(Topic ID: 203700)

deeproot Pinball thread

By pin2d

4 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 31,854 posts
  • 1,124 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 12 hours ago by Ferret
  • Topic is favorited by 307 Pinsiders
  • Topic is sticky in its sub-forum

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

View topic image gallery

60478a4cee93b2a67cf1812b6d4b66a4e95874cb (resized).png
Untitled (resized).png
blind-leading-the-a-motivational-vector-24050980 (resized).jpg
195_268[282CD262D9BA878BCE5934096BED85F9] (resized).jpg
IMG_0980-2-3-768x576 (resized).jpg
pasted_image (resized).png
Screen Shot 2022-08-03 at 12.44.07 PM (resized).png
deeprootcapital-135-2022.08.03.pdf (PDF preview)
pasted_image (resized).png
deeprootcapital-132-2022.07.29.pdf (PDF preview)
Screen Shot 2022-07-29 at 10.43.16 PM (resized).png
mueller (resized).jpg
Screen Shot 2022-07-30 at 12.31.02 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-07-30 at 12.30.17 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-07-30 at 12.29.08 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-07-30 at 12.27.24 AM.png

Topic index (key posts)

217 key posts have been marked in this topic, showing the first 10 items. (Show topic index)

There are 31,854 posts in this topic. You are on page 611 of 638.
#30501 3 months ago
Quoted from JStoltz:

Missed the details, but something was mentioned about Mueller/Deeproot being partial owners of a building worth ~$5.2M. I think that's news to me, but I'm no Blueberry Johnson.

I believe she said Robert owns deeproot RE 12621 company, which owns the Silicon Dr building and now has it for sale for over $5 million. So the question is why isn’t anybody going after that money? And the answer seems to be “um not sure…”

#30502 3 months ago
Quoted from frolic:

Wow, can't wait for the Hulu series of this!

now we gotta cast Iceman

#30503 3 months ago
Quoted from TreyBo69:

now we gotta cast Iceman

Only way we want to see iceman cast is as Bobby Mueller. Blueberry is Lead Council. John Goodman and Witherspoon are on board. We looked high and wide for someone to fill Mr Mueller’s role and now iceman has stepped forward.

#30504 3 months ago

Wait...did Ice back off? There's no more bid?

#30505 3 months ago

I guess Ice was going to complain about the bid process, but wasn't going to make a formal bid and she thought he was? I'm sure he'll be around later.

#30506 3 months ago

No way the judge doesn't let the sale go through.

#30507 3 months ago

Judge rules. Sale of insurance policies is honest and it goes forward. He said that he learned of the $5M Mueller building ownership thru Ms Jurek today. He has suggested this asset and others need to be sold but later.

But Ms Jurek is pressing for an interpretation on the insider trading by Turner Logic, LLC in bidding on the policy. She is willing to let it roll if the sale can be paused and more info provided. She is not giving up. If I had to battle a honey badger or Ms Jurek. I’m picking the honey badger. I’d have a 1% chance of survival and I like those odds.

Judge says the sale will be in best interest AND it sees no evidence of a credible bidder (way to f’it up iceman). About to drop the gavel … signing out now. For 30 min I listened it was eventful, but not much of substance.

#30508 3 months ago

The justice system blows

Robert's terrible/purposeful lack of accounting and making a bunch of LLCs to muddle who owns what has made a mess the court seemingly doesn't want to deal with.

#30509 3 months ago

I hope Levi is on to appreciate the broken-down frozen fish truck analogy.

14
#30510 3 months ago

Well I sat there and wasted my afternoon listening to that BS.

Lawyer should have put me on the witness list. You heard her say she screwed that up.

The goal, as i laid it out in a few posts above was to extend the time by 30-60 days to get ownership of the policies and then the “in force” illustrations so that we could actually put a bid in!

I could have easily explained that to the court and thought that is what I was there to do.

No idea where she pulled that “ready to make an offer” BS from without that info.

You saw how F Ed up the bid process was if you watched and paid attention. I think the Bankruptcy guys felt like they had a bird in the hand and took it.

Might end up being a Dodo bird for TUYO.

All I can say is thank god I’m not a litigator!

#30511 3 months ago

Maybe it's because my only exposure to court is film & TV, but man, this attorney does not inspire confidence.

#30512 3 months ago

Crazy, I thought the lawyer lady was fresh out of school, but it looks like she has been a lawyer for 30 years.

The judge was trying to do the whole law school socratic method, but she kind of failed. I feel like the right answer would've been to say something like "the bankruptcy cases & assets of the deeproot entities should be consolidated because their assets & operation were commingled and there is no meaningful distinction between the individual entities." He was kind of leading her there with the "the cases are jointly administered, not consolidated.." quote.

I guess a good win for the TuYo guys. Looks like they're the winners of the bankruptcy auction They should've started with a lower bid maybe?

#30513 3 months ago
Quoted from iceman44:

I think the Bankruptcy guys felt like they had a bird in the hand and took it.

Looks like benheck's advice wasn't for nothing!

#30514 3 months ago
Quoted from Inside:

Crazy, I thought the lawyer lady was fresh out of school, but it looks like she has been a lawyer for 30 years.
The judge was trying to do the whole law school socratic method, but she kind of failed. I feel like the right answer would've been to say something like "the bankruptcy cases & assets of the deeproot entities should be consolidated because their assets & operation were commingled and there is no meaningful distinction between the individual entities." He was kind of leading her there with the "the cases are jointly administered, not consolidated.." quote.
I guess a good win for the TuYo guys. Looks like they're the winners of the bankruptcy auction They should've started with a lower bid maybe?

Quoted from frolic:

Looks like benheck's advice wasn't for nothing!

What was that “kill all the lawyers”?

Read between the lines? Trustee “only had $4,900 left in the account to pay bills”

Absolute waste. She wasted so much time on irrelevant issues before the court.

Lastly, it’s no slam dunk for TUYO. They could lose $$$. Based on info they had foolish to bid. Or it could work out. Big roll of the dice.

#30515 3 months ago

Ugh, can't believe I missed all of this. If someone happened to have recorded the whole thing, could anyone recommend to that person roughly the time codes that benefit from a quick skim and those that are must watch?

#30516 3 months ago
Quoted from iceman44:

Well I sat there and wasted my afternoon listening to that BS.
Lawyer should have put me on the witness list. You heard her say she screwed that up.

Witness list for these things always include at the end something like "anyone else who is attending and wants to talk" - could not you have put yourself on the stand or at least did interjected and said whatever through your own creative means? Note: apologies if someone who saw the thing would know the answer or otherwise not asked because I didn't get to watch a minute

#30517 3 months ago

I really want the details on what was said about the ownership of the building because I know Robert had an LLC with that address but that it was just an entity for the money he was spending on installing facility upgrades (because he leased a place that wasn't equipped for the work he wanted done). And it seems odd to me that if he owned the building itself he'd be stuck in a contentious past due rent situation, a contentious get your shit out of my building so I can show it relationship, and that the same group in charge of renting it out back in 2017 (who rented it to Robert) would now be in charge of trying to sell it (not to Robert).

Are people sure it was being alleged that he owns the HQ? And, if so, are people sure that that allegation is well founded?

#30518 3 months ago
Quoted from iceman44:

What was that “kill all the lawyers”?

No, this classic:

Quoted from benheck:

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Quoted from deeproot:

Stay out of it Ben. I consider your comment to be providing legal advice without a license.

—Robert

#30519 3 months ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

Witness list for these things always include at the end something like "anyone else who is attending and wants to talk" - could not you have put yourself on the stand or at least did interjected and said whatever through your own creative means? Note: apologies if someone who saw the thing would know the answer or otherwise not asked because I didn't get to watch a minute

That’s not how this hearing worked. You either had to be on the list or be called as a “rebuttal witness”.

The Judge wasn’t having any of it. That’s why he took the 5 minute break.

I got on the phone with Pullman and Jurek, they called me. I told them the same thing I said last week.

If you had ownership of the policies and the “in force” illustrations I’m ready to potentially bid. Coventry said no for the same reasons. Thus, that was it.

Instead of Lynne pressing the logic in delaying the ruling for 30-60 days she simply blew it and failed to make the argument so she could call me as a “rebuttal witness”. I think she got flustered with Lowe and was just trying to tie Mueller to TUYO the entire time. Paid no attention to the Judge. Putting on a show for the creditors?

She claimed she “misunderstood”? Being a one woman band she was just unprepared it appeared. All over the place.

Bankruptcy guys did NOT want me to testify and F up their sale potentially

#30520 3 months ago
Quoted from frolic:

No, this classic:

Bobby said that recently? Lol. Wtf

#30521 3 months ago
Quoted from iceman44:

That’s not how this hearing worked. You either had to be on the list or be called as a “rebuttal witness”.
The Judge wasn’t having any of it. That’s why he took the 5 minute break.
I got on the phone with Pullman and Jurek, they called me. I told them the same thing I said last week.
If you had ownership of the policies and the “in force” illustrations I’m ready to potentially bid. Coventry said no for the same reasons. Thus, that was it.
Instead of Lynne pressing the logic in delaying the ruling for 30-60 days she simply blew it and failed to make the argument so she could call me as a “rebuttal witness”. I think she got flustered with Lowe and was just trying to tie Mueller to TUYO the entire time. Paid no attention to the Judge. Putting on a show for the creditors?
She claimed she “misunderstood”? Being a one woman band she was just unprepared it appeared. All over the place.

That's a shame.

#30522 3 months ago
Quoted from iceman44:

Being a one woman band she was just unprepared it appeared. All over the place.

She seemed to be fumbling along the entire time, and didn't appear to have a clear goal or target. I felt like there was a full hour of questioning that went absolutely nowhere and was just a complete waste of time. I would've been very upset if she was supposed to be representing my interests.

Quoted from yancy:

Maybe it's because my only exposure to court is film & TV, but man, this attorney does not inspire confidence.

The other lawyers were clear in their questioning & arguments, and kept fairly on point. Whether or not they did all their due diligence, research, and prep work was partially at question, though.

#30523 3 months ago

It seemed like her big plan was to get them to admit that they would accept a higher bid if it happened and then thought Ice was prepared to submit a bid during the court proceedings. (Which as he said was not his intention today)

The rest that I heard was about trying to establish Turner as having an unfair advantage in the bid process and poorly explaining why the trustees deserve some of the assets in Roberts fraudulent shell game.

#30524 3 months ago
Quoted from yancy:

Maybe it's because my only exposure to court is film & TV, but man, this attorney does not inspire confidence.

The other lawyers were prepared, were clear in their questioning & arguments, and kept fairly on point.

Quoted from TreyBo69:

It seemed like her big plan was to get them to admit that they would accept a higher bid if it happened and then thought Ice was prepared to submit a bid during the court proceedings. (Which as he said was not his intention today)
The rest that I heard was about trying to establish Turner as having an unfair advantage in the bid process and poorly explaining why the trustees deserve some of the assets in Roberts fraudulent shell game.

If that was the grand plan, it seemed really poorly presented and represented.

How did this particular lawyer get looped into this anyway?

#30525 3 months ago
Quoted from ForceFlow:

The other lawyers were clear in their questioning & arguments, and kept fairly on point. Whether or not they did all their due diligence, research, and prep work was partially at question, though.

Or didn’t want to know too much lol

#30526 3 months ago
Quoted from TreyBo69:

Or didn’t want to know too much lol

Maybe--I could easily see this as a "take the money and run" type of situation since it's on such shaky ground.

#30527 3 months ago

Any enjoyable side content this time?

First time we got someone ordering a burrito and my favorite line from the judge: "Ma'am, whoever's talking about scones. If you can put your phone on mute, that would be great."

#30528 3 months ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

I really want the details on what was said about the ownership of the building because I know Robert had an LLC with that address but that it was just an entity for the money he was spending on installing facility upgrades (because he leased a place that wasn't equipped for the work he wanted done). And it seems odd to me that if he owned the building itself he'd be stuck in a contentious past due rent situation, a contentious get your shit out of my building so I can show it relationship, and that the same group in charge of renting it out back in 2017 (who rented it to Robert) would now be in charge of trying to sell it (not to Robert).
Are people sure it was being alleged that he owns the HQ? And, if so, are people sure that that allegation is well founded?

The female lawyer definitely said Robert is owner or partial owner, and she pointed out that any proceeds from the sale should be part of all these bankruptcy dealings. The clear implication was that right now the building is not listed in the bankruptcy proceedings so sale is not subject to any of those rules.

Is it possible he did not own the building several years ago (when whole issue came up with lease prohibiting manufacturing) but now does?

#30529 3 months ago
Quoted from catwoman:

The female lawyer definitely said Robert is owner or partial owner, and she pointed out that any proceeds from the sale should be part of all these bankruptcy dealings. The clear implication was that right now the building is not listed in the bankruptcy proceedings so sale is not subject to any of those rules.
Is it possible he did not own the building several years ago (when whole issue came up with lease prohibiting manufacturing) but now does?

It's possible. He threw around a lot of money on less worthwhile things than giant buildings. I just haven't seen evidence of it yet. I'm googling away now to try to figure out more about the group that owns it to then see if I can find any connection to Robert.

Here are the LLCS.

Robert's building-related LLC:

deeproot RE 12621 Silicon Dr, LLC
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0803541543

Non-Robert building-related LLCs:

Silicon Office Venture, LLC
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0801166418

12621 Silicon Drive, LLC
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0800423005

The officer of that LLC:

https://txintrepid.com/About.html

https://www.startupgrind.com/events/details/startup-grind-san-antonio-hosted-david-spencer-texas-intrepid-ventures/

https://www.allbiz.com/business/texas-intrepid-ventures-inc-210-340-0116

Suppose someone could just contact that guy and ask if Robert owns any or all of the building.

#30530 3 months ago

The building is owned by Silicon Drive Office Venture LLC. The deed last changed hands in 2010. David Spencer is listed as the principal party. I am curious to know what Bloberts stake is in the partnership. If he is an owner, it's certainly well hidden.

#30531 3 months ago
Quoted from ForceFlow:

She seemed to be fumbling along the entire time, and didn't appear to have a clear goal or target. I felt like there was a full hour of questioning that went absolutely nowhere and was just a complete waste of time. I would've been very upset if she was supposed to be representing my interests.

It kind of had the cadence of someone reading this thread out loud, trying to force fit everything into a single cohesive point.

Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

Any enjoyable side content this time?
First time we got someone ordering a burrito and my favorite line from the judge: "Ma'am, whoever's talking about scones. If you can put your phone on mute, that would be great."

I thought it was pretty funny (albeit a little heartbreaking) when Jurek asked the courtroom typist/stenographer to read back one of her questions (so she could ask it to Mallender again). Judge Parker had to break the news to her that they don’t really do that anymore, it’s all recorded electronically instead. So instead she had to try and recall what she had asked originally (it was convoluted, which made that challenging).

#30533 3 months ago

Robert’s next venture:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/pythom-space-tests-its-rocket-with-questionable-safety-practices/

There's a small rocket company based in eastern California named Pythom Space. And like a lot of space startups, it has big dreams. In this case, co-founders Tina and Tom Sjögren have the goal of flying to Mars in 2024—and if not then, by 2026.

"We see this as a new world," Tina Sjögren said recently. "When Columbus sailed to America, there were both better boats and sailors. But no one else did it. He did. All it took was three weeks. It was not difficult; it was fear that held everyone back. It was believed that one would fall over the edge of the earth. Or be eaten by sea monsters. He showed... that was wrong."

"You have to work hard, but you do not have to be very smart," Tina Sjögren added.

The video posted is most excellent. The article comments are even better. See rocketry is just as easy as pinball.

#30534 3 months ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

It's possible. He threw around a lot of money on less worthwhile things than giant buildings. I just haven't seen evidence of it yet. I'm googling away now to try to figure out more about the group that owns it to then see if I can find any connection to Robert.
Here are the LLCS.
Robert's building-related LLC:
deeproot RE 12621 Silicon Dr, LLC
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0803541543
Non-Robert building-related LLCs:
Silicon Office Venture, LLC
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0801166418
12621 Silicon Drive, LLC
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0800423005
The officer of that LLC:
https://txintrepid.com/About.html
https://www.startupgrind.com/events/details/startup-grind-san-antonio-hosted-david-spencer-texas-intrepid-ventures/
https://www.allbiz.com/business/texas-intrepid-ventures-inc-210-340-0116
Suppose someone could just contact that guy and ask if Robert owns any or all of the building.

So Douchecanoe rm potentially made at least one sensible decision with the money, bought real estate.

#30535 3 months ago
Quoted from pookycade:

Robert’s next venture:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/pythom-space-tests-its-rocket-with-questionable-safety-practices/
There's a small rocket company based in eastern California named Pythom Space. And like a lot of space startups, it has big dreams. In this case, co-founders Tina and Tom Sjögren have the goal of flying to Mars in 2024—and if not then, by 2026.
"We see this as a new world," Tina Sjögren said recently. "When Columbus sailed to America, there were both better boats and sailors. But no one else did it. He did. All it took was three weeks. It was not difficult; it was fear that held everyone back. It was believed that one would fall over the edge of the earth. Or be eaten by sea monsters. He showed... that was wrong."
"You have to work hard, but you do not have to be very smart," Tina Sjögren added.
The video posted is most excellent. The article comments are even better. See rocketry is just as easy as pinball.

Who the eff is paying for that! I better call Grandma and see if she got scammed.

#30536 3 months ago
Quoted from JodyG:

The building is owned by Silicon Drive Office Venture LLC. The deed last changed hands in 2010. David Spencer is listed as the principal party. I am curious to know what Bloberts stake is in the partnership. If he is an owner, it's certainly well hidden.

Spencer controlled 50% of voting securities held for Silicon Drive Office Ventures, Ltd for EOY 2020. Don't think this report has yet come out for 2021. I don't see anything clear about other parties being involved
https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/Documents/banking/nic/fry-6/2020/1231/FRY6_3593286_Full_Revised_Public_20201231_1%20of%201.pdf

He has a variety of other LLCs named after different properties, like this one is, and sometimes with LLCs with similar names as the managers of said properties (in this case, there is also 12621 SILICON DRIVE LLC). Looking superficially those, nothing yet suggests to me Robert having any involvement.

Screen Shot 2022-04-11 at 4.42.48 PM (resized).png

I wonder if we're not just going through, this time in court, the same situation we did here several months back where people said Robert owned the building and I put forth my evidence his LLC with a similar name was not connected to owning the property but to spending money on renovations for it.

I've yet to listen to the section from court today about this stuff. Once I do, I'll see if/how that impacts my thinking on this stuff.

Regardless, David Spencer is an actual businessman in San Antonio with an apparent actual track record of actually doing business stuff (not someone running an investment outfit and allegedly blowing the money on failed pinball operations). He wouldn't be hard to contact if interested parties were interested in clearing this up (and, if SEC-charged Robert isn't in any way an owner of the building as was apparently presented as fact today in court, he probably would want that cleared up).

#30537 3 months ago

2/3rds in:

Regarding the part of the hearing related to the Turner Logic connections:

Glad she brought forward the information about Turner Logic using deeproot's address as its own and it was interesting hear that the trustee did not know that previously (shout out to the trustee: read this thread, at least the key posts, to learn other interesting + relevant things!)

However, I wish she had been more direct with the questioning and have communicated the following:

1) Turner Logic used deeproot's mailing address as its own mailing address FOR YEARS
2) Turner Logic worked out of deeproot's office for years (don't even need the word of anonymous staff for this - they hosted public web dev meetups there back in 2018)
3) deeproot was the single tenant of its headquarters meaning:
3a) this wasn't the case of two entities renting from the same landlord
3b) the only way Turner Logic or anyone other company could have worked out of that building was at Robert's invitation

Question: How many of you have allowed a contractor whose firm has done some work for your company but with whom you don't have a particularly close or other category of relationship to use your offices as theirs for years?

Given that even using the same address info news to the trustee, I think if she had established the above in front of the judge (all of which would have undoubtedly made for even bigger revelations) then it could have introduced enough doubt as to the credibility of Turner's representation of his connection to Robert and deeproot to make a possible a second guessing of the process undergirding the TuYo drafted and subsequently approved sale motion.

Will return with thoughts on the alleged ownership stake of Robert in the building itself.

#30538 3 months ago

OK, Counselor Blueberry's guess: I think the bit about Mueller owning the building is exactly the same argument we previously litigated here however long ago (not sure if anyone has the post link) where people were seeing the name of Robert's LLC that includes the address of the building and thinking that meant he had an interest in the property.

My take at the time was that he just had that LLC for the dumb renovations he had to make for the place to try to get it to be suitable for the purposes he rented. If he were the landlord, why would he compel himself as the tenant to pay for the material upgrades to the property anyway?

I believe my take was given further support by some some tax information or similar such thing that put the $ value associated with Robert's Silicon LLC in the neighborhood for $100k as opposed to $5.6m associated with the LLC of the actual building.

I half rest my case (can go look for links to the posts referenced later).

#30539 3 months ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

OK, Counselor Blueberry's guess: I think the bit about Mueller owning the building is exactly the same argument we previously litigated here however long ago (not sure if anyone has the post link) where people were seeing the name of Robert's LLC that includes the address of the company and thinking that meant he had an interest in the property.
My take at the time was that he just had that LLC for the dumb renovations he had to make for the place to try to get it to be suitable for the purposes he rented. If he were the landlord, why would he compel himself as the tenant to pay for the material upgrades to the property anyway?
I believe my take was given further support by some some tax information or similar such thing that put the $ value associated with Robert's Silicon LLC in the neighborhood for $100k as opposed to $5.6m associated with the LLC of the actual building.
I half rest my case (can go look for links to the posts referenced later).

Found the discussion, seven months back. My strong guess is that the lawyer was going off the names of the LLC and not behind the scenes knowledge about Robert owning or partially owning the building (though I of course cannot know what I do not know).

Quoting the related posts from the discussion in the simpler days of August 2021:

Quoted from Deluxodave:

Not sure if this has already been posted, but I think it's worth noting.
Deeproot's listed address is 12621 Silicon Dr, San Antonio, TX 78249. Public tax records (screenshot below) show the owner as "Policy Services Inc" with Robert J Mueller as Manager.
This same building is currently for sale: https://www.cbre.us/properties/properties-for-lease/office/details/US-SMPL-55014/12621-silicon-drive-12621-silicon-drive-78249?view=isSale
PropertyShark shows this listing as last updated on July 2, 2021: https://www.propertyshark.com/cre/commercial-property/us/tx/san-antonio/12621-silicon-drive/
If you download the listing brochure, you can see that the landlord - presumably "Policy Services Inc" with Robert J Mueller as Manager - has Deeproot Tech under lease till March 2023.
Nothing odd about buying a building as one entity and renting to yourself, that's common practice, but it does explain the theater installation investment.
What's interesting to me is if you're ready to start manufacturing, why would you list your manufacturing facility for sale in early July?
[quoted image][quoted image]

Quoted from flynnibus:

Hey… finally a real asset of value that can be liquidated!

Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

The brochure has been shared a fee times. The tax doc is new.
Looking at the doc, I think it is actually just tax related to an entity created by Deeproot for the money they put into the property (that Robert doesn't own). You'll note that the market value is only 132k and the land value is $0 (because there's no land). This actually almost surely explains the purpose behind one of his LLCs I never understood, which is an LLC in the name of the address of the deeproot offices.

Quoted from Stuieb84:

I work in commercial property management and leasing (albeit in Australia) and this sort of thing is actually pretty commonplace. Most businesses use this structure to keep the legal and financial risks quite separate. If the lease is registered on the land title, then it also provides the flexibility to sell the land and building with the lease in place.

Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

Hey all, see my post a few back. Robert doesn't own the building. That tax document is for the like $150k in upgrades he made to the property, not the property itself.
That said, look one post after, and you'll see that it appears Robert was fined $1.4m by Utah for workplace violations. And in a couple minutes, I'll have another new money related thing to share...

10
#30540 3 months ago

Turner on the stand

Certified in Lean and Agile development. Now we know where Robert picked that up

Turner testimony by far the most interesting stuff so far. Discloses sublease relationship, moving offices with Robert as he moved, history of different contracts and work. Note: None of this would have ever been shared if not for the objection that was filed by Jurek for the creditors, and we know from that objection filing that some of the bases for those objections came from this thread (the screenshots, clearly, but I also think some of the arguments or details). Pat yourselves on the back, sewer.

It would have been interesting to have a transcript or summary of Turner's disclosures regarding the nature, extent, and details of his relationship as communicated today in the hearing laid beside what was written in the stalking horse sales motion, and gotten the judge's take on whether or not there was misrepresentation by exclusion. Of course, that won't happen now (I assume) given the outcome of today's hearing.

The pro-Turner lawyers and Turner himself did a good job in responding to questions to try to allay concerns regarding the nature of his relationship with Robert as it relates to him and Yost setting the table to be the only bidders on the sale.

Jurek did a good job in not laying off Turner trying to present that his work with deeproot funds wasn't something that would have had any relevance to disclosure (our team does a lot of stuff - was I supposed to list every bit of work? No, just the stuff directly related to the investments in question and access to financial data would be perfectly fine), nor that him saying it verbally to his counsel and the trustee = disclosing it to the court (I wonder if the judge will wag his finger on any of this in the wrap-up).

In cross, disappointing not to ask Turner why his working out of Robert's buildings for years wouldn't qualify as some other kind of relationship beyond doing contract work with a company. I don't see how he could have gotten out of that without damaged credibility—particularly when he was coached to go back to the precise wording of the disclosure paragraph as evidence by his discussion of what is or is not an insider—because to me it appears an obvious obfuscation by omission in the stalking horse motion.

In general, I've never been of the conspiracy mind that Turner has a backdoor deal with Robert (though I will say I believe an incorrect answer was given regarding if Mueller could ever benefit from the sale: earlier in the hearing a lawyer indicated the only way Robert could profit from any sale would be after his debts were first covered, which was my original reading of the stalking horse agreement and prompted discussion here. Though unlikely, it's theoretically possible. And if it is, then I think Turner's reply was inaccurate, though not necessarily intentionally so).

To me, the question at hand was more about whether Turner had an inside view of these investments that other bidders would not which, coupled with the trustee's lack of funds to pay the premiums and TuYo's fast tracking of the sale, set him up to score potentially big returns for far less than what others would pay if they had similar knowledge and/or with which he never would have had interest in pursuing the sale in the first place. I'll note, I'm not saying I think this is the case. I'm just saying the whole thing has seemed off to me and, if it in actually is off, that's the offness I'd most suspect. Turner might be clean as a whistle and a standup guy for all I know.

#30541 3 months ago

Closing statements and final thoughts

The promised iceman not-reveal was, appropriately enough, 100% deeprootesque. Would have great to have been here with you all to experience in thread in the moment as we soared with anticipation and crashed with a mouse fart. Would not have liked hearing it said in court that I backed out if I had never backed in in the first place.

Seems like a good old boys club where all of the dude lawyers and the judge are chummy, jokey bros. Not ideal for the objectors (though I don't think that was the deciding factor here).

Some webex names of note (two Bloberts, one jpopcrook)

Hope the Jurek claim about Robert's building ownership (if it's off base) doesn't come back to bite her, since even opposing counsel mentions it in his close about how this deal will allow the trustee to pursue going after deeproot assets Robert may have been hiding. Based on that hearing and summed up in the trustee's close, I would have ruled in favor of the sale moving forward. So I'm not surprised the judge ruled how he did.

Agree with all the closes that the creditors were shafted in this process simply by nature of the process.

Jurek's close laid out the inside info details more clearly than at other times during the hearing and the reason why it mattered. Some of that content was good. But a question of too little, too late, I think.

Interesting comments (I believe by the judge) explaining the distinction between jointly administered and consolidated.

"He pled to the fifth to almost every question."

Judge's Fish Truck analogy will hopefully inspire one of the auction scavengers to work on a special edition retheme.

In my opinion, judge had already made up his mind but the final domino was not putting forward a practical course of action to his query of what would the objectors have the trustee do to keep up with premium payments with only $4k in the bank of the sale doesn't go through.

Ultimately, kudos to TuYo for the score, and condolences for the objectors. I expect this chapter is closed. Hopefully as the trustee expressed, it opens the door to aggressive clawing back of the whatever deeproot assets exist since we've to date only seen 1) what was physically in the HQ and 2) these policies.

#30542 3 months ago

From everything that has come out about Bobby Mueller, I'm 95% certain that he didn't have landlord consent for that sublease lol

#30543 3 months ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

Glad she brought forward the information about Turner Logic using deeproot's address as its own and it was interesting hear that the trustee did not know that previously (shout out to the trustee: read this thread, at least the key posts, to learn other interesting + relevant things!)

I got a pretty strong "I'm too busy too spend that much time on one case" vibe from Lowe. Pulman made a point of asking him how many bankruptcy cases he had seen and he guessed something like 32-40 thousand since 1985. Good for him, I guess, but I kind of bristle at the suggestion that he is somehow clairvoyant because of this and therefore doesn't need to be burdened with thoroughness or diligence.

Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

To me, the question at hand was more about whether Turner had an inside view of these investments that other bidders would not which, coupled with the trustee's lack of funds to pay the premiums and TuYo's fast tracking of the sale, set him up to score potentially big returns for far less than what others would pay if they had similar knowledge and/or with which he never would have had interest in pursuing the sale in the first place. I'll note, I'm not saying I think this is the case. I'm just saying the whole thing has seemed off to me and, if it in actually is off, that's the offness I'd most suspect. Turner might be clean as a whistle and a standup guy for all I know.

I have a better opinion of Turner having heard him speak and handle himself during examination and cross examination (full disclosure, I claimed he had a "creeper smile" in a previous zoom call), but it's still suspicious to me that there were no legal discussions regarding the concept of having this "insider info" we keep talking about. If it's really inconsequential/irrelevant (appears to be the case since Judge Parker never even acknowledged it), it would have been helpful for someone to actually say that out loud and get it off the table.

The only use of the word Insider, as far as I can recall, was from Jurek (many times) and Turner (when he recited that memorized line about not being an insider under the US bankruptcy code). Don't remember hearing Parker, Pulman, Lowe, or anyone else using the word.

Really wish someone would have pressed Turner a little harder on why he felt like taking such a large risk speculating on these policies, considering his lack of background (other than creating an investment portal full of financial information). "Isn't it odd that you would take such a large risk like this?"

Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

Seems like a good old boys club where all of the dude lawyers and the judge are chummy, jokey bros. Not ideal for the objectors (though I don't think that was the deciding factor here).

100% agree here. Jurek didn't present very well, but she was also fighting an uphill battle against Pulman (who clearly has experience working with Parker) and Mallender (who was DRIPPING with frustration and disdain). His body language in the video feed emphasized this even more, almost to the point where I was shocked he wasn't being scolded by Parker for it. The tone of the courtroom almost felt like the dude lawyers were being charitable by even giving Jurek the floor, which is a shitty look.

#30544 3 months ago
Quoted from JStoltz:

The tone of the courtroom almost felt like the dude lawyers were being charitable by even giving Jurek the floor, which is a shitty look.

Even in 2022, the old boys club is still alive and well in the south.

10
#30545 3 months ago
Quoted from JodyG:

Even in 2022, the old boys club is still alive and well in the south.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news; however, who you know, the relationships you have and networking influences outcomes in every municipality, county, state and country in the world. Just talk to someone who has to deal with the government in the area of permitting, zoning, etc. be it here in the USA, Europe, Asia. It may not be fair in fact, it downright sucks at times, but it's the same everywhere. Always has been, always will be.

#30546 3 months ago
Quoted from Oldgoat:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news; however, who you know, the relationships you have and networking influences outcomes in every municipality, county, state and country in the world. Just talk to someone who has to deal with the government in the area of permitting, zoning, etc. be it here in the USA, Europe, Asia. It may not be fair in fact, it downright sucks at times, but it's the same everywhere. Always has been, always will be.

I'm not sure if anyone watches Steve Leto on youtube, but the shirt he was wearing in a video from the other day seemed relevant:

pasted_image (resized).png
#30547 3 months ago
Quoted from Oldgoat:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news; however, who you know, the relationships you have and networking influences outcomes in every municipality, county, state and country in the world. Just talk to someone who has to deal with the government in the area of permitting, zoning, etc. be it here in the USA, Europe, Asia. It may not be fair in fact, it downright sucks at times, but it's the same everywhere. Always has been, always will be.

It’s always been who you know not what you know. It’s how half the ppl in government get there jobs and work there way up the ladder.

#30548 3 months ago
Quoted from ForceFlow:

I'm not sure if anyone watches Steve Leto on youtube, but the shirt he was wearing in a video from the other day seemed relevant:[quoted image]

I watch his youtube channel fairly often. It would be neat if he would cover the DR story.

#30549 3 months ago
Quoted from mbwalker:

I watch his youtube channel fairly often. It would be neat if he would cover the DR story.

I wish Nick Rekeita would cover this story if anyone knows that youtube lawyer

#30550 3 months ago
Quoted from mbwalker:

I watch his youtube channel fairly often. It would be neat if he would cover the DR story.

I think it might be too deep (heh) and complicated to cover in one of his ~10 minute videos. Unless he just tackles the SEC charges, and just goes over the pinball stuff in passing.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
From: $ 18.00
Apparel - Men
Pinside Shop
$ 649.95
Lighting - Led
Pin Stadium Pinball Mods
From: $ 349.95
Lighting - Led
Pin Stadium Pinball Mods
8,500 (OBO)
Machine - For Sale
Rottenburg An Der Laaber, BY
$ 15.00
Cabinet - Sound/Speakers
Gweem's Mods
$ 7.49
Electronics
Yorktown Arcade Supply
$ 10.00
Cabinet Parts
Flashinstinct
Hey modders!
Your shop name here
There are 31,854 posts in this topic. You are on page 611 of 638.

Reply

Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

Donate to Pinside

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, become a Pinside+ member!