Not logged in. Login - Register


All new registrations need to be approved manually. After registration, mail me at tyblossom at aol dot com.
ChaseChat is available for Smartphones via Tapatalk, Download the app at http://tapatalk.com/m?id=4&referer=1048173. After installing CLICK HERE to add the forum to Tapatalk.

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
08-15-2020, 04:13 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-15-2020, 04:14 PM by æ___.)
#11
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
hakuna matata

https://youtu.be/nbY_aP-alkw
Reply
08-15-2020, 04:23 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-15-2020, 04:26 PM by fundamental design.)
#12
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 03:58 PM)Milan Wrote: ......
3. If some shy person from back east really did find it, who gave us a right to know anything about the discovery?

.......

Don’t know if that’s the correct question to ask as it might not be pertinent if this discovery goes through. But, clearly the judge feels Barbara has a right.

Some can stick there head in the sand if the location comes out publicly. You have that right.

Pays to be a winner.
Reply
08-15-2020, 04:27 PM,
#13
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 04:23 PM)fundamental design Wrote:
(08-15-2020, 03:58 PM)Milan Wrote: ......
3. If some shy person from back east really did find it, who gave us a right to know anything about the discovery?

.......

Don’t know if that’s the correct question to ask as it might not be pertinent if this discovery goes through. But, clearly the judge feels Barbara has a right.

Some can stick there head in the sand if the location comes out publicly. You have that right.

That's brilliant that the judge must already believe she has a right.
© Stephanie
Reply
08-15-2020, 04:28 PM,
#14
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 04:07 PM)admin Wrote: ...but my opinion is not the same.

Healthy debate is good.

(08-15-2020, 04:07 PM)admin Wrote: He made a verbal contract and he couldn't take it back if he wanted. The law can be considered when things are implied.

I'm not a lawyer, and I've heard this argument many times. If that's true, then we're all in trouble for things we've said in our lifetimes. I guess this means you can't change your mind if you say, write, or imply something? My kids could have a field day with this one.

I just signed about 10 pages of legal documents just to accept an offer on my house in ABQ. The amount of paperwork is incredible, and it's just the first step before closing. I never read or signed anything whatsoever even resembling a "contract" with Fenn. All I did was watch NBC one day, accepted the implied risk, and got involved.
Reply
08-15-2020, 04:32 PM,
#15
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 04:28 PM)Milan Wrote:
(08-15-2020, 04:07 PM)admin Wrote: ...but my opinion is not the same.

Healthy debate is good.

(08-15-2020, 04:07 PM)admin Wrote: He made a verbal contract and he couldn't take it back if he wanted. The law can be considered when things are implied.

I'm not a lawyer, and I've heard this argument many times. If that's true, then we're all in trouble for things we've said in our lifetimes. I guess this means you can't change your mind if you say, write, or imply something? My kids could have a field day with this one.

I just signed about 10 pages of legal documents just to accept an offer on my house in ABQ. The amount of paperwork is incredible, and it's just the first step before closing. I never read or signed anything whatsoever even resembling a "contract" with Fenn. All I did was watch NBC one day, accepted the implied risk, and got involved.

I had a friend who was involved in a lawsuit recently and the contract was implied on performance in that situation. So forrest told me he would tell everyone and they would be surprised how easy it was. I performed on that by searching. I honestly never even knew he was saying it was up to the finder and was surprised when I started hearing that after it was "found".
© Stephanie
Reply
08-15-2020, 04:43 PM,
#16
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 04:41 PM)davidkindc Wrote:
(08-15-2020, 03:27 PM)admin Wrote: I'm not sure how others pull up the case information, but I have a pacer.gov account for some other lawsuits I deal with so it's a paid service...not much..just 10 cents a page. You can go on there though and login and go to case information and "find parties" and search Forrest's name and you'll see the two open ones.

Thanks @admin!


(08-15-2020, 04:23 PM)fundamental design Wrote: .. clearly the judge feels Barbara has a right.

I think it might be more accurate to say that the judge believes the Plaintiff has legal standing to serve Mr. Fenn with a subpoena requesting the particular information specified by the judge.

My guess is that the Plaintiff will not obtain the information she's requesting from Mr. Fenn anytime soon. But I'm not a lawyer.

I agree with your better wording version and thinking.
© Stephanie
Reply
08-15-2020, 05:14 PM,
#17
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
If he wanted to really stir things up and have this settled, then he could tell everyone that I found it. I'd be cool with that. What's the worst that could happen? You're all going to hate me anyway. I can't wait to see what happens next.
Reply
08-15-2020, 05:30 PM,
#18
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 05:14 PM)æ___ Wrote: If he wanted to really stir things up and have this settled, then he could tell everyone that I found it. I'd be cool with that. What's the worst that could happen? You're all going to hate me anyway. I can't wait to see what happens next.
S
Well you'd immediately be added to the lawsuit from Barbara. She's suing the "finder"
© Stephanie
Reply
08-15-2020, 05:56 PM,
#19
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 02:19 PM)admin Wrote: The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion as to Rule 45 in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) provides
that a “party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required
by Rule 26(f) ….” However, discovery may be permitted in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference
when “authorized … by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). The Court finds there is good
cause to grant, in part, Plaintiff’s request for discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference because
the Unknown Defendant must be identified before this case can proceed and Plaintiff has
established a good faith basis that Forrest Fenn knows the Unknown Defendant’s name and
address. The Court allows Plaintiff to seek limited discovery from Forrest Fenn to obtain the
identity and address of the Unknown Defendant. Plaintiff may move for additional discovery
regarding the “Unknown Defendant’s solve, communications and search/retrieval conduct” after
Forrest Fenn responds to her subpoena regarding the Unknown Defendant’s name and address. In
her Motion to Supplement Pending Motions, Plaintiff states she “wrote Fenn and his counsel.”

This doesn't get her anywhere. Let's assume the unknown defendant is the finder. Let's further assume Fenn provides the court the information Anderson has requested. Let's further assume that the finder doesn't live in New Mexico. If those are all true, Anderson's case in New Mexico has no standing, as she lives in Illinois and the finder does not live in New Mexico. She would have to file a suit against the finder in another Federal District Court. The question that court would have to ask is, "For what purpose?" If the treasure was indeed found in Wyoming, and her case was based on her being hacked, and as a result, costing her New Mexico "solve," there is no case.

The only benefit, if the second case proceeds is that the court may require the finder to prove the location of the find.

That's all months away.

t.
Reply
08-15-2020, 06:00 PM,
#20
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 05:30 PM)admin Wrote:
(08-15-2020, 05:14 PM)æ___ Wrote: If he wanted to really stir things up and have this settled, then he could tell everyone that I found it. I'd be cool with that. What's the worst that could happen? You're all going to hate me anyway. I can't wait to see what happens next.
S
Well you'd immediately be added to the lawsuit from Barbara. She's suing the "finder"

Sounds like she should be suing the person who hacked her and caused all of her hardships she claims to have had as a result of the relationship she obviously consented to by participating. I don't think she will be able to go after them if it is proven the finder was not the person responsible for her hardships. If I were that person I'd be extremely nervous because once THEY are found out they will most likely be handed something far more fierce. Too far too walk like fierce.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Barbara the lawyer from Chicago admin 30 2,745 06-25-2020, 02:19 AM
Last Post: Beavertooth

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
Contact Us | ChaseChat™ - Treasure Chat | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication