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

[CleoB]

Misrepresentation and lying to clients, not working in your best interests, the list against Michael Geldert is long and ugly. His professional ethics are nonexistent! EVERY person whom he "represented" in this fiasco CAN and SHOULD sue Michael Geldert. Some of us have proof of threats against us. So, I find your statement regarding suing a little disingenuous. Unless you have personal knowledge of each and every aspect of our cases you can only relate your own personal experience.

I think the problem may lie with the lawyer. From my understanding the lawyer may see the issues as being three distinct problems and not willing to take on the whole group for conflict of issue concerns.......something MG should have done.

 

[J's Garage]

Misrepresentation and lying to clients, not working in your best interests, the list against Michael Geldert is long and ugly. His professional ethics are nonexistent! EVERY person whom he "represented" in this fiasco CAN and SHOULD sue Michael Geldert. Some of us have proof of threats against us. So, I find your statement regarding suing a little disingenuous. Unless you have personal knowledge of each and every aspect of our cases you can only relate your own personal experience.

You are trying to read something into my comment that wasn't there. Perhaps that is a failure in my message. I was brief on certain points.

Simply put. Pay more attention to the "at this moment".

What was meant was this. For the most part, particularly in the case of being able to get access to the law society special fund, they will only cover the monetary losses. AT this moment, the only group that has established monetary losses is those paid to settle. The default group thus far only has threats of a consent judgement, while most likely to be put in place sooner than later. The option 2 clients have not had the final documents for judgement on the outstanding statement of claims. Plus there is a potential appeal.

Unless they are only suing for the retainer paid to MG, the point I made was in the timing.

I'm not the one that claimed to have personal knowledge of each and every aspect. I was suggesting a reason why I thought it was appropriate that there be separate groups.

It is divisive to be pointing out the fault's you found with my message in other groups. Especially, when your claim against me was not one that I actually made. But hey, I would be the disingenuous one.

 

[truthr]

Misrepresentation and lying to clients, not working in your best interests, the list against Michael Geldert is long and ugly. His professional ethics are nonexistent! EVERY person whom he "represented" in this fiasco CAN and SHOULD sue Michael Geldert. Some of us have proof of threats against us. So, I find your statement regarding suing a little disingenuous. Unless you have personal knowledge of each and every aspect of our cases you can only relate your own personal experience.

You are trying to read something into my comment that wasn't there. Perhaps that is a failure in my message. I was brief on certain points.

Simply put. Pay more attention to the "at this moment".

What was meant was this. For the most part, particularly in the case of being able to get access to the law society special fund, they will only cover the monetary losses. AT this moment, the only group that has established monetary losses is those paid to settle. The default group thus far only has threats of a consent judgement, while most likely to be put in place sooner than later. The option 2 clients have not had the final documents for judgement on the outstanding statement of claims. Plus there is a potential appeal.

Unless they are only suing for the retainer paid to MG, the point I made was in the timing.

I'm not the one that claimed to have personal knowledge of each and every aspect. I was suggesting a reason why I thought it was appropriate that there be separate groups.

It is divisive to be pointing out the fault's you found with my message in other groups. Especially, when your claim against me was not one that I actually made. But hey, I would be the disingenuous one.

When speaking to experienced group litigation lawyers they have all concurred that although there are commonalities there are also distinct differences creating obvious conflicts, not only within the "groups" but within individuals themselves.

I suspect J's Garage was only trying to point that out to prevent anymore unnecessary infighting within our original litigation group. It is only human nature to be attracted to and connect with like minded individuals - doesn't mean any one person is playing "nicer" than the others, just makes being in a group setting more efficient.

IMO we have come to a distinct crossroads wherein there are individuals who want to approach the upcoming appeal in AB differently for different reasons. If some of those individuals wish to self represent or ban together to retain counsel - why should any of us judge any of them?? What I would suggest is that those who choose to ban together, make sure you are clear about your expectations of not only the end result you are seeking but how the group should function.

 

[Just Looking Around]

... at this moment the only group that could sue MG, is the Option 1 group who has settled and paid. Neither the Option 1 default, nor the Option 2 clients have established "damages".

I don't understand how you conclude Option 2s aren't in a position to sue Michael Geldert? ACJ L.D. Young armed Northmont with a Judgement against Option 2s, and Option 1s in default, based on Northmont's amended statement of claim. If the Option 1s submitted their paperwork but not their money, then they have a Consent Judgement against them.

... Right now the only group that is ensured the opportunity to proceed with the appeal are the option 2 clients.

I agree but, this Appeal has nothing to do with litigation against Michael Geldert. Option 2s could have sued Geldert yesterday and they could sue him tomorrow.

The option 1 default clients need to review the possibility of contesting the consent judgment. Hypothetically, if the consent judgement can be refuted and negated,.... or even if the whole Settlement Agreement can be fought,.... one group of clients would have a fight to get their money refunded, another group is only out their retainer, and another group was not subjected to the agreement.

"Contesting the consent judgement", is the least likely litigation to succeed. They agreed to the debt.

"Hypothetically"? Hypothetically Wankel is going to go full-on Grinch, grow a heart, and give all the Whos back their money. It's not going to happen. Do you seriously think Norton Rose Fulbright, with 4,000+ lawyers on staff, arguably the largest law firm in the world, wrote a Settlement Agreement you can refute?

I am so disappointed in the division of interests against both Geldert and Northmont. You've divided yourselves and you will be conquered. You all missed Sunchaser Barbados point. 30-people? Who you going to sue with, say even $1,000 each? Nobody. Take the Geldert's group action against Sunchaser, what did that cost? Now divide that by 30. Or, divide it by 70 or 100, 200. You're lucky if you've enough money for one kick at the can. If you can't put your differences, which are not material, aside you won't get even one kick at the can. Why do you think the lawyer wants a limited number of people? He's reducing the denominator. Geldert isn't the Royal Bank, he only has so much insurance. He doesn't even own his World Headquarters, he rents, probably.

 

[dotbuhler]

Small problem since paying the 40 grand many of us are not financially able to do this. I wish those well that are able to pursue the fight. One has to keep in mind though that the Law Society from the lawyer I spoke with, provide the best counsel for their people. I hope whomever option 1 people have retained is up to the task.

Money is definitely a mitigating factor. My heart breaks for the many that caved to the pressure, but could not afford it. FEAR is a self-limiting emotion. Sadly, once fear takes over, logic goes out the door. At some point in time maybe we will even see a class action suit against Michael Geldert for what he has done. Anything is possible. My point was simply to not let anyone discourage those who are well within their legal rights to pursue lawyers who orchestrate such grief among those who paid for their representation.

 

[Been Around Awhile]

When speaking to experienced group litigation lawyers they have all concurred that although there are commonalities there are also distinct differences creating obvious conflicts, not only within the "groups" but within individuals themselves.

I suspect J's Garage was only trying to point that out to prevent anymore unnecessary infighting within our original litigation group. It is only human nature to be attracted to and connect with like minded individuals - doesn't mean any one person is playing "nicer" than the others, just makes being in a group setting more efficient.

IMO we have come to a distinct crossroads wherein there are individuals who want to approach the upcoming appeal in AB differently for different reasons. If some of those individuals wish to self represent or ban together to retain counsel - why should any of us judge any of them?? What I would suggest is that those who choose to ban together, make sure you are clear about your expectations of not only the end result you are seeking but how the group should function.

It's about money. It's about paying for a lawsuit. Self-Represent = Self-Funded. Think about that.

 

[truthr]

To my knowledge there are currently these distinct groups:

Option 1 - who have settled, signed the required documents and paid
Option 1 - who received the documents and have not signed the documents nor paid
Option 1 - who received the documents, signed them but have yet to pay as they applied for the hardship
Option 1 - who received the documents, signed them but have yet to pay as they applied for the hardship and may not pay

Option 2 - from BC and will have judgments filed against them as all their options regarding NM may well be exhausted
Option 2 - from AB who may have a chance at an appeal and/or trial de novo, also NM may be appealing Judge Young's Supplementary Decision on interest and cost

Within all the groups they may or may not have a valid claim against the "legal" team, however at this moment the only ones who can prove actual damages would be those who have paid or have a judgment against them. Kinda challenging to prove damages when it is still in litigation.

To my knowledge there has always been a division in interest regarding this litigation but our "legal" team went for the "strength in numbers", keep us separated to the detriment of all. Just my opinion based on lengthy communication with various members of the litigation group throughout the years.

So again there are commonalities but distinct differences and always have been.

 

[dotbuhler]

You are trying to read something into my comment that wasn't there. Perhaps that is a failure in my message. I was brief on certain points.

Simply put. Pay more attention to the "at this moment".

What was meant was this. For the most part, particularly in the case of being able to get access to the law society special fund, they will only cover the monetary losses. AT this moment, the only group that has established monetary losses is those paid to settle. The default group thus far only has threats of a consent judgement, while most likely to be put in place sooner than later. The option 2 clients have not had the final documents for judgement on the outstanding statement of claims. Plus there is a potential appeal.

Unless they are only suing for the retainer paid to MG, the point I made was in the timing.

I'm not the one that claimed to have personal knowledge of each and every aspect. I was suggesting a reason why I thought it was appropriate that there be separate groups.

It is divisive to be pointing out the fault's you found with my message in other groups. Especially, when your claim against me was not one that I actually made. But hey, I would be the disingenuous one.

Behind the scenes are many scenarios, none of us privy to them all. So, making a blanket statement about who may or may not sue at this point seems to be "jumping the gun".

 

[Frau Blucher]

Believe it or not, we are still receiving reply letters such as this one:

"The issue you have raised falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Attorney General. We have, therefore, taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to the minister responsible, the Honourable David Eby, for his review and consideration"

Should you wish to contact Minister Eby directly, you may reach him at:

Honourable David Eby
Attorney General
PO Box 9044 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
Email: AG.Minister@gov.bc.ca

Did you send this minister a letter? You probably did already, if not here is his contact information.

I’m sorry but I have yet to receive a reply from his office, like all the other BC officials. At least I got a “Sorry, not our problem” from the Alberta and Federal offices.

 

[Frau Blucher]

“How to Destroy a Timeshare, and Win at World of Warcraft” by K Wankel

Unfortunately the Mustard Seed was willed one of Wankel’s gems

 

[aden2]

I understand that there is a call out for persons wanting to join the Appeal group May 10 th hearing to respond this week.

 

[PATRON]

Canadian Justis system is lot worst than in Zimbabwe All jujes surf Rich people and big corporation Thay will alwais take there side It was our mistake we hire LOYER to defend us He is also part of KV team

 

[Frau Blucher]

I am so disappointed in the division of interests against both Geldert and Northmont...Take the Geldert's group action against Sunchaser, what did that cost?

Geldert deomonstrated numerous times how NOT to run a case. Geldert didn’t know how to argue a case correctly, he didn’t know when to give up, and he communicated so poorly with his clients that they were individually phoning him to ask the same questions.

 

[dotbuhler]

Geldert deomonstrated numerous times how NOT to run a case. Geldert didn’t know how to argue a case correctly, he didn’t know when to give up, and he communicated so poorly with his clients that they were individually phoning him to ask the same questions.

....and of course, every phone call meant MORE money in his pocket... The fact that elements were in play regarding "secret fb groups", and every tool he used at his disposal to keep us separated and in the dark, also created this perfect storm!

 

[dotbuhler]

You are trying to read something into my comment that wasn't there. Perhaps that is a failure in my message. I was brief on certain points.

Simply put. Pay more attention to the "at this moment".

What was meant was this. For the most part, particularly in the case of being able to get access to the law society special fund, they will only cover the monetary losses. AT this moment, the only group that has established monetary losses is those paid to settle. The default group thus far only has threats of a consent judgement, while most likely to be put in place sooner than later. The option 2 clients have not had the final documents for judgement on the outstanding statement of claims. Plus there is a potential appeal.

Unless they are only suing for the retainer paid to MG, the point I made was in the timing.

I'm not the one that claimed to have personal knowledge of each and every aspect. I was suggesting a reason why I thought it was appropriate that there be separate groups.

It is divisive to be pointing out the fault's you found with my message in other groups. Especially, when your claim against me was not one that I actually made. But hey, I would be the disingenuous one.

The preamble to posting an article for the "common good" of everyone involved is hardly a great tactic to divide anyone. This IS a public forum and we are many. Sharing is how we keep ahead of the game. If I post something I feel is less than helpful, I will remove it.( If, however, someone chooses to repost it and in so doing mentions my name, I have no control over that!) However, be forewarned that if you consider the term "somebody" to be you specifically, I see a Don Quixote future looming for you.

 

[J's Garage]

Whatever. Clearly it's more important that you get things your way. It's pretty ironic being that you have already stated the point that I made, yet assumed details that I purposely omitted from a brief post.

But this is what you posted on the other site.

"Somebody on TUG posted a comment saying only a few people in this fiasco could sue Geldert. This article clearly shows the error of his reasoning. Sadly, there are still too many divisive elements at work among us!"

I have multiple times posted information about suing a lawyer. I have provided specific code of conduct sections that are broken.

But I'll concede. The context of my post that we are bantering about was never to suggest that the lawyer should not be sued. It was my thoughts on why a "one size fits all group" could be problematic.

 

[Spark1]

The preamble to posting an article for the "common good" of everyone involved is hardly a great tactic to divide anyone. This IS a public forum and we are many. Sharing is how we keep ahead of the game. If I post something I feel is less than helpful, I will remove it.( If, however, someone chooses to repost it and in so doing mentions my name, I have no control over that!) However, be forewarned that if you consider the term "someone" to be you specifically, I see a Don Quixote future looming for you.

Can you remove a forum and if you can how.

 

[Spark1]

I understand that there is a call out for persons wanting to join the Appeal group May 10 th hearing to respond this week.

It would be nice to hear from the BC Law Society before any appeal.

 

[aden2]

I have a 90 day default in my VIA signed agreement, if this is not resolved then I would lose all rights to the vacation villa and my contract is cancelled. I would still owe for the past and with interest, but adding on maintenance fees year and year is not right. In my Notice of Civil Claim #11 "a per the provisions of the Agreement". This is not the agreement that I signed and the court was misled by false information.

 

[Sunchaser Barbados]

Within all the groups they may or may not have a valid claim against the "legal" team, however at this moment the only ones who can prove actual damages would be those who have paid or have a judgment against them. Kinda challenging to prove damages when it is still in litigation.

How is "...those who have paid or have a judgment against them." not everyone sued by Northmont in Alberta and BC? Filing an Appeal of a Decision does not prevent enforcement of a Judgment. To prevent enforcement of a Judgment, you'd have to obtain a Stay. Has anybody in Option 2 done that?

The bottom line is everyone was damaged by Northmont's gross and repeated violations of the leases and by Geldert's incompetence. To parse it beyond that only serves to distract and muddy the waters. It's just a version of Geldert's Kitchen Sink approach. Courts hate that.

One needs to focus on Geldert's and Northmont's wrongdoings, not on Option 1 and Option 2 differences, which are just artificial constructs of Geldert's. They mean nothing to the courts other than how we chose to mitigate the damages. For example, Geldert came up with this Option 1 & 2 and then lied about final input. It doesn't matter what option we each chose. The wrongdoing came before the choosing.

Or, another example, this martini which I have shaken. That's just wrong. It doesn't matter if I choose to drink it. It's not the drinking or the not drinking; it's the shaking that makes it wrong. Ok, well, not drinking would be wrong too.

The transcripts from March 8th indicate Gill considers Young's Supplementary Reasons as part of her decision, so there is no separate Appeal.

 

[truthr]

How is "...those who have paid or have a judgment against them." not everyone sued by Northmont in Alberta and BC? Filing an Appeal of a Decision does not prevent enforcement of a Judgment. To prevent enforcement of a Judgment, you'd have to obtain a Stay. Has anybody in Option 2 done that?

The bottom line is everyone was damaged by Northmont's gross and repeated violations of the leases and by Geldert's incompetence. To parse it beyond that only serves to distract and muddy the waters. It's just a version of Geldert's Kitchen Sink approach. Courts hate that.

One needs to focus on Geldert's and Northmont's wrongdoings, not on Option 1 and Option 2 differences, which are just artificial constructs of Geldert's. They mean nothing to the courts other than how we chose to mitigate the damages. For example, Geldert came up with this Option 1 & 2 and then lied about final input. It doesn't matter what option we each chose. The wrongdoing came before the choosing.

Or, another example, this martini which I have shaken. That's just wrong. It doesn't matter if I choose to drink it. It's not the drinking or the not drinking; it's the shaking that makes it wrong. Ok, well, not drinking would be wrong too.

The transcripts from March 8th indicate Gill considers Young's Supplementary Reasons as part of her decision, so there is no separate Appeal.

Do you have a law degree or have you spoken to any lawyers experienced in this area of litigation (ie., suing lawyers for malpractice or misrepresentation)?

I don't see in any posts here that anyone is suggesting that our "legal" team cannot or should not be sued just that there are distinct differences of how an experienced litigation lawyer will approach it dependent on the circumstances. The wrongdoing may have begun before the choosing but the individual case will be different depending on what choice the person made.

As for whether there will or will not be any appeal hearing (separate/cross or not) that will be up to Judge Gill to decide.

As for the Judgments for the AB "Option 2", "non settling" defendants a Judgment has not been filed yet as Judge Young instructed NM to provide the Judgment Roll and then we (the defendants) have 21 days to respond to it. So again, the extent of the damages are not determined yet.

 

[dotbuhler]

Can you remove a forum and if you can how.

I don't think you can remove a forum, that'd be an admin decision. But you can edit any post you do place, up to and including complete removal of said post.

 

[dotbuhler]

Whatever. Clearly it's more important that you get things your way. It's pretty ironic being that you have already stated the point that I made, yet assumed details that I purposely omitted from a brief post.

But this is what you posted on the other site.

"Somebody on TUG posted a comment saying only a few people in this fiasco could sue Geldert. This article clearly shows the error of his reasoning. Sadly, there are still too many divisive elements at work among us!"

I have multiple times posted information about suing a lawyer. I have provided specific code of conduct sections that are broken.

But I'll concede. The context of my post that we are bantering about was never to suggest that the lawyer should not be sued. It was my thoughts on why a "one size fits all group" could be problematic.

...mistake noted, and corrected...

 

[Shake Down]

I have a 90 day default in my VIA signed agreement, if this is not resolved then I would lose all rights to the vacation villa and my contract is cancelled. I would still owe for the past and with interest, but adding on maintenance fees year and year is not right. In my Notice of Civil Claim #11 "a per the provisions of the Agreement". This is not the agreement that I signed and the court was misled by false information.

Wankel must have disliked those old contracts, I bet he got a big Twankel in his eye when the judge grouped all in together.
Me it's like....

and MG could not find anything even in the Real Estate Development Marketing Act.? Stuff like "A purchase agreement is not enforceable against a purchaser by a developer who has breached the Act"

:Time share interests
(7) A developer must not market a time share interest unless

(a) the land, accommodations and facilities that are subject to the time share plan can be lawfully used or occupied by a purchaser.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

In hindsight we all definitely would have made different choices and decisions if we knew all the twist and turns that initially brought us together through Geldert but today we just need to deal with the hand we still have to work with.

Recently all of us have been forced down paths but the bottom line is a companies greed and our Counsel directly put us all in our current individual circumstances and as a by-product of there resent efforts have in a way brought us together potentially stronger as a group and now we just need to figure out the ground rules on working together or we can simply choose to allow their efforts to drive a deeper wedge between us which would be another win for them as they would like nothing better than to see us kept apart.

If you think of this from Northmont point of view they have an agenda and came into this with a strategy from the start – unfortunately for us they lucked out big time with Geldert. For the most recent part of their strategy our Geldert group needed to be broken as it was a very powerful obstacle that stood in the way of their overall plan. My bet is initially they thought Fairmont would be as easy as the other resorts they cut their teeth with to bury but no one would have ever expected today's growing movement and building opposition from a fractured group of people who have great potential to rally and put up a real fight with a drive for solidarity but right now no one knows exactly where to turn (our start was with all our efforts after Christmas letters and phone calls looking for justice – I like to thing these efforts paid off and we have been rewarded with Justice Gill so now how do we prepare for the legal fight we have been afforded).

I think we just need to be patient while different people and groups try and figure out what there is to work with but I don’t believe anyone is actively trying to slight anyone else but I can pretty much bet Option 1 and Option 2 will be in Court in May which will help mend the resulting fragments of our initial group – let’s look at this as an opportunity for a new beginning.

It may not seem like it to everyone but everyone who wants to fight Geldert and Northmont can still together, on their own, or collectively from the different groups that have spawned – what is wrong with multiple ideas being considered and explored as options. There will always be different opinions and we just need to allow them to be expressed – there is nothing wrong with clarifying a point made and none of us always gets along with our spouses, friends, or families let alone complete strangers so we just need to try and understand different points of view as they are. No one should be suppressed from speaking freely out of fear of saying something that may offend as discussions are meant to bring forward ideas and these ideas to be challenged constructively – you never know one of these ideas may be the precipice to the smoking gun we need but it also needs to be challenged as our opposition will definitely do that down the road.


Now the big questions I feel that needs to be identified is how was the power of the initial group squandered and its potential not realized?

My hope is collectively we can find some form of collusion that exists between our Counsel and Northmont that shows a fraud of some kind exists and as a result this whole situation would become a who lot more favourable to every one of us.

I have an underlying hypothesis our whole fight was over before the 1st trial occurred now that I have worked to become informed and as a result, a mutual strategy was created years ago that has lead all of us down a path that intentionally keep us segregated to prevent us from realizing our potential, maximize our legal costs, frustrated the courts, and significantly increased the penalties against us.

To support this I know of different pieces but no real smoking gun as of yet but karma has a way of working itself to the surface or alternately we just find the rock stuff has been hidden under – this might not occur until the settlement agreement Option 1 paying members initiates their lawsuit against Geldert as they currently are the ones who have suffered the most monetary damages to date as a result of Michael Geldert’s sole decision to hastily settle without consent with Northmont’s and as a result have actual monetary figures to back up their damage claims. Who thinks the timeline was recently fast-tracked initiated by the SIF to divide us and resulting settlement agreement was built as part of Northmont’s roadmap. I keep coming back to what is in this for Geldert and King to be working so hard to suppress us and I know Geldert wasn’t smart enough to come up with this plan on his own. My bet is when push comes to shove when we get organized to start pushing someone from our Counsel group will cave to save their own butts.

Moving forward we still have different fights that for some will be vary in difficultly and stress levels that will also require unique representation but there is nothing saying that we cannot work collectively for common goals – for example if Option 1 people who can sue Geldert now for damages and win then once the damages can be calculated for Option 1 opt outs or Option 2 people the road might already be built for them to go down or even made easier if the BC Special Lawyers Fund is initiated to cover damages for everyone.

All Option 1 people did what they had to do and hopefully there may be less stress for them as they have a line in the sand and can move on if they want to but I feel very sympathetic towards the Option 2 people who still have a tremendous burden while this all gets worked out as no one knows what the future holds for them. Nether group had a choice about getting to where we are at today but by working towards collaboration everyone can benefit and that is why I still choose to remain involved.