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
09-12-2020, 10:09 AM,
#61
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
I would love to still visit my suspected location but it takes over 20 hours driving.
Reply
09-13-2020, 09:48 AM,
#62
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(09-12-2020, 01:07 AM)Beavertooth Wrote:
(09-10-2020, 04:03 PM)White Knight Wrote: In at least one video he said there were numerous large loose gemstones, Ceylon sapphires etc. They weren't in the bracelet.

Here's another reference that may clarify things

Lorene Mills Interview 11/3/2012:

MILLS: There’s a bracelet with 240 something rubies in it?

FENN: Um rubies, yeah.

Doh! Just before the above lines, Fenn said:

"And about six months later I had 20.2 Troy pounds of gold in that chest. And jewelry that had emeralds and Ceylon sapphires and diamonds and… "
Reply
09-13-2020, 11:40 AM,
#63
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
And you've managed to ignore the 2 articles above that mention the jewels without mentioning the bracelet.

As discussed in above posts in this thread it's possible that none of the things Fenn mentioned that were 'in the chest' were in the chest that was available to be found by any Searcher - the gold coins, the gold nuggets, the jewels in whatever form, the jade carvings, the necklaces, the bracelets, the special item just for the Finder.

The box that Fenn showed in the final picture was relative junk. Not quite enough to generate the response: (paraphrasing) 'Searchers would throw their head back and laugh in awe at the sight of the treasure'

It may be pointless splitting hairs about items that Fenn listed as being within the contents of the treasure chest if according to the evidence from the above Searchers it turns out that none of those items were in a chest that was available to be found by any Searcher.

My point was that Fenn seemed to exagerate or allow others to exagerate the value of the reward more and more as the Chase progressed. And, there were 'inconsitencies' in Fenn's statements about the IOU so following those inconsistencies why wouldn't Searchers suspect there may be inconsitencies in other statements he made including the availablity of the items on offer?
Reply
09-13-2020, 12:40 PM,
#64
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(09-13-2020, 11:40 AM)White Knight Wrote: My point was that Fenn seemed to exagerate or allow others to exagerate the value of the reward more and more as the Chase progressed.

I always assumed that the contents of the chest were worth $500,000 or so in 2010, which changed as the price of gold went down and up over the years.

But you had to add to this value whatever you thought the cachet of a famous "treasure hoard" might be worth. That value did go up significantly over time, as the "fame" surrounding Forrest and the treasure grew exponentially. Items owned or used by famous people or related to famous events are considered collectibles and sell for outrageous prices every day. The same with famous artwork (vs. less-famous artwork). There is no question in my mind that the finder could auction the treasure for substantially over $2.5 million (compared with intrinsic value of not much more than $625,000 today).
Reply
09-20-2020, 07:04 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-20-2020, 07:08 PM by Brakinbad.)
#65
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(08-16-2020, 09:53 AM)admin Wrote: 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....?

The picture of Forrest with the treasure chest is the most significant evidence suggesting there is no finder. Why would Forrest need to examine the chest? If the shy finder wanted to remain anonymous why bring the chest to Forest’s lawyer? It appears to me Forrest is taking inventory of the chest. He wouldn’t have to do this if the intent was to just hand it back to the finder. The reason he’s taking inventory is for tax purposes of the contents of the treasure. Gold, gems, and antique collectible artifacts can have different tax implications. Forrest is the finder.

And let me be clear. Forrest would have taken a loss on tangible property via abandonment back in 2010. The loss would have reflected the value of the chest. Now that he has it back in his possession, he would need to inventory the assets and file appropriate tax forms.
Reply
09-20-2020, 10:41 PM,
#66
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(09-20-2020, 07:04 PM)Brakinbad Wrote: And let me be clear. Forrest would have taken a loss on tangible property via abandonment back in 2010. The loss would have reflected the value of the chest. Now that he has it back in his possession, he would need to inventory the assets and file appropriate tax forms.

That sounds like one of the more reasonable and realistic ideas.

I agree that it 'could' call into question the existence of a finder. It really does seem like something is being covered up aside from just the finder, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions.

I can think of at least two more ideas for why Fenn might have needed to inventory the chest even if there is a finder:

(1) To relieve the finder of taxes by accepting the return of his abandoned property and in turn gifting it to the finder. Such a step would require an appraisal and documentation of the contents in addition to filing tax forms. All of that could be kept private.

(2) According to some published national park rules, if the chest was found and retrieved from public property, and proper procedures were followed, the finder would be obligated to return the chest to park officials at which point they would have sought out the original owner (Fenn obviously) and returned it to him to in turn release it the the finder. In that case the office in the photo might be that of the park/forest supervisor.

Number (2) was my first prediction. However, it seems clear that the office in the photo was in New Mexico where Fenn could visit safely and comfortably, not in Wyoming, though perhaps it could be done remotely due to the pandemic. Also, the proper procedures would require disclosure of the finder and the location. Those could be kept private by the park authorities, but perhaps subject to a FOIA request. No evidence has surfaced yet to support this idea, and someone's FOIA to Yellowstone came back negative. I haven't heard of any FOIA request to other national parks or forests.

If someone is sure of their solution, rather than just talk about it, why not make a simple FOIA request and see if the chest was turned in at the national park or national forest where they think the chest was found? It's free, does not require a lawyer, it can be done online in most cases, and it's perfectly within any citizen's rights, no questions asked. See https://www.foia.gov/faq.html.

Interestingly, Fenn made statements, once on a taped interview and recently to someone directly, that the information would eventually come out. That would probably not be consistent with there being no finder because why would he admit that a deception would eventually come out? But it would be consistent with scenario (2), presuming that the anonymity of the finder and the location of the find could only be held in secret by authorities until they were required by law to disclose them, i.e. when someone sends a FOIA request to the proper park.
Reply
09-21-2020, 03:40 AM,
#67
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
I believe he had it in his backyard as I've said...I wonder if anyone has checked for it. I would imagine that if it was found that they wouldn't say.
© Stephanie
Reply
09-21-2020, 03:01 PM,
#68
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(09-20-2020, 10:41 PM)Bartleby Wrote:
(09-20-2020, 07:04 PM)Brakinbad Wrote: And let me be clear. Forrest would have taken a loss on tangible property via abandonment back in 2010. The loss would have reflected the value of the chest. Now that he has it back in his possession, he would need to inventory the assets and file appropriate tax forms.

That sounds like one of the more reasonable and realistic ideas.

I agree that it 'could' call into question the existence of a finder. It really does seem like something is being covered up aside from just the finder, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions.

I can think of at least two more ideas for why Fenn might have needed to inventory the chest even if there is a finder:

(1) To relieve the finder of taxes by accepting the return of his abandoned property and in turn gifting it to the finder. Such a step would require an appraisal and documentation of the contents in addition to filing tax forms. All of that could be kept private.

(2) According to some published national park rules, if the chest was found and retrieved from public property, and proper procedures were followed, the finder would be obligated to return the chest to park officials at which point they would have sought out the original owner (Fenn obviously) and returned it to him to in turn release it the the finder. In that case the office in the photo might be that of the park/forest supervisor.

Number (2) was my first prediction. However, it seems clear that the office in the photo was in New Mexico where Fenn could visit safely and comfortably, not in Wyoming, though perhaps it could be done remotely due to the pandemic. Also, the proper procedures would require disclosure of the finder and the location. Those could be kept private by the park authorities, but perhaps subject to a FOIA request. No evidence has surfaced yet to support this idea, and someone's FOIA to Yellowstone came back negative. I haven't heard of any FOIA request to other national parks or forests.

If someone is sure of their solution, rather than just talk about it, why not make a simple FOIA request and see if the chest was turned in at the national park or national forest where they think the chest was found? It's free, does not require a lawyer, it can be done online in most cases, and it's perfectly within any citizen's rights, no questions asked. See https://www.foia.gov/faq.html.

Interestingly, Fenn made statements, once on a taped interview and recently to someone directly, that the information would eventually come out. That would probably not be consistent with there being no finder because why would he admit that a deception would eventually come out? But it would be consistent with scenario (2), presuming that the anonymity of the finder and the location of the find could only be held in secret by authorities until they were required by law to disclose them, i.e. when someone sends a FOIA request to the proper park.
Good, well developed post.

Both scenarios are plausible. Although I don't believe gifting absolves the tax burden. I think the limit is $15,000. Although, maybe it involved a more complicated transaction of some sorts. Anyway, I see what you are saying though. Maybe there was a reason.

Why did the finder not just send Forrest an email and then disappear? Seems to violate the "two can keep a secret" axiom since other people would know the secret (lawyers).
Reply
09-21-2020, 05:40 PM,
#69
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(09-21-2020, 03:01 PM)Brakinbad Wrote: Both scenarios are plausible. Although I don't believe gifting absolves the tax burden. I think the limit is $15,000. Although, maybe it involved a more complicated transaction of some sorts....
Why did the finder not just send Forrest an email and then disappear? Seems to violate the "two can keep a secret" axiom since other people would know the secret (lawyers).

Out of curiosity I looked up the gift tax. Seems we're both partially right.

The $15,000 per year exemption is correct. However there is also a $11.58 million dollar lifetime exemption ($23.16 million per married couple). You can give away as many $15,000 per year gifts as you want, tax free. Those do not reduce the lifetime maximum. Larger amounts are still tax free until they exceed the $23.16 million lifetime exemption. It also affects estate taxes after death. And the gift tax is never payed by the recipient anyway. And there are no state gift taxes except in Connecticut. (Source SmartAsset.com, data for 2019).

So, basically, if Fenn was willing and able to declare it a gift, the finder would owe no taxes at all.

That tax savings would be a heck of an incentive to take the chest down to Sante Fe. And that amount of tax savings would also be a near certain way for Fenn to know when it was found.

My working theory is that Fenn abandoned the chest on public land, then after a period of time, such as 60 days, if he did not return to take it back, the chest no longer belonged to Fenn. It was then under the jurisdiction of the land owner on which he abandoned it (the US government). However, if the national park or national forest has a policy or returning identifiable abandoned property to the original owner if they can be found and positively identified (as I have the impression that most do have), then, provided the finder followed the rules and turned it in to the park supervisor, the park supervisor would be obligated to return it to Fenn at which point Fenn could gift it to the finder tax free.

But if the finder absconded with the chest without following the rules, it's not clear (to me) whether the park/forest would still have a stake on the legal ownership of the chest. If that was the case, it would explain why Fenn and the finder were so silent. Rather than being silent to avoid the nuisance law suits as some seem to think, they might instead fear that the government could choose to come after the chest because park rules were not followed. That would be awful.

Whatever the details, it seems to be a reason to bring the chest to Forrest in Sante Fe and for Forrest to inventory the contents as seen in the photo. A witness such as a lawyer or notary might be necessary as well, which might explain why he did not simply inventory it at his home.

To add further intrigue, I wonder if a reputable auction house would even handle the sale without first resolving all ownership issues. If the landowner had even a plausible claim to ownership, the person who pays millions could be risking the full purchase price (say $2m). Who would be foolish enough to risk that kind of money without full details? The finder might be playing a risky game by keeping it secret. The exact hiding place is probably contained in Fenn's email of June 5th which can be subpoenaed from his ISP... and I would expect Ms. Andersen to pursue her unknown defendant that way if able. Two can keep a secret unless one is an email server.
Reply
09-21-2020, 07:18 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-21-2020, 07:26 PM by Brakinbad.)
#70
RE: Woo Hoo Barbara Anderson
(09-21-2020, 05:40 PM)Bartleby Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 03:01 PM)Brakinbad Wrote: Both scenarios are plausible. Although I don't believe gifting absolves the tax burden. I think the limit is $15,000. Although, maybe it involved a more complicated transaction of some sorts....
Why did the finder not just send Forrest an email and then disappear? Seems to violate the "two can keep a secret" axiom since other people would know the secret (lawyers).

Out of curiosity I looked up the gift tax. Seems we're both partially right.

The $15,000 per year exemption is correct. However there is also a $11.58 million dollar lifetime exemption ($23.16 million per married couple). You can give away as many $15,000 per year gifts as you want, tax free. Those do not reduce the lifetime maximum. Larger amounts are still tax free until they exceed the $23.16 million lifetime exemption. It also affects estate taxes after death. And the gift tax is never payed by the recipient anyway. And there are no state gift taxes except in Connecticut. (Source SmartAsset.com, data for 2019).

So, basically, if Fenn was willing and able to declare it a gift, the finder would owe no taxes at all.

That tax savings would be a heck of an incentive to take the chest down to Sante Fe. And that amount of tax savings would also be a near certain way for Fenn to know when it was found.

My working theory is that Fenn abandoned the chest on public land, then after a period of time, such as 60 days, if he did not return to take it back, the chest no longer belonged to Fenn. It was then under the jurisdiction of the land owner on which he abandoned it (the US government). However, if the national park or national forest has a policy or returning identifiable abandoned property to the original owner if they can be found and positively identified (as I have the impression that most do have), then, provided the finder followed the rules and turned it in to the park supervisor, the park supervisor would be obligated to return it to Fenn at which point Fenn could gift it to the finder tax free.

But if the finder absconded with the chest without following the rules, it's not clear (to me) whether the park/forest would still have a stake on the legal ownership of the chest. If that was the case, it would explain why Fenn and the finder were so silent. Rather than being silent to avoid the nuisance law suits as some seem to think, they might instead fear that the government could choose to come after the chest because park rules were not followed. That would be awful.

Whatever the details, it seems to be a reason to bring the chest to Forrest in Sante Fe and for Forrest to inventory the contents as seen in the photo. A witness such as a lawyer or notary might be necessary as well, which might explain why he did not simply inventory it at his home.

To add further intrigue, I wonder if a reputable auction house would even handle the sale without first resolving all ownership issues. If the landowner had even a plausible claim to ownership, the person who pays millions could be risking the full purchase price (say $2m). Who would be foolish enough to risk that kind of money without full details? The finder might be playing a risky game by keeping it secret. The exact hiding place is probably contained in Fenn's email of June 5th which can be subpoenaed from his ISP... and I would expect Ms. Andersen to pursue her unknown defendant that way if able. Two can keep a secret unless one is an email server.
You certainly are kind saying we are both partially right. I did indeed look it up and you are correct regarding the gift tax lifetime exemption. So Forrest could have gifted it to anyone he wished and they would be free from any federal tax burden. I'm gonna need some time for that to sink in.....

So running with the gift tax theory, Forrest would have asked the finder to bring the chest to his attorney's office in Sante Fe and thus inviting a full inventory of the chest and pictures. So this would also explain how Forrest would know the chest would be found. I never believed or understood the logic of someone taking the chest and not reporting it for tax purposes. I mean, tax evasion is a very real crime and it's just not worth prison time IMHO. As far the public land debate, that is the stick in the mud. Personally, I would have reported it to the park and dealt with the hassle.

You also bring up a good point regarding the auction houses. Seems like it's too hot to touch at this point.
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