Give the Baker Boyz credit for never quitting. Brent Alexander and Alexander Seawright filed a motion for a settlement conference against SEC Receiver Alysson Mills in SEC v. Butler Snow et al in U.S. District Court. This post is for the Madison Timber junkies. The motion is posted below.
17 comments:
"These attorneys fees are killing me"
When in the blue hell are we gonna see some handcuffs and leg irons!?!?!!!!!
Maybe they should read Judge Reeves' 'no old white guy' order.
Whatever is ultimately recovered is going to be peanuts anyway. I say push these co conspirators to their last dime (at least the last dime that can be found).
Life is so unfair!
"they will be forced to continue to incur significant legal fees and expenses to defend the Receiver’s claims, further dissipating their financial resources"
the nonstop denials of these two remind me of the piano player in the whorehouse who says he has no idea what goes on upstairs,
These pretzels.....are making me thirsty.
If they have such limited resources, how are these two paying their Brunini monthly billing statements?
HOW are they still employed at Baker????
"the nonstop denials of these two remind me of the piano player in the whorehouse who says he has no idea what goes on upstairs,"
Huh, that's strange...it reminds me of a bunch of whores who say they have no idea there is a guy playing a piano downstairs...
Strange. Jon Seawright individually is not a party to the motion. Only Brent Alexander.
Do you want their money to go to the lawyers or the receiver for disbursement to the victims? That’s the question.
Seawright filed for bankruptcy, so generally speaking, lawsuits and the receiver's claims against him are stayed. I thought the Alexander Seawright entities had also filed, but maybe not, or maybe not "Alexander Seawright, LLC" specifically. I guess they want to attempt to preserve its claim against any recovery (on the theory that it was just another innocent and duped "investor" with Adams, I would also guess).
I would guess that this motion is, in its underpinnings, pretty much true insofar as Alexander being at the point that every dollar spent on legal fees is gone forever as far as any potential recovery for the receiver. In other words, Alexander's assets are finite and shrinking by the day and his future financial prospects are, er, limited at the moment.
I wonder if this has something to do with potential asset forfeiture and legal fees. For those that don't know, broadly and simplistically, if an attorney accepts payment for legal fees and he/she knows or should have known those monies were subject to forfeiture, the fees are just as subject to forfeiture claims as any money still in the possession of the defendant.
He is JON Seawright, not “Alexander” Seawright, KF. Correct that, please. You get too hasty, and eager to post, and the errata stand out embarrassingly.
Really? Why don't you read the first paragraph of the complaint posted above.
KF, read footnote no. 1.
"He is JON Seawright, not “Alexander” Seawright, KF. Correct that, please. You get too hasty, and eager to post, and the errata stand out embarrassingly."
This is 9:57PM 12-19 not KF, but the Alexander Seawright entity(ies) are not people and when referring to the entity "Alexander Seawright, LLC" what else would you suggest anyone use? In the context of this motion, Alexander Seawright, LLC, is not "Jon" or "he" because it is not "Jon Seawright," it is Alexander Seawright. And speaking of hasty and eager...
Post a Comment