Dakota Co-op Board Is Accused of Bias

"his hubris has gotten the better of him"

ding ding ding. smart people are easily blinded by ego and irrational sense of privilege. you'd think they're stupid or something. but seriously, let's say he knew shit is about to hit the fan back then, bad publicity, bad all around, what's to be done? make more bad publicity, make more distraction, make even bigger mess, yell racism, act righteous, in the end claim whatever you want and let people's own imaginations defend or support you regardless of your conduct. the mess, the publicity, the confusion about who is buddy and what is he all about, that WAS the smart move. watch, this guy will end up in public office.

Bottoms, for all your self-righteousness, the fact that you seem to think calling someone a "she" is a funny insult is kind of amazing.

there's nothing wrong that you are a she--youve got to get over this

now go troll SWE or someone else--or set up another date with your pal h'burg

Oh Bottoms, you're the angriest ninny of them all. You're also projecting your passionate love for hburg. Please indulge us with more ethical lectures on race and proper philanthropic behavior.

"tho it is often an act of self-promotion"

obviously. but through this self promotion, ego stroking and petty social comtetition, tons of $ gets spent on not only important charitable causes, but also maintains iconic institutions like museums. the fastest way to the top of a certain food chain in ny is spending a shitload of money on something sentimental, that's fair and just fine. but b didn't do that. and you know what? he didn't have to and he knew it! he knew it would be enough to just get the press for "doing" it. he doesn't actually want to belong to this community. my free psychiatric diagnosis is he doesn't want to belong to ANY community. he is in a class by himself, b against the world, ultimately too good for everyone both his roots and his onetime aspirations. a sociopath, in other words. good luck to his "friends". can he sue me for this? it's just my opinion!

July 13. SEC has opened an inquiry into Fletcher Asset Management, run by Alphonse Fletcher, after three Louisiana public pensions funds raised questions about one of the funds. Attempts to withdraw money earlier this year were denied.

the bias suit secures his post icky mess future. super smart guy, no doubt.

"In Louisiana, the pension boards were told there were other investors in the particular fund pitched to them, investors who had put in money and agreed to leave it there a long time. Their money could be drawn upon, if necessary, to make sure the pension boards got at least a 12% return. The other investors would be entitled to any fund returns above 18%."

Here's why this smells funny. Look at it from the POV of the "other investors". They are basically borrowing money at 12% to 18% from the Louisiana pension funds to invest in the fund. It's 12% if the fund return is 12% or less, or 18% if the fund return in 18% or more, and linear in between.

Now who in their right mind would agree to margin rates of 12-18% for financing an investment in the fund? Mind you, each and every one of you reading this as individuals can go open a retail brokerage account where the margin rate is less than 1% (e.g., Interactive Brokers).

"Dealbook/NYT article, "S.E.C. and Pension Systems to Examine Fletcher Fund"

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/s-e-c-and-pension-systems-to-examine-fletcher-fund/?nl=business&emc=dlbka8

alison,

are we coming around to the latter of the choices you cited?

ie that "he's dishonest and was simply too dumb to think about how this would play out."

you have yet to discuss whether you have invested with your dear friend and harvard classmate.

"Buddy has clearly opened the door to a magnifying-glass-level examination of his business."

....to be played out in the media in the context of him being a victim of racism. the guy is not only brilliant but also clearly intuitive and really, truly, understands human nature. unless his wife told him to do this, which is also entirely possible. she wants to be mrs. whatever political office he will certainly attain one day. just an awesome story.

of course he's still a total pos for dragging his neighbors' names through mud to serve his own purposes. really f8cked up. but very smart!

Just noticed that a lot of the early posts on this thread have been deleted. Hmmmm.

How do you know that? From memory?

SE will delete copyrighted material that isn't properly cited and/or linked. Otherwise it's very rare for them to do so.

Well, Crème Brûlée doughnuts have a long memory.

>Just noticed that a lot of the early posts on this thread have been deleted. Hmmmm.

Not to mention some posts from valued posters have been made grey.

West34, you may be thinking of some posts on this thread

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/25273-dakota-hits-back-at-a-resident-who-claimed-bias

Alan - there were comments made about the Dakota board members that are no longer on either thread. Read the other thread - logical gaps, responses to posts that no longer exist. Streeteasy is playing it safe with this litigious bunch.

Buddy's the litigiious one--he sued the Dakota--Dakota board merely denied him a greater stake in the building, in effect choosing not to increase financial exposure to Buddy for the building--based on shaky financials--financials the wsj and regulators suspect may be shaky also

i had missed this tidbit:

http://www.businessinsider.com/alphonse-buddy-fletcher-the-dakota-lawsuit-response-distortion#accusation-1-roberta-flacks-bathtub-1

and this from wednesday:

http://www.businessinsider.com/buddy-fletcher-hedge-fund-manager-dakota-co-op-of-racism-investigated-by-the-sec-2011-7

Bottoms, don't worry - I called the SEC and told them to take it easy. You got this one.

omg! roberta flack's grand bathtub indignity was she can't have a jacuzzi?? wtf!! BITCHES EVERY ONE OF YOU BACK ON THIS THREAD!!! hhmmm, maybe bathing while black is not a felony after all, MALY??? tell me more about shiny objects and the latest targets of your mockery. happyrenter, please keep whatever "thought" you're having to yourself, i don't mean you.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/blog/wise-investing/a-hedge-fund-guaranteeing-12-percent-returns/2696/

News updates all around.

On the lawsuit, the individual claims mostly thrown out but the board claim and two individuals can move forward:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/nyregion/suit-against-dakota-building-allowed-to-proceed.html

On the fund, Louisiana visited the office and were shown some financial statements.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-29/louisiana-pensions-find-fletcher-has-money-to-cover-investments.html

Updated info from the pension funds:

http://mobile.nola.com/advnola/pm_103999/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=4G4PhTjc

"But there was a catch: The board needed to decide quickly -- that very day in fact, Meals said, according to the minutes of the Feb. 14, 2008, meeting."

there seems to be hope that the 3 la pension funds will get their money--i hope theyre not spending the money just yet--and we still have yet to hear from the sec

"In a joint statement July 28, officials with the three Louisiana pension funds said they believe the situation might not be as dire as they initially thought. Although the review is ongoing, early reports suggest Fletcher Asset Management has enough assets to cover their $100 million investment and more than $40 million in profit.

It's not clear from the statement whether Fletcher has enough to cover all of his investors' holdings."

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2011/08/louisiana_pension_fund_may_rue.html

I predict at least one distressed sale at the Dakota coming soon........

http://dealbreaker.com/2011/08/how-to-make-your-hedge-fund-a-runaway-success-by-alphonse-fletcher-jr-part-ii/

could be the joint statement was hopeful--

goldie's post tells a story of city-slicker and the hill-billies---cept them 'billies had a camera snucked in there--niiiice

fletcher stinks terribly/continually of cheese

much as the 'billie outsmarted the slickers with the video, bet they dont get their money back

An article in WSJ from December:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204058404577108761376858098.html

Interesting claims made in the article:

- Audited 2009 & 2010 statements still have not been received.
- None of the requested cash redemptions have been met.
- Monthly statements are no longer being provided.
- One of the investors has started marking down the investment.
- The FBI & SEC are investigating.

The latest in the saga -- pension funds sue to get a liquidation of the fund:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204059804577225000149913064.html

Sounds crazy, investing under the promise of other counter-parties absorbing losses. The immediate question is what kind of due diligence did the investors perform. Louisiana has large unfunded liabilities. It sounds like they went for the hail mary pass and closed their eyes.

Yeah, sounds moronic. However, it'd be interesting if the hail mary pass ends up working. I.e., they are successful in their suit to get back the $100M plus 12% annually, with the other money coming out of Fletcher's pocket. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. I'm guessing that Fletcher is down big-time, but not all the way, and is busy betting it all on red in hopes of digging himself out of the hole.

Latest. Court orders liquidation

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303513404577354351667651304.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode
April 19, 2012, 6:15 p.m. ET
.Judge Orders Liquidation of a Fletcher Hedge Fund .Article Comments (4) more in Markets | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
Email Print Save ↓ More .
.smaller Larger
By JOSH BARBANEL And STEVE EDER
A judge in the Cayman Islands ordered the liquidation of a hedge fund run by Fletcher Asset Management after three Louisiana public pension funds told the court they weren't able to withdraw their money from the fund.

The judge on Wednesday said the hedge fund was insolvent on a cash-flow basis and should be wound up, according to people familiar with the proceedings. The judge approved a request by the pension funds to appoint two people from Ernst & Young as official liquidators, according to Robin Lee McMahon, one of the two people.

A representative for the Fletcher firm said in a statement: "We are disappointed in the Grand Court's ruling, which we believe is incorrect. The FIA Leveraged Fund is evaluating all of its options at this time, including an appeal. We remain committed to managing all of our funds in the best interests of our investors."

A representative for the Louisiana pension funds didn't comment.

The petition with the Cayman court, made in January, was one of several moves by the Louisiana funds to get their money from the Fletcher fund. Such a petition is a way for investors in Cayman-based funds, such as the Fletcher fund where the pensions were invested, to request a court-ordered liquidation as a means of getting cash back. One Cayman-based lawyer not involved with the matter said such a petition is typically a last-resort measure for investors seeking recourse from a hedge fund.

The three Louisiana funds invested a combined $100 million in March 2008 in an unusual deal in which the Fletcher firm offered the funds a minimum 12% annual return backed by assets of other investors. Hedge funds typically don't offer clients minimum returns due to the vagaries of the market. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the unusual investment arrangement in July.

In an investment committee meeting of one of the pension funds in 2008, a Fletcher fund representative referred to its offer as a "guarantee," while also acknowledging risks, according to a video of the meeting reviewed by Journal. A lawyer for Mr. Fletcher has said the pension fund's representatives were clearly informed that the investment wasn't guaranteed. The lawyer said risks, including risks of loss, were discussed extensively.

Fletcher Asset Management, a hedge-fund firm founded in 1991 by Alphonse Fletcher Jr. and based in New York, invests primarily in private deals to buy stocks and warrants in private smaller companies. At one time, the firm said one of its funds went 11 years without a single losing month.

In March 2011, two of the pension funds requested to withdraw money from Fletcher, according to the petition. In June 2011, after Fletcher responded to those requests with promissory notes, or IOUs, the three funds requested to cash out their total initial investments and accrued earnings, a sum they said equaled $144.5 million as of June 30, 2011, based on monthly statements they received, the petition said.

In asking for a liquidation, the petition said the Fletcher fund had not filed audited financial statements since 2008, appeared to have no directors between Nov. 21, 2011, and Jan. 24, 2012, and appeared to be the subject of regulatory investigations.

The three Louisiana funds are the Firefighters' Retirement System of Louisiana, the Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Louisiana and the New Orleans Firefighters' Pension and Relief Fund.

I heart this thread

Thanks for the update, sls.

Fletcher fund files for bankruptcy in a attempt to stop liquidation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303684004577507051484206034.html
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-04/fletcher-sues-to-block-cayman-liquidation-of-hedge-fund

Investors & lawyers unhappy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303684004577510661979874938.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/07/05/fletcher-fund-creditors-include-well-known-law-firms-others

With himdsight, it Sounds like some om here saw this BS suit for what it was 17 months ago while others couldnt divine how nonsensical and contradictory the accusations were. Looks like the Dakota's board used perfectly sound judgment in denying this guy's reckless attempt to own a greater stake in the coop. Racism is ugly where it truly exists. Stealing from the people of the poorest state in the union to fund a robber baron's lifestyle is even uglier. Shame on this man. Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

The case winds on, with both sides winning some and losing some: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202561905607

From businessweek

"Fletcher also has himself been sued for the sexual harassment of two men and lived with a male partner in New York%u2019s famous Dakota building, which he also sued for racial bias, according to a June 2012 article by Bloomberg. The June article was about a lawsuit Fletcher%u2019s wife, Ellen Pao, brought against venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers for sex-discrimination."

Stand up guy..

Kylewest, aren't you an attorney? You'd really have come to a conclusion before any discovery?

Even some attorneys are people first.

We've had some interesting conversations about the law (and, parenthetically, enforcement) here. I'd classify kylewest as generally a bit rigid in terms of the law.

People, attorneys or not, can reserve judgment until proof is given. And certainly shouldn't expect sanctimonious attitude for doing so.

Wrong. Judge and jury must reserve legal judgement until all facts have been presented. Real people base their opinions on what they know at the time and primarily on instinct. Which serves some better than others.

you slipped out of character.

Wrong. Real people are horrible barometers of truth with limited information. Which is why we don't have trials by polls. And my point was that whatever your opinion was, it's obnoxious to be a sanctimonious told-you-so just because some people prefer to wait for evidence before excoriating someone. Particularly someone working in the government prosecuting cases.

Omg. This is not a trial. It's a conversation.

You don't say. Yes, and I entered the conversation with my opinion. You have a problem with that?

O
M
G

Information can be shaped to tell any story necessary. A law aficionado certainly understand this, I'm sure.

Your opinion was wrong, is all I'm saying.

Well, no. Because I had no opinion because I was unwilling to base one on supposition. My opinion was that it would be formed by real information, not two sides who both seemed more than a little off.

And yes, of course information can be skewed. But with a certain amount of effort and an analytical bent one can often use information to discern certain truths. I'd certainly want to err on the side of more info than not. But that's just me.

It's the Dakota board's fault for its stupid original approval of someone who's wealth was formed by a discrimination lawsuit. Should have foreseen him coming back to bite them

Up there with other elite co-op board approval mistakes like Dennis Kozlowski/Tyco at 950 Fifth Avenue, Carl Capasso at 990 Fifth Avenue and Kent Swig at 740 Park

I dunno, I like it when KW gets all sanctimonious.

>
O
M
G

aboutready sounds like NYCMatt

>It's the Dakota board's fault for its stupid original approval of someone who's wealth was formed by a discrimination lawsuit. Should have foreseen him coming back to bite them

Well put.

Hb, I guess you missed lucille's omg?

Nada, I don't know. Is this in the spirit of inclusion and tolerance and whatnot? Because I just find the sanctimonious crap to be, well, sanctimonious crap.

I just wish the Dakota board would let poor Roberta Flack take a bath.

>Hb, I guess you missed lucille's omg?

I didn't. But yours was
one
letter
per
line

Yes. Sarcasm. Lucille is an omg type. I am not.

Well, what do you know, you and I may have more in common with each other than either of us do with lucille.

Lucille is unique

And very special

"Nada, I don't know. Is this in the spirit of inclusion and tolerance and whatnot? Because I just find the sanctimonious crap to be, well, sanctimonious crap."

There are 3 modes to being KW:

1) Designer KW, giving advice on eggshell white & whatnot.
2) Coop KW, living the life in his Greenwich Village 1BR 50's coop w/ partner, surrounded by other like-minded professionals who have achieved a certain something in their lives.
3) Sanctimonious KW, dispensing shame on people with low moral fiber, poor design skills, poor social skills ala Bravo, etc.

I guess I just like him best in mode #3. I don't care much about #1, #2 is just too incongruous for me, but I can connect with #3.

Its nice that people can be put into little buckets.

KW mode #3 is my favorite also (it's the force of conviction ... no acquittals tolerated, nor self-reflection), but a close second for me is

4) Teaching the world the special art of Paying Full Retail Price for Everything, with all the rationalizations attendant to that.

I am literally laughing. This is a fun thread, isn't it?
KW#3 has the most fun. And little buckets can be very useful--I have lots of them in the garden shed at the house. As for trials and the law and the like, here's my take: courts are for due process. Not discussion boards. Due process requires accepting tons of fictions that are at times beyond absurd because it is the best we can come up with. For example, if a man were to murder someone in cold blood in front of a jury in the middle of a court room, that man would be "presumed innocent" until conviction. Now, why do we say "presumed" innocent and not that he is "actually innocent" until proven guilty? Because he is actually, factually, really quite guilty but the system cloaks him in the Constitutionally guaranteed and necessary "presumption" so that a trial can occur and the jury can do the official finding of guilty. But for those of the observers in the courtroom seeing that man kill another without justification and in cold blood, they need no jury to tell them he's guilty as sin. They are free to shout it from the rooftops prior to a jury verdict if they like. And so it is often in the real world. Somethings are obvious or people feel free to venture an opinion based on the information available, because we don't all go around acting like jurors following a judge's instructions on presumptions and the like. Here, the man is being sued left and right and is clearly in a financial mess and the Dakota seems prescient in having denied him a larger holding in their coop. Not such a strain to reach that opinion. But if you want to sit this one out until a court rules, I don't think anyone will care. I don't think anyone truly cares one way or the other if I or anyone else has already formed an opinion, either.

Paragraphs might be nice. But I was recalling an earlier thread in which you were so excited by the police picking up people jumping turnstiles etc. Well, we are in the process of gaining legal guardianship of a homeless black kid. We are on vacation. And a metrocard that we provided him, unlimited monthly, wasn't working so he jumped the turnstile. He was caught. And the transit cop somehow came up with an outstanding warrant and took this 16 year old kid who's only real record is a case against his crack-addict mother filed by child services and threw him in jail. The legal aid attorney rightly told him that it was a wrongful arrest. The judge actually told him he was a victim. Due process.

And no, obviously you own your words anywhere. Even if anonymous.

Plus, your whole comment is just self-justifying drivel.

Aboutready, what kinds of juries have you sat on?

>And a metrocard that we provided him, unlimited monthly, wasn't working

Leave it to aboutready to get a monthly metrocard that doesn't work, ensnaring someone in the criminal system.

How many people here have had a monthly metrocard that doesn't work?
Most of us? Yes, ok. And what do we do? We go to the booth and get it resolved.
Some people work within the system, some reflexively cause problems.
Where does apt23 sit on this issue, given she called the police on her husband when her husband was doing nothing wrong at all?

Really, I'm to blame for the mta issuing shitty metrocards? I've had problems myself. I probably should have given him an extra cash one.

I was number one juror (I present well) this last summer in a state civil matter. Why? He was released. We hired an attorney, who we need anyway for guardianship issues, and he immediately said that it appeared to be wrongful arrest. And it was.

Aboutready: I hope your guardianship works out. As for your post, it makes no sense to me. Why is a 16 year old homeless? ACS would place any 16 year old. They are homeless if they runaway from the placements. And 16 year olds cannot be taken to family court on criminal matters, and turnstile jumping is a criminal matter--a 16 year old who jumps a turnstile has to be taken to criminal court for arraignment is he is arrested. And if he does not have ID or if he has a warrant, he cannot get a summons and must be arrested. What you are saying, I think--because it is confusing--is that there was a warrant incorrectly lodged in the system against him or that the police incorrectly read the information and wrongly concluded there was a warrant when an accurate reading would have told them there was not. In either case, the best way to avoid all this in the future is to not break the law in the first place. A "broken" metro card (funny--I've used them for nearly 20 years and find they tend not to break) is not an excuse to take it upon oneself to break the law by jumping a turnstile to illegally enter the subway system. That goes for people who live on Park Avenue and people who live on the street. There isn't one set of laws for allegedly homeless 16 year olds and another set for everyone else. I hope that is one of the lessons he takes from this--that you cannot just break the law when it suits you, however justified you believe you are, and then have a tantrum when the consequences of the decision are not to your liking.

Seriously? "We are in the process of gaining legal guardianship of a homeless black kid"

Now that's sanctimonious. It's how you pat yourself on the back with words, how you let everyone know how much better you are. God bless that kid and all that he's clearly, and probably innocently, been through. But, honesty: get over yourself. People--in general--shouldn't be jumping turnstiles. It's theft. Your example is ridiculous, rare and hardly representative of the norm. And by your logic, crime is permissible so long as there's a good reason for it. Were that how the legal system worked, we'd all be shaking in fear behind pulled drapes and double-locked doors.

I like all modes of kylewest. All of them.

>Aboutready: I hope your guardianship works out.

No you don't. You believe that it's just white guilt at work, and that she and her husband are merely doing this to feel better about themselves, picking merely ONE child to help. w67 is looking the other way.

>A "broken" metro card (funny--I've used them for nearly 20 years and find they tend not to break) is not an excuse to take it upon oneself to break the law by jumping a turnstile to illegally enter the subway system. That goes for people who live on Park Avenue and people who live on the street. There isn't one set of laws for allegedly homeless 16 year olds and another set for everyone else. I hope that is one of the lessons he takes from this--that you cannot just break the law when it suits you, however justified you believe you are, and then have a tantrum when the consequences of the decision are not to your liking.

Oh now kyle. kyle kyle kyle. kyle kyle kyle kyle kyle. What will we do with you kyle.

" we are in the process of gaining legal guardianship of a homeless black kid"

O
M
G

this is how you refer to him?

seriously ar, where have you been all this time? did you find another board?

Aboutready, what are you doing this summer?

We are getting a black kid!

Oh, good for you. I really believe in giving back.
But it's important to still have sense of humor. Spencer Gifts has that fake Metrocard...

kw, I have not read your entire post. But bear with me here. The entire arrest was an error. He was arrested and sent to Brooklyn family court, not for jumping a turnstile, but for god knows what reason. The judge was extremely pissed off at the cops. He was released with no further court dates. And he had adult witnesses at the scene who attested to the fact that he had a card that he believed should have worked. He had a much earlier, resolved missing person report that his crack addict mother had filed. If you don't think that there are 16 year old kids that are somehow out of the "system" you are out of your f'ng mind. He lived with his aunt, who kicked him out and he has been on his own for six months, but has not spent one night on the streets, good for him.

This is just one of them, and he is (given the circumstances) a remarkably happy, normal kid who I hope will, with our help, remain that way.

>The entire arrest was an error.

Yes, yes of course.
Case dismissed.

>This is just one of them

Doesn't sound like the Mr. and Mrs. Ready program will really make a dent.

>and he is (given the circumstances) a remarkably happy, normal kid

What happens when the parenthetical is removed?

this is so funny

Look up covenant house. And what they do And jumping a turnstile is a misdemeanor, no? Usually just a fine, with maybe a court date? But I liked your typically sanctimonious tone in your response.

There was absolutely no mention of ACS in his court appearance. There is an active ACS case against his mother for neglect. And he clearly convinced the judge that he was safe and cared for.

AR: you do have an odd way of talking about what you say you are doing, but it is what we do, not how we say things that matters more I guess. But why has all this come up in a thread about a financial mogul's being rejected from a coop and in no time at all being exposed as an apparent white collar criminal?

>And what they do And jumping a turnstile is a misdemeanor, no?

Misdemeanor = criminal. It is not a violation.

She was spotted walking around Brooklyn carrying the black kid, a la Michael Jackson and Webster.

>But why has all this come up in a thread about a financial mogul's being rejected from a coop

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Aboutready could adopt Fletcher too!

I still can't believe you wrote why is a 16 year old homeless. Really, aren't you part of the system? And you know so little?

>She was spotted walking around Brooklyn carrying the black kid, a la Michael Jackson and Webster.

Blanket

Oh please. My daughter brought home a kid she loves (in a brotherly way) and I couldn't say no. Way to spin something that's positive in a negative light. And kw, it was your sanctimonious tone that compelled me to post here. I still recall that thread about police activity of a few years back. You were sanctimonious then too. And I agree. It's not just the words, it's how you say them.

Misdemeanor doesn't usually equal arrest. That was my point. You people are so nasty and jaded. You really expect 16-year-olds to never make mistakes? Dream on.

Actually, yes, hb the case was dismissed. After a 16 year old spent the night in jail, needlessly.

Misdemeanors do mean arrests. Assault 3, crim possession weapon 4, violating order of protection, petit larceny, trespass, ... These are usually not summonsable offenses in nyc, nor should they be. If saying dont break the law is somehow now not PC to say to our kids then its a sorry state of affairs, no?

Do they mean overnight detention? And for youths? And he paid. For those who claim they've never had metrocard problems, I've got to say they are lying or very lucky

Yea. Assault 3. Criminal posession weapons. So much the same as the budding criminal, jumping turnstiles. Do you have any sense how inane and insane you sound?

>For those who claim they've never had metrocard problems, I've got to say they are lying or very lucky

I said that many have Metrocard problems. But then, what do you do when you have a problem? Do you jump the turnstyle, or do you go back to the booth?

>I still recall that thread about police activity of a few years back.
Post the link, it sounds good, and I don't want to confuse it with the time that apt23 called the police to report that her husband had gotten an illegal gun to use to menace the neighbor ... a story she then recanted.

@ar: someone is giving you bad info. Yes, arrests take 24 hours (ideally) to process so there istypically an overnight stay. And it can be a little longer if the sysem is backed up on a busy day or night. Add to that family court complication with a minor and it can also take longer. Family court is also not open 24 hours so longer wits are possible. Add to that changes in police shifts and handing off of arrests to minimize police overtime, and more delays occur.

Not sure what is inane here other than your naive understanding of criminal law and procedure in nyc. Misd arrests result in going through the system generally-- dont shoot the messenger. 7th degree drug possesion ( ei tiny amounts), agg harassment for prank calling someone, graffitti, driving while impaired, trespass for being on housing authority property for no legit purpose, smoking marijuana in public, and yes, theft of services for jumping a turnstile. If you dont like the policy just say so but theres no reason to be made at me for explaining it or the police for enforcing it. They didnt single out this boy. They apparently treated him like everyone else. Thats what you dont like.

But as for this tread, what have you lerned that indicates in the slightest that this guy is clean and the dakota was wrong? Just huge coincidence he's suddenly under all sorts of crim investigations, that his financial firm is coming apart at the seams, and that the board's concerns about his financial wherewithall were dead on?

I believe there is a Cayman court decision to liquidate the fund and pay back the investors, something Fletcher's been fighting tooth-and-nail despite the contracts written. That should provide us we legal cover to excoriate him on the grounds of being a slimeball w.r.t. representations and obligations to investors, right?

I think my guess above still holds, here's the theory. The fund has enough in it to pay the pensions funds their principal and all or some of the Ponzi-promised returns. The problem is that the "other investor" that will have to back those returns is Fletcher (and maybe some other insiders). If the Ponzi-promised returns are paid out, Fletcher et al. will be left with nothing. So Fletcher makes a big song-and-dance about how the investments are illiquid and should just be given more time. I.e., heads Fletcher wins (out of a complete loss), tails the pensions lose (they're the only ones with any equity in the investments). Cayman court sees Fletcher's argument for the BS it is.

Assuming the above is true, I don't know if it is, how does the coop board come into play? The first sign of trouble is the Ponzi-promised returns, but how do they figure that one out? If they are privy to the fund's accurate books, with this 12%-per-year obligation, then it'd be a piece-of-cake. But would they be privy to this? Or did they somehow have the inside track with the pension funds, or asked to speak with the investors?

Re: My daughter brought home a kid she loves (in a brotherly way) and I couldn't say no, etc etc etc etc etc....

Am I the only one who finds it really bizarre the way ar inappropriately injects her own personal drama into every thread?

@west34: it's just uncomfortable. Nothing in this thread is remotely related to adoptions or troubled youth. It is about the ultra rich in one of the most exclusive dwellings in Manhattan and their now public dirty laundry and squabbling. Why someone interjects extremely personnal, sensitive, unrelated info in the midst of this of all places is indeed odd. It's like that new housewife on RHofNY working into cocktail converstaion with strangers at a party that her father just died a day or two earlier.

She's trying to get a reality show. It's the only logical step on her path after the journalism career went south.