Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 208ef0t5wi05p on August 4, 2015 at 4:33

William,

      Under normal circumstances there would be no need for Solicitation, but with CHK conducting theft from landowners in every State and County they are drilling in, anything related to CHK should be considered vital information for protecting landowners from CHKs thieving ways. The states have never tried to stop the theft yet. Ask me how I know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 13, 2015 at 12:39

I am not soliciting.  I have nothing to gain from anyone signing up with McDonald.  All I said was that anyone who thinks he/she is being cheated by CHK on their royalty checks, can try to see if McDonald can provide help.  It's an option.  And given the other option is to sue CHK all by yourself (which will cost many tens of thousands of dollars), it appears to be the only option available to most landowners.  No one has to take it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judy McDaniel on July 13, 2015 at 15:22

I did contact McDonald.  The problem I have is they will not even talk to you until you sign their contract.  I think their avenue of pursuit is a valid one from what I have read and I hope McDonald wins each and every lawsuit he files on behalf of the small landowner. However, what I really want is to have the court rule that my agreement with CHK is void due to their fraud and I am going to do my very best to be able to prove fraud.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Howard Pritchartt on July 13, 2015 at 17:13

There is no excuse for such arrogance to treat anyone so rude and a potential client at that is just plain stupid.  I would view such action as a good indicator of the firm not to prevail in the final ruling of the court.

I have been approached to act in the capacity of expert witness in similar court action but am not currently in a position to disclose any specifics.  If in the near future I feel it would behoove anyone I will disclose the identity of the parties that possibly could give financial relief to those who are interested.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bacon on July 16, 2015 at 2:10

Judy, I have had several in-depth conversations with a couple different attorneys (not paralegals) at MacDonald and have not signed up yet. Not sure why your having a problem but they have been very agreeable to talking with me anytime I ask.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 208ef0t5wi05p on August 3, 2015 at 12:21

Judy,

     Here are a few Federal Laws being broken by CHK around the US:

Mail Fraud 18 US Code 1341

Anyone who uses the U.S. mail in an attempt to engage in fraud runs the risk of being prosecuted under the federal mail fraud law. One of the most frequently prosecuted federal laws, mail fraud is often charged by federal prosecutors because it can apply in so many situations, and because it applies to anyone who uses the mail.

Intentional

Federal law requires that a person engage in some kind of scheme or plan to defraud someone else of something valuable, and must have an intent to defraud. However, prosecutors do not have to actually show the state of mind of a person in order to prove mail fraud. Intent is almost always shown by the circumstances surrounding the case.

Penalties

Mail fraud penalties are potentially very significant. While the specific penalty a court imposes will differ significantly based on the circumstances of the case, any mail fraud conviction can result in high fines, long prison sentences, and other penalties.

• Incarceration. The potential prison penalty for a federal mail fraud crime is very stiff. Each offense can result in a sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison. However, the penalty can be harsher if the crime involves specific victims or elements. When, for example, a fraud scheme involves federal disaster relief or where the victim is a financial institution, sentences of 30 years per offense are possible.
• Fines. Mail fraud fines are also very high. A conviction for a single count of mail fraud can result in a fine of up to $250,000. For fraud involving financial institutions or federal disaster relief, fines of up to $1 million per offense are possible.
• Restitution. When a mail fraud scheme succeeds in defrauding someone of property or causes harm to a victim, courts make restitution a part of the sentence. Restitution payments are made to the victims so they can recover what they lost as a result of the fraud. Restitution payments must be made in addition to fines, and when probation is given, are made a condition of the sentence.

 

Honest Services fraud 18 U.S.Code 1346

Provides: For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.^[3]

 

Fraudulent Interstate Transactions 15 U.S. Code 77q -

 (a) Use of interstate commerce for purpose of fraud or deceit

It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities (including security-based swaps) or any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 78c (a)(78)  ^[1] of this title) by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly—

(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or

(2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading

 Also you have state laws similar to Ohio's Theft By Deception and A Pattern Of Corruption which is a RICO/Racketeering charge.

These charges won't go away even with CHKs money. See the Sussenbaugh family PA Class Action Lawsuit on line for more details.

IF CHK is convicted of Racketeering in PA, they may automatically be convicted in your state as in Ohio.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on August 3, 2015 at 12:32

If you look at the RICO (Racketeering) statute there is a criminal and a separate civil version. The criminal is basically as stated above. The civil version allows triple damages plus statuary attorney's fees not court appointed fees. I cannot understand why attorneys are not going in the direction of RICO. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 208ef0t5wi05p on August 3, 2015 at 14:25

Joe,

     If you think like a lawyer, you'll see that suing an O&G company for theft each year for thousands of landowners is more profitable than stopping the theft.

I have to admit if the PA RICO suit lawyers follow through and get a conviction, the 5 Billion dollars they are asking for should allow them to retire. I can't see them taking half a billion in payoffs out of court when they can take the 5 Billion. Not to mention a final payback for the CHK ceo by putting him behind bars.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on August 3, 2015 at 14:51

I am amazed how many people think that Chesapeake will be paying all this money.  Anyone can look at CHK's balance sheet and see they can only pay a small fraction of these amounts being mentioned.  If they lose these court cases, they will declare bankruptcy and the claims will disappear without being paid.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Franks on July 12, 2015 at 16:11

William might consider contacting McDonald (team) also. 

I've never had the state Attorney General's office turn me
down. Just wrote out my case which they handled from
there.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 12, 2015 at 16:23

I believe that several members have contacted the AG's office in the past regarding questionable deductions and arms length transactions involving Chesapeake.  I don't expect the AG to take any action but it never hurts to request a review. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Howard Pritchartt on July 12, 2015 at 16:36

As always I agree with Skip.  When I could no longer afford legal representation in my 6 year divorce in Mississippi I had no choice but to represent myself.  To minimize playing a fool as my client I did legal research on Mississippi family law.  The web site of the Mississippi State Attorney General was one of if not the best source as laws change by amendment or by case law.  I was surprised many attorneys do not keep up with changes when going to battle leaving one Hell of a chance of the ruling of the court not in favor of their client being discredited by the opposing attorney who knows current law.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page