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, 06:25 PM,
#21
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
Ew, gross. Negligence.
Reply
08-15-2020, 06:35 PM,
#22
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 05:56 PM)tyounis Wrote:
(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.

I believe the court's already agreed to it being in New Mexico as that's where the treasure hunt was started...and the book being sold at Collected Works. Also, that would all come after Forrest revealed the identification of the "finder" which is primarily what most people are watching this case for.
© Stephanie
Reply
08-15-2020, 06:38 PM,
#23
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 06:00 PM)æ___ Wrote:
(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.

I'm curious why she hasn't been able to get the phone records for who that person was.
© Stephanie
Reply
08-15-2020, 06:56 PM,
#24
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
I'm sure she knows who that person is. She/It needs to be investigated. There may have been a few felonies committed when she signed that paper.

Why hasn't the finder stood up for Forrest? That's what I'm wondering.
Reply
08-15-2020, 07:34 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-15-2020, 08:35 PM by fundamental design.)
#25
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.
...and the particular information specified by the judge is the same information covered under Milan’s question that I quoted. Essentially we are talking about the same info that she has a right to according to the judge. That the judge sees that right and possibly f doesn’t fulfill that anytime soon are two different issues. I focused on the first issue.

Though your comment does a good job of explaining the procedural outcome, the result is a right being handed to Barbara...and i’m certainty no lawyer.

(08-15-2020, 05:56 PM)tyounis Wrote:
(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.

So this gets her somewhere.

Pays to be a winner.
Reply
08-15-2020, 07:59 PM,
#26
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 07:34 PM)fundamental design Wrote:
(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.
...and the particular information specified by the judge is the same information covered under Milan’s question that I quoted. Essentially we are talking about the same info that she has a right to according to the judge. That the judge sees that right and possibly f doesn’t fulfill that anytime soon are two different issues. I focused on the first issue.

(08-15-2020, 05:56 PM)tyounis Wrote:
(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.

So this gets her somewhere.

If I were the finder, I would tell the judge where it was, prove it, and ask that it be kept confidential. The judge could then make a determination whether the solve is correct, and dismiss other wannabe solves.
Reply
08-15-2020, 08:14 PM,
#27
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-15-2020, 07:59 PM)Daniel A Wrote:
(08-15-2020, 07:34 PM)fundamental design Wrote:
(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.
...and the particular information specified by the judge is the same information covered under Milan’s question that I quoted. Essentially we are talking about the same info that she has a right to according to the judge. That the judge sees that right and possibly f doesn’t fulfill that anytime soon are two different issues. I focused on the first issue.

(08-15-2020, 05:56 PM)tyounis Wrote:
(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.

So this gets her somewhere.

If I were the finder, I would tell the judge where it was, prove it, and ask that it be kept confidential. The judge could then make a determination whether the solve is correct, and dismiss other wannabe solves.

Not bad. I think the finder will find it a tougher road the longer they stay silent.

Pays to be a winner.
Reply
08-16-2020, 12:07 AM,
#28
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
Lookman... finder doesn't exist, and she knew that. She is going through it step by step:
1) sue for her solve and area: NO. (move on)
2) sue for information from FF: NO. (move on)
etc etc next will be:
3) Who?
4) Where?
and finally
5) What is the solve and was a box hidden.
I R S coming soon to the "finder." Times we're in, folks.
Reply
08-16-2020, 12:24 AM,
#29
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
Cynthia stole my solve!
Reply
08-16-2020, 06:54 AM,
#30
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
It can't be kept confidential if the "finder" is the one she's suing. Their name would have to be made public in my opinion. If it turns out to be Cynthia, I predict people will be suing like crazy. I would never do a class action though...that's dumb even though I've been told that I said I was doing such a thing...which I NEVER said. I said DON'T do a class action...instead sue as a group of plaintiffs. Class action means the lawyers get a big chunk, the lead plaintiff gets like $5,000 and the class action people get like $10. Those are just examples....but it's the idea of how they get paid out.
© Stephanie
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Barbara the lawyer from Chicago admin 30 2,797 06-25-2020, 02:19 AM
Last Post: Beavertooth

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Contact Us | ChaseChat™ - Treasure Chat | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication