Motion to Authorize Sale of Condominium – 2227 Hickory Run

16 Oct

On October 15, 2013, Joseph W. Grier, III, Receiver, filed a motion to approve a sale of a condominium known as 2227 Hickory Run for a purchase price of $98,500 upon the terms and conditions more particularly described in the motion.

If you do not want the Court to approve this motion, or if you want the Court to consider your views, then on or before October 29, 2013, you or your attorney must do the following: (1) file a written response explaining your position with the Court; (2) mail, fax or email a copy of your response to the Receiver; and (3) attend a hearing on your response, if the Court schedules a hearing.

If you or your attorney do not take these steps, the Court may decide that you do not oppose the relief the Receiver requests and may enter an order approving the motion to approve the sale.

Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2227 Hickory Run

Exhibit A – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2227 Hickory Run

Exhibit B – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2227 Hickory Run

Exhibit C – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2227 Hickory Run

Exhibit D – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2227 Hickory Run

Exhibit E – Motion to Authorize Sale of Condo – 2227 Hickory Run


14 Responses to “Motion to Authorize Sale of Condominium – 2227 Hickory Run”

  1. Chris October 16, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

    How lets sell the rest and collect the acct holders that James gave loans to and get all .

  2. Austinvm October 16, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

    How about a motion to pay some of the investors with the monies that have been collected so far? What a complete joke this is – the receiver has not even asked for information regarding what is owed us. How about the receiver making a comment regarding some sort of payment to the investors? Too much to ask??

    • C October 17, 2013 at 3:46 pm #

      When are you going after all loans that James gave out it’s about 500 thousands . That would help in greeting all accts more money back .

    • John Herbert October 17, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

      Hear, hear, well said, and actually spot on old boy.

  3. Richard Smith October 18, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    Everyone, always keep cost / reward notion in your mind when you make any comments.
    Our receiver already ate $130,000 accounting nearly 3%out of total $4.7 million alleged amount in the first 6 months while the receiver of zeek spent less than 0.5% in their first 6 months. As I kept saying we can’t expect any efficient operation in our case given the limited size of the fund.
    More importantly, Zeek receiver commented that “the team has spent a large amount of time working on “clawback” litigation against the Zeek profiteers” at the time he made the 2nd fee application in Feb ’13, yes they did so much effort to collect money back from the net winners already in the first 6 months, but didn’t work as expected, say;
    1st Negotiation: Oct ’12 Sent Subpoena — until Apr ’13 No tangible clawback seems to have made at all
    2nd Negotiation: Apr ’13 – July ’13 — Strong threat to all net winners but settled with only 135 people out of 77,000 net winners (0.17 % people), recovered amount was $1.8 million out of $292 million (6%) and this $1.8 million was the final settlement amount discounted by 44% out of original payback requirement of $3.2 million.
    These facts clearly prove the extreme difficulty of clawback. Despite so much the carrots (discount offer) and the sticks (threats by subpoena & letters) they have used, Zeek receiver was not able to collect single dime from the netwinners at the time of Feb ’13 but they had already spent so much money for clawback litigation by then (let me remind you that their fee of 0.6% including clawback effort was still much less than our receiver’s 3%) , and so far the recovered amount is $1.8 million that accounts merely 0.6% out of $292 million paid to the net winners. How little it is, imagine even $10 million NET recovery would be only $10+ average additional distribution to each victim for them. Zeek receiver’s big noise about clawback looks just a propaganda tool to invite the net winners to make voluntary surrender / settlement, and it doesn’t seem to have worked well. I understand Zeek receiver will finally make litigation to the net winners in what they claim as the most efficient methods though now it casts huge doubt on how it could be real value for the victims (yes it’s value for the receiver because they are also compensated by hourly rate and they earn as long as the litigation lasts), the important number is NET Recovery (gross recovery – all cost).
    Having said, applying this clawback attempt to our case is absolutely out of question to me, pls go to my past comments here for more detail rationale.
    Everyone, let’s be practical and see the reality in our case, we can’t expect any merit of us but only the receiver’s merit from the clawback, so please don’t ask for it.
    At this stage, we should object & avoid any of our receiver’s unnecessary activities that must end up with decrease of our real distribution, instead we should urge the receiver to expedite all process, namely liquidation of the collected assets / victims’ claim / payment to all the victims, which is the most realistic and the best choice for us. Let’s receive the real money back from the receiver to use for our better future to move away from this nightmare as quickly as possible.

    • Judgment Day October 31, 2013 at 12:52 pm #

      I am definitely for clawing back from anyone who got funds via Mason, which belong to other investors.

      Yet, legal cost is an important factor.

      In light of the relatively small sum in this case, I would dispense with all negotiations. Just issue 1 letter with an offer to pay back the funds with a firm deadline.

      I am against any form of negotiation, which will take time and will eat up our funds.

      Deadline comes, no payback of funds, then sue not only for the sums they took from others via Masons, and also for punitive damages for refusing to cooperate with the receivers, and indirectly harming other investors.

      Another cheaper method is to even dispense with the letter of offer, just sue them.

      Then they will think hard to repay the funds.

      If they have a good chance of losing more than what they have received from Mason (the original payment plus other damages), then they will find a way to repay.

      • Chris October 31, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

        You are so right sue them.

  4. Richard Smith November 1, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

    Yes, sending a letter to the winners to surrender doesn’t work, which has been clearly proven by the case of Zeek, let me remind you of the hard fact that Zeek receiver sent even subpoena to net winners from October ‘12 and up until April ’13 they couldn’t collect even a dime, and massive threat between April – July ’13 resulted in 135 settlement that accounts only 0.17% of all net winners.
    I personally can’t find any good reasons to ask our receiver to do this simple task for nothing but costs us at least some.


  5. Richard Smith November 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm #

    When it comes to litigation, let me explain the reasons why our recovery will be so limited. We can think about 3 cases with different type of people.
    1. Can’t payback — usually many of Ponzi participants are vulnerable people like retired, unemployed or low-income who are attracted by high-yield return, and given the conditions of struggling to make ends meet they often used up all winning moneys by now thus simply can’t give it back. Even they can, they will make all efforts to resist it, so even after court judgement we still have to pay so much fee to debt collection lawyer / agent up until confiscating their asset & liquidating into cash, then I’m afraid all the recoverable money will not be left for us victims but will be distributed to the professional participants in this whole process.
    2. Fight back — on the other hand, there are handful of rich people or organizations who can fight back the allegation based on various reasons such as this rationale: , whatever the final judgement court makes, the litigation takes time and our final restitution amount will be diminished by the huge receiver’s fee.
    3. Won’t payback — finally, there are also a handful of smartass who already did everything to conceal the money. I heard a lot of stories that many Zeek winners transferred their money into overseas. Once it happens, the first biggest challenge for the receiver is finding out the location of the money that is very difficult if the winners use complicated offshore structures such as trust / IBC with nominee directors, so called shell companies. Even the receiver can locate it (it will have been spending so much up to this stage though), then the 2nd challenge is if the jurisdiction where the asset is stored will recognize US law system. Despite OECD pressure & latest G20 agreements, still many of offshore jurisdictions keep protective stance, and some jurisdictions do ignore even criminal judgement validity in other country means just civil judgement is extremely weak, and unfortunately they often don’t have good adherence to the rule of law and some have strong anti-duress law, means there will be little enforcement power of US domestic court order to seize the assets. The receiver should first hire local attorney and then go to local court to fight for his claim. The receiver must not have a clue how long & how much it does take to finish and most importantly no idea how much probability of win under unknown legal system. The sly winners may choose these jurisdictions to hide money and may split the money into several jurisdictions, then it’s a labyrinth, and it’s absolutely silly for the receiver to pursue these money because it’s almost impossible to estimate the possible recovery in this case – the sheer legal complexity and cost of such a long distance international collection effort can’t be justified (the receiver may even loose in local courts).

    It doesn’t work as you imagine.


  6. Richard Smith November 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm #


    Finally, again, I sympathize your anger against all net winners, and I am definitely in the same position.
    However don’t be emotional but please be practical, clawback doesn’t work in our case and keep pushing it is absolutely harming all other victims because it clearly reduces the final restitution to us.

    Net recovery from clawback can only be expected in huge case like Zeek ($600 million) or at least tens of $millions cases that can utilize economy of scale, our Case of $4.7 million is no way to justify any single action as fully explained in the rationale in my previous posts.

    If our receiver tries to do this, it will be the time for us to write to the court by claiming the receiver’s violation of fiducial duty.
    The reason is that they are acting on their own interest with a great risk of the victim’s final benefit, based on the fact that it’s no way for the receiver to estimate the net recovery by accurately assessing the 3 uncertainties I listed in my previous post of why litigation doesn’t work (especially for 3.).

    All what we want is immediate distribution of the current recovered assets to us victims before the receiver keeps eating it by their fee with unnecessary actions.


  7. Jimmy Mac November 4, 2013 at 4:36 am #

    Does the receiver know who the recruiters were who got so much kickback. They must be well in the black from this sordid affair.

    Shaun Ambrose was the person who recruited me and many others.

  8. brandon November 5, 2013 at 6:48 pm #

    I was one of the recurters and James ruined my life . I am sorry but the real crook still on the loose is Chis Justus still driving his nice new shiny car and luving his. Mountiantiop home

  9. Richard Smith November 7, 2013 at 10:03 am #

    The net winners we refer here include promoters.

    We should assume that the receiver must have obtained and fully examined all collectable information by now based on the facts that our case has only 500 participants with $4.7 million amounts compared to Zeek with over 1 million participants & $600 million size and Zeek’s receiver had already started crawback within 2 months after the closure of the scheme.

    When it comes to promoters, you may say Zeek, 77,000 net winners are exactly in the position of promoters / recruiters because most of their earnings came from the commissions.
    In any case, if we want anything back from them, then the process the receiver could take would be crawback and as I explained many times (most probably 3. case in my above comment of why litigation doesn’t work applies to the promoters) , it doesn’t work in our case.

    All what we should ask our receiver is to distribute the currently available recovered fund to us victims as quickly as possible before any diminishment.


  10. Richard Smith November 7, 2013 at 11:10 am #

    Is Chis Justus also a promoter?
    If you imply prosecuting (criminal) the promoter, let me share the hard fact that there has been extremely few shills who were actually charged, probably less than 0.01% out of hundred of thousands (or even millions) cases in the US Ponzi history.
    Unless shill’s earnings are exceptionally high at least millions or they themselves become key organizers of scheme earning again millions, they are usually not prosecuted because generally speaking it’s quite difficult for authorities to prove that they have actual knowledge of fraud even though looks obvious in many cases.
    Don’t forget US enforcement agencies also act based on cost benefit. They need in depth investigation and should collect full evidences to prove guilty which takes a lot of time & money (it’s tax payers’ money). Fraudsters & Ponzi are mushrooming, stopping a new scheme to arrest its chief organizer is much easier and cost effective rather than pursuing promoters or lower-level complicity, unfortunately regulators and prosecutors simply don’t have enough resources to go after everyone – that’s exactly the comment I received from SEC staff 3 years ago.

    Anyhow, just forget about these people who will only turn out to be our new cost (or the reason delaying the payment to us) when we ask the receiver or any authority to do anything on them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: