Garden City Group to be Claims Administrator for FTP Funds - Claims to begin Sept. 18 - See OP - Page 91 - Poker News

Not concerned whether you believe me or not. Could not care less. All I did was speak with a DoJ attorney and passed it along. It doesn't even mean the attorney is correct -- it's just EXACTLY what the attorney said. Nothing less, nothing more.

If you had done your homework thoroughly, you would discover all of my other posts were also correct. In fact, they all came true. All of my posts about upcoming announcements came BEFORE it was announced that GCG would be the administrator. In other words, I knew about upcoming press releases in advance.

Once again it does not mean what I am saying WILL HAPPEN, it's just what I was told WOULD HAPPEN.

Told by who? In previous posts you said you called and talked with them. Now you're claiming to know someone. How did you go from phone calls to personal relationships with DOJ workers. Obviously you made some big statements so don't be surprised to get questioned when some of the story doesn't add up, and it is the opposite of what everyone is expecting in time frames.

06-13-2013 , 01:32 PM

#2252

BustoPro

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,668

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigVariance

Once again it does not mean what I am saying WILL HAPPEN, it's just what I was told WOULD HAPPEN.

Nothing personal, but as you noted yourself, this type of information is of very limited value even if you were 100% credible.

The only thing we REALLY know is that **** will happen when it happens. Anyone making life plans based on getting their money in 2013 would be a complete idiot, even if your post was completely accurate.

So I'm not particularly concerned with verifying what you said. When the money shows up, I'll find a use for it then. Meanwhile, it doesn't exist.

06-13-2013 , 02:10 PM

#2253

BigVariance

enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyrulesall

I did not claim to know anyone or claim I have a personal relationship with anyone in the DoJ. I simply said spoke with the attorney who is handling the civil action. And that's all I did and I am sure the conversation didn't last much more than 3 minutes if that.

Please point out to me EXACTLY where I claimed to know DoJ people associated with this case or have a personal relationship.

06-13-2013 , 02:16 PM

#2254

BigVariance

enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by BustoPro

Nothing is definite til you get your money that's for sure. It's just info I passed along from the DoJ lawyer. Each of us can determine if we want to believe it or not. I have some "feelings" about what was said but my feelings are no better or worse than the next person's.

06-13-2013 , 02:20 PM

#2255

Ajnaran929

enthusiast

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 86

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigVariance

If you're telling the truth, thank you for the info. Rather than getting defensive and asking skeptics rebutting questions, I think it would be more productive to just simply give us a rough idea (with no names/specifics) of the manner of which you came by this information...

06-13-2013 , 02:30 PM

#2256

BigVariance

enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajnaran929

I am not defensive -- I just try to be exact bc so much of what I read on blogs is BS. When I pass along info, it is exactly as I got it -- it does not mean I was told the truth or whether it will happen.

My original post is # 2244. That post will tell you how I came by it.

06-13-2013 , 05:10 PM

#2257

Cardfish1

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,018

Post 2244 is not by you, and none of your other posts say anything about how you happened to be talking to a DOJ attorney.

06-13-2013 , 05:33 PM

#2258

Wilbury Twist

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 6,153

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardfish1

Post 2244 is not by you, and none of your other posts say anything about how you happened to be talking to a DOJ attorney.

No, but it quoted #2235, which is by him.

Also, he never said he would tell us how he got into a conversation with a DOJ attorney (although add me to those curious about this). He just said the post explains where he got his info, which it does.

06-13-2013 , 05:47 PM

#2259

Cardfish1

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,018

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilbury Twist

Also, he never said he would tell us how he got into a conversation with a DOJ attorney (although add me to those curious about this). He just said the post explains where he got his info, which it does.

He responded to a question asking the manner of how he came about the information by referring to a post which does not answer how he came about the information.

06-13-2013 , 05:56 PM

#2260

BigVariance

enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardfish1

He responded to a question asking the manner of how he came about the information by referring to a post which does not answer how he came about the information.

My post says I got it from a lawyer at the DoJ whom I spoke with by phone. I also said the lawyer is mentioned in the press release. I also said the lawyer was handling the civil suit.

06-13-2013 , 06:00 PM

#2261

Cardfish1

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,018

Did you just randomly bump into someone at the DOJ who is a lawyer and has specific knowledge of this case?

06-13-2013 , 06:13 PM

#2262

BigVariance

enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardfish1

Did you just randomly bump into someone at the DOJ who is a lawyer and has specific knowledge of this case?

No, I only knew the name of the lawyer I wanted to speak with -- I was even speculating that it was the right lawyer. I called the DoJ. The guy who originally answered the phone gave me this lawyer's direct line only because the phone system did not seem to be working well and he couldn't transfer me.

I called this direct line in the early evening and to my surprise the lawyer answered. That's about it. I don't consider the info I got to be earth shattering.

06-13-2013 , 06:29 PM

#2263

Cardfish1

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,018

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigVariance

Ok, I just made an assumption that this was someone you were talking to in person.

Since this was just a call through normal channels that anyone can make, I'm not sure why you don't just give full disclosure of names and all other details, but no big deal I guess if you don't.

06-13-2013 , 07:18 PM

#2264

BigVariance

enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardfish1

My post says why I did not give a name. Also you could try it through normal channels -- as I did -- but I think there was some luck involved. I doubt I would get the lawyer as easily again (if I wanted to try) and in fact maybe never again.

06-13-2013 , 11:29 PM

#2265

dope west

centurion

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 161

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigVariance

Yo at least BigVariance is doing a lot more than anybody else itt on trying to get more information. He's making calls, trying to get into touch with the right people and he's nice enough to report the info he gets on here. You negative nancys should really stop busting his balls, he doesn't claim anything he says to be facts, he's just reporting what he heard. And most of the time it's just speculation, last I checked that's what NVG is for

Last edited by dope west; 06-13-2013 at 11:36 PM.

06-14-2013 , 06:23 AM

#2266

BigVariance

enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by dope west

Thank you for your post. You are probably the only one who gets it. I simply reported here what the DoJ lawyer told me over the phone. Nothing more, nothing less.

06-14-2013 , 06:58 AM

#2267

ScreaminAsian

For President

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 33,333

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigVariance

Well I briefly spoke tonight to the Assistant US attorney handling the civil case (I will, for this person's sake, keep their name confidential but it is a name in the DoJ's press release. I am doing this because the person said they probably shouldn't be saying anything.)

The attorney was chatty and seemed nice. I explained that I was just trying to get an idea of the start date for the remissions process and that was all I was interested in.

Of course, I did not get a direct answer but I got some pieces of information. Everything below was stated by the DoJ attorney, not me.

1. The process will begin in 2013 and will "start shortly."
2. The final methodology for reimbursement has not been decided upon.
3. They are very aware that people want to use balances as the method.
4. GCG makes no decisions about the methodogy.
5. GCG is essentially waiting for the DoJ for the methodology.
6. GCG is fully capable of handling the data they have.
7. Not sure whether people would receive their money in 2013, but said it's likely.
8. Said they are very aware that people are anxious to get their money back.

I would not call any of this exactly startling.

Now for my interpretation. I think it will start before the end of July. I think it will be based on balances. I think we will see our money this calendar year. These 3 statements are based on my poker player intuition -- as poker players we sometimes pick information up by what people say and how they say it. I will also add I got a sense that this person wanted to move things along quickly. (At least quickly in government terms.)

I know it's not much, but it's all I got. Take it or leave it.

leave it.

Spoiler:

06-14-2013 , 09:05 AM

#2268

Bene Gesserit

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 6,365

In the end it doesn't matter very much if BV is totally honest or a total troll. It doesn't matter if you take it or leave it either. Just more NVG noise. Next!

06-14-2013 , 10:45 AM

#2269

SamuraiJon

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,203

Thanks for sharing BigV. Good to hear that perspective to narrow what we don't know.

06-14-2013 , 11:15 AM

#2270

BigVariance

enthusiast

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuraiJon

Thanks for sharing BigV. Good to hear that perspective to narrow what we don't know.

It wasn't a perspective at all. It was simply what I was told by the DoJ lawyer who is working on the civil case.

06-14-2013 , 02:02 PM

#2271

joeyrulesall

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,532

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bene Gesserit

In the end it doesn't matter very much if BV is totally honest or a total troll. It doesn't matter if you take it or leave it either. Just more NVG noise. Next!

Yes it does matter. If we let everyone claim inside info without any scrutiny we would have 100 more china maniacs running around spreading rumors. The way bv worded his post it sounded like he was talking to a friend in the DOJ that wanted to remain anonymous.

06-14-2013 , 02:07 PM

#2272

Your Mom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 13,451

some of you guys are complete dip****s with no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

06-14-2013 , 02:30 PM

#2273

aura

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 10,048

I love Your Mom, but she has a bit of a potty mouth.

06-14-2013 , 04:44 PM

#2274

Alex_Striker

grinder

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 403

For what it's worth, after a few days of e-mailing the guy I've been talking to the same question, I got a response.

"Good Morning Alex,

I wasn’t in the last few days so I was not able to answer your email.

Generally the first steps are creating a draft version of the screens, and then we have to get them approved.

Please note that they haven’t finalized the calculation, or the amounts each person is receiving based on what was remaining on each victim’s account.

I will look into getting more information today."

He has not gotten me any additional information.

06-14-2013 , 05:34 PM

#2275

Clever Nickname

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2,517

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_Striker

For what it's worth, after a few days of e-mailing the guy I've been talking to the same question, I got a response.

"Good Morning Alex,

I wasn’t in the last few days so I was not able to answer your email.

Generally the first steps are creating a draft version of the screens, and then we have to get them approved.

Please note that they haven’t finalized the calculation, or the amounts each person is receiving based on what was remaining on each victim’s account.

I will look into getting more information today."

He has not gotten me any additional information.

This looks like a good sign that they're planning to base payments on balances rather than deposits though, right?

Page 91 of 244

First

41 71 81 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 101 111 141 191

Last

Closed Thread Subscribe

...

Page 91 of 244

First

41 71 81 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 101 111 141 191

Last