Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More breaking news……

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More breaking news……

    We will be going live either tonight or tomorrow …… breaking news……. Mike will post the link shortly.
    “Positivity triumphs over negativity” - famous quote by the famous Cowlazars 2018

  • #2
    https://youtu.be/XOs8EkZF300
    “Positivity triumphs over negativity” - famous quote by the famous Cowlazars 2018

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by kpro View Post
      We will be going live either tonight or tomorrow …… breaking news……. Mike will post the link shortly.
      Please I hope you not going live to talk about Gregs ridiculous give me my 9 clue claim lol

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by In My Opinion View Post

        Please I hope you not going live to talk about Gregs ridiculous give me my 9 clue claim lol
        Greg sent it to me yesterday, I was tied up so unable to go through it. There are many new docs in the court hearing. And yes, we will go through them all.
        “Positivity triumphs over negativity” - famous quote by the famous Cowlazars 2018

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kpro View Post

          Greg sent it to me yesterday, I was tied up so unable to go through it. There are many new docs in the court hearing. And yes, we will go through them all.
          It is hardly breaking news lol

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by In My Opinion View Post

            It is hardly breaking news lol
            The greg part, no, you are correct.
            “Positivity triumphs over negativity” - famous quote by the famous Cowlazars 2018

            Comment


            • #7
              LIVE IN 20 MINUTES!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                kpro - a couple of things:

                In McCracken's claim I do not see where he references that Forrest abused a woman and that Forrest is still alive. He said these things on Harry's but I don't see any of that in the documents I have read. I assume Karl got that info. from Harry's site like the rest of us. I don't see where McCracken ever said this to the judge and that matters IMO.

                When Karl's statements deny Forrest's involvement in certain things, doesn't that leave the door open for someone else being guilty of these things? For example, line 4a in the estates response to McCracken's claim, Karl says Mr. Stuef found the treasure chest without any assistance or help from Fenn or anyone related to Fenn. What about someone not related to Fenn?

                The biggest problem I have with Karl's statements is on line 10 - Stuef and Fenn disclosed in the meeting with government officials...This does not mean what they disclosed is what actually happened. Simple. Show us the evidence Jack and Fenn shared with government officials that proved to them that the chest was in fact found in YNP. The logic train needs EVIDENCE. In other words, I don't doubt that YNP believes what they were told. I would need to see and/or hear the evidence that was presented if I were the judge. I would need to verify facts. This is a fraud case after all.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Goldilocks View Post
                  kpro

                  When Karl's statements deny Forrest's involvement in certain things, doesn't that leave the door open for someone else being guilty of these things? For example, line 4a in the estates response to McCracken's claim, Karl says Mr. Stuef found the treasure chest without any assistance or help from Fenn or anyone related to Fenn. What about someone not related to Fenn?
                  Maybe Jack was given the location by a solver or solver(s). That would fit.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Goldilocks View Post
                    kpro - a couple of things:

                    In McCracken's claim I do not see where he references that Forrest abused a woman and that Forrest is still alive. He said these things on Harry's but I don't see any of that in the documents I have read. I assume Karl got that info. from Harry's site like the rest of us. I don't see where McCracken ever said this to the judge and that matters IMO.

                    When Karl's statements deny Forrest's involvement in certain things, doesn't that leave the door open for someone else being guilty of these things? For example, line 4a in the estates response to McCracken's claim, Karl says Mr. Stuef found the treasure chest without any assistance or help from Fenn or anyone related to Fenn. What about someone not related to Fenn?

                    The biggest problem I have with Karl's statements is on line 10 - Stuef and Fenn disclosed in the meeting with government officials...This does not mean what they disclosed is what actually happened. Simple. Show us the evidence Jack and Fenn shared with government officials that proved to them that the chest was in fact found in YNP. The logic train needs EVIDENCE. In other words, I don't doubt that YNP believes what they were told. I would need to see and/or hear the evidence that was presented if I were the judge. I would need to verify facts. This is a fraud case after all.
                    You are correct, I think. There may have been something mentioned in one of their responses, but nothing in McCracken's Claim. My thoughts on this whole aftermath and leading up to this trial have been the same in regard to your second thought. If not them [family, lawyer], then to distance themselves someone else could have set it up or assisted. Your third is where I have the biggest issue. First, aside from the issue of public accountability and oversight, via logbook or incident reporting or public statement with mitigation plan moving forward; and second without a sworn statement and at least some pictures [the pictures] and proof of park entry, travel documentation, something at least tangible, the story has a big hole in it. Fraud case is right.
                    Further, just a couple of points on the validity of US motion to intervene. Although I think their motion is worthy, it lacks more specific detail. As we all have to know by now, I think, ANYONE can file a motion to intervene. The idea that just because it's the government dealing with something in a NP in Wyoming and are filing via a branch in NM, they have no jurisdiction, is not arguable. I think rational thought overlooks the idea that anyone can file the motion if they can meet the necessary requirements of intervention. They don't need to be a party to the property or proceeds, those requirements were amended a long time ago [ 60's or something]. Third party intervention is common and much broader. The government's timeliness is sticky because they did not provide any documentation of a mitigation plan starting when they had the zoom of any levied or actual citations. They did focus on being notified last minute of Stuef's deposition, which I think is substantial, because the deposition was postponed for them to prepare the motion. There's a ton more on both sides really, and the outcome is in the hands of an impartial judge. This whole Greg thing is just another attempt for disclosure of what Jack has to say. There are a couple of ok points in his motion, but I believe that motion is more of a hindrance to the process than anything. It's as good as any other opportunity or attempt to force disclosure when it was never intended to be by the party holding the power to do so. I wouldn't want to be that judge on Wednesday! What are the odds now?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Goldilocks View Post

                      In McCracken's claim I do not see where he references that Forrest abused a woman and that Forrest is still alive. He said these things on Harry's but I don't see any of that in the documents I have read. I assume Karl got that info. from Harry's site like the rest of us. I don't see where McCracken ever said this to the judge and that matters IMO.
                      Exactly right. That stuff about Fenn being alive and stalking women is not in McCracken's claims against the estate in the documents that Goldilocks shared. The actual claims are about Fenn moving the chest and faking a finder which are the basis he gives for fraud and breech of contract.

                      For those who have all the court documents, did he ever make those claims (Fenn alive and stalking women) in an amendment or supplement? Did he ever make them under oath in the case?

                      If not, can we be sure they are even sincerely held beliefs as opposed to "stirring the pot" as Harry said on his site he is fond of doing?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Goldilocks View Post
                        kpro - a couple of things:

                        In McCracken's claim I do not see where he references that Forrest abused a woman and that Forrest is still alive. He said these things on Harry's but I don't see any of that in the documents I have read. I assume Karl got that info. from Harry's site like the rest of us. I don't see where McCracken ever said this to the judge and that matters IMO.

                        When Karl's statements deny Forrest's involvement in certain things, doesn't that leave the door open for someone else being guilty of these things? For example, line 4a in the estates response to McCracken's claim, Karl says Mr. Stuef found the treasure chest without any assistance or help from Fenn or anyone related to Fenn. What about someone not related to Fenn?

                        The biggest problem I have with Karl's statements is on line 10 - Stuef and Fenn disclosed in the meeting with government officials...This does not mean what they disclosed is what actually happened. Simple. Show us the evidence Jack and Fenn shared with government officials that proved to them that the chest was in fact found in YNP. The logic train needs EVIDENCE. In other words, I don't doubt that YNP believes what they were told. I would need to see and/or hear the evidence that was presented if I were the judge. I would need to verify facts. This is a fraud case after all.
                        Good point. You can't possibly prove there was no help. It's weird for Karl to even say that. It sounds defensive by the Estate, which is innocent until proven guilty.

                        McCracken would have to show proof. There was at least one phone call about the fake blaze, but the "related to" part leaves open the possibility Karl (or a third party) helped him and that's under attorney client. Related could be family only. He should have used "associated," but he really shouldn't say it at all, unless he plans to put Jack on witness stand and ask him under oath to "prove" no one helped. But then McCracken can go through every communication Jack got, even say weird DMs from message boards that may have helped Jack. This is why they say you can't prove a negative. For all we know, Fenn could have been disguised to Jack and sent him tips. Jack would have to say he received no help from anyone in the world, ever.
                        Last edited by CRM114; 05-01-2022, 12:17 PM.
                        You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

                        https://globusmax.wordpress.com/2020...-solve-part-1/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Goldilocks View Post
                          ...Karl says Mr. Stuef found the treasure chest without any assistance or help from Fenn or anyone related to Fenn. ...
                          Originally posted by CRM114 View Post
                          You can't possibly prove there was no help. It's weird for Karl to even say that. It sounds defensive by the Estate, which is innocent until proven guilty.
                          He's sharing a fact of the case on behalf of one of his clients who will testify to the fact if called to do so.

                          At this point the goal is to convince McCracken his case will fail so he withdraws it without going to trial. He's saying in effect this is one more thing Jack will testify to under oath that you will need to prove is wrong at trial, at additional expense, if his case relies on proving it untrue.

                          Good attorneys don't make bluffs they know are untrue. It could get them disbarred. And smart clients, which I believe Jack to be, don't lie to their attorney and undercut their own case. A smart litigant would give that some weight.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Goldilocks View Post
                            kpro - a couple of things:

                            In McCracken's claim I do not see where he references that Forrest abused a woman and that Forrest is still alive. He said these things on Harry's but I don't see any of that in the documents I have read. I assume Karl got that info. from Harry's site like the rest of us. I don't see where McCracken ever said this to the judge and that matters IMO.

                            When Karl's statements deny Forrest's involvement in certain things, doesn't that leave the door open for someone else being guilty of these things? For example, line 4a in the estates response to McCracken's claim, Karl says Mr. Stuef found the treasure chest without any assistance or help from Fenn or anyone related to Fenn. What about someone not related to Fenn?

                            The biggest problem I have with Karl's statements is on line 10 - Stuef and Fenn disclosed in the meeting with government officials...This does not mean what they disclosed is what actually happened. Simple. Show us the evidence Jack and Fenn shared with government officials that proved to them that the chest was in fact found in YNP. The logic train needs EVIDENCE. In other words, I don't doubt that YNP believes what they were told. I would need to see and/or hear the evidence that was presented if I were the judge. I would need to verify facts. This is a fraud case after all.
                            It is in the deposition for sure and it is referenced throughout the file, for example, in the motions we went over last night (I think the one responding to the governments motion to intervene) Sommer goes over the merits and summarizes McCrackens claims. I will go through when I have when I am not traveling, so it will be a bit.

                            I think the assistance part is the only thing that Forrests estate is worried about.

                            The evidence is in that email and all the pictures so far. There are more. And I don’t think they would want to volunteer that they broke the law, if they were inventing a spot, yellowstone would not be my first choice for legal reasons alone.
                            “Positivity triumphs over negativity” - famous quote by the famous Cowlazars 2018

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kpro View Post

                              It is in the deposition for sure and it is referenced throughout the file, for example, in the motions we went over last night (I think the one responding to the governments motion to intervene) Sommer goes over the merits and summarizes McCrackens claims. I will go through when I have when I am not traveling, so it will be a bit.

                              I think the assistance part is the only thing that Forrests estate is worried about.

                              The evidence is in that email and all the pictures so far. There are more. And I don’t think they would want to volunteer that they broke the law, if they were inventing a spot, yellowstone would not be my first choice for legal reasons alone.
                              In the deposition? McCracken's? If so I haven't seen that and no one seems to have discussed it.

                              A saw on your show that the estate responded to things McCracken "claimed" like that Fenn is still alive and so on, but was that an actual claim from the suit, or is the estate just pointing out that McCracken has made a lot of claims in the non-legal sense that tarnish his credibility?

                              I know McCracken is telling the estate what he believes and intends to prove, and how he is going to prove it with witnesses. Those are things he "claims" in the everyday sense of the word, and need to be responded to, but the case went forward without any such formal claims as far as I can tell. No?

                              The point being that to win his case he doesn't have to prove those things, "just" (!) that Fenn moved the chest etc. The assertion that Fenn is alive is particularly outrageous and disprovable. It could easily be used as part of showing malicious abuse of process, I would think, especially if it was entered in the process.

                              Note how he uses the FBI avatar and "Agent Harry" to imply, oh I don't know? without committing a felony. And he keeps implying the FBI is involved in investigating his outrageous claims, then denying he ever spoke to them. He uses the term FUD, which seems like his own strategy.
                              Last edited by bartleby; 05-01-2022, 03:07 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X