

Just please don't call me something abstract I can't find a picture for.

So the extension was denied but it still got extended to September 23? I'm pretty sure the original deadline was sooner than that but whatever.

Only a couple of weeks to go.

Basically the defendants did got already an extension. Another extension of time will not be granted except for "good cause" or only if the defendant demonstrates in writing he could not reasonably file a request in a timely manner due to extraordinary circumstances beyond its control (natural disaster or other catastrophe such as fire, etc...).

This log is basically a FINALE reminder that the defendants have to file an answer by September 23, 2016.

After reading it again it sounds like they can STILL file for another extension by Sep 23 if they present a reasonable cause as you're saying.

Thus, the parties' Rule 26(f) Report is due by September 23, 2016. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(f). In the Report, the parties shall propose a filing deadline and briefing schedule for any renewed motion for class certification. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/6/2016. (Hillier, D.)

didnt prince change his legal name to a symbol? which you basically cant pronounce. you could be prince'ss or the btctalk author formerly know as suchmoon

[maildir]

Thursday, September 08, 2016

36 motion Extension of Time  Thu 12:45 PM
 
 MOTION for Extension of Time until September 27, 2016 (Unopposed) to file a responsive pleading by Stuart A. Fraser. (Fisher, Sean)

[bitpop]

So they can just extend until they die

[suchmoon]

Thursday, September 08, 2016

36 motion Extension of Time  Thu 12:45 PM
 
 MOTION for Extension of Time until September 27, 2016 (Unopposed) to file a responsive pleading by Stuart A. Fraser. (Fisher, Sean)

Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b)(2) and (3), Defendant Stuart A. Fraser (“Defendant Fraser”)
in the above-referenced action moves, with the consent of Plaintiffs, for a fifteen (15) day
extension of time to file a responsive pleading.

An additional fifteen (15) days to prepare a responsive pleading is necessary for several
reasons. First, undersigned counsel was retained shortly before appearing in this action on
August 10, 2016, and the original responsive pleading deadline was August 12, 2016. Second,
due to the complexity of the Plaintiffs’ purported class action complaint, substantial time and
resources were required to investigate and evaluate the claims in Plaintiffs’ complaint and the
potential defenses thereto. Third, pre-arranged travel at the end of the summer and during the
Labor Day holiday weekend shortened the time available to prepare a responsive pleading.
Therefore, Defendant Fraser respectfully submits that a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ class
action complaint cannot reasonably be prepared within the allotted time, and that an additional
fifteen days is required to do so.

In support of this motion, undersigned counsel states that counsel for Defendant Fraser
has inquired of Plaintiffs’ counsel, who consented to the granting of this motion on the
conditions that Defendant Fraser consent to Plaintiffs’ request that their deadline to respond to
any motion to dismiss be November 4, 2016, and that Defendant Fraser agree to request that his
deadline to file any reply in further support of the motion to dismiss be November 22, 2016.
This is the second motion for extension of time that has been filed by Defendant Fraser.
Defendant Fraser further submits that the additional fifteen days requested herein to file a
responsive pleading would have no detrimental effect on the current schedule, about which his
counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel are currently conferring. In addition, Defendant Fraser notes that
no other Defendant has yet responded to the Complaint, and the corporate entity Defendants
have not yet been served or appeared in the action.

For the above reasons, Defendant Fraser respectfully requests that the time to file a
responsive pleading be further extended fifteen (15) days until September 27, 2016.

[maildir]

In addition, Defendant Fraser notes that no other Defendant has yet responded to the Complaint, and the corporate entity Defendants
have not yet been served or appeared in the action.

How impersonal.

Not exactly a nice way to refer to your bum chum. 

[suchmoon]

In addition, Defendant Fraser notes that no other Defendant has yet responded to the Complaint, and the corporate entity Defendants
have not yet been served or appeared in the action.

How impersonal.

Not exactly a nice way to refer to your bum chum. 

Not to mention that the "corporate entity Defendants" are defunct and Defendant Fraser knows that very well, what with being a co-owner and all.

[lithiumus]

Not to mention that the "corporate entity Defendants" are defunct and Defendant Fraser knows that very well, what with being a co-owner and all.

So I'm no legal expert by any means...  but just because a company is NOW defunct does not mean that it wasn't fully operational and fully staffed at the time in which it operated during the time period this complaint refers to.  If you were part of that defunct organization should not mean that you are no longer responsible for participating in the alleged crimes at the time right?

I can't be party to crimes at an organization... move on to a new organization while the other is defunct and be free and clear just because it's "defunct" or no longer in operations or exists...  That makes no sense.  I submit that ANY and ALL previous persons associated with that NOW defunct organization be called out and required to defend against this and stand trial (so to speak).

[suchmoon]

Not to mention that the "corporate entity Defendants" are defunct and Defendant Fraser knows that very well, what with being a co-owner and all.

So I'm no legal expert by any means...  but just because a company is NOW defunct does not mean that it wasn't fully operational and fully staffed at the time in which it operated during the time period this complaint refers to.  If you were part of that defunct organization should not mean that you are no longer responsible for participating in the alleged crimes at the time right?

I can't be party to crimes at an organization... move on to a new organization while the other is defunct and be free and clear just because it's "defunct" or no longer in operations or exists...  That makes no sense.  I submit that ANY and ALL previous persons associated with that NOW defunct organization be called out and required to defend against this and stand trial (so to speak).

This is not about that. Fraser is using the fact that the companies haven't been served as an excuse for the extension, which is ridiculous considering that the companies have already been served (via some mailbox in Delaware) by the SEC in another case and did not respond. Same thing will probably happen here so that service is just a useless waste of time and money. If they want to bring others into the lawsuit they will have to serve them individually.

[lithiumus]

This is not about that. Fraser is using the fact that the companies haven't been served as an excuse for the extension, which is ridiculous considering that the companies have already been served (via some mailbox in Delaware) by the SEC in another case and did not respond. Same thing will probably happen here so that service is just a useless waste of time and money. If they want to bring others into the lawsuit they will have to serve them individually.

Yes, you are right and I agree.  Just urks me that they have not sought out and served all the individuals who were officers and had "chief" titles... just got me thinking and I had to put thought down!

[suchmoon]

This is not about that. Fraser is using the fact that the companies haven't been served as an excuse for the extension, which is ridiculous considering that the companies have already been served (via some mailbox in Delaware) by the SEC in another case and did not respond. Same thing will probably happen here so that service is just a useless waste of time and money. If they want to bring others into the lawsuit they will have to serve them individually.

Yes, you are right and I agree.  Just urks me that they have not sought out and served all the individuals who were officers and had "chief" titles... just got me thinking and I had to put thought down!

Maybe these other individuals don't have assets and/or wouldn't be easy to tie to the case. Remember this is a civil case. Fraser is the big fish to fry here.

If criminal charges are brought at some point - that's another story.

[truckinusa]

This is not about that. Fraser is using the fact that the companies haven't been served as an excuse for the extension, which is ridiculous considering that the companies have already been served (via some mailbox in Delaware) by the SEC in another case and did not respond. Same thing will probably happen here so that service is just a useless waste of time and money. If they want to bring others into the lawsuit they will have to serve them individually.

Yes, you are right and I agree.  Just urks me that they have not sought out and served all the individuals who were officers and had "chief" titles... just got me thinking and I had to put thought down!

Maybe these other individuals don't have assets and/or wouldn't be easy to tie to the case. Remember this is a civil case. Fraser is the big fish to fry here.

If criminal charges are brought at some point - that's another story.

What is Unlce Stu's approximate net worth?  I have never seen that posted anywhere.

[bitpop]

This is not about that. Fraser is using the fact that the companies haven't been served as an excuse for the extension, which is ridiculous considering that the companies have already been served (via some mailbox in Delaware) by the SEC in another case and did not respond. Same thing will probably happen here so that service is just a useless waste of time and money. If they want to bring others into the lawsuit they will have to serve them individually.

Yes, you are right and I agree.  Just urks me that they have not sought out and served all the individuals who were officers and had "chief" titles... just got me thinking and I had to put thought down!

Maybe these other individuals don't have assets and/or wouldn't be easy to tie to the case. Remember this is a civil case. Fraser is the big fish to fry here.

If criminal charges are brought at some point - that's another story.

What is Unlce Stu's approximate net worth?  I have never seen that posted anywhere.

Probably hidden in a trust