[For news on NWT Mint, see http://about.ag/NWTMint.htm]
[For research on bullion dealers, see http://BullionDealerData.com]




Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
nobody

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #31 
I will not be in attendance unless I get really riled up and decide to buy a plane ticket.

But as more is revealed about the situation:

Why did BD stop advertising as allocated?
Were any customers made aware of BD's 'new' interpretation of the ToS?
Was any effort made to correct users on the forums who asserted that accounts were allocated?
What does "the purchase, sale, and storage of tangible, physical ... products" mean to BD and its officers?

To the extent customers funds were not used for precious metals, where were the funds spent?
Did any customers get priority for delivery over others?
Why does it appear that Charles' wife is is a claimant waiting for delivery?  Have deliveries of metal been made to other members of Charles' family over the years?

What was done with product people sent for storage?
Were catalog orders ever fulfilled from metal that was previously allocated?
What did BD interpret the words "in fungible form" to mean?

What are some "uses" of precious metals that BD has exercised in the past?

For catalog purchases, why does it appear that some product was never obtained?
For IRA's, what was the process used to ensure compliance with all IRS regulations regarding the composition of the assets within a portfolio?

What was the purpose of a commission on nucleo if it was not to induce a trade and enact a transfer of property rights?
When customers demanded refunds, what was the standard approach to handling it in 2000-2010? From 2013 onward?

Do you wish you'd shipped just one more bar out so I'd not be stirring the pot?
0
shooter magaven

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 138
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody

What was the purpose of a commission on nucleo if it was not to induce a trade and enact a transfer of property rights?


Their answer: For the simple honor and privilege of using our highly advanced and patented order matching software. <roll eyes>
0
saxster

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 109
Reply with quote  #33 

I’ve been thinking about the questions that I would like to ask if I were present at the Creditor’s Meeting on August 25. 

At the risk of tipping my hand to the prying eyes of the opposition, I’d like to make available for a limited time these questions for the most astute among us: JG, nobody, nemo, shooter, harley, among others. 
I'd like to hear any objections or suggestions to alter them.  The post will be deleted again by 9pm EST.  (Deleted already).

0
nobody

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #34 
I'm going to scowl at them more throughout the day, but in general: [thumb]
0
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemo
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG
<snip>

I am expecting to get a copy of the audio within perhaps a week or two after the meeting (an eternity for me), and should  be able to post it online.



What if someone attends and gives an initial summary?
What if someone posts their recording?
What if someone transcribes later? 
That would help all of us, right?


With Tulving, I got at least one summary of key points from an attorney that was present. I posted that, and then after getting the audio, posted a 'pseudo-transcript' (basically a sentence-by-sentence summary) along with the actual audio.

If someone supplied a recording, I can post it (unless told not to), as well as summarize it.

0
saxster

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 109
Reply with quote  #36 
The audio transcript is admissible in a court of law?

Nemo, I write boldly because that's how I think.
0
shooter magaven

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 138
Reply with quote  #37 
Can we assume that the larger creditors and their attorneys that likely will attend this meeting have uncovered and deduced similar information about BD's (alleged) questionable operational procedures as we in this forum have?

Is it possible that the ultimate attendees of this meeting may have never heard of this forum or the experiences of other customers.
0
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxster
The audio transcript is admissible in a court of law?

Nemo, I write boldly because that's how I think.


The answer is "it depends" (see http://www.burr.com/NewsResources/Resources/~/media/A6F4291FD3A14CEDA0CC8C503F42785E.ashx for more details).

0
nobody

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:

<stammers>Ww-what was that??  Please cite. 


If you search for 'mcallister' in the couple of lists of website claimants/people they filed, you'll find one that looks interesting at least to my untrained eyes.  I don't have the pair in front of me now, but the same email appears twice, with a different first name each time.

I'm not saying it _is_ his wife, but it certainly appears possible.

-n

EDIT: Ah, it was in the certificate of service.

0
saxster

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 109
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG


The answer is "it depends" (see http://www.burr.com/NewsResources/Resources/~/media/A6F4291FD3A14CEDA0CC8C503F42785E.ashx for more details).



excerpt from burr.com

"Let the practitioner be warned that while it may seem like hearsay and obviously inadmissible, and while it may also seem dangerously close to a violation of the principles of due process, courts may find 341 meeting transcripts admissible as substantive evidence."

I don't know how many opportunities a claimant, (without certified legal representation), may have to induce the opposition to "spill the beans" and admit they've defrauded him/her.  But the 341 meeting seems like a golden, (italics and shade denote emphasis from this writer), opportunity.

The questions that I've crafted are designed to do two things:
1.  Maximize and prioritize the amount paid to customers who held stored bullion with BDI up to the moment of suspension of service.  Questions there could induce the debtor to admit that customer's bullion was their own property, never considered the assets of BDI.
2.  The failure of BDI to report missing bullion to authorities is tantamount to an admission that they themselves stole it while covering up the truth.

If the questions seem too hard hitting to the US Trustee running the 341 and somehow overstep the intention of the 341, perhaps they should be softened and made more palatable.  I've tried to keep the questions on point by always orienting them towards merely seeming to ask, "Why is BDI in bankruptcy?" and "How vulnerable is BDI to their creditors?"

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the US Trustee views the 341 as a "fishing expedition" as well and will entertain the questions from an informed and articulate Creditor as extremely interesting.

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.