Print the value of index0
Wayne Maynard - Ten Bears II - 10 Bears @ Chiloquin - Rapids Development, ripoff, Elder Abuse, Securities fraud, Deceit, $1.00 for 1/100 of a penny Springfield And Chiloquin Oregon
Enough is Enough. The TRUTH now needs to come out: The WAYNE MAYNARD family, associates, and various assumed business names have been taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Donald and Ronald Hanson family in Springfield Oregon. In the Eugene Register Guard on June 26, 2006 this was posted: PUBLIC NOTICE JUNE 26, 2006 "Pete Hansen and Sons, Donald Hansen and Ronald Hansen vs. 10 Bears at Chiloquin, Inc.; 10 Bears at Chiloquin II; Rapids Development, Inc.; Wayne W. Maynard; Stevens N. Kendall and John Does 1-10: Plaintiff alleges Breach of Contract, ELDER ABUSE. Suit Seeks $2,065,116.00" According to this LEGAL ACTION on several occasions this group of people and companies took Mr. Hansen and his family for hundreds of thousands of dollars: 1) $450,000.00 on June 2, 2000; 2) $220,000.00 on October 9, 2001; 3) $100,000.00 on May 1, 2002; 4) $400,000.00 on July 16, 2002; 5) $180,000.00 on November 17, 2003; 6) $375,000.00 on May 13, 2004; BUT YET NOT ONE DOLLAR HAS BEEN PAID BACK TO THE HANSEN FAMILY, NOW THEY HAVE LOGGED ALMOST ALL OF THEIR TREES THAT WAS PLANTED AND NURTURED BY THEM, AND ARE ATTEMPTING TO SELL THEIR RANCH BECAUSE THEY May not be able to PAY THE LOAN THEY TOOK OUT FOR THIS WAYNE MAYNARD GROUP. Several others have been coming out of the woodwork that have been investing in a company called 10 Bears at Chiloquin, Inc. but all of the investment money went to Ten Bears II of Nevada. I stumbled across what the Maynards were doing because they had several of my associates, Magic Numbers Estimating, Inc.; C & B General Contracting and Harris Contracting; work for them for shares in a corporation that was never given to them. Also they were putting forth that the shares were worth 25 cents per share but would soon be worth $1.00 as soon as the company went public. They were lying because we found out that the Nevada shares were really worth 1/100 of a penny per share. Last year we were told that 200,000 shares were at that time worth $50,000.00 and would soon be worth $200,000.00 ($1.00 per share) when the Ten Bears II, Inc. went public, but we later found out the stock was worth only $20.00. They were also hiding their debt of 10 Bears at Chiloquin, Inc. of Oregon ($2,065,116.00 just to the Hansen family) in order to make it look like Ten Bears II, Inc. of Nevada had no debt so they could be sold publicly and get more cash infusion. When we started bringing out want they were doing to the United States Securities Exchange Commission, the Maynard's withdrew their application to be traded publicly. At that point they started their attack on me personally and my associates Magic Numbers Estimating, Inc.; C & B General Contracting and Harris Contracting, Inc. in order to cover up their actions. I have filed complaints with the Securities Exchange Commission and the Corporate Securities Commission in Salem, Oregon. The Hansens telephone number is available for anyone that wants to know the truth. As far as the home on Row River Road the attorney that is handling it is Kent Andersen in Eugene Oregon. Any party the has an "genuine interest" can get information from Mr. Andersen (If he wants to give any). If you have been taken by the Maynards or any of their business names, about 6 of them, by buying shares in their Ten Bears II, Inc. or 10 Bears @ Chiloquin, Inc. you should contact an attorney immediately. Bernie Cottage Grove, Oregon
U.S.A.
2 Updates & Rebuttals
Wayne W. Maynard
Eugene,Oregon,
USA
The Report Filed as Revenge
#3REBUTTAL Individual responds
Tue, June 09, 2015
First, please note, that the person filing the Ripoff Report is burdened with more than one felony and numerous judgments by people he has cheated out of many thousands of dollars. He tired one of his scams on a friend of mine; I caught him in the act. When I tried to stop his fraud and theft he told me he would destroy me "online" if I refused to back off. I continued to protect my friend but couldn't save about $20,000 from the theft. Subsequently, I worked hard to get Oregon Justice folks to stop this guy from his continuing fraud on Oregonians. What I dredged up was an amazing story of fraud, deceit and theft that few can perpetrate and stay free (this guy did some time but not near enough to teach him not to be a thief. He brags to anyone who tries to collect money from him that he is "judgment proof." That's a true statement. He is judgment proof in the sense that no one can collect from him. Why? Any immediate person going after him learns he or she must stand in line behind dozens of victims who have filed judgments. He just laughs and says, "Good Luck." Second, all that you read in "Bernie's" Report is false. If anyone needs positive information from me for any cause, you can contact me through Ripoff and I'll be happy to supply you with data and proof and evidence of my good reputation and character from many, many friends and business associates. In this response, all I ask of any reader is to bear in mind that online anyone can wrongfully hurt anyone for any reasons--foul or fair. We all have to give a target the chance to set the record straight. Americans have been doing that for 230 years and our court system, for example, proclaims--you are innocent until proven guilty. Ripoff Report, good company, gives us all the opportunity to respond and repair. I commend the company. Thanks for taking the time to read my response to "Bernie's" vicious lies and foul remarks. Please feel free to call or email me if you wish.
Bernie
Cottage Grove,Oregon,
U.S.A.
Maynards and their various corporations were forced into liquidation bankruptcy by Federal Judge, similar to 1973 below. The Maynards are notorious for misrepresenting things to everyone.
#3Author of original report
Tue, December 07, 2010
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Wilburn Maynard, Defendant-Appellant., 485 F.2d 247 (9th Cir. 1973)
Federal Circuits
Docket Number: 73-1928
Linked as:Harry E. Claiborne (argued), Annette R. Quintana, Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for defendant-appellant.
366 U.S. 953 , 81 S.Ct. 1910, 6 L.Ed.2d 1246 (1961) .
Lawrence J. Semenza, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), V. DeVoe Heaton, U.S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee.
OPINION
Before CARTER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and EAST,* District Judge.
JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to modify a sentence under Rule 35, F.R.Crim.P. We affirm.
The defendant Maynard was convicted of concealing assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. After a pre-sentence report he was sentenced to three years imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec . 4208(a) (2). Under that section he was eligible for parole at such time as the Board of Parole might determine. The judgment was affirmed on appeal, and Maynard was imprisoned on January 15, 1973.
On April 4, 1973, Maynard moved the sentencing court under Rule 35 for a reduction or revision of his lawful sentence. He further moved the court to order the prison warden to prepare and submit a report on Maynard's behavior since his imprisonment. Without ordering the report, and without holding a hearing, the district court denied the Rule 35 motion.
Maynard contends that the summary denial of the motion was in violation of his constitutional rights under the fifth and sixth amendments. He contends that the district court, by refusing to order the preparation and submission of a post-incarceration report, denied him due process. Since the Rule 35 motion was based entirely on an anticipated favorable report, he argues that a failure to consider the report is tantamount to a failure to consider the Rule 35 motion. This argument, however, misconceives the nature of Rule 35.
If a lawful sentence was lawfully imposed in the first instance, then the function of Rule 35 is simply to allow the district court to decide if, on further reflection, the original sentence now seems unduly harsh. The motion is directed to the court's discretion (Flores v. United States (9 Cir. 1956) 238 F.2d 758, 760) and is essentially a "plea for leniency." Poole v. United States (1957) 102 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 250 F.2d 396, 401. Ordinarily, no hearing is required. United States v. Krueger (9 Cir. 1972) 454 F.2d 1154.
The court had thorough knowledge of Maynard's relevant history when imposing the original sentence and apparently now believed that a report, regardless of how glowing a picture it might paint of Maynard's behavior in prison, could not alter the discretionary decision that a sentence of three years was apt. If every prisoner who alleged good behavior were entitled to have a warden prepare and submit a report to the court, the burden on the warden would be overwhelming and the court would be taking on the function of a parole board. Surely 18 U.S.C. Sec . 4208(a)(2), under which Maynard was sentenced, reflects the sound policy that good behavior by a prisoner is chiefly for the Board of Parole to consider, not the judge.
We need not decide whether the sixth amendment applies to a post-prosecution proceeding under Rule 35, for even if it does, its guarantee is not absolute. A motion to have a witness or document produced at government expense is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court, the court having a duty to prevent useless process. Murdock v. United States (10 Cir. 1960) 283 F.2d 585, 587, cert. denied,
We affirm.
* Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge, District of Oregon, sitting by designation
Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/america-wayne-wilburn-maynard-defendant-36777095#ixzz17QEvv8jX