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
08-16-2020, 09:50 AM,
#31
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-16-2020, 08:08 AM)BinocularsGuy Wrote:
(08-16-2020, 06:54 AM)admin Wrote: 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.

I can't wait for Cynthia to sue you, there's clear damages she can be awarded. Not to mention you're putting her life in danger of the crazies out there like you. This is not one time in passing that you've implied she has the chest, I'd say at least 10 times you've said this publicly.

Please tell me what I've said she can sue me regarding that caused her damages. I've said I believe she has it, but I've also said that I don't know that as fact...it's my guess. What's so damaging by saying that? It's completely my truth.

Even if she had a case against me...I HIGHLY doubt she would want to take me to court and have to go through discovery with me.

So please explain.
© Stephanie
Reply
08-16-2020, 09:53 AM,
#32
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
Am watching Kpro talking about this...

Am I the only one that realizes the "finder" had to have met with forrest because he showed us those treasure chest pictures in the apparent lawyer office? Did he sent by fed ex lol....?
© Stephanie
Reply
08-16-2020, 10:51 AM,
#33
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-16-2020, 10:26 AM)BinocularsGuy Wrote:
(08-16-2020, 09:50 AM)admin Wrote:
(08-16-2020, 08:08 AM)BinocularsGuy Wrote:
(08-16-2020, 06:54 AM)admin Wrote: 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.

I can't wait for Cynthia to sue you, there's clear damages she can be awarded. Not to mention you're putting her life in danger of the crazies out there like you. This is not one time in passing that you've implied she has the chest, I'd say at least 10 times you've said this publicly.

Please tell me what I've said she can sue me regarding that caused her damages. I've said I believe she has it, but I've also said that I don't know that as fact...it's my guess. What's so damaging by saying that? It's completely my truth.

Even if she had a case against me...I HIGHLY doubt she would want to take me to court and have to go through discovery with me.

So please explain.

All I know is if it was me in her shoes, I'd sue you in a heartbeat once it's proven she doesn't have the chest, which looks like it will be soon. This is not you guessing once or twice that she has the chest, this is you trying to convince the whole community she has it. I think a jury would agree. You're nothing but a vindictive little witch who tried to cheat the whole community out of the chest. Some may have forgotten but I haven't.

I tried to cheat the whole community? Sorry, but no searcher can do that....only forrest can cheat this game and I believe he has. I'm in good company now as well with others who agree, because things don't add up.

You have not told me what she has damages for. You have to prove that and me saying my belief is that she was given it, is my opinion. You can't come up with any legal facts that she would have any rights to sue me and a jury would agree. That's just crazy talk. I actually don't have any issues with Cynthia if this was the case, because she did whatever she would have had to do to get the chest from Forrest. The only way I'd take issue with her is if she was the finder and has been sitting with it and deaths and other financial losses happened during that time when she knew the contest was over....BUT I don't know that to be true and I will say that my hope is that isn't the case.

So please come up with legal facts instead of just your hate for me for whatever reason you hate me. Just like Kpro I've asked and asked what the heck did I do to make you hate me...to make you tell Candy who never knew me to hate me...and much more. Candy's comment is I did things to many people? I've done nothing to anyone other than say I believe Forrest put on a scam. Then there's Marti who I did have issues with, but we actually both apologized to each other and agreed that the situation we were under was the cause of it all. I highly respect her for discussing these issues and having forgiveness.
© Stephanie
Reply
08-16-2020, 10:54 AM,
#34
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
I remember what happened here in January of 2018 that led to the "gut feeling". A good offense is a good defense.

Remember when we couldn't take the heat
I walked out, I said, I'm setting you free

https://youtu.be/JLf9q36UsBk
Reply
08-16-2020, 11:03 AM,
#35
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-16-2020, 10:54 AM)æ___ Wrote: I remember what happened here in January of 2018 that led to the "gut feeling". A good offense is a good defense.

Remember when we couldn't take the heat
I walked out, I said, I'm setting you free

https://youtu.be/JLf9q36UsBk

Ricky is that you???? Wow, you must have found a key to the backdoor LOL...Shhh I won't tell.
© Stephanie
Reply
08-16-2020, 09:05 PM,
#36
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
loss/damage incurred

https://youtu.be/zQdglLeGQXM
Reply
08-17-2020, 01:37 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-17-2020, 02:22 PM by admin.)
#37
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.

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." "So this gets her somewhere."

*removed by admin as asked by Barbara Anderson*
Reply
08-17-2020, 06:34 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-17-2020, 02:22 PM by admin.)
#38
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-17-2020, 01:37 AM)tyounis 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.

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." "So this gets her somewhere."

*removed by admin as asked by Barbara Anderson*

I saw someone mention that last night...would that be enough to hurt someone's law license? Anyone know?

She apparently just went through a divorce....guess is that's messed her up...but don't know for sure. I wonder if her divorce had anything to do with the chase.
© Stephanie
Reply
08-17-2020, 08:27 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-17-2020, 02:23 PM by admin.)
#39
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-17-2020, 06:34 AM)admin Wrote:
(08-17-2020, 01:37 AM)tyounis 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.

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." "So this gets her somewhere."

*removed by admin as asked by Barbara Anderson*

I saw someone mention that last night...would that be enough to hurt someone's law license? Anyone know?

She apparently just went through a divorce....guess is that's messed her up...but don't know for sure. I wonder if her divorce had anything to do with the chase.


Barbara just messaged me this morning and I have the scoop which she said was cool with me to post.

She was spit on by her neighbors over the fenn news and a tubers blog reporting. Then they ran in a fake request for order of protection. She tried to vacate if for 3 weeks but due to covid, she couldn't get in. Then she ran into the neighbor when a tree fell down and she got arrested. She now has the order of protection vacated. Next she is planning to get rid of the charge. Anyone who posts her mugshot she plans on taking legal action.
© Stephanie
Reply
08-17-2020, 08:49 AM,
#40
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-17-2020, 08:41 AM)BinocularsGuy Wrote: Looks like you'll believe anything that is said to you from this woman, I guess it does suit your agenda.

Where did I say I believed anyone? I'm not saying I don't either.


I posted what she told me and said I could share with everyone.

How about you telling me why you have issues with me?
© Stephanie
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Barbara the lawyer from Chicago admin 30 2,747 06-25-2020, 02:19 AM
Last Post: Beavertooth

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)
Contact Us | ChaseChat™ - Treasure Chat | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication