Judge transfers subpoena from ff to heirs

[Beavertooth]

More than likely, everything is locked up in a Trust and the judge and lawyers will be denied access to the Trust information. If there is anything left in a will, it will not be enough to provide any benefit to the plaintiff.

Isn't she also going after the Finder, who supposedly hacked her solve? He would have money.

If the family doesn't know who the Finder is, where does this even lead? A few quick affidavits that "We know nothing" a la Sgt Schultz, and the pleadings are over.

I've heard that the lawyer knows who the "finder" is.

I was on that show Sunday night. Fenndy said he talked to FF atty on phone. At first he said HE himself knew where it was, then said attorney told him. Then he said the atty ASKED him (Fenndy) "where do you think it is." That right there is enough for Barbara to pull authority on subpoenaing the solve and the "finder," and I CAN'T WAIT.

This sounds like hearsay evidence from an uninvolved third party. If this was all it takes to "pierce the veil", a lot more characters would pop up in lawsuits saying what they heard or thought they heard in a phone conversation.

Also "where it is" is nebulous. Is he saying he knows where the chest is now? How is that relevant? Is the treasure in the chest? Has the chest been donated somewhere already?

Not trying to spoil your fun, but it is a tricky situation.

[LeadSolver]

I was just clarifying: lawyer did not say he knows who the finder is. He insinuated he knew where the box was found.

[Beavertooth]

I was just clarifying: lawyer did not say he knows who the finder is. He insinuated he knew where the box was found.

Gotcha. But what relevance would it be? Unless he planted it originally, or picked it up for Forrest, he has no personal knowledge of its whereabouts at any time during the 10 years (unless it was in his law office safe, I suppose). Any place Forrest may have told him may have been untrue, or a joke, or misunderstood. I am not sure if it is proof of anything to the court. Depending on when Fenn told him, Fenn could have been deliberately misleading vis-a-vis the lawsuits. Because of that possibility, Anderson (sp?) may not want him to testify.

[LeadSolver]

Because it invites "authority" to question other things and summon "finder" and solve.

[admin]

I was told by someone who's in contact with the lawyer that he knows who the finder is.

[LeadSolver]

I was told by someone who's in contact with the lawyer that he knows who the finder is.

Cool, I was told Sunday night on the show. I was also told since then that the supposed "finder" attorney is in the mix. I NEVER lie or try to make things interesting. In fact, I don't push things as much as I should.

[ravenhome777]

And then you wonder why the finder wanted to remain anonymous! Smart move by all accounts. He/she knows there's paranas in these waters. I would have done the same.

[admin]

And then you wonder why the finder wanted to remain anonymous! Smart move by all accounts. He/she knows there's paranas in these waters. I would have done the same.

No winner of a treasure hunt should ever be allowed to stay anonymous or it creates a playground for scammers who never have to hide anything to be found. There ALWAYS needs to be a list of finders. There also needs to be a clear end date or it never has to be found. Also, the value should be verified by a third party, or be a clear monetary value. Imagine someone offering jewelry for example as a prize. Is it perceived value to someone? Retail value? Wholesale value? As an industry we all should be standing together on these sticking points.

There's at least one treasure hunt starting that I believe has a good chance to be a money grab and there won't actually be a treasure found unless they can fool people enough to believe they have the money and will fund it that way. I have nothing to back that up, but logic makes me feel that's the case so I won't say who I believe that to be. I also think this treasure hunt's "value" is so high that it will cause regulation that will likely shut down the industry as politicians won't want it to interfere with their gambling industry even though these are games of skill.

[ravenhome777]

And then you wonder why the finder wanted to remain anonymous! Smart move by all accounts. He/she knows there's paranas in these waters. I would have done the same.

No winner of a treasure hunt should ever be allowed to stay anonymous or it creates a playground for scammers who never have to hide anything to be found. There ALWAYS needs to be a list of finders. There also needs to be a clear end date or it never has to be found. Also, the value should be verified by a third party, or be a clear monetary value. Imagine someone offering jewelry for example as a prize. Is it perceived value to someone? Retail value? Wholesale value? As an industry we all should be standing together on these sticking points.

There's at least one treasure hunt starting that I believe has a good chance to be a money grab and there won't actually be a treasure found unless they can fool people enough to believe they have the money and will fund it that way. I have nothing to back that up, but logic makes me feel that's the case so I won't say who I believe that to be. I also think this treasure hunt's "value" is so high that it will cause regulation that will likely shut down the industry as politicians won't want it to interfere with their gambling industry even though these are games of skill.

I respectfully disagree. I think we are just on-lookers. No one owes us anything. The way I see it, this is essentially a transaction. It's a transaction between the hider and the finder. What they decide to disclose and not disclose to us is their privilege. Same way an auction house can choose to keep the identity of the buyer anonymous. I especially think it's important to give the finder of a treasure hunt the option for anonymity after we have seen what shenanigans have occurred during the Forrest Fenn treasure hunt. Having your identity known instantly makes you famous. Some people don't want to be famous. Some people want to continue being an un-known entity that can go to the grocery store without being harassed. Being famous, or becoming a "known" person, changes your life dramatically. Some people do not want that. Just because someone was clever enough to win a treasure hunt, does not mean that we should force them to have a lifestyle change. Those are just my thoughts on the subject.

[admin]

And then you wonder why the finder wanted to remain anonymous! Smart move by all accounts. He/she knows there's paranas in these waters. I would have done the same.

No winner of a treasure hunt should ever be allowed to stay anonymous or it creates a playground for scammers who never have to hide anything to be found. There ALWAYS needs to be a list of finders. There also needs to be a clear end date or it never has to be found. Also, the value should be verified by a third party, or be a clear monetary value. Imagine someone offering jewelry for example as a prize. Is it perceived value to someone? Retail value? Wholesale value? As an industry we all should be standing together on these sticking points.

There's at least one treasure hunt starting that I believe has a good chance to be a money grab and there won't actually be a treasure found unless they can fool people enough to believe they have the money and will fund it that way. I have nothing to back that up, but logic makes me feel that's the case so I won't say who I believe that to be. I also think this treasure hunt's "value" is so high that it will cause regulation that will likely shut down the industry as politicians won't want it to interfere with their gambling industry even though these are games of skill.

I respectfully disagree. I think we are just on-lookers. No one owes us anything. The way I see it, this is essentially a transaction. It's a transaction between the hider and the finder. What they decide to disclose and not disclose to us is their privilege. Same way an auction house can choose to keep the identity of the buyer anonymous. I especially think it's important to give the finder of a treasure hunt the option for anonymity after we have seen what shenanigans have occurred during the Forrest Fenn treasure hunt. Having your identity known instantly makes you famous. Some people don't want to be famous. Some people want to continue being an un-known entity that can go to the grocery store without being harassed. Being famous, or becoming a "known" person, changes your life dramatically. Some people do not want that. Just because someone was clever enough to win a treasure hunt, does not mean that we should force them to have a lifestyle change. Those are just my thoughts on the subject.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have read that some states require a winners identity to be disclosed. As a community, I think it should be standard that we support that since it can lead to sketchiness if someone's able to say...oh I have a million dollars I hid...pay me and go find it. The only way to protect ourselves and this community from being shut down in my belief is by only promoting treasure hunts that will have those standards.