>>> AND NOW IT SEEMS UNIMPORTANT (except for the LEGAL RECORD):
From: Scott Kenan
To: Rishi Nair
Cc: Jamie Sutherland
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: Mr. Nair (et al): The action overnight at Bank of America CONFUSED ME -- please help me to understand . . .
Thank you for replying about the things you could quickly reply about -- and I believe you in what you have written, especially because you have admitted it is CONFUSING and difficult to make sense of. Now, perhaps, you understand why I have been so aggressive testing ideas with you and others to see what I could learn. This was not my conscious intention with you, but you have been consistent and now see some of the rather GROSS peculiarity I've been up against and trying to figure out. You have basically gained my respect.
And for the record, my account appears to be AVAILABLE for me to use now with a $95.00 balance, but I have not tested my debit card, yet., I intend to contact BoA to see how to make it an "SSI Disability" account before allowing any more funds to be deposited into it.
As I have said in the past, regardless what Jamie did or did not do in the past, I believe things got away from him and I blame Saper Law. You have disclosed nothing about this, but I suspect Jamie fired Saper and is using you exclusively now -- otherwise, I don't see why he would have agreed to take Saper off the Google-test list.
I have always believed Jamie intended to be honorable, and have detailed my reasons for that in the past. He never cared what I wrote about Wells Fargo BANK, Barack Obama, and now Saper Law. I would LOVE to get some response from the two of you that would give me reason to go ahead and remove Jamie, WF Advisors, you and your company, so I hope you will make some kind of reasonable offer.
And to tell the truth, although I have suffered FAR MORE than Jamie has in this (whatever BoA is in process of sending you is nothing to Jamie, but A HUGE STINGING LOT to me), and as I've thought it over, it seems it would be almost "cruel and unusual punishment" for me to demand Jamie send ME that money. After all, it's the only time y'all have really been able to "draw blood", and you should be allowed that satisfaction. HA!!! (That said, I could certainly use it.)
Of the things in the "most questionable" judgment, the most valuable to Jamie would be the control of my blog, but I trust you discovered that Google/Blogger actually owns copyright to everything blogged through it -- NOT the blogger. I knew that when I began, but really forgot about it until a couple of weeks ago. There was NO REAL REASON for me to start the second blog in case y'all were able to take the first one down.
And the business with my memoir taught me a valuable lesson: it was a labor of love, and I should have just given it away -- which I have been doing on its blog site. I am considering giving it away in whole from my blog as well. But if I have copyright "legally" back, I could better format it than I hurriedly did originally, get it back up on Amazon and offer print as well, but because I have EVER given it away, Amazon would always have that right too, which seems to be bad news, except that my goal with THAT book is to get the truth out. When I rewrite front and back matter, I would restrict it to being about those in the body of the book, and if I referred to the difficulties of "publication interruptus", I would simply say that after an unusual adventure, I improved the formatting and now offer it again for sale.
There is a young man in Wilmington, who in exchange for enough money to keep me from going homeless for a month, got 10% ownership in the book by legal contract drawn up by his NC Tea Party father, a lawyer. His goal was to pay for the education of his children eventually, he then dating a woman two doors down from me and both of them then undergraduate students. Since then they have graduated, married, and had at least one child. While there will be little money in book sales, there COULD be a lot in a movie sale. And nothing motivates childless me more than to be able to help in the GOOD EDUCATION of children, so I have additional motivation to make a success of the material beyond my own motives -- and many Williams scholars have written me saying it is a shame the book is not widely available. It really IS well written and informative (and has a great story line for a movie).
I would NOT be averse to legally giving Jamie ownership of some portion of the book's gross profits (not TOO large!!!) -- and if you agreed that I was allowed to publicly declare that "Jed Clampon" and I are doing that, that would be a PUBLIC WAY for me to show I really have no hard feelings -- as well as proof if I had to sue Saper (and could not escape suing Jamie too), that Jamie is NOT where the real problem lies -- in my opinion.
This leaves the matter of some kind of compensation for me. Of course the gigantic figures I have mentioned if I really got BIG PICTURE are not realistic in a smaller, private settlement like we are discussing -- and I HATE to think Jamie would even pay a cent of it, so I would like to hear any suggestions you might have. While this had NOTHING to do with Jamie, the drug mafia of Mexico tricked me out of my net from sale of my house and goods in 2010, and if it were restored (only $50,000.00), that would be my minimum acceptable in such a deal -- and HERE is how best to come up with the money: It seems to me that Wells Fargo Advisors would be quite relieved TOO to have their name removed, and might manage to slip Jamie a BONUS to at least cover it -- clever, no???
To remove others of the "Chicago parties" would require a much higher amount -- and I am open to all KINDS of creative (but not illegal), ideas.
I'm copying Jamie on this and intend to keep our negotiations private from now on. I will blind copy no more people than can be counted on the fingers of one hand -- they all personal friends who have nothing to do with politics, press, law enforcement, etc.
I hope the two of you can find enough trust in me, now, to try to work something out (frankly, if Jamie could pull a HIGHER bonus, it would be better), but after all the CRAP we have all endured, I decided to go ahead and reveal my lowest figure up front so we can move forward quickly if you are willing.
Best greetings to you both, and I hope to hear from you on this reasonably soon.
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Rishi Nair <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I only had one hold against Bank of America and as I said, the order dismissed the Citation against you after they turn over funds. They haven't sent me any funds yet. The hold was for $616.67 (its on the Court Order). If they released your account, it is because they received and processed the Court Order and are likely sending something to me, but based on your account statement, I too cannot figure out what.I really have no idea what CEO Law is or anything of that -- I've never heard of them and they are not involved in my representation of Mr. Sutherland. If Bank of America still has a hold on your account, it not due to me. I don't know, frankly, what more I can do. I faxed them the dismissal/turnover order to them. I mailed it to them over a week before that. I also sent, and you told me you got, all of the papers I've filed to you three times (I only got 1 returned). In those documents are the court orders and my requests. The only 2 citations filed, one was against Bank of America, the other against Benefits Holding. I dismissed the Benefits Holding completely because it was exempt funds and I turned over and dismissed the Bank of America citation. I can't place 2 holds on one account. I have no further information.Best Regards,Rishi
I don't know why they decided not to respond to this, but they DID NOT!!!
Well, let's take an artistic break, shall we???
Paul Gaugin was born 166 years ago today!!!