Part 1: What Happened and When?

Part 2: Root Cause of Problems?

Part 3: How Might Problems be Avoided in the Future?

Part 4: What’s the Deal with Berwick and GGC?

Part 5: Feedback from the Recovery Team

Part 6: Johnson Re-Occupies Galt’s Gulch

E-mail Sent to Jerry Folta

From: Terence
To: jerry@foltas.com
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 21:14:41 -0700

Jerry,

My name is Terence Gillespie, the author of the GGC
series Parts 1 – 6, starting here:

https://mcgillespie.com/galts-gulch-chile-story-timeline-references/

I’m writing to request a comment from you on an apparent snippet
of an e-mail exchange between yourself and Wendy McElroy that
Kenneth Johnson cut/pasted into the comments section of a recent
Panama Post article.

————————————
On May 1, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Wendy McElroy wrote:

Are you suing Ken J?

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Jerry Folta wrote:

Absolutely not. Cathy, as is her way, got it wrong.”
———————————-

Here are my questions for you, Jerry:

1) When you wrote, “Cathy . . . got it wrong” did you mean that it was actually lawyer, Héctor Hernán Herrera Flores, who filed on behalf of entity “Jumpin’ G’s SpA” against Inmobiliaria Galt’s Gulch S.A. per this public document?

CORTED DE APELACIONES DE SANTIAGO
Sec: Civil Folio: 00240284
Procedimiento:
Jdo: 18 CIV Rol : C-007863
Fecha: 02–04-2015 Hora : 12: 42
Materia : C01

2) Is “Jumpin’ G’s SpA” your entity or one in which you have an interest?

3) Why did you use that entity in the “Promesa de Compraventa y Prestamo” with IGGSA for a 25 acre lemon orchard lot?

4) Who is required to respond to the action, Pamela Del Real or Kenneth Dale Johnson?

5) Why not use arbitration, which your contract allows, instead of a much more expensive civil action?

I’m writing an article about this filing as I think it’s applicable to the series, and more importantly, justice and restoration to investors such as yourself. Please respond within three days so that I may include your view on the matter.

I’m sorry for any losses you’ve had with respect to GGC. All private correspondence between me and you will be kept private, if you prefer. However, the questions I am sending you will be in my article. Please mark clearly any information in your reply that you would prefer to be kept private.

Thank you,

Terence GIllespie
McGillespie.com

Jerry’s Response

Hi Terence:

Jumpin’G’s SpA is owned by a Trust that I set up for the benefit of myself and my heirs. The current General Manager of IGGSA according to public record is Pamela Del Real. Arbitration is inappropriate because she became General Manager as a result of fraudulent actions. The approach I’m taking hopefully provides flexibility going forward in clarifying the legal ownership of GGC.

Once ownership is legally clear it is hoped all buyers/investors, including members of the Rescue Team, will take title to their properties (as well as GGC equity for First Round Founders) and GGC can be completed.

Jerry

Inference & Analysis

Prior to sending the e-mail, above, to Jerry, I published a detailed inference about it’s meaning with respect to GGC investors and Folta. Having now received Folta’s response to my questions I’ll supplement that public inference by adding comments to the original under the heading “To Which I Add/Clarify”. Here’s what I originally wrote:

Defendant: Galt’s Gulch S.A. . . . Don KENNETH DALE JOHNSON,
El Promitente comparador (Jumpin’ G’s SpA)

$450,000 US.

Here’s how it works GGC Investors: Jerry’s entity filed a civil suit against Inmobiliaria Galt’s Gulch S.A. on 4/2/15. Johnson lets the suit go through without protesting and Jumping’ G (Jerry Folta) “wins” the suit, by default.

Now, if Josh Kirley’s suit goes in favor of the GGC Investors then Jerry Folta is first in line to get paid. How? Because Folta takes the judgment and turns it into a lien against Inmobiliaria Galt’s Gulch S.A. Now, guess who has to get paid first when the entity (Land) is sold? Correct: Folta.

If Josh’s suit goes the other way then Johnson “pays off” Jerry’s suit for $1 or whatever.

Folta and Johnson have been playing both sides against the middle the whole time. This is just more of the same. I highly doubt $450,000 was ever given to Johnson by Folta. This is just a way for Jerry to recoup his losses with Johnson before the other 75 investors.

Now, do you see why Folta is technically telling the truth when claiming he’s not “suing” Ken Johnson? No, it’s his entity that has filed the suit. And if you question Folta about that then he’ll still deny it and even that is true. No money changed hands and he’s already agreed in advance on the sham with Johnson.

It’s a LIEN disguised as a CIVIL SUIT!

Welcome to the world of fiat money, invoices, bills, and yes, civil suits. Just because there’s a number on a suit between two supposedly “warring” parties does not mean any money has changed hands or that anything is really owed.

To Which I Add/Clarify

Folta’s action is filed against “Inmobiliaria Galt’s Gulch S.A.”, referred to as IGGSA. The original entity created by Cobin, et. al., was “Galt’s Gulch Chile S.A.. Therefore, Folta’s action is against Johnson’s personal entity into which he fraudulently conveyed receipt of GGC properties purchased with investor money. This fraudulent conveyance is the primary and largest fraud, performed by Johnson, that caused all the “controversy” about GGC.

Even if Johnson shows up to contest the action it could still go in Folta’s favor.

This is a legal, not a moral, inference that I’m making about Folta becoming first lien holder in line. Morally, all investors are equally entitled to restitution. Legally, it may not make Folta first in line but it would make him among the few investors with a state judgment in their hands, unless others decide to file such actions. Also, the lien would be against an entity holding stolen property. Whether or not the Chilean courts would recognize or consider this fact is anyone’s guess. That probably depends on the decision regarding Josh Kirley’s separate action currently awaiting a judgment

My hope is that neither Jerry Folta, nor any investor, would be foolish enough to go along with such a scheme with Johnson. Also, as written in my e-mail to Folta, the last thing I want to see is any investor losing more money to Johnson.

As described in Part 6 under the heading of “Litigation Pending”, I have since learned that Folta did purchase a Promesa (Option) for a 25-acre lemon orchard lot. I have no reason or evidence to believe that Jerry did not pay real money for this lot (Or an option for such a lot, anyway). My inference that Jerry is “Playing both sides against the middle” is based on his continued support of Johnson amidst an avalanche of evidence and eye-witness testimony that Johnson’s a crook. It’s also based on Jerry’s strange and veiled  responses to specific questions from the recovery team and a rather misleading response to an e-mail from Wendy McElroy (A private e-mail made public by Johnson, I might add).

When you have people, entities, and representatives of entities, involved in legal filings things get murky and one can play lots of legalistic and semantic word games with the truth. There are so many combinations of possibilities for casually, but inaccurately, describing Folta’s action that anyone who doesn’t get the language exactly correct can be easily (And maliciously) accused of “not knowing what’s going on” or, in Cathy Cuthbert’s case, “… as is her way, got it wrong”. My e-mail to Folta was more specifically worded. As you can see by Folta’s response, Cuthbert was closer to the truth than one might gather from Folta’s dismissive, and unforthcoming, e-mail response to a straightforward question by Wendy McElroy with the same general intent. So, why didn’t Folta just explain the details?

And, what about Folta’s legal action might “clarify legal ownership of GGC?” If the judgment is turned into a lien against IGGSA then it most certainly is a lien disguised as a civil suit.

The Big Picture in Simple Words

Can the booty of a theft be liened?

Someone steals money from my partner and I. The thief uses the money to buy a car and puts his corporation on the title. Then the thief meets another thief who transfers the shares of the corporation into his name. Upon finding out about the car my partner panics and files a lien against the shares of the corporation. Now, what happens when the car is found and I try to get my money back? I can sell the car and split the money with my parter, right? Or, if we want the car we can keep it in our partnership, right?

Key: The GGC investors and Folta are the partners. The first thief is Johnson. Sarrazin and Ramirez sold  the car. The second thief is Mario Del Real. Jerry Folta is the lien-holder. The GGC investors and Jerry are the rightful owners of the car.

The moral and legal answer should be that nothing downstream of the original theft matters. And, in the case of Jerry Folta’s legal action, a lien on the shares of the corporation formed by a thief with money he stole is merely a stopgap measure in case the original owners of the money gets shafted because everyone is so confused about the theft and the shares of the car.

It’s a little more complicated than that but I’ll expand on the metaphor in future updates.

Folta is hedging his bets in case the money won’t or can’t be returned to the original owners but the shares of the corporation may be returned to thief number one, Johnson. Actually, the second thief could keep the “car” and Folta’s legal action would still hedge his bets if his legal action prevails.

Anyway, That’s GGC in a nutshell, folks.