[ 2012 ] Fairmont / Sunchaser / Northwynd official thread with lawsuit info!

[marcthe12]

My understanding is pensions and RRSP cannot be touched. Keep in mind that the minute pension monies are deposited into your bank account your bank account is "game". Keep your money under your pillow.

change banks asap

 

[Scammed!]

So are people sending to their own MLA/MP in AB? or to all MLAs/MPs?

All...

 

[Punter]

What address did you write to?

We faxed a letter and then dropped another at the Courthouse.

FAX - 780 427 4348


#NAFR!

 

[#deceived]

Unfortunately, yes, we are a part of the lawsuit.

 

[#deceived]

We faxed a letter and then dropped another one off at the Courthouse.
Fax -780 427 4348

#NAFR!

Which courthouse? Where?

 

[Punter]

Which courthouse? Where?

Edmonton Provincial Court Civil Case. That's where the trial took place.

 

[#deceived]

Thanks for this information, the office is closed now but we will call him tomorrow morning.

My hope is that all sites from FB (secret and no so secret) unite forces with us ASAP, and retain a lawyer that will be able to communicate with Judge Young our concerns about the ridiculous settlement Geldert sent. This is the time we all should be together!

Please let us know what you find out!

 

[aden2]

We were scammed by Northmont in 2010 of $7269.50, forward to 2017 at 26.82% equals $25,540.26. This is my counterclaim against NW.

 

[Petus@18]

We were scammed by Northmont in 2010 of $7269.50, forward to 2017 at 26.82% equals $25,540.26. This is my counterclaim against NW.

Did you file a counterclaim on your own? I understand we need a lawyer?

 

[aden2]

MG would never present this to NM, even when he claimed he negotiated a deal, so I told him to quit playing games!
When I get my judgement I will file a dispute note claiming what they owe me because of 2009-10 Fraud Scheme. In the meantime I will go in detail today and send them a DEMAND BILL for this amount..

 

[Bewildered]

I am in the Yorkton area. Been here almost 10 years, but was a lifelong Albertan when I bought the headache in 1990. Someone suggested picketing the Northwynd office in Calgary the past few days. Doubt my car would have started and since the STC is gone, options are limited. (Besides, picketing is a warm weather project, as any Union organizer will agree. Freezing your butts off to a non-audience is best done at the end of the strike...)

 

[Bewildered]

Anti-fraud has my complaint from 2013 I even have my case number - nothing! Consumer protection in Alberta, talked with them years ago, I was told directly by their office last week that they investigated and did a forensic audit and passed it on to the RCMP. I said that would mean there were concerns if they passed it on to the RCMP and he said yeah. Of course M.G. wouldn’t have the brains to look into this but maybe Judge Youngs office should be, the Justice Minister, etc. All will be getting additional calls from me again. Judge Youngs office deserves a 24/7 call line for how she left us hanging in my opinion on the interest. Total bailout by her.
KEEP THE MOMENTUM GOING

 

[Lily123]

Ok posters, send Judge Young a fax reminding her of her ruling regarding interest and costs. Also, the fact that they are threatening an unknown penalty if we do not immediately accept their "deal" and thereby not allow her to hear us individually as she said in document below. Isn't that extortion??

Her fax number: 780 427 4348

Here is court document.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.

I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.

If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.

You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.

Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
patricia@geldertlaw.com
accounting@geldertlaw.com
info@geldertlaw.com
michael@geldertlaw.com
intrawest@geldertlaw.com


Mr. Geldert

I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it.

Thank-you for ‎finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with. These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated. I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.

The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.

“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”

As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval. You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.

This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.

As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated. As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.

Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow. This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.

Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council. This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.

Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont. She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.

You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.

You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.

Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in give them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.

‎Regards,

 

[torqued]

I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.

I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.

If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.

You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.

Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
patricia@geldertlaw.com
accounting@geldertlaw.com
info@geldertlaw.com
michael@geldertlaw.com
intrawest@geldertlaw.com


Mr. Geldert

I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it.

Thank-you for ‎finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with. These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated. I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.

The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.

“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”

As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval. You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.

This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.

As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated. As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.

Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow. This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.

Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council. This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.

Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont. She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.

You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.

You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.

Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in give them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.

‎Regards,

That is an awesome letter! As they say you took the words out of my mouth!!!

 

[servemeout]

A few years ago, I discussed my personal finances with a financial planner. Based on the present situation I would be able to support my self until age 93. Based on the amount NM want to coerce, I have one question - Who is going to support me when my funds run out? This is the question that I will be asking every government official I contact. We opted out of the MG group and are, as he put it, on our own.

The movement against NM is just starting. Judge Young did not state that they are free to extort any price they ask.

 

[RippedOff]

Thank goodness I just found this thread! What is the consensus? Are people contacting the new lawyer (Mathew Farrell)? Is he qualified or is he going to screw us over too? Or can we file a counterclaim on our own? Do we have to submit something before the Feb.13 deadline? Aden2 and Ultimate_Betrayal do you have any suggestions?

 

[greyskies]

So if we are part of the lawsuit, can you still file a counterclaim? I'm concerned about the timeline as set out by Geldert to finalize everything by Feb 15th.

 

[MgolferL]

I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.

I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.

If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.

You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.

Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
patricia@geldertlaw.com
accounting@geldertlaw.com
info@geldertlaw.com
michael@geldertlaw.com
intrawest@geldertlaw.com


Mr. Geldert

I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it.

Thank-you for ‎finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with. These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated. I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.

The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.

“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”

As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval. You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.

This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.

As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated. As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.

Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow. This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.

Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council. This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.

Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont. She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.

You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.

You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.

Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in give them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.

‎Regards,

Fantastic letter. We should all send one to MG as soon as possible stating the facts as Ultimate Betrayal has done above. We have less than one month to get this thing re=opened.

 

[RippedOff]

MG would never present this to NM, even when he claimed he negotiated a deal, so I told him to quit playing games!
When I get my judgement I will file a dispute note claiming what they owe me because of 2009-10 Fraud Scheme. In the meantime I will go in detail today and send them a DEMAND BILL for this amount..

 

[RippedOff]

I'm not sure retaining Geldert is the answer. He is clearly out of his league. Even when the judge advised him, he did not act in our best interest.

 

[aden2]

Resort Villa Management Ltd
unit 170, 550 71 avenue SE
Calgary, AB, T2H 0S6
CUSTOMER CARE


IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED TO AVOID FURTHER COSTS:

STATEMENT

AMOUNT OWING FROM 2009-2010 FRAUDLENT SALES SCAM

TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $7269.50 IN 2010
INTEREST @26.82% FOR YEARS 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017

TOTAL OWING INCLUDING INTEREST $31,926.32

THIS MATTER HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH SERVICE ALBERTA, AND AS A RESULT THIS STATEMENT IS BEING SENT TO YOU FOR IMMEDIATE PAYMENT AND ATTENTION.

YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED EVERY YEAR SINCE 2013 OF THE FRAUDLENT SALES IN 2009-2010.

PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT $31,926.32 TO AVOID FURTHER COSTS.

sincerely,

 

[truthr]

A member of our litigation group has put together a survey for those who wish to participate, here is the link

https://s.surveyplanet.com/B1wQpSUEf

 

[jovially]

All...

I am new to this forum and I'm very glad I found it. Many people even angrier than myself. I too joined MG's class action with every confidence that even the most inept lawyer would be able to drive a bus through the illegal and immoral actions of NM. At that time in 2013 it would have cost me about $5000 to get out of Sunchaser. I now wish I'd taken that offer as my buy out is now double that (I realize this is a pittance compared to the mess some are in, but theft is theft no-matter what the amount). My biggest beef, aside from the outrageous interest rates, is the fact that we have to pay the annual maintenance fees for weeks that we have no way of recovering or getting any value for. This after MG advised us not to pay anything while the case was ongoing. In effect we are being punished by NM for exercising our legal and democratic right to dispute, retain counsel and sue. Yesterday I wrote to Danielle Smith thanking her for her show - pity it hasn't been followed up. I also emailed my story to my Calgary MP and MLA. My MLA's office called me back within minutes, to say they were already aware of the issue. The advice she gave me (her husband is a practicing lawyer incidentally) was for all of us to contact our own MP and MLA directly, but not by mass emailing all of, say, Calgary or Edmonton or Vancouver MLA's. Mass emails are sent by irate people all the time and tend to get little notice. So each of us should contact just our own representatives, in person if possible, and we will get much more traction. Also, if we are dissatisfied with MG in any way (which seems to be the case...!), definitely contact the Law Societies of BC and Alberta (and other provinces) as this service is free and if enough of us do this he will be investigated. Thanks a lot all and let's keep this going. Collectively we can do much in the 4 weeks prior to Feb 15.

 

[little frog]

I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.

I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.

If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.

You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.

Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
patricia@geldertlaw.com
accounting@geldertlaw.com
info@geldertlaw.com
michael@geldertlaw.com
intrawest@geldertlaw.com


Mr. Geldert

I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it.

Thank-you for ‎finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with. These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated. I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.

The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.

“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”

As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval. You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.

This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.

As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated. As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.

Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow. This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.

Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council. This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.

Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont. She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.

You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.

You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.

Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in give them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.

‎Regards,

I am new to this forum and wish that I had found it a long time ago. I fired MG early this week but he still emailed me the settlement invoice on January 10th. Naturally for him, he then omitted sending me the January 11th email. is there a way that I can contact you to forward it to my email?