It’s a big risk. I would feel more inclined if people had thought that Gary
Grenley did well in court, but I got the impression that was not the case.
If he couldn’t, for whatever reason, litigate us out of this phony rigged
receivership, what are the chances for anything else?
I’m just being practical here. It’s litigation we’re talking about, and the
prospect has not been made hopeful thus far.
--
Julia Pond
juliapond@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Mike Peterson wrote:
Before I wander off somewhere: I see little indication that this group really
wants to get into solution mode. Nonetheless, I offer some final
observations.
1) Rob and Eva Johnson were the first to suggest ways to defend against this
wholesale slaughter of our assets. I would ask them to commence firing as our
spokespersons and coordinators. This is a role not easily borne from Arizona.
2) Rob and Eva have retained an eminently capable counselor in Roy Thompson.
I would ask that they enlist his help in this endeavor, and follow his
advice. I believe that he leans toward the Grenley law firm. If he prefers
another firm, then we should retain them.
3) None of this is worthwhile without a war chest. I've sent in my $5000, and
I'm ready to send more if I see some indication that there is sufficient
unanimity to give us a chance in court. Otherwise, we can save our time and
money by going our own ways.
Specifically: The e-mail list has been dominated by about 20 people. We need
to average about $10,000 in donations per person to get a decent start and
convince the right people that we mean business. Think of it as a poker game.
If the pot is $100,000, then what might you risk in order to win it? I'd risk
$10,000 if I had a good hand. I think we'll have a good hand if we get
started right now. If we each risk 5 to 10% of what's been stolen from us,
then we'll easily beat the odds in Hamstreet's game, which hover around 0%. I
believe that we need Roy Thompson's oversight as our own odds wax and wane.
We don't need comments about the quality of this approach. This has all been
offered to us by the Johnsons and Mr. Thompson, and we need to act on it.
There's only one way to act on it, and that is to send money. That means YES.
All the rest is just talk, and means no. Sincerely, Mike Peterson
Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
