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

[MarcieL]

Edited to the judge Should be aware.

 

[truthr]

 

[truthr]

When people go out of their way to concoct a lie on a checkable thing,
whether or not you care about them lying,
you should probably look more closely at the thing they are lying about.
Not just the fact that they lied but what they lied about.
~ direct quote ~ Rachel Maddow, March 16, 2018

 

[Spark1]

I wrote that post in TUG BBS some time ago when for a short time Northmont was openly discussing the case in open forum with TS owners. The conversation didn't last long, probably because they found themselves on the losing end of the logic and merit discussion. At that time life seemed much simpler. We assumed that contracts and leases meant something, words meant what they said, the courts were fair arbitrators of truth, cases were won and lost on the merits of your arguement, not on your influence and the size of your war chest, and enough people had integrity to assure that truth would prevail. That has all proven to be terribly naive. Not only did we lose several times in court, but not one snippet of our case was found to have merit by the judges. I find it almost incredible that the courts could be so one-sided and myopic. I bought out when it became painfully obvious that we could not win, at least with the JEKE test case approach. However, I continue to follow the case and I'm hoping that those currently carrying on the battle have found an approach that works. Perhaps an honest judge will be found who believes in the integrity of a contract and justice will prevail. Good luck to those fighting on.

Thanks GypsyOne These Judges are working together ever since Justice Loo ruled wrongly right at the start of this scam. I would of ruled that this corrupt Trustee had Know right to petition the Supreme Court of B.C.,that is not in our Lease contract. Show me where judges,where this Trustee had the right to do this unfair practice against time owners? We all know now none of these Lawyers representing us were qualified to be involved in this case. I feel the same way about these Judges. It appears to me they are working for Northmont. What is the most they can do to us throw us in jail. That would be a great story in the newspapers. Time owners refuse to pay the extortion for a worthless time Share resort. Time owners were not paying proper amount of money for years because of poor management by the resort managers but it is still the responsiblity of the time owners to catch this and now they are going to pay. I suppose this is also the way our contract reads. It is pretty bad Judges when you think a Special Assessment means replacing the resort and not general maintenance. This shows me you know nothing about time Share. This also shows me you have no respect for innocent people’s money. Shame on all you people that have abused the justice system.

 

[LilMaggie]

Thanks GypsyOne These Judges are working together ever since Justice Loo ruled wrongly right at the start of this scam. I would of ruled that this corrupt Trustee had Know right to petition the Supreme Court of B.C.,that is not in our Lease contract. Show me where judges,where this Trustee had the right to do this unfair practice against time owners? We all know now none of these Lawyers representing us were qualified to be involved in this case. I feel the same way about these Judges. It appears to me they are working for Northmont. What is the most they can do to us throw us in jail. That would be a great story in the newspapers. Time owners refuse to pay the extortion for a worthless time Share resort. Time owners were not paying proper amount of money for years because of poor management by the resort managers but it is still the responsiblity of the time owners to catch this and now they are going to pay. I suppose this is also the way our contract reads. It is pretty bad Judges when you think a Special Assessment means replacing the resort and not general maintenance. This shows me you know nothing about time Share. This also shows me you have no respect for innocent people’s money. Shame on all you people that have abused the justice system.

Welcome back Spark!

 

[aden2]

A trial de novo
In general, de novo is a Latin phrase that means something along the lines of anew, beginning again, afresh, or from the beginning. In a legal context is most commonly used in a trial de novo, or a new trial. In a trial de novo, a different tribunal is used, often by the authority of the appellate court. A trial de novo is most often ordered when the original court did not properly make a determination in a case in the way that is appropriate by the law.

Unlike an appeals court, a trial de novo is tried as though there was never any prior trial, although it is a form of an appeal. New evidence cannot be submitted in a trial de novo. However, if is often done in a small claims court. A trial de novo may not only be requested by an individual who was involved in arbitration, but it can also be requested by someone involved in an administrative agency decision.

The general rule of the court is that appeal must be based only on the points of law instead of the points of fact. Appeals are usually rely on the claim that the judge or jury did not look at all the facts. If this claim is found to be true, the appeal judge often will order a trial de novo. The important issue is protecting an individual's rights against being tried for the same crime twice, or double jeopardy.

In order to apply for a trial de novo, an application is often required. The application can be given to the clerk associated to the circuit judge within 10 days of the when the first judgment was rendered in order to secure a trial de novo.

The application for a trial de novo application also gets mailed to the opposing party or his or her attorney by the clerk, or it can also be served as provided by the law for the service of notices up to 15 days after the rendered judgment

A trial de novo application often cannot be served until the applicant is approved by the associate circuit judge. This must be performed within the time given before the circuit judge to the adverse party. A sufficient fee is also needed to secure the payment of the costs of another judgment, all under the condition that an applicant will carry through the prosecution for trial de novo with due diligence to a decision.

If the trial de novo judgment is found against the individual, the defendant must pay for the judgment, and if the application for trial de novo is dismissed, the individual will pay also the judgment rendered by the circuit judge, in addition to the costs.

 

[dotbuhler]

Looks like Mr. Barry King is itching to get back into the sights of The Alberta Law Society Disciplinary Board. If there is NO list forthcoming after more than a week, NO reply to emails, NO response from voice mails, he is guilty of an obstruction of Justice.

 

[truthr]

Dot shared a link to this earlier but it appears the link has disappeared
No worries I downloaded it onto my laptop from the original source.

Here it is for those who may be interested - It is about Litigation Privilege.

 

[aden2]

Maximum allowable cost of borrowing 124.61(1) A payday lender shall not charge, require or accept a total cost of borrowing that exceeds 15% of the principal amount of the payday loan. (2) The maximum total cost of borrowing under subsection (1) must include the fees for all mandatory and optional services provided by the payday lender in relation to a payday loan and any other fees or charges set out in the regulations. (3) In addition to the cost set out in subsection (1), if a borrower fails to repay the amount specified in the payday loan agreement, the payday lender may charge the following: (a) interest at a rate of 2.5% per month, not to be compounded; (b) a one-time fee in an amount determined by the Director for each dishonoured cheque or dishonoured pre-authorized debit. 2016 cE-9.5 s8

 

[CleoB]

If you wrote a letter to Geldert which was to be forwarded to Northmount saying that you reject their amendments then include that in your dispute note.

 

[dotbuhler]

If you wrote a letter to Geldert which was to be forwarded to Northmount saying that you reject their amendments then include that in your dispute note.

Any correspondence which notifies Northmont of your objections (and Geldert directed us as his clients to do so twice in the past 2 or 3 years) are also an IMPORTANT addition to those Affidavits you are in the process of, or have already filed. Judge Young specifically speaks to this as part of her Decision. As such, they are absolutely relevant to the Appeal that will be decided upon on May 10, 2018. Remember that May 3, 2018 is the date on which the Court should have that documentation in hand. Justice Gill needs to see them BEFORE May 10th!
I know that prior to my retaining Geldert I personally wrote two other letters to Wankel and ASSociates pointing out my objections.

 

[Petus@18]

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.

 

[Petus@18]

Sunday's humour
Q: What's the difference between a bad lawyer and Geldert?
A: A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for a couple of years. Geldert makes it last even longer!!!

Let's continue phoning B King requesting the contact list.
Enjoy your evening!

 

[dotbuhler]

STRATEGY #1 This week everyone phones Barry King's office asking for the List of 76. Phone # 780-417-9222, Barry King ext. #201, Carla Avery ext. # 209. YEAH, IT'LL PROBABLY BE A VOICE MAIL RESPONSE. RECORD YOUR MESSAGE LEAVING CONTACT DETAILS. If there is no response from either of those two and the list is NOT actually in some of our hands by Thursday, March 22, a full 2 weeks since Court, we move on to the second stage. At a date unknown to SLG we fill those 2 voice mailboxes to the nubs. No clients getting through, no messages other than ours on there. Not a good thing for any business.

 

[MgolferL]

We have been gone for a while and I started reading the posts form Page 185, where I left off. Sounds like some good work going on and some people still rehashing opinions of injustice, which is I guess is a form of dealing with it....

Some points, perhaps someone can comment on...
1. I took Option 1 and paid. Got an email notification...not EVEN personalized that KW had signed the papers and apparently we are no longer on the NM family...thank God.
2. I am reading that Option 1, although a bit of a long-shot can file a dispute (?) with Justice Gill which may be heard?
3. The money will probably be long gone to get anything back from NM, but I am going after MG and have sent letters to the BC LS and got back replies they are looking at it.
4. I will (as BB mentioned in a post) be interested to help Option 2 people fight this...in other words stand as a united front against NM & MG. I MAY have a gag order, but didn't sign anywhere that I couldn't support someone else in their fight against the Dark Lord.

SOOOOOO...
1. Question 2 above...for those in the know today...is that the way to go, and there is a lot of "you should do,s" out there, but has anyone gone thru the entire process and be willing to put down the steps from1+ so those of late can still be in the game to help and/or...?
2. Have any meetings been scheduled...Calgary and/or Edmonton that we could collectively meet and chart a course to accomplish numerous filings with Judge Gill, and the best ways to support Option 2 people moving forward.

What I had to pay did not break the bank and I could walk away and call it a day. I am over the emotional crap I was going thru a month ago though...however, the BS perpetuated by NM, KW and MG needs to be dealt with and justice brought to all by THIS group. The government(s) who so desperately lie to get votes have cut the rope and cast us away....ON A SIDE NOTE...I actually got a call from the NDP party doing a survey wondering what people thought of their progress to date...which was apparently recorded. I named ALL the NDP members I sent letters to and how ineffective and useless they have been in this process, even though they wanted to talk free light bulbs and shower-heads. They couldn't end it fast enough...

And Lastly...Even though I support the UCP, Jason Kenney and the gang, their LACK OF RESPONSE has been deafening as well. We, as a group need to bring down the house of cards.

Cheers and glad to be back...

 

[MarcieL]

Call Kenny's office he is now in opposition this maybe helpful. I am option 1 also, paid 40 grand to get out. Cannot continue the fight in our 70's and had to take out a bank loan.

 

[Sunchaser Barbados]

Am I correct in understanding there are two groups, Option 1's and Option 2's, each of whom is contemplating legal action against Michael W. Geldert? This is of course in addition to the complaints many of us have filed regarding Mr. Geldert with the BC Law Society.

Why two groups? How much sense does this make? So there are now what, three Facebook groups? Someone isn't playing well with others.

I don't fully understand the paranoia about Geldert, or Northmont for that matter, finding out our strategy. Sure it would be great if we pulled a Geldert and surprised them with our position at the 11th hour. But we can't be worried about surprising them, it means little. Besides, how'd that work out for Geldert?

As has been pointed out here so wisely, facts are facts. What we are relying upon as evidence is in the past, so knowing our strategy is virtually moot to Geldert. He can't change his past actions.

What's next then, the pre-2004 leasees splitting from the 2004-plus leasees? Damn, me and my big mouth. Watch that will happen.

This all makes as much sense to me as the left-handers splitting from the right-handers. It will cost $200,000 anyway, probably more to fight this fight once, let alone twice. Mark my martini slurred words, both groups will fizzle due to lack of funds.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

Barry King, is he late or does he just have different priorities?

During the March 8th “Speak To” Barry King from Strathcona Law Group made a ton of reference his obligation to getting documentation out to clients and that his office was in the process of completing all the withdrawal of counsel notices as he recognized it was his duty in getting things wrapped up so his clients could move forward with their own appeals (or more like it was being said as lip service to the Court as this is what he needed to say on record).

The Court recognized there was an issue related to how do Option 2 people get in touch with each other to continue and Barry King was to run with getting consent (step 1) and create a list with contact info (step 2) to facilitate Option 2 people being able to communicate with each other. Now from my interpretation below this consent and info gathering should have started at the very latest a week after the March 8th instructions Barry King agreed to with Justice Gill summarized in the transcripts below.

Now in my opinion there is no excuse Option 2 people have not been contacted yet as this should be a very easy undertaking.

Barry King’s office as per Carla Avery’s affidavit already has all of your names and from what I understand their office contacted several, if not all, non-settling individuals weeks ago trying to solicit you for SLG services (believe the offer was for a $250 consultation) so to the best of my knowledge this leads me to believe they already have basic contact info for everyone so what is the hold up?

The clock is ticking so everyday move’s everyone closer to prepare for May 3rd and May 10th – this also means it’s moving closer for a new round of complaints to the Alberta Law Society and Justice Gill via an affidavit stating as part time was eroded by another failure getting the job accepted by Counsel done.

Unfortunately this has happened before with Barry King (link below) but don’t get discouraged as in the transcript Justice Gill recognized people’s distain for Barry King as Counsel and that this could appeared to be an efficient process to move forward but Justice Gill appears to be a very reasonable person so this shortcoming will just need to be conveyed to his Lordship and a new process set if required.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abls/doc/2010/2010abls9/2010abls9.html?resultIndex=20

FYI - Carla Avery works for Barry King and prepared a list of name’s as an affidavit that was not yet filed with the courts that day but was provided to MR. VIRTUE and the Court Marth 8th.


Pg 32
2 THE COURT: And those are the two first -- the premise of the -
3 - going forward is that the 76 people still in at this point, until they tell us otherwise. There's
4 so many who are out. And in terms of how we move forward with the appeal and the best
5 interests of the 76, we want them to have an opportunity to be able to work collectively,
6 they can't do that unless they have information, so we'll get that information -- or that
7 opportunity for them to share their information, I appreciate that, Mr. King, you'll do that.
8 And that letter will also then have a direction as to a comeback date. I -- you know, I think
9 we may have to take a few steps here before we're ready to actually begin the appeal
10 process.

20 THE COURT: Okay so we have either -- okay so today's -- so
21 Mr. King, if you send -- if it took you about a week to send out that letter --
22
23 MR. KING: Yeah

Pg 34
23 THE COURT: there are approximately 76 people still part of the -- the appeal that's been filed. Mr. King
24 will -- I'm just going to suggest something here, Mr. King, maybe there's two documents
25 you -- you sent out maybe two separate documents, one that is to be returned immediately,
26 perhaps to advise if -- if you're prepared to consent to the release of your personal contact
27 information to the other 76, and upon you receiving those consents, you will send out that
28 information, Mr. King, is that reasonable to -- to say that?
29
30 MR. KING: That's absolutely reasonable, Sir, that would be
31 certainly appropriate.

Pg 37
1 MR. KING: It will be served through my office, Sir, if that's
2 acceptable and --
3
4 THE COURT: Okay, that's fine.
5
6 MR. KING: -- I mean we have, I think, the most current
7 contact information for people.


Based on their priority (MR. VIRTUE, MR. KING, and Geldert) things can happen quickly though – this was in reference to getting an “Order” filed immediately to have the settling parties suppressed and an incriminating Affidavit pulled from record which Barry King wanted to see to personally and had filed the same day negotiated during the close door meeting between the Dream Team and Justice Gill (again initiated by MR.KING).

Pg 46
14 MR. KING: And Sir, with respect to that order, because Mr.
15 Virtue is going to be traveling back to Calgary, I'd like to get that order filed today. Can I
16 -- can you dispense with his approval of the order as long as it's signed by you, and I'll send
17 my student down to get it signed?


Next up – “So what did people say about Michael Geldert and Barry King?”

 

[MarcieL]

Barry King, is he late or does he just have different priorities?

During the March 8th “Speak To” Barry King from Strathcona Law Group made a ton of reference his obligation to getting documentation out to clients and that his office was in the process of completing all the withdrawal of counsel notices as he recognized it was his duty in getting things wrapped up so his clients could move forward with their own appeals (or more like it was being said as lip service to the Court as this is what he needed to say on record).

The Court recognized there was an issue related to how do Option 2 people get in touch with each other to continue and Barry King was to run with getting consent (step 1) and create a list with contact info (step 2) to facilitate Option 2 people being able to communicate with each other. Now from my interpretation below this consent and info gathering should have started at the very latest a week after the March 8th instructions Barry King agreed to with Justice Gill summarized in the transcripts below.

Now in my opinion there is no excuse Option 2 people have not been contacted yet as this should be a very easy undertaking.

Barry King’s office as per Carla Avery’s affidavit already has all of your names and from what I understand their office contacted several, if not all, non-settling individuals weeks ago trying to solicit you for SLG services (believe the offer was for a $250 consultation) so to the best of my knowledge this leads me to believe they already have basic contact info for everyone so what is the hold up?

The clock is ticking so everyday move’s everyone closer to prepare for May 3rd and May 10th – this also means it’s moving closer for a new round of complaints to the Alberta Law Society and Justice Gill via an affidavit stating as part time was eroded by another failure getting the job accepted by Counsel done.

Unfortunately this has happened before with Barry King (link below) but don’t get discouraged as in the transcript Justice Gill recognized people’s distain for Barry King as Counsel and that this could appeared to be an efficient process to move forward but Justice Gill appears to be a very reasonable person so this shortcoming will just need to be conveyed to his Lordship and a new process set if required.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abls/doc/2010/2010abls9/2010abls9.html?resultIndex=20

FYI - Carla Avery works for Barry King and prepared a list of name’s as an affidavit that was not yet filed with the courts that day but was provided to MR. VIRTUE and the Court Marth 8th.


Pg 32
2 THE COURT: And those are the two first -- the premise of the -
3 - going forward is that the 76 people still in at this point, until they tell us otherwise. There's
4 so many who are out. And in terms of how we move forward with the appeal and the best
5 interests of the 76, we want them to have an opportunity to be able to work collectively,
6 they can't do that unless they have information, so we'll get that information -- or that
7 opportunity for them to share their information, I appreciate that, Mr. King, you'll do that.
8 And that letter will also then have a direction as to a comeback date. I -- you know, I think
9 we may have to take a few steps here before we're ready to actually begin the appeal
10 process.

20 THE COURT: Okay so we have either -- okay so today's -- so
21 Mr. King, if you send -- if it took you about a week to send out that letter --
22
23 MR. KING: Yeah

Pg 34
23 THE COURT: there are approximately 76 people still part of the -- the appeal that's been filed. Mr. King
24 will -- I'm just going to suggest something here, Mr. King, maybe there's two documents
25 you -- you sent out maybe two separate documents, one that is to be returned immediately,
26 perhaps to advise if -- if you're prepared to consent to the release of your personal contact
27 information to the other 76, and upon you receiving those consents, you will send out that
28 information, Mr. King, is that reasonable to -- to say that?
29
30 MR. KING: That's absolutely reasonable, Sir, that would be
31 certainly appropriate.

Pg 37
1 MR. KING: It will be served through my office, Sir, if that's
2 acceptable and --
3
4 THE COURT: Okay, that's fine.
5
6 MR. KING: -- I mean we have, I think, the most current
7 contact information for people.


Based on their priority (MR. VIRTUE, MR. KING, and Geldert) things can happen quickly though – this was in reference to getting an “Order” filed immediately to have the settling parties suppressed and an incriminating Affidavit pulled from record which Barry King wanted to see to personally and had filed the same day negotiated during the close door meeting between the Dream Team and Justice Gill (again initiated by MR.KING).

Pg 46
14 MR. KING: And Sir, with respect to that order, because Mr.
15 Virtue is going to be traveling back to Calgary, I'd like to get that order filed today. Can I
16 -- can you dispense with his approval of the order as long as it's signed by you, and I'll send
17 my student down to get it signed?


Next up – “So what did people say about Michael Geldert and Barry King?”

I am lost here what was this affidavit Kong filed in Avery 's name?

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

I am lost here what was this affidavit Kong filed in Avery 's name?

Carla Avery on behalf of Barry King as an employee of SLG prepared a list of names of the people who Michael Geldert indicated opted out of the settlement agreement (somewhere between 75 and 77 people) - the info she put together is intended to be entered as a court document and a copy was given to Mr. Virtue once it was prepared but before it was filed as an affidavit.

Justice Gill was able to look at the list off Mr. Virtue's copy as it had yet to be filed at the time of March 8th Speak To and Barry King had conveniently left his copy at the office so at the end of the day a different version may be filed at some point - it only means something once there is filed and a court seal put on it.

This will be the list of people Barry King will need to reach out to at the Courts direction to eventually put together a contact list for Option 2 people.

Hope this helps

 

[MarcieL]

Thanks so much for the explanation Ultimate _Betrayal, appreciate.

 

[J's Garage]

Why two groups? How much sense does this make? So there are now what, three Facebook groups? Someone isn't playing well with others.

I think in stating this it may be presumptuous, as well an application of some tunnel vision. Also this seems to be a veiled attempt to criticize an individual who had every right to establish a group according to specific rules that some may not have agreed with.

Firstly, right now while it may look like people may be divided, I think it has more to do with various points of emphasis and results of decisions that have been made. I know the groups are likely to work on some common areas and share points of interest. But there are too many differences right now to try to cover everything in one big circus tent.

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

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.

So it does make sense. Aside from the fact that if there were only a singular action, that would commit everyone participating into an agreement that not everyone may agree with. Doesn't that sound familiar, even "deja vu"ish?

 

[dotbuhler]

I think in stating this it may be presumptuous, as well an application of some tunnel vision. Also this seems to be a veiled attempt to criticize an individual who had every right to establish a group according to specific rules that some may not have agreed with.

Firstly, right now while it may look like people may be divided, I think it has more to do with various points of emphasis and results of decisions that have been made. I know the groups are likely to work on some common areas and share points of interest. But there are too many differences right now to try to cover everything in one big circus tent.

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

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.

So it does make sense. Aside from the fact that if there were only a singular action, that would commit everyone participating into an agreement that not everyone may agree with. Doesn't that sound familiar, even "deja vu"ish?

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.

 

[dotbuhler]

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/how-to-sue-your-lawyer

 

[MarcieL]

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.

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.