WHO IS EQUITATUS AND WHY DOES MICHAEL COOLEY CARE?

If you thought Michael Cooley of Akin Gump was on your side, think again.  Cooley was a regular visitor to this site when he was pimping for a yes vote on the reorganization plan.  He got what he wanted and hasn’t been back since.  Sadly, that doesn’t mean he hasn’t continued his manipulative ways.

John Robies – (hmmm, just how many of us are there?) everywhere are doing their best to stay civil after your latest shenanigan.  Trust us, it ain’t easy.

If you care to click on this link (000981), you’ll see that Cooley is spending OUR money pursuing the true identity of Equitatus.  Why?  Well, Cooley works at the bequest of Walter and Kelly the Creditor’s Committee, who purportedly report to us.  I’m sure this is a truly pressing matter for them.  Rather than focus on recovering our hard earned life savings, they feel the need to file an emergency motion to lift Equitatus’ veil.

Who’s next?  John Robie and everyone who has ever posted a comment on a REL-related blog?  Stop screwing around and get us our pennies on the dollar before we die.

Shame on you, Michael Cooley.  Shame on the entire Creditor’s Committee.  You’re a farce and a disgrace.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “WHO IS EQUITATUS AND WHY DOES MICHAEL COOLEY CARE?

  1. John, perhaps provide M Cooley’s email address, or write a petition in the blog, that allows us each to sign, saying we don’t want our money wasted in this way. We don’t care how he got it. The vote is behind us and unless we can prove we’ve been misled and not represented honestly, we can only hope that those who guided us to vote remember that one has to look in one’s own eyes and know you have been honest and fair. Religion aside, black marks do show up on one’s “soul”….and the repercussions are, at the least, health in this world, and who knows what in the next.

  2. Wow, Michael Cooley is even a bigger asshole than I gave him credit for. How many hundreds (or thousands) of dollars an hour is he and his firm billing victims to pay for this witch hunt? Guess that little “Blaming the Victims” ID couldn’t turn up any clues, heh Cooley?

    While you’re so concerned with the leaks of confidential information from the Noteholder’s Committee, please don’t overlook last November’s meeting of RE Reno investors which Weissenborn blew thousands of our dollars on in Walnut Creek. Pearl Tom and Eugene Rapp stood up in a roomful of people and started chattering away about plans of recovery from a conference call they had that week. Well, until Robert Brower pointed out that they were supposed to be bound by confidentiality and were violating that by telling us. There about 50 witnesses in the room, so that should be pretty easy to verify.

    Oh but that’s who hired Michael Cooley, so I guess he won’t go after the hand the feeds him. Loser lawyer is going all out for one blogger like it was wiki leaks. I hope the media crawls up the backside of that noteholder’s committee and Akin Gump with a magnifying glass and scrutinizes how they spend and prioritize the money, and how much they bill, with no return for the victims. Anyone talk to Dan Noyes lately?

    Having watched, read the blogs, and shown up in courtrooms for the Ng scams long before Michael Cooley got his first whiff of RE Loans money, I’m going to make an experienced guess that someone, possibly anonymously, sent Equititas the docs. That’s often how the internet works. People send me all sorts of unsolicited information. I send other people information on things that I think they might be interested in. That’s why it’s called the information highway.

    • I have read Document 981 mentioned in the lead post. Document 981 states that a confidential document prepared by Diamond McCarthy was posted on the Equitatus blog on Friday, June 22.

      The document posted on the blog is a Complaint against Wells Fargo Capital Finance. The print is blurry. It looks like a FAX to me.

      The following Tuesday, June 26, Mortgage Fund ’08 filed its Complaint against Wells Fargo Capital Finance. That Complaint was also posted on the Equitatus blog. It is a clear copy, which looks like it was downloaded from PACER.

      I have read both documents and there are some phrases and sentences in the two Complaints that are substantially the same or identical.

      Assuming that the attorneys for Mortgage Fund ’08 copied phrases and sentences from the confidential Diamond McCarthy Complaint for their Mortgage Fund ’08 Complaint, why doesn’t Mr. Cooley just ask those attorneys who gave them the confidential document so that they could copy parts of it for the benefit of Mortgage Fund ’08 investors?

      • Interesting point Mr. Brower,

        That would be fast and easy, saving the victims thousands of dollars in legal fees. Such efficiency would be a missed opportunity for the noteholder’s committee and Michael Cooley to try and find out who Equitatus is, which apparently is the real objective here.

  3. Michael Cooley little man. Michael Cooley groomed the victims. Michael Cooley likes gravey train. $$$$$$ Injustice system works for Micheal Cooley. Michael Cooley no like free speech. Michael Cooley afraid of victims access to court documents. Michael Cooley fears Equitatus. Michael Cooley & Aiken Gump poster for why people hate lawyers. I call FBI to have them look at creditors committee, Aiken Gump & Michael Cooley, also former naval guy & gloating blaming the victim person. WE ARE BEING SERIALLY SCREWED.

  4. Attorney Michael Cooley does only what our “Official” committee tells him to do. Denigrating and calling him insulting names does not help our cause. Please, put the blame where it belongs . . . on the members of the ‘Official’ Committee of Noteholders.

    I believe now that the committee 1) successfully fooled enough of the other Noteholders to vote for the ‘Plan’ and 2) hid from us the claim against WF which could have gone forward had the vote re. the ‘Plan’ failed (which was highly unlikely), they will now treat us with even greater disdain than they have thus far.

    The exposure of the alternative plan (the lawsuit against WF) must be very embarrassing to the Committee. It clearly shows that they are not working honestly and above board for our benefit. Their air of superiority and lack of respect for the rest of us will, I suspect, become even more apparent as the bare trickle of information we’ve enjoyed these past years dries up even further.

    They will spoon feed us only what information they deem we should have and go about our business as they see fit, without the benefit of any inspection by we, the Noteholders.

    When those who are supposed to ‘represent’ the people purposely mislead and withhold information from the people than there is no longer true representation. There is a ‘dictatorship’. That is now the roll of the “Official” committee.

    • Just a footnote to my post, above;

      One can be reasonably certain that the knowledge that a lawsuit against WF had been prepared in advance, for the unlikely event of the failure of the ‘Plan’ to pass, probably really pissed off those at WF who are now, realistically, pulling our strings.

      One can also assume that this knowledge might well put a further strain on the relationship between WF and the “Official” Committee.

      • Having listened to Wells Fargo’s attorney spin his version of the tale in court, I don’t think the draft of a lawsuit never filed is going to cause them to even blink. WF seems to live in it’s own alternate reality, which so far seems to be working out well for them, at our expense.

      • The ‘Official Scam Committee’ got caught with their pants down. Who paid Diamond McCarthy to prepare that extensive laswsuit? Did the ‘Official Scam Committee’ really think we would not find out what they were doing behind the scenes? How they hid behind Cooley and Akin Gump? Why all the secrecy from the beginning? How come we were not told about this lawsuit/option before the vote? Because they were too afraid the NO votes would win? Whose best interests benefited the yes vote? Now to expose and shame the ‘Official Scam Committee even further, MF ’08 has no problem suing Wells Fargo on behalf of the investors. All their little schemes, that saved them and threw us to the wolves, will see the light of day.

        • What we need to throw light on the entire swindle,theft, con and resulting vampirism against the victims, sanctioned by the legal process is a nice investigative expose and resulting article in Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair…the kind of article that reads like a book and often leads to people ending up where they belong, in prison. Anybody have connections to investigative journalism?

  5. No one has brought up that the Insolvency Services Group, who handled the Distribution of RE Reno decided, after performing their “due diligence”, opted not to pursue litigation on behalf of RE Reno. More specifically against Walter and Barney. Why wouldn’t you want someone to decide, if in fact, that was a “guaranty” and if not a “fraud using the guaranty”? Why would you let Barney off the hook while he still pursues $160 million against IGT? Did anyone ever feel there was a conflict of interest in RE Reno between the individual investors and RE Loans the majority holder of RE Reno? I don’t feel as though anyone has truly represented us since day one, be it RE Loans, RE Reno or MF 08. And if anyone wants to discuss strains on relationships? I am in a constant strain between me, myself and I.

  6. If you got the last letter, July 2nd from the Creditor’s Committee, you can see the WASTE. It was 2 pages, mailed in an over sized 8.5 x 11 inch envelope. It came first class, postage paid was $1.10. Seriously? Was that necessary? #10 envelopes and the postage for them is a heck of a lot cheaper. Sure it’s a small thing, but just another example of the waste. They were probably proud of the vote or just doing their part to keep the USPS going. Seriously, like our good friends at Mackinac & Partners. . .thanks for wasting our money Cooley & Crew!

    • From time to time I have commented that, Susan Uecker, the Liquidating Trustee for Mortgage Fund ’08 is doing a good job for her Mortgage Fund ‘08 investors. On Thursday July 19th she dropped a small bombshell on R.E. Loans, the Committee, and its attorneys.

      You should recall that Mortgage Fund ’08 claims that $66,226,496.00 of its investors money was transferred to R.E. Loans. R.E. Loans used most of this “new” money to pay principal and interest to its “old” investors, a classic Ponzi scheme. In return and as a cover-up, Mortgage Fund ’08 received notes and deeds of trust that were either in default or of very questionable value.

      Susan Uecker filed a $66,226,496.00 unsecured claim in the R.E. Loans bankruptcy case. That claim was settled by R.E. Loans, the Committee, and its attorneys with an agreement that Mortgage Fund ’08 would get $5,000,000 for unsecured creditors, Mortgage Fund ’08 would retain its entire $66,226,496.00 claim without any offset for the value of the notes and deeds of trust, Susan Uecker would have a seat on the Trust Committee, Mortgage Fund ’08 would give up any claim against the “old” investors who received the “new” money, and vote its $66,226,496.00 claim to support the Plan.

      In her new filing, Susan Uecker asks the Bankruptcy Court to order that R.E. Loans pay all her fees and costs, and all of the fees and costs of her attorneys for achieving this result for the Mortgage Fund ’08 investors. Her application, document number 1010, has been posted on the R.E. Loans documents webpage. You should download it and read it for yourself.

      This application makes R.E. Loans, the Committee, and its attorneys look very, very bad.

      In more that 30 years of handling civil litigation for plaintiffs and defendants, I cannot recall any settlement that did not include this standard clause, “Each side will bear its own attorneys fees and costs.” I cannot find this standard clause in the R.E. Loans settlement agreement with Mortgage Fund ’08, leaving the door open for Susan Uecker’s application that R.E. Loans should pay Mortgage Fund ‘08’s trustee’s fees, attorneys fees and costs.

  7. From the referenced news article;

    “Altogether, about $20 billion was lost to the Ponzi scheme,”. TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS!

    “he is preparing to distribute from $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion to former investors in Madoff’s firm. This is in addition to the $1.1 billion that has already been distributed to victims.”

    TOTAL DISTRIBUTED TO INVESTORS = $2.6 billion to $3.5 billion. Pretty big gap, huh!?

    “So far, the trustee has recovered more than $9.1 billion in assets from the Madoff estate.”

    A much bigger gap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Investments lost; $20 billion.

    Recovered; $9.1 billion.

    Returned; $2.6 billion to $3.5 billion.

    Where’s the good news?

      • Given the dearth of news on our case, at least we can look for some possible hints in how the Madoff case has gone. Looks like 12-16 cents on the dollar.

        And the trustee doesn’t work for free: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/madoff-case-is-paying-off-for-trustee-850-an-hour/

        Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed trustee seeking to recover funds for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, has been described as a modern-day Robin Hood. For nearly four years, he has been working to pay back those who were swindled by Mr. Madoff, some who lost their entire life savings.

        Yet a look at recent court filings shows Mr. Picard has had much more success collecting money for himself and a dozen law firms and consultants than any victim of Mr. Madoff’s crime.

        So far, Mr. Picard’s efforts have created a whopping $554 million in legal and other fees. How much have Mr. Madoff’s victims actually received from all of the cases and motions he’s made? Only $330 million. And how much does Mr. Picard estimate the fee spigot will pour out by 2014? A mere $1 billion.

        There is a longer article at the link I included

    • There was some very good news for R.E. Loans investors last week.

      The litigation attorneys for the R.E. Loans wanted Greenberg Traurig to produce some very important documents. I have a couple of these documents and they are very damaging to Greenberg Traurig. Instead of producing the documents, Greenberg Traurig submitted a privilege log listing the names and dates of the documents. The privilege log was 235 pages long, listing approximately 2,500 documents.

      Greenberg Traurig refused to turn over the documents arguing that many of the documents were subject to a joint privilege. Greenberg Traurig claimed that the holders of the joint privilege were Bar-K, Inc., B-4 Partners, LLC, Lend, Inc., Walter Ng, Kelly Ng, and/or Barney Ng.

      Greenberg Traurig was setting up a solid barrier to the production using the argument that these other entities or individuals would have to waive their privilege before Greenberg Traurig would produce any of the documents. This would be difficult or impossible because most of those individuals would take the Fifth Amendment.

      R.E. Loans made a motion asking the Court for an order requiring the production. Greenberg Traurig opposed.

      On Tuesday, July 24, the motion was argued and Judge Houser sided with R.E. Loans. Greenberg Traurig now must produce the documents under a procedure that shifts the burden of proving a joint privilege to Bar-K, Inc., B-4 Partners, LLC, Lend, Inc., Walter Ng, Kelly Ng, and/or Barney Ng.

      You can read the Judge Houser’s order. It is document 1029, filed July 26.

      I see this as an important victory for the R.E. Loans investors. It supplies valuable ammunition to your litigation counsel.

  8. It’s very gratifying to once again see the name BARNEY NG included in this mess, but one now has to wonder where BRUCE HORWITZ disappeared to in these documents. He’s not mentioned in document 1029.

    Although history will show that Barney Ng is the worst of the bunch, Bruce Horwitz was one of the B-4 Partners, part owner of Bar-K, and the front man for RE Loans and the exchange agreement for RE Loans, (Plus RE Reno, and MF ’08.)

    Has Greenberg Traurig left Horwitz to fend for himself?

    • The joint privilege does not apply to Bruce Horwitz because Greenberg Traurig never represented him.

      Bruce Horwitz worked part-time at his pediatrics practice in Oakland and part-time at the R.E. Loans office in Lafayette. When he got to work at the R.E. Loans office, he would turn on his computer and play computer solitaire. When a call came in from an investor, he would pause his solitaire game, take the call and play his “front man” role, hawking the safety of the investments, touting the “niche” investment portfolio, reminding everyone that he was fully invested in R.E. Loans, generally using the reassuring doctor spiel he had developed over the years to comfort parents whose children were ill.

      He would also return calls to investors that the Ngs referred to him.

      Bruce Horwitz’s involvement was essentially a fraud on the investors. He was never sued by anyone before Greenberg Traurig withdrew for nonpayment of its legal fees.

      The Grassi/Alegria lawsuit, an investor lawsuit, did not name Bruce Horwitz as a defendant. The other individuals and entities had also been sued on transactional cases involving borrowers and they were represented in some of those cases by Greenberg Traurig. In addition, Greenberg Traurig played a central role in the Wells Fargo Foothill line of credit negotiations and the February/March 2008 cover-up of the Mortgage Fund ’08/B-4 Partners/R.E. Loans Ponzi scheme.

      As a result of the above, Greenberg Traurig never represented Bruce Horwitz and he has no joint privilege.

  9. I want to know how it is possible that Kelly Ng is still conducting business and making loans? They are all criminals and garbage. Walter does not have a care in the world and is playing golf with his buddy Gene Rapp, the same guy that served on the so called creditors committee!

    • An investor told me that he has received the clawback settlement letter. This letter offers the subgroup of investors, who withdrew their entire investment after the date of the exchange agreement, a chance to settle any clawback claim for 5% of the amount they withdrew.

      Here is one interesting scenario. Two investors had two accounts with R.E. Loans. Their total investment was about $250,000. They withdrew all of that money and then reinvested it in Mortgage Fund ’08. That investment was recorded on Mortgage Fund ‘08’s books on January 1, 2008.

      Readers of this blog know what happened next – the Ponzi scheme.

      The managers of Mortgage Fund ’08 took all of the money invested in Mortgage Fund ’08 on January 1, 2008, and transferred it to a B-4 Partners checking account on January 4, 2008. They then immediately re-transferred that money to an R.E. Loans checking account to pay themselves and to distribute it to R.E. Loans’ investors. (B-4 Partners Check No. 1123.)

      So the two investors’ $250,000 money went from R.E. Loans to Mortgage Fund ’08 to B-4 Partners and then back to R.E. Loans.

      In his clawback settlement letter, the Liquidating Trustee wants these two investors to pay 5% or $12,500 to R.E. Loans as settlement of the clawback claim. If not, the Liquidating Trustee will sue them in Texas for the $250,000 they withdrew from R.E. Loans.

      • Clarification:

        Yes, there are two checks documenting this event in the Ponzi scheme.

        The January 4, 2008, transfer of Mortgage Fund ’08 investments into the B-4 Partners checking account was a deposit made with Mortgage Fund ’08 check number 1006. The immediate transfer of that Mortgage Fund ’08 deposit was a withdrawal from the B-4 Partners account, documented by B-4 Partners check number 1123.

        Sorry for any confusion about this in my initial post.

        • Here is a brief update on your class action case.

          A 60-page Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 22, 2012. This Second Amended Complaint was a consolidation of the three pending class action cases. All of the attorneys joined together and you now have four law firms representing you.

          Wells Fargo and Greenberg Traurig had to respond with an Answer or a Demurrer. An Answer would admit or deny the allegations setting the case up for discovery. A Demurrer would challenge the sufficiency of the complaint, in essence asking the Court to dismiss it.

          On June 18, 2012, Greenberg Traurig filed an Answer.

          On that same date, Wells Fargo filed a Demurrer. A 14-page Memorandum and several hundred pages of documents supported the Demurrer.

          Your class action counsel responded with an 18-page Opposition, which was filed on July 30, 2012. The Opposition included about 125 pages of additional documents.

          Wells Fargo has the right to file a Reply to your Opposition.

          The demurrer is set for hearing at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday August 28 before Judge Brick in Department 17.

      • I received a letter from Akin Gump, Michael Cooley, stating that I had an “exchange note” that was fully paid prior to the bankruptcy case. It was an IRA that I moved elsewhere. To release any claim against me, I am to send them 5% of the amount.

        Mr. Brower, do you advise me to send the money ? It seems to me that if I had taken the funds from my other account with Bar K, (20 times the amount of my IRA), I would be able to keep 95 % of the money.
        Looking forward to receiving your advice and if anyone else has received a letter as I did.
        Thanks

    • Please read today’s Equitatus post for a complete review and the update about your class action case and Judge Brick’s tentative ruling for Tuesday.

      There are two good reasons to go on Tuesday. First, you will have an opportunity to see your class action attorneys argue the demurrer against Wells Fargo. Second, it will be a good time to meet, greet, and thank your class action attorneys for all the good work that they have done on your case.

      There is one problem. The courtroom is small and seating is first come, rest excluded. At present there is no overflow seating planned. There is security so give yourself extra time. There is good parking at the ramped garage on the next block and there is underground access to the Administration Building (not the Courthouse) where Department 17 is located.

      Very Important: Check back here on Monday night for confirmation that there will be a hearing on Tuesday.

      For those of you interested in the nature of the technical legal arguments, below is Judge Brick’s Tentative Ruling in your favor. It is worth reading and understanding because it gives a good look at Judge Brick’s well-known and highly-respected straightforward jurisprudence. He should be your Judge until the very end.

      Here is the tentative ruling:

      “This Tentative Ruling is issued by Judge Steven A. Brick The demurrer of defendant Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (“Wells Fargo”) to the Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint (‘the Complaint”) is OVERRULED. The Court’s reasons follow. Initially, the principal California authority upon which both sides rely is Casey v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138. In Casey, the Court held that plaintiff had not adequately alleged defendants’ actual knowledge and assistance to the principal wrongdoers accused of breaching their fiduciary duties to shareholders, but reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal giving plaintiff leave to amend to cure the deficiencies. In Casey, the wrongdoers were accused of looting and hiding corporate assets in various bank accounts established with the defendant banks. The wrongdoers’ relationship to the banks was that of depositors, not borrowers. Because the Casey court’s determination that the complaint was inadequate rested in part on banking law restrictions on banks’ liability to others for depositors’ wrongdoing (“We pause to note that under California law, a bank owes no duty to nondepositors to investigate or disclose suspicious activities on the part of an account holder.” Id. at 1149), it is factually distinguishable from the present case. Nonetheless, Casey restates the pleading requirements under California law for claims of aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties by others, including its recognition “that it is sufficient for a pleading to ‘allege generally that defendants had actual knowledge of a specific primary violation.’ ( Neilson [v. Union Bank of California, N.A. (C.D.Cal.2003) 290 F.Supp.2d 1101] at p. 1120, italics added.)” Note: Casey italicized the words “a specific primary violation.” Casey makes clear that the first step in assessing the adequacy of aiding and abetting allegations is to identify the specific primary violation. In this case, the Complaint alleges at great length that the specific primary violations were covering up in 2007 the Managers’ violations of the securities laws since the inception of RE Loans, LLC, RE Loans’ inability to raise new funds because of those securities laws violations, its serious cash flow problems in 2007, and its scheme to avoid disclosure of the above by establishing a line of credit from Wells Fargo in cooperation with defendant Greenberg Traurig LLP, who is alleged to have been counsel both for RE Loans and for Wells Fargo, for $50 million secured by $700 million worth of assets. The line of credit is alleged to have been unauthorized, at least until the RE Loans members were persuaded through a fraudulent disclosure document to exchange their membership interests for subordinated debt interests in RE Loans. Whether plaintiffs will be able to prove these allegations is a question for another day. Assuming, as we must, the truth of the well pleaded factual allegations of the primary wrongdoing, it is fair to say that but for the participation of Wells Fargo by providing the $50 million line of credit the Managers’ scheme to keep RE Loans afloat through infusion of new capital from MF08 would not have been possible. Wells Fargo does not seriously contend that the Complaint fails to allege the requisite material assistance to the wrongdoers. Rather, it focuses on a claimed inadequacy in the allegations of actual knowledge of the wrongdoing. The Court disagrees. See, the Complaint at paragraphs 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14,60-67, 71, 73, 75, 79, 97, 108-110, and 220. Taken together, these allegations more than satisfy plaintiff’s obligation to allege actual knowledge of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Managers of RE Loans and MF08. The requests for judicial notice of both parties are DENIED. Wells Fargo shall file its answer within 30 days of the date of this order.

  10. Good news for the investors, let’s hope, but not so good for the bad guys. I’m in So CA, but doesn’t anyone have a lead-in to the local Bay Area news team? Is Dan Noyes still with the TV news up there?

    It’s time to bring some other news besides the hurricane back east.

    Get the TV coverage going again! Radio reporters, how more newspaper reporters…I mean one of the largest CA securities fraud and I bet even the local Bay Area residents have either forgotten or don’t know.

    What’s wrong with that picture? Plenty.

  11. Equitatius, John Robie= same person! Serveitcold=an ally of or equitatius/Robie! So simple, any of you noticed how creepy that seems? It’s scary and effects you because you know it’s true! Don’t ignore your gut, it’s been apparent to me since day 1, I’ve seen countless nonsense postings from these/this person(s) and hostility opinionated bS and a full lack of info this idiot is feeding false info along with hiding their real identity, tell me thi isn’t creepy! Did you notice how John Robie got upset with people looking into Equitatius? He’s acting like it doesn’t matter when it’s the underlying issue in this group/forum! Don’t be lied to, and always do your own research before believing someone you don’t know firsthand!

    • TheTruth? Anything and everything but in your posting, above!

      John Robie and Equitatius are NOT the same person.

      Serveitcold, an ally? Absolutely, as is almost everyone who comes here an ally of everyone else. We’re all victims, not of John Robie or Equitatius, but of the Ng’s and Horwitz. THAT”S the “underlying issue” of this forum!

      “Hiding their real identity”? You mean just as you’re doing here?

      By the way, you’ve attacked the person who runs the forum and another, very forthcoming one, who contributes a great deal of information to the TRUTH of this forum. You’ve not said even one word about the purpose of the forum . . . . to find the TRUTH about what the Ngs and Horwitz did to us. When you can’t dispute the FACTS presented you attack those who present them. That’s what’s “apparent”!

      TheTruth? I don’t think you’d know it even when it jumps up and bites you!

      If you want to dispute what is presented here, including the FACTS (as in court documents) presented by Equitatius and others, please do so with verifiable FACTS of your own.

      Attacking the messengers instead of the message is the act of a desperate, ill-informed person.

    • Dear The Truth: You really have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s laughable. It’s clear where your allegiances lie. They are clearly with the Ngs and not the thousands of people who lost everything. Let me be very clear with you on this topic. Post more bullshit like this in the future and you’ll not only be banned, you’ll be fully exposed. Bank on it.

    • Dear Truth,

      That’s a very big crystal ball you have; it must be to have read every single court document filed in every single case since Aug. 31, 2011 and have the capability to decipher the true status of all things in all cases at this point. It might be a good project for you to write down all ” this idiot is feeding false info ” and copy/paste so we can compare notes. You crawled out of somewhere—you have been warned that your best interest would be to crawl back. The only thing “Creepy” is you. Go fishing somewhere else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s