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

[Spark1]

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.



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.



"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.

Everyone has a right to a lawyer. Many that paid had to borrow money to pay this extortion set up by Michael Geldert. He lied to us about getting Northmont to the table and now they will have to pay the 25.4 million. He also said he had the situation about moving buildings from the timeshare under control. He never gave the time owners who checked no. 1 enough time to resend what he said they would have to pay. If you can not afford a lawyer the law has to supply you with a lawyer. We are talking about millions being extorted here. I hope everyone who paid sent a letter to the BC Law Society and tell them what you paid for something that is worthless. Ask Protection BC and Service Alberta if you are required to pay up to $140000.00 for something that went bankrupt and has made your timeshare worthless. Ask them what you are getting for your money. Take your contracts to these consumer affair offices that Trudeau says are responsible to look after you and let them read your contract and show you where you have to pay this kind of money for nothing. We are not Northmonts Bank.

 

[Sunchaser Barbados]

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)?

That's just pejorative. Which is fine except where, in a previous post, you lectured, "...we are better than this." Besides, lots of people here have spoken to lawyers and read documents, and they still don't understand. So one is right, or one is wrong, it's not just if they've spoken to the best authority.

"I don't see in any posts here that anyone is suggesting that our "legal" team cannot or should not be sued, ..." You directly imply that they can't be sued at this time in the quote below.

"...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."

Damages are always changing, take the amended statements of claim in our case. You don't have to wait for a final number. Besides, with interest and the passage of time, the quantification of damages is never final and is often somewhat arbitrary.

"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."

Gill did decide. He said it's one Decision, one Appeal.

"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."

Right, and if there's a strategic advantage in waiting to sue fine; but, you repeatedly imply that they can't sue until the damages are enumerated in total.

In a previous post, you identified six distinct groups: Four distinct Option 1's and, Two distinct Option 2's. The implication is that there should be six lawsuits against Geldert. The differences are all immaterial in a lawsuit against Geldert; and, six lawsuits are nothing but vexatious and a prescription for failure. This whole discussion is vexatious, so I'm done on this subject.

 

[MarcieL]

In a previous post, you identified six distinct groups: Four distinct Option 1's and, Two distinct Option 2's. The implication is that there should be six lawsuits against Geldert. The differences are all immaterial in a lawsuit against Geldert; and, six lawsuits are nothing but vexatious and a prescription for failure. This whole discussion is vexatious, so I'm done on this subject.

If M.G. only has so much liability insurance the first ones in, maybe the winners.

 

[LilMaggie]

...and...this is when we talk and nothing gets done. I can't believe that we are still discussing distinctions within our litigation group. We all know what was imposed upon us. This is the kind of soap opera that you don't watch for a year, then come back and nothing's changed. Anyone that was represented by MG can sue him if they so desire. If you don't want to go that route, fine...but at least join the appeal. Judge Gill gave the green light for some folks to appeal.

 

[Spark1]

Why does it take so long for the Law Society to give us a report on all the lawyers that have been reported. Should the appeal be before this report?

 

[Frau Blucher]

Why does it take so long by the Law Society to give us a report on all the lawyers that have been reported. Should the appeal be before this report?

Some investigations of the Law Society of BC have taken years to resolve

 

[truthr]

HEADS UP - very important announcement for all "non settling" AB Appellants

If and when you receive your "package" from Strathcona Law Group - which should be today but hey who knows, please pay close attention to the attachments.

There should be more than one "Order" - one with a court stamp date of March 13th, 2018 and one with a court stamp date of March 22nd, 2018.

When my "package" arrived it was missing the second "Order", I just happened to suspect there was another one due to communications between SLG and myself wherein they were using the reason for us not receiving said "package" earlier as they were waiting for the "Order" to be filed and we all know the "other", more pressing order for the suppression/retraction/sealing of exhibits was done real quick. So I quickly requested it.

Anyway when you get the March 22nd, 2018 "Order" pay close attention to both points number 5 & 7.
Also the March 22nd, 2018 "Order" was not signed by Judge Gill - he was apparently out of town that day - just a coincidence that is the day our former legal counsel choose to have it signed and filed????

 

[aden2]

Consumer Protection Act Highlights:
Consumer Protection Act
Unfair practices page 15
(3) It is an unfair practice for a supplier (a) to enter into a consumer transaction if the supplier knows or ought to know that the consumer is unable to receive any reasonable benefit from the goods or services;
Interpretation of documents 4. If a consumer and a supplier enter into a consumer transaction, or an individual enters into a contract with a licensee and the licensee agrees to supply something to the individual in the normal course of the licensee’s business, and (a) all or any part of the transaction or contract is evidenced by a document provided by the supplier or licensee, and (b) a provision of the document is ambiguous, the provision must be interpreted against the supplier or licensee, as the case may be. 1998 cF-1.05 s4
Regulations
section 6 Chapter C-26.3
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
page18
(t.1) a supplier’s representation regarding an agreement for continuing provision of services if the supplier fails to provide prominent and full disclosure of the details of the agreement, including duration, changes in price, renewals, extensions or amendments, or if the supplier fails to obtain the consumer’s express consent to renewals, extensions or amendments of the agreement;
Cancelling agreement 7(1) A consumer may cancel at no cost or penalty to the consumer a consumer transaction, whether written or oral, that was entered into by the consumer and a supplier who engaged in an unfair practice regarding the consumer transaction, whether the unfair practice occurred before, during or after the time when the consumer transaction was entered into, and in addition the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available at law, including damages. (2) Where a supplier has been found to have engaged in an unfair practice, any consumer who entered into a consumer transaction that was subject to the unfair practice with the supplier who engaged in the unfair practice may cancel the consumer transaction at no cost or penalty to the consumer.
(3) Notice may be delivered by any means, but if notice is delivered other than by personal service it is deemed to have been given when sent.
Powers of Court 7.2(1) In an action commenced under this Division, the Court of Queen’s Bench may award exemplary or punitive damages in addition to any other remedy the Court considers proper. (2) In the trial of an issue under this Division, oral evidence respecting an unfair practice is admissible despite the existence of a written agreement under the consumer transaction and despite the fact that the oral evidence pertains to a representation in respect of a term, condition or undertaking that is not provided for in the agreement. (3) The Court of Queen’s Bench may disregard the requirement that the consumer give notice under section 7.1 or any requirement relating to the notice if the Court considers that it is in the interest of justice to do so. 2005 c9 s6
8 An unfair practice may occur before, during or after a consumer transaction, and is an unfair practice for all the purposes of this Part even if no consumer transaction is entered into or concluded. 1998

 

[lost and confused]

Received my email package from SLG. Appears I may not have received a complete package and am missing a document. If you received a package, you may want to check that you have received everything. Appears the flow and sharing of information is not uniform in nature.

Interesting to note that the Authorization to Release Confidential Information is due on/before May 3. The purpose of this release is to allow the group of 76/77 to connect, share information, etc. as this is the group that has the speak to follow up in court on May 10th. With the deadline of May 3 to submit this form, SLG will then need to compile the list of those who authorize their contact info to be shared, and then share this list for those involved. Even if SLG were to have this completed on May 3 and have it mailed out, that is clearly not enough time for a group to connect with one another in preparation for May 10.

To further cloud things, The Notice of Intent to Appeal is also due on this same day, May 3. This form would indicate one’s intent to appeal, and indicate any lawyer representation, if any. Well, given that one will not have received the list of the other 76/77 with their contact info, it certainly makes it difficult. These two deadlines of May 3rd for both forms certainly defies logic. I am pretty sure that Judge Gill was wanting more logic and efficiencies to help the group of 76/77 prepare for the May 10 speak to. SLG and Jud Virtue may have some explaining to do. It is my thought that it appears that they are working together, trying to hinder and obstruct opportunities to do their tasks efficiently and effectively, clearly to our detriment.

In my e-mail package from SLG, I also received another Notice of Withdrawal of Lawyer on record. I received one in January 2018 via registered mail. This new copy was filed on March 21, 2018 and was stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Queen’s Bench. Why the duplication of Notice of Withdrawal? One was already served and sent registered mail. Why go thru the process of sending another - and tying up the court system and valuable resources?

Appears the Judgment Rolls will be forthcoming this week.

I am still awaiting information from MG as part of transition. My withdrawal was January 2018.

There is lots going on. May 10th is getting closer and closer. Are you happy with where you are at in your plans on proceeding? Time is ticking. What are you doing?

 

[dotbuhler]

https://www.lawnow.org/interveners-in-human-rights-cases/ For those who suddenly discovered that they were not part of the Alberta action, thanks to Geldert's misrepresentation, there is a recourse.

 

[CleoB]

https://www.lawnow.org/interveners-in-human-rights-cases/ For those who suddenly discovered that they were not part of the Alberta action, thanks to Geldert's misrepresentation, there is a recourse.

Don't know if this would apply for those that settled and are gagged.

 

[dotbuhler]

Don't know if this would apply for those that settled and are gagged.

Best used by those of us suddenly confronted with the reality of never having been included in the Alberta case. But those who have paid and signed in Alberta are filing Affidavits as we speak. Their names do appear on the Alberta rolls, and many are pointing out that they signed under duress.

 

[CleoB]

Best used by those of us suddenly confronted with the reality of never having been included in the Alberta case. But those who have paid and signed in Alberta are filing Affidavits as we speak. Their names do appear on the Alberta rolls, and many are pointing out that they signed under duress.

If there are people not including in the Alberta case, are they out of Northmount's reach because of the time limit in filing against them?

 

[Petus@18]

Best used by those of us suddenly confronted with the reality of never having been included in the Alberta case. But those who have paid and signed in Alberta are filing Affidavits as we speak. Their names do appear on the Alberta rolls, and many are pointing out that they signed under duress.

Will never be defeated, glad you're back!!

 

[Petus@18]

We got our package today!!, Finally and Crazy!!!.
Edit: we are 76 people left for this appeal!
Anyone here would like to have a skype or tel conference? R you thinking in hiring a lawyer or representing yourselves? Best way to share our contact info? I propose you send your phone, name and email to me! Or Aden2? Ok w/you Aden2? We will create a phone list and with your permission will share it with everyone. Please feel free to to suggest other means of exchanging this info. Thanks!!

 

[dotbuhler]

If there are people not including in the Alberta case, are they out of Northmount's reach because of the time limit in filing against them?

Some of us were served and had Judgements placed against us in B.C. as part of the JEKE action. This was not something that many of us were aware of. My case was so empirically different from Jim Belfry's I NEVER would have stood for that. Did Geldert inform us who was listed on the B.C. Rolls? Not that I am aware of. Instead, as one of his regular one size fits all communiques which were more involved with "SHHHH", I see the actual court papers filed by Sauvauge in Cranbrook, B.C. Court. When Geldert continued to take our money, carry us a clients, have us write continuing letters of Objection to Fairmont/Northmont/Wankel, fill out forms and surveys, meanwhile never pointing out the obvious fact that we LOST, it becomes abundantly clear that he was merely hanging on to us to make sure he could collect our money for Wankel! Besides increasing his own coffers!

 

[Spark1]

Some of us were served and had Judgements placed against us in B.C. as part of the JEKE action. This was not something that many of us were aware of. My case was so empirically different from Jim Belfry's I NEVER would have stood for that. Did Geldert inform us who was listed on the B.C. Rolls? Not that I am aware of. Instead, as one of his regular one size fits all communiques which were more involved with "SHHHH", I see the actual court papers filed by Sauvauge in Cranbrook, B.C. Court. When Geldert continued to take our money, carry us a clients, have us write continuing letters of Objection to Fairmont/Northmont/Wankel, fill out forms and surveys, meanwhile never pointing out the obvious fact that we LOST, it becomes abundantly clear that he was merely hanging on to us to make sure he could collect our money for Wankel! Besides increasing his own coffers!

How true.

 

[lost and confused]

Has anybody received their Judgement Rolls? As per Judge Youngs' Feb 28, 2018 decision, Judgement rolls should be out and once received, the clock on responding starts. I am concerned that the time on the clock may start ticking soon!!! (and I also do not trust who measures when the clock starts to tick....it should be once received). It may be time to speak up again if Judge Young's instructions are not carried out in the timeframe specified, thus putting us in more of a pinch. We are to have 21 days from receipt of Judgement rolls...I will ensure that my 21 days have not started yet as I have officially not received anything. Has anybody received their judgment roll?

 

[dotbuhler]

Would anyone who is NOT on the Alberta Judgement Rolls and has found themselves on the Judgement in B.C. from 2016 please p.m. me. Thank you!

 

[heydynagirl]

I wasn't sure how to PM you, but I was sued in Golden BC so I assume I am on a judgment roll somewhere.

 

[truthr]

The list, oh the list. For those of us who were sued in AB and classified as non-settling, Barry King assured Judge Gill he would be contacting all of us "forthwith" to have us sign a release form to provide all of us providing such release with a list of all of us to be able to contact each other.

Well to date some have received this so called "package" of documents, albeit not in a timely fashion but provided nonetheless.

A couple of us sent an email to Carla (cause Barry King is on holidays, don't ya know) and this is her reply.

Good morning,

Please be advised that as of today 2 April 2018, of the 76 appellants, we have only received 2 Consent Release forms.

Kind regards,
Carla Avery
Legal Assistant


Well, considering I know of at least 3 people personally who have sent in the release forms - I call BS.

Now about the Judgment Roll that Judge Young instructed NM's attorney to draw up and provide for us within 30 days - 30 days is up. Where is it?? Or maybe they still think they are working with our former legal counsel (MG & BK). I say NOT and have sent an email to Jud Virtue requesting the Judgment Roll. If I don't have it soon guess I will just have to write another letter to Judge Young informing her.

 

[CleoB]

Does anyone have a copy of the new VIA that they could send me?

 

[dotbuhler]

The list, oh the list. For those of us who were sued in AB and classified as non-settling, Barry King assured Judge Gill he would be contacting all of us "forthwith" to have us sign a release form to provide all of us providing such release with a list of all of us to be able to contact each other.

Well to date some have received this so called "package" of documents, albeit not in a timely fashion but provided nonetheless.

A couple of us sent an email to Carla (cause Barry King is on holidays, don't ya know) and this is her reply.

Good morning,

Please be advised that as of today 2 April 2018, of the 76 appellants, we have only received 2 Consent Release forms.

Kind regards,
Carla Avery
Legal Assistant


Well, considering I know of at least 3 people personally who have sent in the release forms - I call BS.

Now about the Judgment Roll that Judge Young instructed NM's attorney to draw up and provide for us within 30 days - 30 days is up. Where is it?? Or maybe they still think they are working with our former legal counsel (MG & BK). I say NOT and have sent an email to Jud Virtue requesting the Judgment Roll. If I don't have it soon guess I will just have to write another letter to Judge Young informing her.

Truly, it appears that every obstacle that can be imagined is being thrown our way. If only we had the opportunity to compare notes a couple of years ago, for those of us who, under Geldert's reign, are suddenly now realizing that we were not even part of the Alberta case this nightmare just keeps getting more and more horrendous.

 

[Spark1]

Does anyone have a copy of the new VIA that they could send me?[/QUOTE

Truly, it appears that every obstacle that can be imagined is being thrown our way. If only we had the opportunity to compare notes a couple of years ago, for those of us who, under Geldert's reign, are suddenly now realizing that we were not even part of the Alberta case this nightmare just keeps getting more and more horrendous.

I do not have a copy. Modification, unilateral amendments of My contract falls under item #37 called Notices: Notices under this Lease shall be deemed to be validly given when deposited postage prepaid in a postal box in Canada and addressed to the Lessee at the Address in the register maintained by the Trustee as contemplated by paragraph 18 hereof,except during any interruption of postal service when notice shall be given only when delivered by hand or acknowledged as received by the Address. Unilateral Amendments to our Contracts when you read Notices in my Lease Contract is the Same as Bill 31 passed Dec 17/2017 which states you have to contact the owner of the contract first before you do a unilateral Amendment and if you do not there than is no Contract. This is now the Law under the Fair Trading ACT. We have never signed any documents. I first seen Northwynd did this when a friend of mine should me a email he received Nov06/2017. This should of been looked after before Judge Young’s Case. They were saying we are all VIAs under JEKs Contract 2010. It was mentioned that Judge Young said our Contracts did not change. If that is the case why the Capital renovation of $4100 plus GST when there is no mention of Capital expenses in our Lease Contract. MLT AIKINS David Wotherspoon says Northmont’s Unilateral Amendments to the VIAs are Unauthorized. Every one should read page 2 of David’s report.

 

[dotbuhler]

I wasn't sure how to PM you, but I was sued in Golden BC so I assume I am on a judgment roll somewhere.

Send me a message via "conversations" is what I mean for this site. Pardon the fb speak. And if you were served anywhere in B.C. (so far: Vancouver, Nelson, Cranbrook and now, Golden Registries) you will probably be on the B.C. Roll. Alternatively, if you do not see your name on the Alberta Judgement Rolls, you are probably on the B.C. Rolls. Any lawyer worth his salt would have made a point of being explicit on this. Ours, however, was once again M.I.A..