This week, Judge Jones will decide on whether a evidentiary hearing will be held on the numerous motions filed by the parties for attorneys fees and with respect to entering the judgment in this case.  With the filing of a second lawsuit, class action, by Bickel, questions are raised about, who is covered in the first vs. the second suit. Numerous other issues beg for resolution for all direct lenders and not just  a few.  (Don’t forget the left out 892 plaintiffs).  Also, how is the attorney fee provision allocated based upon Bickel’s retainer agreement.  No discovery was allowed in the first suit and perhaps some testimony should be allowed now.  Many DLs, cannot understand the “shoot from the hip” approach of Bickel in filing the racketeering case.  Many ironic situations have surfaced in which several DLs want a refund of their Bickel fees and to get out of the retainer agreement altogether.–  Then there is the way the Bickel fee agreement was entered into with high pressure sales tactics and little attorney contact–which we believe makes the fee agreement void.  MOST IMPORTANT IS “WHAT DO THE DIRECT LENDERS REALLY GET IN THEIR POCKETS?”  WHO ARE WE WORKING FOR, THE LAWYERS OR THE PEOPLE DAMAGED.  PERHAPS DLS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIRE BICKEL, VOID THE FEE AGREEMENT AND NEGOTIATE A DIRECT SETTLEMENT WITH THE PLAINTIFFS!.   LOOKS TO US LIKE THE DLS NEED A LAWYER TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM BICKEL  THAT APPEARS TO HAVE A CONFICT OF INTEREST ARGUING FOR FEES BUT NOT REALLY DISCLOSING WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING. silar trial motion for evidentary hearing

The  51% rule by every lawyer and Judge Jones) we  have talked to is unconstitutional.   You cannot impair the rights of minority owners by a vote of 51%.   We agree.  Recent Ballots submitted to Binford lenders illustrate the point.  How can a vote be taken on such limited information presented by a servicer.  Fact is Cross will not even return some Direct Lenders calls.   In our view, serious violations of the securities laws are afoot also since a manager is making decisions for investors based upon limited informatin and disclosure and at the same time, brokering the sale of Direct Lender interest on their web site.   If a Direct Lender wants to sue the co-borrower he should be allowed to proceed. (This option was sustained in one suit in Nevada District Court recently) notwithstanding the 51% argument. Judgment was sustained in favor of the single Direct Lender.   Shortly a lawsuit will be filed to invalidate the 51% rule and those DLs that feel the same should join in or support the litigation by contacting Great White at:  greatwhitedata@yahoo.com.   If you don’t protect your individual rights, don’t complain when others get paid and you do not.

GWI has attempted to recoup money back from high roller beneficiaries  of the USA Capital Fraud on a voluntary basis for the victims.  One such sample letter is attached (redacted).  Notwithstanding this individual thought it was a good idea to sue Great White and myself in the recent racketeering lawsuit.  Foolish decision since she could end up in real trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit.  It depresses me to think that Kehl, who sold $ 2.6 million of their investments to innocent investors just before the bankruptcy filng by USA should now be the recipient of a large share of the current trial award.  Remember also, that Kehl’s made millions on Dirt Holdings next door to Direct Lenders that lost $ 7 million at the same time. Kehl redacted letter

Vito Minerva lawsuit attached along with acct info. minerva accountingMinerva_complaint_3_10_11

Lawyers cannot file frivolous lawsuits.  The RICO lawsuit filed against GW/Orrock is exactly that.  Rasmussen and Bickel will get formal notice of the intention to seek sanctions against them for the filing.  Also, GW will prevail on a motion to dismiss since the allegations do not meet the bare minimum to sustain a RICO lawsuit or any lawsuit for that matter.  As we said, Bickel and Rasmussen are trying to cover their tracks for the fact they have Direct Lender claims against them for misrepresentations under the retainer agreements and failure to perform under the 892 case.   Direct Lenders may think they can go along for the ride, but will find out that they also have liability for joining in such actions.