The Latest In The 3-ring Circus, Discount Attorneys? Options

[Noahswife]

Money talks, and apparently, Janice Marsh listens.

I don't know Janice Marsh from the man in the moon, but these documents prove one thing about her....She is not a public servant; she is a politician. Flash some money in front of her (as 3ABN has apparently done) and she's at your beck and call. Makes you want to upchuck, doesn't it?

Say, would this constitute a bribe? Is there any way to find out if any other money has changed hands in regard to this development? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but we all know that it is best to explore all avenues. This world that we live in is about as far from honest as you can get.

J4J,

If you are clueless about the RESPONSIBILITIES of a Trustee in a consumer bankruptcy proceeding, I suggest you do some reading. I would suggest the following to start with:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/public_affairs...t/docs/fs05.htm

You might not like the results of Janice Marsh doing her job but to suggest she has done something unethical here is ridiculous. Why are you not asking why Mr. Joy failed to list the domain names as an asset?

Bob~

The check would be made out to her as Trustee not to her personally.

I presume Mr. Heal will be filing a response to these motions.

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Dec 1 2007, 10:32 PM

[lurker]

What's in a (domain)name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[princessdi]

J4j is exactly right, Ian. You and your friends need to respect Bob's request. You are disrespectful is insisting on calling him something other than he has requested., in favor of what he specially requested you not to call him.

Now, you are not Danny or anyone at 3ABN, and this is not a court of law or even the one where the lawsuit is being held. You need to cnduct yourself appropriately here. Now how you address Bob to his face or behind his back, is no concern of mine, but you wil respect his wishes here becuase as a member he asked and is deserving of at least common respect if you can't find your christianty to do so. It makes no difference when he hasked. Point is he asked you, need to respect that. It is purely childish for you to continue to make it an issue

Don't wag your finger at me, Ian.

Before Bob made his preference known, this was not an issue. When the "Robert" stuff continued AFTER Bob made it clear that he prefers "Bob"....no, that was NOT courteous and respectful. That was rude, childish and inconsiderate. I was known for years by a variation on my name which I grew to hate after a number of years. I eventually made it known that I preferred to be called by my given name, and finally resorted to ignoring people until they respected my wishes. The point is, when I asked people to stop calling me by that pet name, I expected them to respect my wishes. Those who did not were not acknowledged until they did.

You want to call him "Pickle"? There are others here who are still identified by their login names, even when their real names are known to all, and if Bob does not make an issue of it, then it should be no problem. If, however, he does make it known that this is a problem for him, then we all need to respect that.

Fact is, it IS respectful to refer to one as "Mr." or "Mrs." I thought it was rather kind of FHB to make that reference. As well, FHB should be commended for deciding to respect Bob's wishes to not be referred to as "Robert". You have implied that FHB is only refusing to say "Robert" because he was instructed not to do so on this board. Who's the childish one?

Ian, it is this attitude which causes your credibility rating here to continue to plummet. You are not doing yourself any favors. If I were you, I'd change my tactics. Just some friendly advice.

[justice4jesus]

J4J,

If you are clueless about the RESPONSIBILITIES of a Trustee in a consumer bankruptcy proceeding, I suggest you do some reading. I would suggest the following to start with:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/public_affairs...t/docs/fs05.htm

You might not like the results of Janice Marsh doing her job but to suggest she has done something unethical here is ridiculous. Why are you not asking why Mr. Joy failed to list the domain names as an asset?

Bob~

The check would be made out to her as Trustee not to her personally.

I presume Mr. Heal will be filing a response to these motions.

nw

I'm clueless on ALL of it. That's why one asks questions.

Who's suggesting what? I said in my original post on this topic that I am not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just wondering if there is any way to make sure that everything is on the level. In this day and age, would you be naive enough to blindly trust that everyone involved is being completely honest? If so, you're setting yourself up for a HUGE fall. If there is anyone who knows for a fact that "the system" is cold, heartless, cruel and dishonest, that "anyone" would be me. Details later, when the time is right.

Why am I not asking why Gailon didn't list the domain names as an asset? Because I don't care. That's why.

[Pickle]

Bob~

The check would be made out to her as Trustee not to her personally.

I presume Mr. Heal will be filing a response to these motions.

nw

nw,

Anyone providing a higher offer, which could be declined, had to provide a check for only $5000, not for their higher offer. Would you know if this is pretty standard?

I was not intending to suggest that it was being made out to her personally, but to her in her capacity as trustee. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Do you know how such trustees get paid? Do they get paid out of any proceeds from sales of assets? They obviously have to earn their living somehow. Or are they on a fixed salary paid by the U.S. government?

edited for content

This post has been edited by Clay: Dec 2 2007, 10:05 AM

[Pickle]

The discount attorneys ....

I would suggest you consult your attorney friend to find out what you could get sued for and what would be considered free speech.

[Pickle]

One other thought, wouldn't $5000 be a pretty cheap price for all of Gailon's pre-petition claims against Danny Shelton and 3ABN? Is it really in the best interests of the bankruptcy system and the creditors to let all that go for such a measly, paltry, miniscule sum?

edited for content

This post has been edited by Clay: Dec 2 2007, 10:06 AM

[Clay]

thread has run its course in terms of usefulness or useful information.... its closed