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

[MarcieL]

At the May hearing I was astounded, when I witnessed people personally talking to KW and his lawyer. I'm not about to converse with someone that unilaterally changed my contract and charged me nearly 40,000.00 to exit, different strokes for different folks, there are just somethings I will NEVER understand.

 

[Spark1]

At the May hearing I was astounded, when I witnessed people personally talking to KW and his lawyer. I'm not about to converse with someone that unilaterally changed my contract and charged me nearly 40,000.00 to exit, different strokes for different folks, there are just somethings I will NEVER understand.

I do not understand that myself. I was told by someone that after Justice Gill’s appeal court Truth went over and hugged Kirk Wankel. Why, after What Geldert pulled off who do you trust? This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.

 

[truthr]

I do not understand that myself. I was told by someone that after Justice Gill’s appeal court Truth went over and hugged Kirk Wankel. Why, after What Geldert pulled off who do you trust? This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.

Are you F**KING kidding me!!!! I don't know who supposedly told you that but you should maybe check your source and the accuracy of the information you receive before making such a public statement about something you and no one else personally witnessed because it did not F**KING happen.

Not that I owe anyone an explanation but here ya go.

First, Kirk Wankel was sick that day and did not even shake anyone's hand because he did not want to spread germs, let alone hug me. And I hugged him??? Seriously???

Second, Kirk Wankel approached me and asked if he could have a few minutes of my time. Which I obliged because quite frankly I saw no reason not to as the decision is in Justice Gill's hands now.

Here is a novel concept - if you hear something about someone, maybe get in touch with that person rather than make a fool of yourself by spreading false rumors.

 

[Cheemo]

I do not understand that myself. I was told by someone that after Justice Gill’s appeal court Truth went over and hugged Kirk Wankel. Why, after What Geldert pulled off who do you trust? This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.

What an asinine accusation!

I realize that we all feel hurt and bitter about an injustice done to us and that we feel the need to lash out. But there comes a time when we must face reality and accept that - it is what it is - and to stoop to defaming someone’s character through false rumours and innuendos is not right!

For more than 5 years now, Truth has been relentlessly fighting for us - challenging our lawyer, researching information, providing us with any documents we needed, and most importantly, providing us with a shoulder (often a wet one). C’mon, Peeps, let’s not besmirch her reputation, let’s not get into that sandbox. This alleged hugging incident is not true and should be put to rest.

I trust Truth and I thank Truth.

 

[MarcieL]

This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.

That is an understatement, each month I am reminded when the bank debits the loan payment. Others have had to declare bankruptcy, secure consumer protection proposals, have had their life styles deeply affected due to this injustice, this is not someone I care to talk or associate with. Your damn right I feel hurt and bitter, that I will never be able to redeem my former life style!

 

[servemeout]

We were in the court room with the last round and we did not see ANYONE hug anyone else. There were some that would have liked to inflict other forms of physical attention, but did not. When we read the "hug lie" this morning, it brought to mine that yesterday was legal pot day. With some critters hugs are not appropriate - use your imagination, and if you lack imagination, pot may help.

 

[Spark1]

Are you F**KING kidding me!!!! I don't know who supposedly told you that but you should maybe check your source and the accuracy of the information you receive before making such a public statement about something you and no one else personally witnessed because it did not F**KING happen.

Not that I owe anyone an explanation but here ya go.

First, Kirk Wankel was sick that day and did not even shake anyone's hand because he did not want to spread germs, let alone hug me. And I hugged him??? Seriously???

Second, Kirk Wankel approached me and asked if he could have a few minutes of my time. Which I obliged because quite frankly I saw no reason not to as the decision is in Justice Gill's hands now.

Here is a novel concept - if you hear something about someone, maybe get in touch with that person rather than make a fool of yourself by spreading false rumors.

Seeing you know Kirk that well why don’t you ask poor Kirk what happened to the Resorts Condo Association instead of forcing us to use Social Media. That is a Hugh Breach of our Contract. We know why he did not want this important part of our Contract. How could he hid all his crooked business from us by treating us like humans. Many of us had no intentions of leaving this resort but that was not Kirks intentions. Kirk made a lot of people sick and he is very greedy with other people’s money.

 

[truthr]

People bring up this "Resort Condo Association" thing quite frequently and I have often wondered:

How many people would have stepped up to the plate and volunteered their time to be part of it? Considering how challenging it is for Condo Associations where people actually live full time have getting people to participate in the meetings and hard decisions that need to be made. Ask yourself the hard question - Would you have? Or would you have sat on the sidelines expecting someone else to do all the hard work only to bitch and complain?

We can't go backward only forward for those who originally chose to stay and now those who are choosing to stay because for some - if they have to pay they might as well stay.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out but one thing is for sure is that there will be no answers nor resolution if people are not willing to come together and have a conversation.

This situation, as many in life, have a lot of coulda, woulda, shouldas.

Of course these are all just my opinions but hopefully provide some food for thought for those who actually think.

 

[GypsyOne]

Having sat on a Condo Board Association, I have wondered the same thing about the logistics of having a functioning Timeshare Owners Association (TOA). I think it would be difficult to get say a seven-member board to actively participate in management meetings and report to the timeshare members. But, there are alternatives: you could, for example, have say a seven-member board with members from different regions of the country who would keep in touch through email and subsequently report to the timeshare owners through email. But, the TOA would not actually sit in on management meetings; they would hire a representative such as a lawyer or a qualified real estate manager to represent them at management meetings and report to them. 15000 timeshare owners at $5 each added to the annual timeshare management fee should be able to hire a well-qualified individual to represent them at meetings and report to the TOA. The TOA would be apprised of relevant issues being discussed at management meetings and could vote by email on relevant issues and subsequently report to the timeshare owners. The point is there are ways of doing it if there is the genuine willingness to meet the contractual obligation.

 

[truthr]

Having sat on a Condo Board Association, I have wondered the same thing about the logistics of having a functioning Timeshare Owners Association (TOA). I think it would be difficult to get say a seven-member board to actively participate in management meetings and report to the timeshare members. But, there are alternatives: you could, for example, have say a seven-member board with members from different regions of the country who would keep in touch through email and subsequently report to the timeshare owners through email. But, the TOA would not actually sit in on management meetings; they would hire a representative such as a lawyer or a qualified real estate manager to represent them at management meetings and report to them. 15000 timeshare owners at $5 each added to the annual timeshare management fee should be able to hire a well-qualified individual to represent them at meetings and report to the TOA. The TOA would be apprised of relevant issues being discussed at management meetings and could vote by email on relevant issues and subsequently report to the timeshare owners. The point is there are ways of doing it if there is the genuine willingness to meet the contractual obligation.

Thank you for sharing GypsyOne.

Certainly food for thought for those who are still in the resort and watching this thread. If we choose to pay to stay I will certainly present your suggestions.
After all we have been through I certainly hope that willingness is there from both ends - developer/management and timeshare owners/lessees.

Again thank you for sharing.

 

[servemeout]

When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them. The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association. This contract was pre Wankel. Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..." There was no association under Fairmont. There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel. To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue. So Sparky did you try to form one? What is the old saying about closing the barn door?

 

[Spark1]

When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them. The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association. This contract was pre Wankel. Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..." There was no association under Fairmont. There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel. To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue. So Sparky did you try to form one? What is the old saying about closing the barn door?[/QUOTE

When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them. The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association. This contract was pre Wankel. Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..." There was no association under Fairmont. There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel. To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue. So Sparky did you try to form one? What is the old saying about closing the barn door?

When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them. The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association. This contract was pre Wankel. Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..." There was no association under Fairmont. There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel. To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue. So Sparky did you try to form one? What is the old saying about closing the barn door?

Sorry the Timeshare Office was under lockdown and I did talk to our famous Lawyer about the registry and we could each phone 100 or more Lease owners to get the ball rolling. What do you know about barns because I own one and I got horses that can kick ass too. I know one thing I can not lower myself to protect the enemy that harmed so many. That resort did not need to bankrupt?? I suppose you believe there are no crooks in this world. Think again. Why even have a contract? But first you have to be able to read it and understand it servemeout. Would you poor hard working people please buy a get well card for Poor sick Kirk and get the registry so we can all sign it for him

 

[NeverNeverAgain]

When we attended court in Sept 2015 with Justice Young, one of the items that she requested was the number of contracts that existed and differences between them. The lease used between 1992 - 1997 under section 17 states that all lessees agree to recognize the association. This contract was pre Wankel. Quote" The Lessor agrees that, in the event that an association should be formed and has a membership of over fifty percent (50%) of the holders..." There was no association under Fairmont. There are somethings that cannot be placed on Wankel. To continue to make reference to the lack of an association is like beating a dead horse, it is a non issue. So Sparky did you try to form one? What is the old saying about closing the barn door?

Just a couple of comments.

1. I don't think any of us could have formed an association if we tried. I believe NM is the only one with the information that can. I was thinking that uniting behind MG would have forced the issue, but it did not.
2. Based on events in the last 5 years, I think there would have been way more than enough people volunteering to be on the association. It would have had significant support.
3. If the association would have been formed, I don't believe this situation with NM would have happened. Things would have gone down a LOT differently assuming the association would have had its rightful influence into the resort operations and decisions.
4. For those still caught up in this mess (not being forced out with the excellent deal or otherwise), I think it is still vital to form the association somehow and make it work. I assume NM would not let that happen though.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[servemeout]

Glad to hear that you have a barn and horses. The degree granted to me by U of A attests to my cognitive skills - Muchas gracias.
There was one timeshare in Canmore that formed a owners group and got rid of the management and owner during the CCAA proceedings. They now manage and control the timeshare. I was told that the Canmore owners had a very good lawyer. The contracts says that they must accept the association if they have over 50% membership.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

I do not understand that myself. I was told by someone that after Justice Gill’s appeal court Truth went over and hugged Kirk Wankel. Why, after What Geldert pulled off who do you trust? This man Wankel has hurt a lot of innocent Vacation Villa Lease Owners.

Okay Spark1 – you made my day and drove me into a fit of laughter that just about made me pee myself with one of your latest posts!!

You definitely are focusing on a very short sighted idea and your interpretation of two mature adults having the opportunity to have a conversation needs to be channeled to understand why a person would want to talk with Wankel.

Wankel is a very strategic individual who put the pieces in place to serve his interests be it personal or professional but at the end of the day it was our lawyer Michael Geldert who allowed us to become fattened for slaughter in Wankel’s game.

Could Truth also be strategic? She too has personally been affected by this and her actions have assisted many people to understand past, present, and future aspects of this whole sorted tale. Could she not be strategically working on something in a one on one meeting with Wankel for herself and others? I bet if someone like Truth was at the negotiating table the MG settlement would have looked very different as I believe some of the info she has shared has allowed people to reach a different settlements than most of us were strapped with as a result of that work of art.

Seems to me the MG meetings were more of a hidden from view thing and who do you think is protected most by the non-disclosure (I don’t think it was a primary goal of Northmont in the beginning to have this as it could have been used as a tool to educate people on the cost of not settling but my bet is they got way more than ever thought they could get all packaged up for them by MG – guess we will never know as not one of us took part in the negotiation). If Truth and Wankel met in person in front of everyone with people in earshot it would be pretty hard to create a new secret society or deal and I am pretty sure both parties have available to them other means of communications – besides, who is Truth acting on the behalf of – not like she can change the direction of the courts at this part of the game? Could she be viewed as a Wankel adversary or alley at this point in the game?

As you have already guessed, I put most of my grievances on the shoulders of MG who for now can boast on his resume about his successful resolution (just a second, had a little vomit come up there) for us with Northmont and is enjoying his financial gains acquired at our expense. If I had gone with my gut I would have paid in 2013 one way or the other but I, like many others, got blinded by anger that Wankel could so easily take away something I worked hard to get but I failed to understand how he could legally take it so I fell into a trap that snarled a lot of us where we were poorly advised and represented – in hindsight what happened was not designed to SERVE OUR INTERESTS and at the end of the day cost us dearly.

We lost horribly in the courts because the courts needed things done a specific way which we failed to do but there are people today that still require some form of resolution to all this. As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with people talking with Wankel if it can help them put this behind them – they need a resolution and closure. It is not going to come from the courts – that ship has sailed.

I thought about having my own conversation with Wankel a couple of times as this dragged on and because I didn’t I suffer the consequences for trusting in a legal system my representative used for their own benefit instead of mine. I think Wankel would still welcome a conversation from people who still have this hanging over their heads as he wants closure just as much as they do but the worst part is at what cost as the cost just grows. So who takes the 1st step now?

From that fateful decision to stay or pay where we decided to stand up and challenge it, the cost has only escalated as there is no ceiling (another MG mistake – I think fees could have been put in trust and released at the time of the court decision or a cap negotiated early on) but if you look closely Wankel has actually been active in trying to settle throughout as it directly served his interests and indirectly ours:

• Of late he has assisted some with leaving or staying at the resort (the adversarial court process we had in place prevented him from doing this until recently)
• In the past told us on a couple of occasions we would loose and offered a way out – if you recall MG told us he would do better and those offers were not safe
• At the beginning presented his strategic plan based on having payed his lawyers to find the faults and strengths in our mutual contract that were interpreted for his gain based on legal decisions – I can't say I agree with what he did morally but he looked at this from a business standpoint about how he could monetize a return for a non-revenue producing asset. We had the emotional fire and brimstone but were already behind the eight ball waiting for someone to take more of our money by saying what we wanted to hear before this all began

I am now sleeping at night again (probably because I have to work harder and longer each day to pay off the MG settlement debt and maybe because I am not following this on social medial as closely anymore as I was force to settle) but I had to come to accept that the courts assigned a pretty clear winner where HE WON AND I LOST!!!

Maybe Truth or someone like Truth has a plan to help with a new negotiation that potentially could aid in closure for both sides – ever wonder if that was what they could have been talking about?

Having Wankel open that door would be beneficial to a lot of people and let’s face it, MG was not a challenging opponent for Wankel – maybe starting with someone like Truth who knows lots of people is a great door to knock on!!

Now back to the beginning - as soon as you stated Truth gave Wankel a big burly bear hug the image that that immediately flashed in my mind was an image of Bart Simpson getting a Homer hug.

 

[GypsyOne]

From what I have seen of Wankel, there is nothing whatsoever to admire about the man. He is a manipulator, an opportunist, motivated by greed, and completely lacking in any moral rectitude whatsoever. Geldert on the other hand at least started out trying to win justice for the timeshare owners. Did things change later? I just don't know.

 

[MarcieL]

Totally agree GypsyOne, how anyone could converse with a person, who has ruined so many people's lives is beyond comprehension.

 

[MarcieL]

Could Truth also be strategic? She too has personally been affected by this and her actions have assisted many people to understand past, present, and future aspects of this whole sorted tale. Could she not be strategically working on something in a one on one meeting with Wankel for herself and others? I bet if someone like Truth was at the negotiating table the MG settlement would have looked very different as I believe some of the info she has shared has allowed people to reach a different settlements than most of us were strapped with as a result of that work of art.

Several people, educated in finance, one a C.A. offered to be part of the negotiating team but their offers went unanswered! All done secretly and behind closed doors! How many times have you paid 40 grand to dispose of an asset you paid 25000.00 for? Despicable!

 

[truthr]

From what I have seen of Wankel, there is nothing whatsoever to admire about the man. He is a manipulator, an opportunist, motivated by greed, and completely lacking in any moral rectitude whatsoever. Geldert on the other hand at least started out trying to win justice for the timeshare owners. Did things change later? I just don't know. ~ GypsyOne

From what you have personally seen? Or from what we have been led to believe? Personally I prefer to make my own determination as to a person's character rather than the spoon feeding we have endured these past 4+ years by someone who we put our trust in to win justice when it is now painfully obvious the law was not on our side right from the get go. Or if the law was on our side who is responsible for not presenting it?

Several people, educated in finance, one a C.A. offered to be part of the negotiating team but their offers went unanswered! All done secretly and behind closed doors! How many times have you paid 40 grand to dispose of an asset you paid 25000.00 for? Despicable! ~ MarcieL

Who did their offers go unanswered by? Geldert told me in September 2017 that Kirk Wankel had requested my presence at a January 2017 meeting (probably requested me because I have been so openly vocal). Now whether I am qualified to have represented the litigation group or whether I would have agreed to it is irrelevant - I was not told about the request until some 9 months later. When I asked Geldert as to why he did not tell me at the time the request was made, his response was that he would not subject any of his clients to a meeting with Wankel. Seriously, what harm could it have done to have some of us at a meeting? What was Geldert so afraid of? So again who did their offers go unanswered by?

I have spoken to several people who volunteered their expertise and time in many areas to Geldert throughout the past 4+ years only to be denied involvement by the very person who should have been bringing us together, not separating us with conjecture, fear and intimidation.

 

[truthr]

At the May hearing I was astounded, when I witnessed people personally talking to KW and his lawyer. I'm not about to converse with someone that unilaterally changed my contract and charged me nearly 40,000.00 to exit, different strokes for different folks, there are just somethings I will NEVER understand.

At the May 2018 speak to, if that is the May you are referring to, we were no longer represented by counsel so why wouldn't those "people" take that opportunity to introduce themselves to KW and his lawyer?

At the last hearing (October 2018) Justice Gill made it clear to at least one person that if she wanted any kind of consideration for her personal situation she would have to speak directly to Northmont and as a matter of fact she did just that by interrupting KW and I just as we were beginning to chat. No harm, no foul as I understood her "need" to speak with him so I stepped aside until she was done.

Interesting that the person who supposedly saw something that never actually happened between KW and me failed to mention this other person initiating and engaging in conversation with KW.

 

[GypsyOne]

My conclusion of character is based on manifest action and results, not "spoon-fed" opinion as you (truthr) imply. Manifest results: legal contracts that were trampled on, modified, and misinterpreted; lessees that were held accountable for capital improvements to real estate; lessees that were hoodwinked into converting leases to co-ownership agreements and thus being responsible for capital improvements for life; and as Marcie said, for example, paying $40,000 to give back an asset that you bought for $25,000, and that is but one of thousands of egregious examples that dramatically changed peoples' lives and welfare for the worse. Those are despicable actions and I don't need to meet the person responsible in person to draw those conclusions.

I can think of several reasons why Wankel might want to meet with Truth, or have her attend a meeting, and not one of those reasons is to represent the timeshare owners' interests. This saga has a history of advocates of timeshare owners being manipulated and muted, and I wonder how and why. So as the joke goes, once you have spoken to the man, check for your watch and wallet.

 

[NeverNeverAgain]

My conclusion of character is based on manifest action and results, not "spoon-fed" opinion as you (truthr) imply. Manifest results: legal contracts that were trampled on, modified, and misinterpreted; lessees that were held accountable for capital improvements to real estate; lessees that were hoodwinked into converting leases to co-ownership agreements and thus being responsible for capital improvements for life; and as Marcie said, for example, paying $40,000 to give back an asset that you bought for $25,000, and that is but one of thousands of egregious examples that dramatically changed peoples' lives and welfare for the worse. Those are despicable actions and I don't need to meet the person responsible in person to draw those conclusions.

I can think of several reasons why Wankel might want to meet with Truth, or have her attend a meeting, and not one of those reasons is to represent the timeshare owners' interests. This saga has a history of advocates of timeshare owners being manipulated and muted, and I wonder how and why. So as the joke goes, once you have spoken to the man, check for your watch and wallet.

GypsyOne, I agree with everything you said. I know we were lied to when we purchased my "Lease". I was specifically told we could not be held responsible for capital expenses, unlike other perpetual time share agreements, and that the lease agreement was the only way to go. I was also told they would always be willing to purchase it back for the agreement amount, it would be the best and cheapest vacation deal ever, etc, etc. I don't think anyone could have imagined that we would be treated this way.

However, we should all keep in mind that Truth and others still caught in this mess and have no choice but to deal with those people. Truth is right that our lawyer has lied to us, and I think most question which side he was actually fighting for. I know what I am thinking.

I think we can bring up blame for others as well. What about the judge(s) that ruled on our "Lease" contracts. We lost on arguments such as "If we don't pay, who will" and we must pay for the good of everyone in the timeshare. What about the politicians and all those in government whose job it is to protect us and did nothing? It seems that we are trying to make the case of "Who are the worst Bad Guys?" I know we are frustrated, mad, and still unable to get over the injustice of this case. However, I think there could be less discussion about our decisions, right or wrong, on what we have done personally trying to defend ourselves. I continue to read this to see if there is anything new and helpful and see how this mess continues to play out. I hope those still in the know will feel like they are free to share, and will continue to share information or ideas that could help in the future. I keep hoping that by some chance, there would be some justice for all of us.

 

[GypsyOne]

GypsyOne, I agree with everything you said. I know we were lied to when we purchased my "Lease". I was specifically told we could not be held responsible for capital expenses, unlike other perpetual time share agreements, and that the lease agreement was the only way to go. I was also told they would always be willing to purchase it back for the agreement amount, it would be the best and cheapest vacation deal ever, etc, etc. I don't think anyone could have imagined that we would be treated this way.

However, we should all keep in mind that Truth and others still caught in this mess and have no choice but to deal with those people. Truth is right that our lawyer has lied to us, and I think most question which side he was actually fighting for. I know what I am thinking.

I think we can bring up blame for others as well. What about the judge(s) that ruled on our "Lease" contracts. We lost on arguments such as "If we don't pay, who will" and we must pay for the good of everyone in the timeshare. What about the politicians and all those in government whose job it is to protect us and did nothing? It seems that we are trying to make the case of "Who are the worst Bad Guys?" I know we are frustrated, mad, and still unable to get over the injustice of this case. However, I think there could be less discussion about our decisions, right or wrong, on what we have done personally trying to defend ourselves. I continue to read this to see if there is anything new and helpful and see how this mess continues to play out. I hope those still in the know will feel like they are free to share, and will continue to share information or ideas that could help in the future. I keep hoping that by some chance, there would be some justice for all of us.

I agree with most of what you say but I'm not as quick to jump on Geldert as being one of the bad guys. I think Geldert's defense of our position was well-intentioned and I think he thought we had a rock-solid case that, based on the evidence, we would easily win; just as all of us thought similarly. Then when we got blindsided by what appears to be a corrupt court decision, Geldert was left having to make the best of a bad situation. But being wrong does not equate to lying; lying implies intentionally intending to misled, which I don't think was the case.

 

[Meow]

Thank you GypsyOne. It is refreshing to hear a rational voice for a change. After all we've been through we look for heroes and villains. Geldert is certainly no hero, but I've see no evidence that proves his is a villain either. But Wankel - that another matter.

 

[den403]

MarcieLGuest
At the May hearing I was astounded, when I witnessed people personally talking to KW and his lawyer. I'm not about to converse with someone that unilaterally changed my contract and charged me nearly 40,000.00 to exit, different strokes for different folks, there are just somethings I will NEVER understand.


As one of ‘these’ people I will explain the facts......
For anyone who attended the court hearing in May and those especially speaking negitively here......
Please recall that Judge Gill let everyone in the courtroom speak that day including: those that were not part of the appeal but wanted to join, those who defaulted on their settlements and wanted to join and even option 1s that had paid and wanted to join.

So before you accuse others of speaking to the otherside and how dare they??....

Please also recall Judge Gill stating from his bench “all those interested parties that stated their name in the courtroom to join the appeal and wishing to join the appeal were to meet with Virtue outside the courtroom after session had ended to get your name on the list.”

Many people spoke with Virtue in the lobby that day and got their names on that list to join the appeal as requested by Judge Gill and note KW was an earshot from Virtue but not sitting beside him at the time. KW was more specifically standing on the other side of the couch Virtue on the couch and writing on the coffee table and they did and could simply talk over the couch.