Dents Run Federal Law Suit filed today

[pepperj]

The quality of the photos are questionable.
A photo of a screen provides a low quality grainy photo of a copied photo.
Why not just download the attached photo?
Let the readership view what you have been sent. Not what you have provided.
Here is a simple photo example of the quality differences between the two.
I am of the opinion that the B&W photos that you are showing are not was taken.(photo editing)
Someone has messed with them.
If any agency brought a grainy photo as what you are claiming as FBI photos they'd be not taken seriously in any court.

 

[releventchair]

Redacted.
synonyms:
correct · rectify · repair · fix · improve · enhance · polish · refine · clarify · edit · alter · rewrite · revise · copyedit · subedit · amend · change · modify · redraft · recast · rephrase · reword · rework · rescript · expurgate · censor · bowdlerize

• censor or obscure (part of a text) for legal or security purposes.

Proof of legal agreement /contract with recovery tasked party would be what I want headed to court.

It has been declared , permission to watch recovery attempt was given and then denied. That also would be needing proved (not alleged) in court.

Redacted text and pictures showing no recovery conclude little other than the site was molested.
( I've been there with an unrelated agency's case file on me with redacted text of little value to anyone but those redacting it.)

If it makes sense , which it should to your attorney ; proving your case is likely not going to hinge on anything the F.B.I. gives you.
You are being provided evidence they were on the site and disturbing it.
Which so far is nothing more than you had prior to thier "releasing" information.

Anyone expecting a pile of visible gold bars in a picture on site ; surrendered by those sent to recover any if found may be disappointed....
Why would they take pictures of such and be in possession of such evidence if they didn't want it seen?

 

[Tesorodeoro]

The quality of the photos are questionable.
A photo of a screen provides a low quality grainy photo of a copied photo.
Why not just download the attached photo?
Let the readership view what you have been sent. Not what you have provided.
Here is a simple photo example of the quality differences between the two.
I am of the opinion that the B&W photos that you are showing are not was taken.(photo editing)
Someone has messed with them.
If any agency brought a grainy photo as what you are claiming as FBI photos they'd be not taken seriously in any court.
View attachment 2028055

Yes an ancient iPod would take better pictures. Was this documented with a flip phone??

 

[GoDeep]

The quality of the photos are questionable

The primary reason the pictures are such low resolution is because, per the Motion for Order, dated 3/18/2022(see attached motion and letter of Tony Quinn USADC), you have the option of receiving higher resolution pictures for an additional fee. They didn't opt for the higher resolution photo's, thus they received the low resolution photo's. I think its BS one would have to pay extra for higher resolution pictures in this day and age, but that is the reasoning behind the low resolution photo's.

 

[GoDeep]

Finder Keeper
If no gold was found why not pack up and leave on Wed morning, Why bring in a Armored Truck Convoy Wed morning 8 am, Why make the people stay in their homes Tuesday night and block off the roads while 15 black SUV's got loaded at the green tent. Why bring in a 2nd Armored Truck Convoy at 6 PM Wed with a 3rd Armored Truck that set at the Valley Farm Market for 5 hrs and again they shut down the roads in to Dents Run . If they found no gold why not tell us Wed morning after they dug all night and let us sit in our car for 5 1/2 hrs, then at 2 PM tell us they are ready to finish the dig and took us up the hill to show us a deep empty hole. Why not let us on site to see the dig. Why did they send everyone , even DCNR home at 3PM Tuesday and they came back at 7PM and start digging. Why was their NO FBI agents on site during Day 2 of the dig.
The FBI NEVER TOLD US they did not find any gold , they said keep quiet until the investigation was done.

A start to answering your "why" questions is ostensibly why you requested the file in the first place, so that you could start filling in some of the blanks and look for discrepancies in their testimony.

For example:

-Why bring in armored truck convey? Look to the file for answers. Per your attorneys FOI request, you requested the requisition and expense reports as well as any evidence logs. What do the expense reports for acquisition of equipment and what types of equipment did they request? Did they acquisition armored trucks and what type of armored trucks were they (armored bank trucks or armored troop trucks, or armored comms trucks etc) What does the file say the trucks were used and by whom and when? Are there any evidence logs of what was carried on the armored trucks and SUV's (Agents, equipment, arms, artifacts etc etc)?

-Why was there no FBI agents on site day 2 of the dig? Again, look to the report. Does it say that digging had mostly been completed on the night dig, thus perhaps a reduced need for personal on day 2? Does the report or photo's indicate nothing was found on the night dig and thus reduced personnel on day 2? What was the FBI personnel listed as present on the site of day 2? Etc Etc Etc.

Now, i understand you haven't received the entire file yet, so many of these why questions you may not even be able to start to fill in the answers, but that now will be your task, to gather evidence to make your case.

 

[FinderKeeper]

The primary reason the pictures are such low resolution is because, per the Motion for Order, dated 3/18/2022(see attached motion and letter of Tony Quinn USADC), you have the option of receiving higher resolution pictures for an additional fee. They didn't opt for the higher resolution photo's, thus they received the low resolution photo's. I think its BS one would have to pay extra for higher resolution pictures in this day and age, but that is the reasoning behind the low resolution photo's.

We did ask for high quality and we do not have to pay for anything from their files. Everything they send us is at no cost to us. This was a court order.

 

[GoDeep]

We did ask for high quality and we do not have to pay for anything from their files. Everything they send us is at no cost to us. This was a court order.

I read through the entire file, motions, and orders and true, though you are not required to pay anything for the file or photo's, I see no explicit asking or ordering of, the higher resolution photos, however, if you believe there was a mistake and that you should have received them, your attorney and DOJ are required to file a joint status report every 60 days, so she will need to address that during the next joint status meeting and report so that you can receive the high resolution pictures.

 

[pepperj]

The primary reason the pictures are such low resolution is because, per the Motion for Order, dated 3/18/2022(see attached motion and letter of Tony Quinn USADC), you have the option of receiving higher resolution pictures for an additional fee. They didn't opt for the higher resolution photo's, thus they received the low resolution photo's. I think its BS one would have to pay extra for higher resolution pictures in this day and age, but that is the reasoning behind the low resolution photo's.

Yes that would be total BS to be paying for something that would be there at no extra cost to them.
Yet if one is paying for something that would be proof.
I think paying for the extra would be in the best interest of the claimant.
Really what would the cost be per photo?

 

[GoDeep]

Yes that would be total BS to be paying for something that would be there at no extra cost to them.
Yet if one is paying for something that would be proof.
I think paying for the extra would be in the best interest of the claimant.
Really what would the cost be per photo?

As Finders mentioned above, through and by Order dated 4/18/2022 (attached) they are not required to pay for the photo's, file or video, however, it does not explicitly order that he receive the "high resolution" version of the photo's, so if there was a mistake or misunderstanding between the parties, his attorney will have to remedy it during the next joint status meeting.

 

[pepperj]

As Finders mentioned above, through and by Order dated 4/18/2022 (attached) they are not required to pay for the photo's, file or video, however, it does not explicitly order that he receive the "high resolution" version of the photo's, so if there was a mistake or misunderstanding between the parties, his attorney will have to remedy it during the next joint status meeting and specifically request the "high resolution" files of the photos.

In this day and age I have to wonder if it's a certain amount of foot dragging, or a case of youdidn't request so you get crap resolution photo's.
The legal team should be up on all these matters if they're as good as stated.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

In this day and age I have to wonder if it's a certain amount of foot dragging, or a case of youdidn't request so you get crap resolution photo's.
The legal team should be up on all these matters if they're as good as stated.

I would also think getting the video /audio/stills in their original format would be extremely important. I.E. Edited, downsampled, compressed, EXIF data modified, ect. ect.

 

[FinderKeeper]

We did not get

A start to answering your "why" questions is ostensibly why you requested the file in the first place, so that you could start filling in some of the blanks and look for discrepancies in their testimony.

For example:

-Why bring in armored truck convey? Look to the file for answers. Per your attorneys FOI request, you requested the requisition and expense reports as well as any evidence logs. What do the expense reports for acquisition of equipment and what types of equipment did they request? Did they acquisition armored trucks and what type of armored trucks were they (armored bank trucks or armored troop trucks, or armored comms trucks etc) What does the file say the trucks were used and by whom and when? Are there any evidence logs of what was carried on the armored trucks and SUV's (Agents, equipment, arms, artifacts etc etc)?

-Why was there no FBI agents on site day 2 of the dig? Again, look to the report. Does it say that digging had mostly been completed on the night dig, thus perhaps a reduced need for personal on day 2? Does the report or photo's indicate nothing was found on the night dig and thus reduced personnel on day 2? What was the FBI personnel listed as present on the site of day 2? Etc Etc Etc.

Now, i understand you haven't received the entire file yet, so many of these why questions you may not even be able to start to fill in the answers, but that now will be your task, to gather evidence to make your case.

We only got the 1,000 pictures and the info we sent the FBI to get their Warrant, We did not get any info on the questions above YET, Maybe next month we will or July or Aug.

 

[FinderKeeper]

I will post all of the pictures when I can, for now the news media has them and they will run their story about the pictures but want me to hold back until then. The A P should run the story on Tuesday .

 

[FinderKeeper]

The quality of the photos are questionable.
A photo of a screen provides a low quality grainy photo of a copied photo.
Why not just download the attached photo?
Let the readership view what you have been sent. Not what you have provided.
Here is a simple photo example of the quality differences between the two.
I am of the opinion that the B&W photos that you are showing are not was taken.(photo editing)
Someone has messed with them.
If any agency brought a grainy photo as what you are claiming as FBI photos they'd be not taken seriously in any court.
View attachment 2028055

The pictures I posted are just as we got them, why would I ever mess with them when we are in Federal Court. My lawyers got the pictures before we got them and they agree with everything we see and all 1,000 pictures are a JOKE

 

[freeman]

Well, on reading I see this seems to be the head of your claim:

"We think they dug up Confederate Gold and they can not take it , it belongs to DCNR and me ."

Ans interesting take on the Law of Trove seeing that you say it is Confederate Gold.

Has your lawyer discussed with you the effect and workings of the Confiscation Act of 1861 where property used for insurrectionary purposes (ie. The Confederacy) ".....is hereby declared to be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and condemned."

IF it was there AND the FBI recovered it as you are alleging then we should be congratulating them for doing a good job and carrying out their duty.

 

[FinderKeeper]

Well, on reading I see this seems to be the head of your claim:

"We think they dug up Confederate Gold and they can not take it , it belongs to DCNR and me ."

Ans interesting take on the Law of Trove seeing that you say it is Confederate Gold.

Has your lawyer discussed with you the effect and workings of the Confiscation Act of 1861 where property used for insurrectionary purposes (ie. The Confederacy) ".....is hereby declared to be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and condemned."

IF it was there AND the FBI recovered it as you are alleging then we should be congratulating them for doing a good job and carrying out their duty.

Try again, Lincon said after the war ended, any thing of value found must be reported to a special agent and a 25% finders fee will be paid and the agent will dig or remove the object . If your statement was true , then why did the FBI work with us for 2 months trying to prove Union Gold at Dents Run. They told us they had NO RIGHT to dig up Confederate treasure . Only lost Union Treasure. Laws have changed since the 1800's .

 

[freeman]

Try again, Lincon said after the war ended, any thing of value found must be reported to a special agent and a 25% finders fee will be paid and the agent will dig or remove the object . If your statement was true , then why did the FBI work with us for 2 months trying to prove Union Gold at Dents Run. They told us they had NO RIGHT to dig up Confederate treasure . Only lost Union Treasure. Laws have changed since the 1800

Try again, Lincon said after the war ended, any thing of value found must be reported to a special agent and a 25% finders fee will be paid and the agent will dig or remove the object . If your statement was true , then why did the FBI work with us for 2 months trying to prove Union Gold at Dents Run. They told us they had NO RIGHT to dig up Confederate treasure . Only lost Union Treasure. Laws have changed since the 1800's .

Unfortunately vague suppositions and propositions of what you think might have happened to something not even proved to exist in the first place won't take you too far in a Court.

But I can see after reading a lot of the postings here this problem, lack of any real evidence, has been alluded to already and yet it is full steam ahead with cheque books and lawyers.

Let me read the tea leaves here:

You'll end up paying a lot of money to your lawyer to chase things that you'll find don't exist because they never did. Explanations will become more and more outlandish to try and cover over the evidence being returned that gold hasn't somehow gone missing but that all that your research led to was a hole with nothing in it.

Nevertheless you'll go ahead with a law suite that will get thrown out of court for lack of substance.

And apart from paying for your lawyer you'll then be hit with the other side's legal costs also.

But hey, knock yourself out, it's your money.

 

[GoDeep]

While speculating is fun, since we actually have some evidence now in the form of pictures of the actual holes, lets focus on the evidence:

Now that you have the pictures, do you see any circumstantial evidence in them that gold or silver or any man made objects were found or once resided there such as:

-Dirt Sifter/Shaker Screens in the background of any of the pictures? With an estimated 10+tons of gold and silver, there'd be vast quantities of loose bars/coins as any crating it was in would have likely rotted away, especially being it was in a "wet" cave and as already evidenced by the pictures, the soil was very rocky, which would have necessitated deliberate sifting of the soil. Even if it was large bars, a competent recovery team would sift the soil for any missed possible artifacts.

-Remnants of wood crating/barrels/lock boxes in the holes? Again, with 10+ tons, it likely wasn't just thrown in willy nilly. With that tonnage, they wouldn't have been hauling it in their pockets or a napsack and just dumping it in a hole.

-Any sign of pottery or glassware in the pictures? Given the time period, it wouldn't be unlikely to have stored it in glass or clay containers.

-Any sign of steel or man made objects in the hole, from crate latches and hinges, shelving, lockboxes, Chains, nails, steel supports, spikes, rods, brackets, lamps, tins, carts, rails, wheels, etc etc?

-Any modern crating/boxes/bins/pallets/plastic pallet wrap in the background of the pictures? With 10+ tons, they have extensive packaging to do to transport it down the hill to the landing area.

-Any sign of steel or wood support beam remnants in the hole? Since you've previously mentioned it was a cave that collapsed, they would have recognized only a 150 years ago (a short time for a cave) that the roof was less than stable and would have likely erected some type of supports.

-Any sign of any man made Masonry in the hole? Bricks, mortar etc wouldn't be a stretch from sealing the entrance to interior construction.

 

[kudo623]

I applaud Dennis and his team for uncovering the truth behind this amazing story!
He stayed with it for 40 years and didn't give up his search.
I thank Dennis for including us in on his quest to find it!

But the truth didn't come easy-it took hard work, determination, tenacity, grit, mental fortitude, physical endurance, sacrifice, and a lot of faith to bring this story home. And the truth is very evident that there was gold and silver hauled out by the FED's.

The FED's have, since day 1, tried to cover this story up and are still doing so today--their MO hasn't changed one bit! They didn't thank Dennis for all his hard work in leading them to this vast treasure but treated him and his team like they were nothing but trash-- without any right to be there, by placing them all under car arrest, not to mention locking down the town! Then when they dug it up, they lied to him and told him they found nothing.
What an insult to his intelligence!

They didn't give him any credit for the find that he led them to or give him any reward or finder's fee for doing so!
But instead, they told him to get out of this work that led them to this very treasure they now possess! How do you like that audacity? Then they questioned the hard work he is now doing on other treasure sites, wanting to know where they are too? Any why, so they can steal that away from him too?

The FED's have the biggest case of gold fever there is--They want it all! They wouldn't respect Dennis' 40 years of hard work or reward him for it but stole it away from him and they would keep stealing it all away from him. This is the worst violation of human rights and the dignity of human life itself!

I applaud Dennis for fighting for what rightfully belongs to him and be finally treated with some respect and get a judgment in his favor. They are model Treasure Hunters, always following all the laws! Their reputation is flawless. The conservative estimate of 500MIL spot price, not to mention the greater antiquity value has to be the biggest treasure find in history? The History Channel should have been covering this one instead of wasting their time on Oak Island!

 

[GoDeep]

And the truth is very evident that there was gold and silver hauled out by the FED's.

Then when they dug it up, they lied to him and told him they found nothing.

The conservative estimate of 500MIL spot price, not to mention the greater antiquity value has to be the biggest treasure find in history?

Where did you find evidence to support these assertions? We don't have any concrete evidence (yet) post dig that they found any treasure, let alone how much, what it is or it's value, that has been the whole point in acquiring the FBI file, to start to compile post dig evidence.

Pre dig the most concrete evidence we have that something may have been buried there is the gravimeter and other ground scans, but those are not infallible and one needs to dig to confirm.

Post dig, we mostly only have, until just days ago when some of the file came in, speculation and opinion and that is the whole point of acquiring the file, to look for tangible evidence that something was found or at a minimum, find credible evidence of any type of coverup so that a credible law suit may be brought against the FBI, allowing further discovery (a lawsuit that is permitted to go forward would allow them to interview FBI agents, seize phone records, texts, private communications, interview truck drivers, backhoe operators, interview Enviroscan, seize bank records etc etc).

The suit they currently have is a suit against the DOJ to produce the records in a timely fashion, something the DOJ failed to do, it is not a suit against the FBI for absconding with any treasure. One needs first to make a case before one can bring a suit for that.

A flimsy suit brought with only speculation and opinion will be dismissed right away and will not be allowed to proceed, which would jeopardize the entirety of their hard work the past 20 years!