Friendly Metal Detecting Forums   Quality Metal Detectors
List all sponsors

Go Back   Friendly Metal Detecting Forums > Metal Detecting > Caches, Old Bottles, and other Treasures

Reply
  
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 08-10-2022, 08:50 PM
teotwawki12's Avatar
teotwawki12 teotwawki12 is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 980
Default

Originally Posted by SeabeeRon View post
Moving this thread to the Caches, Old Bottles, and other Treasures sub forum, seems to be a better place for it.

Please keep your comments "on topic" and do not drift into long winded "back and forth" debates, especially comments that are political in nature.
Dang it Ron! We like peace and quiet here in Bottles and Treasures; sharing our old dug glass and flea market finds! And you send a General Discussion battle started by MITW over?!

__________________
Fisher F75, Minelab Equinox 600

Reply With Quote


  #302  
Old 08-11-2022, 06:24 AM
Pete e Pete e is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: North Wales, UK
Posts: 547
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
The FBI's honesty or dishonesty has nothing to do with whether gold was there or not. Of course, it could have something to do with whether they admit to if gold was there or not. They deny they did, and so far, the record supports this assertion.

Also, Petitioner (old habit that i'll continue with, Petitioner, as in the Petitioner in Finder Keeper LLC Vs Dept of Justice) always tried to make it like the field agents that did the dig were the ones sitting by an old file cabinet, sorting through his request for records.

He did this to paint a negative picture. In reality though, the record is digitized, and it's kept in an entirely different organization within the DOJ, whose primary task is to provide records: Department of Justice’s Office of Records Management

Edit: True, they are pathetically slow at producing records, but Petitioner made it like his request was being singled out(which of course, as Tom say's, is "proof" to him they are hiding something), when in fact, it isn't uncommon at all to wait 4+years after a records request to receive them.
*If* any gold had been found, I would say there would be no reason for the FBI to be dishonest...They could have taken the gold and simply said: "Its the property of the US Government...if you don't like it, take the Government to court..." or "We are impounding this untill the Courts sort out ownership..."

The only reason I can imagine to bury records would be to avoid high lighting any incompetence by themselves in the way they handled this case...
Reply With Quote


  #303  
Old 08-11-2022, 10:33 AM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17,877
Default

Originally Posted by Pete e View post
*If* any gold had been found, I would say there would be no reason for the FBI to be dishonest...They could have taken the gold and simply said: "Its the property of the US Government.....
You make a very good point. May I quote you ?

Yes, since the entire bruhaha was based on FK trying to get some sort of permissions and splits to be finding treasure on govt. land, then yes : The govt. didn't owe anything to private citizens, IN THE FIRST PLACE !

So why do they need to "steal" anything ? It's already theirs. There is already cultural heritage laws for public land. There is already laws against harvest & remove, etc...... Granted: They're not applied to individual fumble fingers coins when you're just random coin-hunting. But if it came to a true treasure : Sure, the govt. doesn't owe anyone a split of something found on govt. public land.

Thus they would have nothing to conceal or hide. There's no motive there. (Unless I'm misunderstanding something, and they had agreed ahead of time to give Dennis something ?? )
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #304  
Old 08-11-2022, 02:08 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is online now
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 185
Default

Originally Posted by Pete e View post
*If* any gold had been found, I would say there would be no reason for the FBI to be dishonest...
Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Thus they would have nothing to conceal or hide. There's no motive there.
Exactly, what's the motive?

Money? No, as I've argued it before, the amount of gold potentially there at 7-9 tons, would only be an operating budget for the FBI for a couple of weeks! 500,000,000 in gold vs 9,000,000,000 yearly operating budget for the FBI.

With it being the largest historical treasure ever found in the USA history, take that 8 tons, put it in a museum and on tour, you'll be collecting fees from it for centuries! (as well as the memorabilia you can create surrounding it, commemorative coins, t-shirts etc. plus still have the principal gold unmolested). Our kids, kids, kids would get to see the treasure!

It's completely nonsensical. On motive alone it's apparent nothing was found, otherwise, they'd already have laid claim to have finding it (can you imagine the publicity it'd bring the FBI?!), and it'd already be on display!
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #305  
Old 08-15-2022, 01:55 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is online now
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 185
Default

Remember Petitioner's recent boasts that "he can't lose this case", well, he was just handed a major defeat and lost both his motion to compel deposition (to question under oath) of the lead FBI agent in charge as well as his motion for attorney's fees.

As i had accurately predicted in the now deleted thread, he didn't have the evidence to support it and would lose the motion. Petitioner time and again thinks "accusations" and his "beliefs" are evidence. They are not as he is quickly finding out.

- MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's [24] Motion for Discovery and Plaintiff's [23] Motion for Sanctions. As to Plaintiff's request for discovery, in FOIA cases, "courts may order limited discovery where there is evidence -- either at the affidavit stage or (in rarer cases) before -- that the agency acted in bad faith in conducting the search. In re Clinton, 973 F.3d 106, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This is not the unusual case in which discovery before the affidavit stage is warranted. At a minimum Plaintiff's request is premature. The court cannot make a proper assessment of the agency's good or bad faith as to its search efforts at least until Defendant has produced the recently uncovered video clips and Defendant has submitted final affidavits explaining the full extent of its search (including, possibly, one from the videographer at the scene of the Dent's Run excavation). See Shapiro v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 40 F.4th 609, 615 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (stating that, even when an agency's affidavit is inadequate to support summary judgment, "the appropriate remedy is usually to allow the agency to submit further affidavits rather than to order discovery" (internal quotation marks omitted)). For these same reasons, the court denies Plaintiff's request for sanctions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/15/2022. (lcapm1) (filed: 08/15/2022)

Last edited by GoDeep; 08-15-2022 at 02:22 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #306  
Old 08-15-2022, 02:11 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is online now
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 185
Default

To add a little background to my above post:

Petitioner brought a motion in his suit, claiming, without evidence, that the FBI was destroying and concealing evidence, therefore he should be allowed to question, under oath, lead FBI agent Archer as well as be awarded attorneys fees.

In reading their motion, i pointed out that they had no actual evidence, just accusations of wrongdoing and that their chances of winning the motion was virtually zero without evidence.

Petitioner then went on to claim they had evidence that there was a night dig (and thus the FBI doctored and forged evidence), i countered that, no, you don't have actual evidence of that, as if you did, you'd have included it in your motion as it would have been a slam dunk win.

Petitioner continually claims this case is just getting started, on the contrary, it is quickly coming to a close. Sure, he can maybe scrape the money together to bring another suit against the FBI for allegedly recovering gold, but it will be dismissed for lack of evidence in short order after being filed.

So far, since i've based my observations on the actual evidence, not a narrative i want to fulfill, my predictions have been 100 percent correct.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #307  
Old 08-15-2022, 02:46 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17,877
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
Remember Petitioner's recent boasts that "he can't lose this case", well, he was just handed a major defeat and lost both his motion to compel deposition (to question under oath) of the lead FBI agent in charge as well as his motion for attorney's fees.

As i had accurately predicted in the now deleted thread, he didn't have the evidence to support it and would lose the motion. Petitioner time and again thinks "accusations" and his "beliefs" are evidence. They are not as he is quickly finding out.

- MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's [24] Motion for Discovery and Plaintiff's [23] Motion for Sanctions. As to Plaintiff's request for discovery, in FOIA cases, "courts may order limited discovery where there is evidence -- either at the affidavit stage or (in rarer cases) before -- that the agency acted in bad faith in conducting the search. In re Clinton, 973 F.3d 106, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This is not the unusual case in which discovery before the affidavit stage is warranted. At a minimum Plaintiff's request is premature. The court cannot make a proper assessment of the agency's good or bad faith as to its search efforts at least until Defendant has produced the recently uncovered video clips and Defendant has submitted final affidavits explaining the full extent of its search (including, possibly, one from the videographer at the scene of the Dent's Run excavation). See Shapiro v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 40 F.4th 609, 615 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (stating that, even when an agency's affidavit is inadequate to support summary judgment, "the appropriate remedy is usually to allow the agency to submit further affidavits rather than to order discovery" (internal quotation marks omitted)). For these same reasons, the court denies Plaintiff's request for sanctions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/15/2022. (lcapm1) (filed: 08/15/2022)
Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
To add a little background to my above post:

Petitioner brought a motion in his suit, claiming, without evidence, that the FBI was destroying and concealing evidence, therefore he should be allowed to question, under oath, lead FBI agent Archer as well as be awarded attorneys fees.

In reading their motion, i pointed out that they had no actual evidence, just accusations of wrongdoing and that their chances of winning the motion was virtually zero without evidence.

Petitioner then went on to claim they had evidence that there was a night dig (and thus the FBI doctored and forged evidence), i countered that, no, you don't have actual evidence of that, as if you did, you'd have included it in your motion as it would have been a slam dunk win.

Petitioner continually claims this case is just getting started, on the contrary, it is quickly coming to a close. Sure, he can maybe scrape the money together to bring another suit against the FBI for allegedly recovering gold, but it will be dismissed for lack of evidence in short order after being filed.

So far, since i've based my observations on the actual evidence, not a narrative i want to fulfill, my predictions have been 100 percent correct.


Go Deep, these two posts ^ ^ are a breath of fresh air.

In summary : "Accusations are not evidence". Instead ONLY "Evidence is evidence" .

So to merely point a finger at someone, or some agency, and say : "I accuse you of a crime", does not constitute "evidence". As if my accusation is true, merely because I pointed a suspicion finger at another person or entity. On the contrary : I have to have some reason to make the accusation. Not just because I think you have squinty eyes, and saw a strange car pass my house at 2am last week.

But I have a prediction to make : I'll bet that Dennis and FK gang will now say that the justice/legal system is all a part of the conspiracy. To hide the gold recovery. Eg.: the FBI controls the judicial decisions, and it's all a giant plot.

So in NO SENSE does this decision mean: "No gold". Instead, to FK and gang, it will simply be ALL THE MORE PROOF of a coverup and massive amounts of gold.

This just proves the old adage : You can never put a good conspiracy theory to rest. Any proof to quell the conspiracy, simply becomes all-the-more-proof. What a joke . And without logical pushback like yours (and mine) here, any other social media platform that only allows the conspiracy narrative side, will simply be furthering this nonsense, without balanced view.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #308  
Old 08-15-2022, 03:13 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is online now
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 185
Default

Right on Tom! An example of what he considers evidence:

He once posted that, on the last day of the dig, he watched the lead FBI agent in charge, go to the green porta potties on several occasions. This was "proof" to them that the FBI had been up all night, drinking coffee to stay awake, digging up tons of gold and secreting it away in the green tent and hauling it away in armored trucks.

NEVER once did he allow or even entertain that lead Agent went to the porta potty several times because he had diarrhea from some bad local food, had a stomach flu and was throwing up, had irritable bowel syndrome, had been up all night working on the countless other cases he had, had prostrate problems, drank too many red bulls, had a bladder infection, had a late night of fun at the titty bar (I remember a story about several FBI agents being filmed at a strip bar once..lol), has a drinking problem, had diabetes etc etc etc.

He will not even consider another possibility if it counters his preferred, self-fulfilling narrative. He's a walking, talking, breathing confirmation bias.

Last edited by GoDeep; 08-15-2022 at 03:48 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #309  
Old 08-15-2022, 04:36 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17,877
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
....and hauling it away in armored trucks......

And as for all the G-men (and cars and trucks and tents etc....) all of that, to Dennis is proof that "something must have been there". As if to say: "All this smoke must mean fire". Ie.: Why would all this manpower be there, if nothing was there ??

But this fails to realize that the ONLY reason they were there, is because Dennis himself spent YEARS beating on media and govt. doors begging for attention. So FINALLY when he gets a few spurious tabloid news outlets to spew his story, and finally when he gets G-men to come out and take a look, then: Any smoke this amounts to does NOT mean "fire". It is smoke of Dennis's own making.

For example : I bet that if you gave me long enough, that I too could get a bunch of LEO people to come dig in any spot I point to as well. I just have to scream and holler for years that I know where 10 murder victims are buried in the desert somewhere. And I bet I could likewise eventually get LEO types to come take a look.

And then gee, if they say "We didn't find any bodies", I can hatch a conspiracy of how they are complicit in the crime to conceal the murders, blah blah blah.

So any "smoke" you see, is merely Dennis' own making. It does not mean "fire".
Reply With Quote


  #310  
Old 08-15-2022, 04:54 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is online now
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 185
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And as for all the G-men (and cars and trucks and tents etc....) all of that, to Dennis is proof that "something must have been there". As if to say: "All this smoke must mean fire". Ie.: Why would all this manpower be there, if nothing was there ??

But this fails to realize that the ONLY reason they were there, is because Dennis himself spent YEARS beating on media and govt. doors begging for attention. So FINALLY when he gets a few spurious tabloid news outlets to spew his story, and finally when he gets G-men to come out and take a look, then: Any smoke this amounts to does NOT mean "fire". It is smoke of Dennis's own making.

For example : I bet that if you gave me long enough, that I too could get a bunch of LEO people to come dig in any spot I point to as well. I just have to scream and holler for years that I know where 10 murder victims are buried in the desert somewhere. And I bet I could likewise eventually get LEO types to come take a look.

And then gee, if they say "We didn't find any bodies", I can hatch a conspiracy of how they are complicit in the crime to conceal the murders, blah blah blah.

So any "smoke" you see, is merely Dennis' own making. It does not mean "fire".
Yes, sir, whole lot of smoke.

Plus, since he had the time to document how many times Agent Archer was going to the bathroom, how come no one ever took any pictures of these so called "armored" trucks?

Plus, as I've argued from the beginning, what does "armored" truck even mean? There are so many types of armored trucks: Troop transport, assault, Police, command center, bank, VIP transport, etc etc etc. Even if one were to establish there were "armored trucks" there, it in no way means gold was found.

Last edited by GoDeep; 08-15-2022 at 05:46 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #311  
Old 08-15-2022, 05:07 PM
SeabeeRon's Avatar
SeabeeRon SeabeeRon is offline
"Can Do" Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Cruz, CA.
Posts: 24,577
Default

Is there a date known when the judge in this case will slam the gavel down and say “Case Closed” and we can move on to whatever next in this tale?!?

__________________
SeabeeRon-On the beach in Santa Cruz,CA.
Sov GT, White's MXT & Surf PI Pro,BH Land Ranger

Reply With Quote


  #312  
Old 08-15-2022, 05:30 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is online now
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 185
Default

Originally Posted by SeabeeRon View post
Is there a date known when the judge in this case will slam the gavel down and say “Case Closed” and we can move on to whatever next in this tale?!?
Well, he just private messaged me over on the other forum, saying once all the file is in, they are going to be "hitting them hard". I replied, no, no you won't, if you had concrete hard evidence, you would have submitted it along with your motion to compel depositions and attorney's fees. I told him this case will soon be over and so far, I'm batting a 100 percent in my predictions and i won't be wrong on this one either...

I'm by no means an expert in civil litigation like this, but I suspect once the rest of the file (only videos are remaining) is turned over this month, the DOJ will move the court for a summary judgement (meaning, they'll ask the judge to close the case without need for a trial). If they do that, i suspect it will be granted and this case over.

Edit: You'll then see him start beating the drum about his next case he's going to bring and about all this smoking gun evidence he has (but can't tell you about)....

Last edited by GoDeep; 08-15-2022 at 05:51 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #313  
Old 08-15-2022, 05:51 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17,877
Default

Originally Posted by SeabeeRon View post
Is there a date known when the judge in this case will slam the gavel down and say “Case Closed” and we can move on to whatever next in this tale?!?
Depends on what you mean by "case closed" . If you mean in a legal sense, then .... I don't know when Dennis can stop filing appeals, from a legal perspective.

But if you mean "case closed" for when Dennis finally realizes there's no gold, nor stolen gold, then : The answer is that the case will NEVER be closed. He will continue to push this narrative to anyone who will listen.

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
.... If they do that, i suspect it will be granted and this case over.
Yes, "over" from the perspective of Dennis can finally go pound sand. But not "over" from the perspective of him ceasing to tell the world that he found (past tense) a fabulous treasure, but that the govt. came, took it.

And this is all so strange with this loose usage of the word "stole" ? Doesn't any resource on govt. property belong the govt., in the first place ? And since when does the govt. have to report to private citizens on the amount of proceeds that come from oil drilling, or timber harvest, etc... from their own land ? It was never Dennis's IN THE FIRST PLACE ! (as if there were anything there, in the first place, to begin with)
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #314  
Old 08-15-2022, 05:57 PM
Martin_V3i's Avatar
Martin_V3i Martin_V3i is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North DFW, TX
Posts: 4,699
Default

What really does all the talk mean here? It is done. Not one thing will pry the feds to admit a single thing. Not saying something was there for proof, but the politics these days says that the FBI ain't gonna ever admit anything on their part right now.

It makes good chatter here on these boards, but it is a done deal. We will need ever know. It isn't important to this world.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #315  
Old 08-15-2022, 06:10 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is online now
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 185
Default

Originally Posted by Martin_V3i View post
Not one thing will pry the feds to admit a single thing. Not saying something was there for proof, but the politics these days says that the FBI ain't gonna ever admit anything on their part right now.
This is where we disagree, as my post above points out, had they found gold, they actually would have every incentive to publicize that they found one of the most significant treasures in our country's history! It would have been excellent PR for an agency that is suffering in that department. Plus, they could have put it on display at the Smithsonian and on display at museums around the world and they could be white knighting all over the place boasting about their recovery!

Originally Posted by Martin_V3i View post
We will need ever know. It isn't important to this world.
But we do know, i spent months analyzing, documenting and presenting the evidence, it showed Petitioner was being less than honest and the evidence supported no gold being found. That thread was deleted in its entirety as i believe it was exposing the truth. I screen grabbed most all of it and when i get the time, will repost it all. The evidence is clear and convincing for those who still judge cases on the merits of the facts.

Last edited by GoDeep; 08-15-2022 at 11:43 PM.
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #316  
Old 08-15-2022, 06:37 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17,877
Default

Originally Posted by Martin_V3i View post
... but the politics these days says that the FBI ain't gonna ever admit anything on their part ...
Which only infers that there was/is something "admit to", in-the-first place. Says who ?
Reply With Quote


  #317  
Old 08-16-2022, 11:11 PM
harleyhummer65's Avatar
harleyhummer65 harleyhummer65 is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Always on the road traveling.
Posts: 195
Default

Im on page 6 of 17, in this thread.....
Will someone PLEASE just tell me the status of the gold situation!
Please?
Reply With Quote


  #318  
Old 08-16-2022, 11:40 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17,877
Default

Originally Posted by harleyhummer65 View post
....
Will someone PLEASE just tell me the status of the gold situation!
Please?

There was never any gold past tense. There's not any gold present tense. And there won't be any gold future tense.
Reply With Quote


4 members found this post helpful.
  #319  
Old 08-18-2022, 10:30 PM
FreeBirdTim's Avatar
FreeBirdTim FreeBirdTim is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Scituate, RI
Posts: 1,426
Default

Will someone PLEASE just tell me the status of the gold situation!
He admitted years ago that he was looking for a book or TV deal to promote this tall tale. There never was any gold found, just some magical signal that indicated nine tons of gold under the ground! Plus tons of silver as well! Plus he found a skeleton in a cave! And on and on this baloney tale goes...

__________________
Oldest coin: 1723 Rosa Americana
Oldest silver coin:1773 Half Reale
Oldest U.S. coin: 1798 Large Cent
Oldest U.S. silver coin:1824 Capped Bust Half Dollar

Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #320  
Old 08-19-2022, 07:43 AM
Tpmetal Tpmetal is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,978
Default

Originally Posted by FreeBirdTim View post
He admitted years ago that he was looking for a book or TV deal to promote this tall tale. There never was any gold found, just some magical signal that indicated nine tons of gold under the ground! Plus tons of silver as well! Plus he found a skeleton in a cave! And on and on this baloney tale goes...
THIS. I have been maintaining for a long time now that it is for a tv show/publicity. Having the FBI show up gives him just enough for one of those reality tv guys to speculate on. In my best oak island voice "Could it be that the FBI was involved in a cover up? After all if nothing was there, then why did a powerful agency such as the FBI even bother showing up?"
Reply With Quote


3 members found this post helpful.
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.