Post reply

Re: Manhattan Club Lawsuit (by Chris V.):

i have no legal background, therefore i am speaking (writing) from an informed opinion in response to NATHANZ2's comments:

1. fraud is a crime, vis a vis schneiderman's undercover agents' attendance and taping of eichner's fraud/lie-ridden sales presentations. crime is punishable by other than schneiderman's "settlement." 2. mail fraud is a federal crime, vis a vis eichner's mailing, via USPS, of TMC brochures to unsuspecting purchasers. the above comment applies to this fraudulent action, a FEDERAL CRIME.

3. my assumption is that owners have real estate deeds proving ownership of property, NOT JUST "USE" (correct/adjust this statement with legal definitions). 4. again an assumption: owners pay maintenance fees AND REAL ESTATE TAX (NOT SALES TAX) ON THE WEEK (S) WE PURCHASED, therefore real estate ownership is assumed. (if this is not accurate, then another major lie was presented at the sales presentation; we (I) were told we would "OWN a valluable piece of NYC REAL ESTATE.

considerating "the statute of limitations", could it be extended due to the ridiculous amount of time it took for schneiderman to finalize his legal proceedings with TMC (ending with the nonsensical "settlement" he accepted)?

eichner still has his criminally filthy, fraudulent fingers in the management of TMC. WHY? HE WAS LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO.

NO ONE IN ALBANY, STARING WITH GOVERNOR CUOMO (IF HE EVEN KNOWS OF THE POOR WORK SCHNEIDERMAN DID WITH THE TMC CASE), AND ENDING WITH THE NYC/STATE COURT SYSTEM, IS MONITORING EICHNER'S ACTIVITIES REGARDING THE COURT RULING. IT SEEMS EICHNER DOES WHAT AND WHEN HE WANTS, IGNORING THE EDICT OF THE COURT.

your quote: "I think owners need to be realistic about their expectations...."what do you think our current expectations should be? concerning eichner, i hope it's not LET BYGONES BE BYGONES.....or is it?

nathanz2 wrote:

As has been said before, "the devil is in the details." Unfortunately, your message passes over many of them. While timeshare interests are sold in different forms at different timeshare projects, each project typically has only one. MC is an undivided ownership, like tenants in common. The fact that they should not be viewed or sold as investments does not prevent them from being real estate interests, it is simply a cautionary note regarding sales tactics and misrepresentations. And the fact that no market exists or is likely to exist is more "blue sky" boilerplate advising potential purchasers to consider the MC a risky expense rather than an investment from which you expect to recoup or profit. You will find similar boilerplate in most non-publicly traded investments. And the Eichners have not been found guilty of anything. Their representatives admitted to certain facts in the settlement talks which they made sure cannot not be used in any criminal proceeding. So you can bring a civil suit as an individual, but you cannot charge them with any criminal actions. And after so many unsuccessful attempts, if you convince the right prosecutor to charge them, or judge to hear the case, you still have the statute of limitations and the immunization they received from the NYAG to deal with. I am not defending Eisner. I think the sooner he is separated from the MC the better. However, I think owners need to be realistic about their expectations, stop raising false hopes, and let this matter settle.