Also, Qenta claimed in its motion to vacate that they were trying to do the right thing for customers, and I was trying to prevent them from doing it, as I had a crazy theory that assets should be returned to the bank at their current market values, rather than the Sept 30 2022 values as agreed by the Receiver. (The Receiver part was also a lie.)
Ticker tape by TradingView
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I downloaded their motion from PACER, and it's ludicrous. While the Receiver may not want to be involved in this process, one would think that the least they could do is set the︀ record straight about what others are saying about him. If someone were blatantly lying about︁ what I agreed to or didn't agree to, I'd want to step up to say︂ that it's not true.
I'
I'm trying. But OCIF is very corrupt as you know. OCIF never should have put the bank into Receivership in the first place. Plus, I'm suing them. I'm also suing the Receiver. So that makes it hard for me to work with them. However OCIF has a new Commissioner. I'm suing the old one. I'm also trying to get to the new governor. Hopefully she is better than the last one.
I'm trying. But OCIF is very corrupt as you know. OCIF never should have put the bank into Receivership in the first place. Plus, I'm suing them. I'm also suing the Receiver. So that makes it hard for me to work with them. However OCIF has a new Commissioner. I'm suing the old one. I'm also trying to get to the new governor. Hopefully she is better than the last one.
Thank you very much for highlighting that this is content available - I've tried to access it myself, but unless I'm mistaken it looks like a registration process with fees to access any︀ documents is needed. Would you be able to make the file available, or if not︁ the text of the key sections? It would be extremely useful as part of customer︂ attempts to draw the Receiver's attention to this, and respectfully request if he may be︃ able to release a statement, if not a court filing, that that at least does︄ not allow Qenta to misrepresent his position.
Good morning,
I have just received the following email from the Receiver, which in my view confirms that he is leaving the Opt-ins on our own against Qenta:
“We are writing to acknowledge receipt of your claim, which we have now placed under review. Notwithstanding, per the records available to us, your account is not included within the list of eligible customers participating in this liquidation process. Please provide any additional information or documents available that could evidence that (account ownership or agreement you signed with the bank for opening an account, transaction history, communications, transfer requests or conditions). Said information should be uploaded through︀ secure email [email protected].”
I sent, bith by DHL and by secure email, all the︁ documents required for Opt-out claimants, as per the liquidation website, and did it well within︂ time. I received ackoledgement from Axos and just today I got this. As this email︃ is the reply to a previous contact request I made, it can be one of︄ these two:
1. It has been sent before they reviewed all the documents sent and︅ once they do it, I will be included in the liquidation.
2. They have already︆ read my claim. Documents reviewed or not, my account number is not an Opt-out and︇ they will not deal with it.
Not very encouraging.
I have just received the following email from the Receiver, which in my view confirms that he is leaving the Opt-ins on our own against Qenta:
“We are writing to acknowledge receipt of your claim, which we have now placed under review. Notwithstanding, per the records available to us, your account is not included within the list of eligible customers participating in this liquidation process. Please provide any additional information or documents available that could evidence that (account ownership or agreement you signed with the bank for opening an account, transaction history, communications, transfer requests or conditions). Said information should be uploaded through︀ secure email [email protected].”
I sent, bith by DHL and by secure email, all the︁ documents required for Opt-out claimants, as per the liquidation website, and did it well within︂ time. I received ackoledgement from Axos and just today I got this. As this email︃ is the reply to a previous contact request I made, it can be one of︄ these two:
1. It has been sent before they reviewed all the documents sent and︅ once they do it, I will be included in the liquidation.
2. They have already︆ read my claim. Documents reviewed or not, my account number is not an Opt-out and︇ they will not deal with it.
Not very encouraging.
I don't get this. I have a list of all the bank's customers and their balances︈ Please send me an email with you name so that I can check to see︉ if you are on the list. Email [email protected]
Thank you @jalamicr, that's extremely useful - you are a star.
Thanks also to Crooked Qenta (& "Bent de Junk" - hereafter, shortened to Crooked & de Junk) for this remarkable piece of comedy.
So, having read through, Crooked & de Junk's filing to lift the TRO is based on two big claims:
1)The TRO is bad for customers︀, because it stops Crooked & de Junk from acting in our interests
2) Peter︁ has no authority to act on behalf of the bank.
Expanding on the first point,︂ the filing claims:
To describe Qenta as marshals of EPB customers assets is an insult to the very idea of marshalling, which is to safeguard an owner's property, not tear it shreds and deceptively help yourself to it as you please.
Come on de Junk, you're going to have to do better than this.
Thanks also to Crooked Qenta (& "Bent de Junk" - hereafter, shortened to Crooked & de Junk) for this remarkable piece of comedy.
So, having read through, Crooked & de Junk's filing to lift the TRO is based on two big claims:
1)The TRO is bad for customers︀, because it stops Crooked & de Junk from acting in our interests
2) Peter︁ has no authority to act on behalf of the bank.
Expanding on the first point,︂ the filing claims:
- That the TRO is “preventing Respondents from taking actions that are in︃ the interest of third parties” (meaning customers). Come on guys, REALLY? 😉 There is one clear︄ pathway here which is in the interest of customers, and it steers well away from︅ de Junkyard & Co proposing to help themselves to half the current value of my︆ assets.
- That the TRO stops Crooked & de Junk from “working with the Trustee and︇ the ‘opt in’ customers to resolve their claims.” But by Crooked & de Junk's ***︈own admission*** in their July 11th termination letter to the Receiver, their process of "working︉ together" had reached a "deadlock", where “…performance has become legally impossible… the original intent… irreparably︊ frustrated”, with "impossibility, and an "indefinite impasse". Sorry Crooked & de Junk, I appreciate you've︋ been feeling very "frustrated" but you can't have it both ways, you silly boys -︌ you can't portray yourselves as still executing a deal with the Receiver, when you've already︍ admitted that your romance together has reached a flaccid dead end.
- That Crooked & de︎ Junk are “trying to marshal assets for the benefit of customers”, while painting Peter’s TRO️ as an obstacle. Well, you're certainly not marshalling anything for my benefit, Mr de Junkyard. What benefits me, Mr de Junkyard, is the return of my assets in kind, as they were originally received.
To describe Qenta as marshals of EPB customers assets is an insult to the very idea of marshalling, which is to safeguard an owner's property, not tear it shreds and deceptively help yourself to it as you please.
Come on de Junk, you're going to have to do better than this.
Objectively speaking, Peter is the only one offering assistance to clients. The rest are just wicked wolves dancing before the feast. If no one wants to help us, can we somehow help disprove the argument that Peter isn't a party? Perhaps authorizing to act on our behalf?
Good morningn to everyone in the group. I undestand that we are supposed to be 1702 (please do forgive me if I´m wrong in the number), I don´t know how many of those are united here, but I have a hunch that we are pretty few. Wouldn´t it help if all 1702 were informed (by the way, I didn´t receive the mail from Schiff Gold)? And then, somehow, support Mr. Schiff as a valid actor (sorry, my English is quite limited, specially with legal terms).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.