HLNT/NIR/Ribotsky/Humphries/Walters/PWC Lawsuits Update 11/18/2012:
Ravmn, the Judge held a 'Status Conference' on the 13th of November. This S.C. was not announced in advance. That is significant in itself. From that conference, the Judge issued the following order:
"ORDERED that by November 21, Humphries shall file copies of any written communications regarding document production for this case between himself and the federal government, along with an affidavit 1)verifying the foregoing; 2)attesting to any oral communications on the aforesaid subject between said parties; 3) identifying with specificity the documetns he has received as of such date. Upon review of the foregoing the Court shall issue a further order. Humphries shall deliver Bates-stamped copies of the documents currently in his possession to the other parties by November 21, 2012, along with a privilege log in accordance with this Part's rules. Failure to comply with the foregoing shall result in preclusion."
Interpretation:
The last sentence quoted above was hand written by the Judge. What it means is that if he doesn't provide what he has, and a reasonable explanation of the efforts he is taking, that the Judge will disallow any evidence that Humphries could use in his defense. He has to comply with all discovery requirements, not just pick and chose what he wants to submit, like he wants.
Humphries, with Walters on the sideline advising him, has tried to delay the responses to discovery as long as he possibly can, to give Walters a chance in winning the Texas case. But the Judge in the New York case has put her foot down, and no more generalized excuses are being allowed by Humphries. If the Federal Government fails to provide Humhries with documentation, that would cause the Feds a problem, so they will get it to Humphries as expeditiously as they can.
Now for the real kicker. The Judge wants specificity. That means that Humphries has got to identify the documents that he is getting from the Feds. In the past, he has said that all the documents went to the Feds. Yet in his Bankruptcy case, he some how came up with documents (in a prior adverserial filing by HLNT to which Humphries responded). Let's say the Humphries claimed that he sent documents "ABC" and "XYZ" to the Feds (under the pretext that he sent them all the documents), but in his specificity, he can only account for document "XYZ" because that is all he sent to the Feds, and that is all that they can return to him. If Humphries lied about sending document "ABC" to the Feds because he never did, he is going to have to explain his little misstatement.
Humphries also has a problem with the Bankruptcy Trustee. The Trustee has asked the Judge in that case to force Humphries to turn over documents that would substantiate Humphries complaint that he wrongly filed in Texas against HLNT. But this will also force Humphries to turn over any documents to HLNT, since pursuit of any action against HLNT will also result in discovery. Humphries has been backed into a corner now in both the Bankruptcy case and the New York case, and he has lost all room to wriggle around with excuses.
It is assumed that Walters provided the lawyer for Humphries (Mr. Espinoza, the "are your sure your a lawyer" helping Humphries), under the contention that this would help Humphries in any and all cases against HLNT. The only one that this has really helped is Walters, and the question arises, when will Humphries come to terms to the fact that he has been duped and used by Walters? Once Humphries realizes how much he has been had, he will turn on Walters with a vengeance, and it won't be pretty.
The opinions expressed herein are my own and each investor should conduct his or her own due diligence and make his or her own investment decisions accordingly.
