Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Anders Lindman]

If Keenan was a member of the Dragon family then why didn't he identify himself as such?

I found this information about Keenan:

"Plaintiff Neil Keenan claims he was entrusted in 2009 with the financial instruments - which included U.S. Federal Reserve notes worth $124.5 billion, two Japanese government bonds with a combined face value of $19 billion, and one U.S. "Kennedy" bond with a face value of $1 billion - by an entity called the Dragon Family, which is a group of several wealthy and secretive Asian families." -- http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/05/41930.htm

I haven't read the entire article. Probably Keenan isn't a direct member of the Dragon Family, but his interests seem aligned with them.

 

[Sledge]

It's a long document, over 100 pages. I may take the time to read it depending on if it turns out to be something that could be real. It looked interesting enough to look into a bit more and that's why I started this thread.

So far we've got "Wacko tries to sue the UN with no evidence of claim." Precisely what do you find interesting about this?

 

[Anders Lindman]

So far we've got "Wacko tries to sue the UN with no evidence of claim." Precisely what do you find interesting about this?

Ha ha. The lawsuit certainly looks kooky beyond recognition. What I find fascinating is that it's a real lawsuit! Unless Wilcock and Fulford have pulled off some elaborate hoax, lol.

 

[bynmdsue]

Whoa... there's a group of wealthy and secretive Asian families who are called The Dragon Family? Is this the new Bond film?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Whoa... there's a group of wealthy and secretive Asian families who are called The Dragon Family? Is this the new Bond film?

I heard (seriously) that the two Japanese men who were caught smuggling billions of dollars worth of bonds that are mentioned in Wilcock's blog post looked like the Asian man Oddjob in the Goldfinger James Bond movie.

 

[tsig]

The must be a limit to what the lawyers would accept as claim without any proof. The Dragon Family lawsuit looks like something an attorney would think twice about before accepting.

They probably asked for their fee up front.

 

[bynmdsue]

I heard (seriously) that the two Japanese men who were caught smuggling billions of dollars worth of bonds that are mentioned in Wilcock's blog post looked like the Asian man Oddjob in the Goldfinger James Bond movie.

As long as it wasn't Random Task. Seriously, stay away from that guy...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Son

 

[Anders Lindman]

As long as it wasn't Random Task. Seriously, stay away from that guy...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Son

Yeah, they could be serious dudes. I think it was in this interview it was mentioned that the bond smugglers looked like something out of Goldfinger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT4GGIp0YeQ

 

[Craig4]

It's a lawsuit. What do you expect?

Evidence.

 

[Craig4]

That doesn't sound plausible. Surely it isn't possible to file a lawsuit with baseless accusations and get away with it? Then the legal system could be abused and cause harm to innocent people by false lawsuits claiming all kinds of things.

If that were true the plaintiff would never lose.

 

[Craig4]

Maybe some of the evidence is pointed out in the PDF file?

Read it. Tell us what the evidence is.

 

[Robrob]

Wilcock wrote in his blog post that the PDF file is from pacer.gov which is an official source for lawsuits, and I trust that he is telling the truth about that.

That was your first mistake.

That doesn't sound plausible. Surely it isn't possible to file a lawsuit with baseless accusations and get away with it? Then the legal system could be abused and cause harm to innocent people by false lawsuits claiming all kinds of things.

Apparently you were born last night?

At least the attorney must have taken the lawsuit seriously?

Or, in the adult world - he did what he was paid to do. He filed a suit for a client.

It's a lawsuit filed by an attorney from a law firm, so there should be some substance to the claims I assume. Why else accept the case? If the case is baseless, then accepting it just because of getting a lot money would be a kind of conspiracy in itself.

 

[Anders Lindman]

If that were true the plaintiff would never lose.

There can be disputes where the plaintiff loses depending of how the evidence is interpreted by the jury etc. A lawsuit must at least have some kind of credibility. I can't sue the moon for a trillion dollars for example.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Or, in the adult world - he did what he was paid to do. He filed a suit for a client.

Again, no lawyer would accept a case where I sue the moon for a trillion dollars. There has to be some kind of reality behind the lawsuit for it to be accepted. That's the adult world.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Read it. Tell us what the evidence is.

I was actually thinking of reading some of it today. That can be fun.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I have read some of the document and on page 14 it says: "... said DFFI are currently held by said defendants in New York for investment in a UN Sovereign Program."

As I understand it that means that the United Nations has in effect grabbed the bonds!

Bad dog. Baaad dog!

 

[Tomtomkent]

I was actually thinking of reading some of it today. That can be fun.

Perhaps it would have been more sensible ot read first, then offer the evidence in your original post, instead of simply posting your links as "fact", suggesting you both considered the story essentially true and something you agree with.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have read some of the document and on page 14 it says: "... said DFFI are currently held by said defendants in New York for investment in a UN Sovereign Program."

As I understand it that means that the United Nations has in effect grabbed the bonds!

Bad dog. Baaad dog!

As everybody else understands it, you are oversimplifying and possibly misunderstanding the situation to justify your belief in a conspiracy theory.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Again, no lawyer would accept a case where I sue the moon for a trillion dollars. There has to be some kind of reality behind the lawsuit for it to be accepted. That's the adult world.

Firstly, the ONLY reason some (but by no means all) solicitors would sue the moon is because there is no way to get the money from the moon.

However if one party (Mr X) wants to sue another party (Mr Y) there is no requirement for there to be a reality behind the claim. Indeed the courtcase will be there for the specific purpose of establishing IF there is any reality behind the claim. it is not a foregone conclusion.

If Mr X wins the case then the Solicitor gets paid by Mr Y's lawyers. If Mr X loses, he pays the Solicitor. Reality does not come in to it. If the case is thrown out at a pre-trial hearing? Solicitors still get paid.

Sure a lot of Solicitors will not want to take a bunk case, but that is not the same thing as supposing no other solicitor would or could.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Perhaps it would have been more sensible ot read first, then offer the evidence in your original post, instead of simply posting your links as "fact", suggesting you both considered the story essentially true and something you agree with.

I read some of the lawsuit before posting it and it seemed genuine enough.