Friendly Metal Detecting Forums   Owl Engineering
List all sponsors

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

Reply
  
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old 09-22-2022, 09:35 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

The thing is, it's only a matter of time before the DOJ finds this thread (if they haven't already) and if Plaintiff tries to being another suit against them, he's going to be in a world of hurt and likely be counter sued. It may even be him who ends up paying punitive damages to the DOJ. All his dishonesty had no consequences back when he was just posting in random threads, but now that's he's bringing actual suits against the DOJ, it will come back to haunt him should he bring another suit.

In a sense, my old thread being deleted has turned into a bit of a blessing, as it's forced me to go back over the record and I'm truly shocked by the number of false statements made by Plaintiff that I'm turning up. And the beauty is, it's coming from his own documented statements he's posted over the years!

Last edited by GoDeep; 09-22-2022 at 09:52 PM.
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #222  
Old 09-22-2022, 09:49 PM
SS_Wonder SS_Wonder is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 20
Default

One could submit a claim for abusing government trust and wasting taxpayer dollars here:

https://www.justice.gov/
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #223  
Old 09-22-2022, 10:08 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

Originally Posted by SS_Wonder View post
One could submit a claim for abusing government trust and wasting taxpayer dollars here:

https://www.justice.gov/
The thing is, he's justified in bringing his current suit. It's a narrow focus in getting the DOJ to expedite its production of the records, so he hasn't run a foul. Also, what he's posting in the threads hasn't ended up in the suit. For example, in his posts, he accused the FBI of forging evidence, however, he didn't bring that accusation in his current suit. Another example, in his posts, he accuses the FBI of stealing the gold, but in his suit, he did not make this accusation. (or more aptly, he probably wanted to make those accusations in his suit, but his attorney refused to make them without concrete evidence)
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #224  
Old 09-22-2022, 10:27 PM
ucnegold? ucnegold? is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 21
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
On 3/20/19, When Plaintiff is asked to show pictures of the gold bars from the FBI's dig, he leads the public to believe that he does have them but can't post them now but that "In time he will"
Now that is a post I have never seen. Seems like pathological dishonesty from the plaintiff.

You know when reading FK's posts and wading through the poor spelling and endless embellishments, one could get the impression that he is just dumb. He is dumb like a fox. He knows just how to shift the goal post a little further. He knows that "in time" is an open ended, indefinite period. So, no pressure now to reveal his cards (or lack thereof). In fact, for many years, time was on his side until the official record was released. FK now seems to have exhausted all his legal options but tomorrow we shall learn if he has any left.

It will be interesting to see the Joint Status Report and what, if anything happens moving forward.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #225  
Old 09-22-2022, 10:38 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

Originally Posted by ucnegold? View post
Now that is a post I had never seen. Seems like pathological dishonesty from the plaintiff.

You know when reading FK's posts and wading through the poor spelling and endless embellishments, one could get the impression that he is just dumb. He is dumb like a fox. He knows just how to shift the goal post a little further. He knows that "in time" is an open ended, indefinite period. So, no pressure now to reveal his cards (or lack thereof). In fact, for many years, time was on his side until the official record was released. FK now seems to have exhausted all his legal options but tomorrow we shall learn if he has any left.

It will be interesting to see the Joint Status Report and what, if anything happens moving forward.
I hadn't seen that post until tonight myself! I was researching some of his other statements and came across it! I'm with you, it is pathological. Don't get me wrong, I always knew he lived in a land of fantasy and denial, but i hadn't realized until literally the last few weeks, just how often he was purposely and knowingly deceiving us.

Me too, really excited to see the Joint Status. Plaintiff claimed over a month ago all hell was going to break loose after this joint status report. I'm sure that, too, will turn out to be a false statement!
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #226  
Old 09-22-2022, 10:39 PM
SS_Wonder SS_Wonder is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 20
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
The thing is, he's justified in bringing his current suit. It's a narrow focus in getting the DOJ to expedite its production of the records, so he hasn't run a foul. Also, what he's posting in the threads hasn't ended up in the suit. For example, in his posts, he accused the FBI of forging evidence, however, he didn't bring that accusation in his current suit. Another example, in his posts, he accuses the FBI of stealing the gold, but in his suit, he did not make this accusation. (or more aptly, he probably wanted to make those accusations in his suit, but his attorney refused to make them without concrete evidence)
But he could be investigated for knowingly lying to a federal law enforcement agency in order to use their actions for generating publicity.
Reply With Quote


3 members found this post helpful.
  #227  
Old 09-22-2022, 10:42 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

Originally Posted by SS_Wonder View post
But he could be investigated for knowingly lying to a federal law enforcement agency in order to use their actions for generating publicity.
I will say, I've been specifically looking for statements he made to the FBI that were lies. I haven't found any smoking guns yet as it appears he was pretty careful, but I'm still looking!
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #228  
Old 09-22-2022, 11:46 PM
ucnegold? ucnegold? is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 21
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
I haven't found any smoking guns yet as it appears he was pretty careful, but I'm still looking!
One thing that has always bothered me was if it was the Plaintiff providing permission in the initial interview of 1/26/18, for ingress and egress for the investigators to access the landowner’s property and Snook’s Trail.

In the interview, (redacted) states; he is granted permission to enter and exit the property. Moreover, (redacted) advised that he has permission to allow others to enter and exit the property.

The investigators then advised they would still like to have formal permission for ingress and egress over Snook’s Trail for purposes of accessing Pennsylvania State Forest in furtherance of an FBI investigation. (redacted) advised that he had authority to grant such permission to the FBI and did grant such permission.

Agents provided (redacted) with an FD-26 Consent to Search Form. (redacted) then went on to grant permission both verbally and by executing the form.

Was this a true and accurate statement? Was he in a position to grant these permissions?

Now, since the record was released, we know that the agents contacted the landowner with writ of entry to access the property. The landowner responded making the following statement to the agents:

“If it is possible, I’d appreciate a quick update on the resolution of this matter when it is possible to do so. The “Treasure Hunter” has trespassed on my property w/o my permission.”

Does this sound like the plaintiff had the landowner's permission for ingress and egress or to grant permission to others for ingress and egress?

One other interesting tidbit is this:
In signing the FD-26, the (redacted) authorized these agents to take any items which they determine to be related to their investigation.

Who, other than a judge, can grant authorization for agents to take anything from state owned or private property of which they have no ownership?

Last edited by ucnegold?; 09-23-2022 at 07:13 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #229  
Old 09-23-2022, 09:55 AM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

Originally Posted by ucnegold? View post
One thing that has always bothered me was if it was the Plaintiff providing permission in the initial interview of 1/26/18, for ingress and egress for the investigators to access the landowner’s property and Snook’s Trail.

In the interview, (redacted) states; he is granted permission to enter and exit the property. Moreover, (redacted) advised that he has permission to allow others to enter and exit the property.

The investigators then advised they would still like to have formal permission for ingress and egress over Snook’s Trail for purposes of accessing Pennsylvania State Forest in furtherance of an FBI investigation. (redacted) advised that he had authority to grant such permission to the FBI and did grant such permission.

Agents provided (redacted) with an FD-26 Consent to Search Form. (redacted) then went on to grant permission both verbally and by executing the form.

Was this a true and accurate statement? Was he in a position to grant these permissions?

Now, since the record was released, we know that the agents contacted the landowner with writ of entry to access the property. The landowner responded making the following statement to the agents:

“If it is possible, I’d appreciate a quick update on the resolution of this matter when it is possible to do so. The “Treasure Hunter” has trespassed on my property w/o my permission.”

Does this sound like the plaintiff had the landowner's permission for ingress and egress or to grant permission to others for ingress and egress?

One other interesting tidbit is this:
In signing the FD-26, the (redacted) authorized these agents to take any items which they determine to be related to their investigation.

Who, other than a judge, can grant authorization for agents to take anything from state owned or private property of which they have no ownership?


It's hard to imagine who else he could mean other than Plaintiffs (including Warren Getler). Since he's (the property owner) talking to the FBI about permission, he can't be referencing them (the FBI) or he would have just said the FBI or one of your agents was trespassing. If you look back to the Cease and Desist notices Dennis received, they claim that some of the locals were being harassed.

As far as the "take any items", im not clear what they meant. Maybe he meant any items left on his property by Plaintiff related to the dig?

Last edited by GoDeep; 09-23-2022 at 08:01 PM.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #230  
Old 09-23-2022, 10:01 AM
FreeBirdTim's Avatar
FreeBirdTim FreeBirdTim is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Scituate, RI
Posts: 1,426
Default

But he could be investigated for knowingly lying to a federal law enforcement agency in order to use their actions for generating publicity
Yup, he's trying to profit from this story and get backers for his other alleged treasure finds. I was banned from that other site for a year for warning a mod about potential fraud on this deal. I told him I was going to file a complaint with the PA attorney general over this tall tale because he was using it to drum up business and solicit funds for other alleged "found" treasure sites. Since he has no actual proof of any gold found at Dents Run, he's committing fraud by gaining financially from his claim. Just my take on it...

__________________
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


4 members found this post helpful.
  #231  
Old 09-23-2022, 01:11 PM
ucnegold? ucnegold? is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 21
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
It's hard to imagine who else he could mean other than Plaintiffs
That is my thinking too. But to be fair to the plaintiff, the record is redacted and without any further clarification of who was interviewed by name, we can only infer this to be the case.

Last edited by ucnegold?; 09-23-2022 at 04:22 PM.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #232  
Old 09-23-2022, 03:41 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

While I'm waiting for the Joint Status (i'll post it up in its entirety as soon as it comes in) can you imagine if it (the FBI file) had never been made public how Plaintiff would have been hiding, burying and misrepresenting what was in there? I remember when he received the first dump of the file, before he thought it was going to be made public, i asked him several questions about it and asked him to post up the report and pictures and he was evasive and wouldn't answer my questions or post pictures or claimed he couldn't yet.

A few weeks after he received the first batch of the file i discovered the FBI had posted it themselves. The first thing i shared from the file was the Enviroscan Report and then Plaintiff, knowing i had found out it was publicly posted, quick jumped in within minutes of my posting the report and posted a link to the publicly available FBI site, with the excuse that he "meant to share the link to the file earlier, but had been too busy". That was an untrue statement, he never meant to share the file, as for the past several weeks i had been asking pointed questions about it and he wouldn't answer or was evasive, actions clearly indicating he had no intention of sharing it.

Last edited by GoDeep; 09-23-2022 at 06:29 PM.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #233  
Old 09-23-2022, 04:58 PM
ucnegold? ucnegold? is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 21
Default

Just saw the Joint Status Report was released on Court Listener. Anything interesting?
Reply With Quote


  #234  
Old 09-23-2022, 05:49 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

Well, if that ain't a big nothing burger. As i suspected, Plaintiff was embellishing his claims to me in a previous private message.

To sum up the Joint Status:

- Plaintiff previously requested 35 color photos referenced in a letter of which the FBI still has not produced, but according to the joint status, will endeavor to do so.

- Plaintiff claims they received high resolution photo's they never asked for

- Plaintiff claims the DOJ "refused" to answer questions about when the high-resolution pictures would be produced and asked the court to order it done within 2 weeks.

- Due to these delays, accuses the DOJ of delaying to produce any "meaningful evidence" of what they found at the dig.

- Asks the court to set another joint status for Oct 28, 2022

Name:  ajoint1.jpg
Views: 36
Size:  56.5 KB

Name:  ajoint2.jpg
Views: 33
Size:  73.6 KB

Name:  ajoint6.jpg
Views: 34
Size:  71.2 KB

Name:  ajoint4.jpg
Views: 33
Size:  61.5 KB

Name:  ajointstatus5.jpg
Views: 35
Size:  28.4 KB










-
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #235  
Old 09-23-2022, 06:09 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

My thoughts, Planintiff's attorney is trying to please her client by feigning outrage. Key words like "refusing", "delay" and "ignore" are scattered throughout their complaints. My opinion, Plaintiff likes to think the DOJ not giving him full and prompt attention means (and Tom of CA this ones for you) "They found gold", when in fact, this is an extremely low priority case for them that turned up nothing but an empty hole.

When you boil it down, Plaintiff complains the DOJ didn't answer all of their questions about where the 35 color pictures are and the status of the DVD's. Which I'm not clear what exactly their complaint is there about the DVD's as it isn't spelled out and on #11 it stated the DOJ completed production of the videos. Perhaps they are referring to the pictures of DVD's that were in the FBI file and they want to know the contents of those? (i thought those were DVD's plaintiff had given the FBI in the first place?)

Last edited by GoDeep; 09-23-2022 at 06:35 PM.
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #236  
Old 09-23-2022, 06:18 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

Oh, and i get a big kick out of this one, this is definitely plaintiff's attorney trying to appease her client: "Taken as a whole, it's clear the FBI seeks to delay the production of any meaningful evidence of what it found at the March 2018 Dents Run dig"

Nothing could be further from the truth; the FBI has released mountains of "meaningful evidence" of what was found at the 2018 Dents Run Dig: Nothing! But Plaintiff doesn't want to acknowledge that truth!

This case is over! As usual, their complaints are nothing more than complaints about the broken, slow, ineffective DOJ records department. They don't provide any evidence that shows the FBI found gold, is destroying records or forging evidence, why? Because they have none...
Reply With Quote


3 members found this post helpful.
  #237  
Old 09-23-2022, 06:39 PM
ucnegold? ucnegold? is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 21
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
this is an extremely low priority case for them that turned up nothing but an empty hole.
Thanks so much for sharing the report.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #238  
Old 09-23-2022, 06:58 PM
ucnegold? ucnegold? is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 21
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
Perhaps they are referring to the pictures of DVD's that were in the FBI file and they want to know the contents of those? (i thought those were DVD's plaintiff had given the FBI in the first place?)
I now believe the DVD's in question are entered into evidence in File 07, pages 8-15. The ones mentioned in the document image on page 8 are then pictured in pages 9-15:
Original and one copy Blueray Disc w/search photos, including spherical.
DVD with working copy search photos.
DVD with working copy spherical photos.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #239  
Old 09-23-2022, 07:56 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17,876
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
.... My opinion, Plaintiff likes to think the DOJ not giving him full and prompt attention means (and Tom of CA this ones for you) "They found gold", when in fact, this is an extremely low priority case for them that turned up nothing but an empty hole. ....
Exactly what I was thinking as I read those court documents : If all these demands, that everyone drop what they're doing, and coddle Dennis-&-gang, aren't immediately met, then: Presto, the govt. must be hiding something. !!! ?

This may come as a shock to people like Dennis, but : Govt. workers have lives to lead. And other work they normally do, etc.... And they have red-tape hoops that ANYONE will have to jump through. And for good reason ! Otherwise what's to stop vexatious litigants from just waltzing into any LEO office of any type, and just demanding everyone drop what they're doing, and roll out red carpets for anything you demand ? And if they don't lickity split comply, then gee, they must be hiding something ?

I do not blame the government and LEO agencies one-bit for not thinking they're supposed to be Dennis' personal servants. This is red-tape that anyone in the public is going to have to jump through. Dennis is no exception to this rule-of-thumb.

And I love your commentary on the Plaintiff's quote about :

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
..."Taken as a whole, it's clear the FBI seeks to delay the production of any meaningful evidence of what it found at the March 2018 Dents Run dig".....
Notice the slight-of-hand here : If it *were* true that the FBI stole 9 tons of gold, then SURE ! Then OF COURSE the FBI "... isn't turning over meaningful stuff.... " But wait ! Who said that any gold was found in the first place ?

This known as begging the question. Ie.: Assuming your own point of view, as evidence of your proof for it. As if: Any evidence that no gold was stolen, is not evidence that no gold was stolen. It's only evidence that the FBI is stonewalling, not providing evidence, etc..

On the contrary: The lack of evidence of any gold stolen IS the meaningful evidence . That : No gold was stolen. That is *very* "meaningful" Doh !
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #240  
Old 09-23-2022, 08:03 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 184
Default

Originally Posted by ucnegold? View post
I now believe the DVD's in question are entered into evidence in File 07, pages 8-15. The ones mentioned in the document image on page 8 are then pictured in pages 9-15:
Original and one copy Blueray Disc w/search photos, including spherical.
DVD with working copy search photos.
DVD with working copy spherical photos.
Good find.
Reply With Quote


Reply


Tags
civil war gold, dennis parada, dents run, fbi dents run gold, lost civil war gold

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:16 AM.


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