Agent Arrested and Convicted for Selling an Annuity.

[Mattschmidt]

The DOI determined Fran was not competent 12/08/2008. They should of immediately taken steps to cancel the policy, and get her her money back. The policy was finally not taken 2/21/2012 when the consevator asked for the refund which he received of $197,256.00.There was no theft. EVER
The DOI should of gotten her a refund and that should of been the end of it. No charges should of ever been filed.If anything it should of been nothing more then a DOI issue.
The DOI knew this ,but proceeded to maliciously prosecute me anyway.
My attorney asked in trial what would happen if DOI asked for a refund, and the judge basically ignored the question.

Thats awesome to hear Glenn..Are you going after the DOI or DA in civil court???

 

[hardworkwillwin]

Thats awesome to hear Glenn..Are you going after the DOI or DA in civil court???

Have to get the verdict overturned first.Then who knows?

 

[VolAgent]

Thats awesome to hear Glenn..Are you going after the DOI or DA in civil court???

First he has to be declared innocent. Government officials enjoy a very strong immunity from suits based upon performing their official duties. Merely being found not guilty isn't sufficient to go after the DA.

So was the appeal upheld and the previous verdict thrown out?

 

[djs]

Case was "VOID AB INITIO". Got the letter to prove it.

As usual, I'm a bit confused.
Was the case declared void or just the annuity sale?
I'm no attorney, but void ab initio is a term I've only heard of used for contracts (basically meaning the contract never existed). It would imply, and your follow on posts implies, that the annuity was declared void ab initio, which makes perfect sense.

My question really is, what does this mean for you?

Dan

 

[hardworkwillwin]

As usual, I'm a bit confused.
Was the case declared void or just the annuity sale?
I'm no attorney, but void ab initio is a term I've only heard of used for contracts (basically meaning the contract never existed). It would imply, and your follow on posts implies, that the annuity was declared void ab initio, which makes perfect sense.

My question really is, what does this mean for you?

Dan

So far just the annuity sale.The contract was "NOT TAKEN".which should help us with the appeal.

 

[tlmarketing]

talk about 50 shades of grey....

Who wrote the letter declaring the policy void ab initio?

Was it "not taken" or was the policy rescinded?

Ineffective counsel should be a main defense....don't see the above helping overturn your conviction...It's like the booster club parents who steal money from their sports league, then pay it back before sentencing...

 

[CALTCAgent]

Who wrote this letter?

Can you post it?

 

[hardworkwillwin]

talk about 50 shades of grey....

Who wrote the letter declaring the policy void ab initio?

Was it "not taken" or was the policy rescinded?

Ineffective counsel should be a main defense....don't see the above helping overturn your conviction...It's like the booster club parents who steal money from their sports league, then pay it back before sentencing...

Your missing the point. DOI determined 12/08 Fran wasn't competent. Ten months after sale.The DOI at this time should of voided the contract and gotten Fran's money back in 12/08. This case should of never gone to trial.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Who wrote this letter?

Can you post it?

 

[tlmarketing]

Here's what I do get....

From the very first posts, your answers, comments, information is always vague, inaccurate, not quite what you say it is, etc..

When someone asks you a question, you do not give direct answers.

An email from the allianz girl of the month isn't going to help.

Your best bet is an "ineffective counsel" defense.

 

[hardworkwillwin]

Here's what I do get....

From the very first posts, your answers, comments, information is always vague, inaccurate, not quite what you say it is, etc..

When someone asks you a question, you do not give direct answers.

An email from the allianz girl of the month isn't going to help.

Your best bet is an "ineffective counsel" defense.

Give me ONE example where I didn't say something you didn't understand, and hopefully I can clarify it.Vague may be because of the direction of counsel? I'm not sure, however I've been 100% forthright here. I really didn't have to say anything,however I thought what I may say may help all of you not get into this same situation.
I do have the letter from Allianz. I need to get permission to post it.
Glad also to hear YOU went to Law School, and have a really good understanding of where my attorney went wrong.
Have a happy holiday season.