What do you think about this ?
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/arti ... ge-journey
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps ... 3303250002
Mac Parker and the secret partner ?
Re: Mac Parker and the secret partner ?
Lou was a die hard commuter.
First row.
preferred seating- him and his wife.
Went to everything.
Scammed this guy in VT into
1) giving him lots of $ to fund his UG
2) getting him to be his disciple....while Mac rallied and ponzi schemed his funds to continue going to r$e
I spoke with the writer in December at length.
Lou is no different than Dave Runnels with the H-T ponzi scheme - whom jz as ramtha lauded him as "creating something out of nothing"
No different than what Bohdananda did with JourneyThroughRamthaLand.
total scum bag.
Plus...obv he could not heal himself (after having scammed all this money) after a heart attack and a couple of strokes.
First row.
preferred seating- him and his wife.
Went to everything.
Scammed this guy in VT into
1) giving him lots of $ to fund his UG
2) getting him to be his disciple....while Mac rallied and ponzi schemed his funds to continue going to r$e
I spoke with the writer in December at length.
Lou is no different than Dave Runnels with the H-T ponzi scheme - whom jz as ramtha lauded him as "creating something out of nothing"
No different than what Bohdananda did with JourneyThroughRamthaLand.
total scum bag.
Plus...obv he could not heal himself (after having scammed all this money) after a heart attack and a couple of strokes.
Re: Mac Parker and the secret partner ?
And…
"BurlingtonFreePress.com", Sam Hemingway : Day 4: The death of trust
Relationships fray, and money grows tight as Mac Parker's investors learn more
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/arti ... eath-trust
"BurlingtonFreePress.com", Sam Hemingway : Day 4: The death of trust
Relationships fray, and money grows tight as Mac Parker's investors learn more
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/arti ... eath-trust
Re: Mac Parker and the secret partner ?
Comments on Birth of Innocence by producer/editor:
Horace Williams Jr
Good writers report things in error sometimes, and their stories can often have critical omissions. I'd like to correct and append the public record.
The trustee's name in Mac Parker's involuntary bankruptcy case is Douglas Wolinsky, not Adam Wolinsky.
I've worked on Birth of Innocence from 2004 - just after Mac scrapped a nearly completed version of the film - through the present moment. Mac asked me to re-construct an entirely new film - from scratch - in spring of 2005.
No one has more authority over the facts in this case as to the process of creation of the film itself from 2004 forward than I - not even Mac Parker - because he wasn't physically present most of the time I worked on it.
I was never fired from the project. Mac Parker refused to complete the film with me on the evening of May 8, 2010, when he realized that my loyalty had slid from him due to his malfeasance and migrated toward the investors. Parker had no grounds to fire me; I was a creative partner who had re-built the film from scratch virtually alone for the preceding three and one half years and have a record of 500+ emails in Parker's own words to prove this.
Reporting that I had refused to turn over hard drives in order to collect $7000.00 in May/June 2010 is a gross misrepresentation of what occurred, and amounts to carelessly parroting Mac Parker's spin on what occurred, instead of reporting the facts.
What was agreed to on the evening of May 8, 2010 after Parker refused to complete the film with me, was for me to hand over a single set of hard drives, provided Parker do several things - including informing the investors and BISHCA of his refusal to complete the film with me. Parker subsequently violated all conditions agreed to that night.
He then upped his demand to include all copies of the hard drives, not just one set.
What I refused to do, was hand over all copies of the hard drives. I did this because I was certain by this time, given Mac's malfeasance and Lou's insanity, that Mac Parker would never finish a film if I put all those eggs in one basket.
I was correct. Mac cannot screen a film today; hasn't even got the beginning of a new assembly.
I insisted on holding on to one set of those hard drives in order to preserve the film on behalf of investors , and to protect my own considerable intellectual property interest in the film. As I said, and can prove, I had worked for five years on the film at that point and had created numerous original sections of the film where Parker was bewildered as to what to do, and Parker had come to work for only three days between December 2006 and November 2009 (other than bringing people to screenings). I had the right to a set of hard drives because my intellectual property interest in the film gave me legal grounds to have a copy. My assertion of this right was legally tested and I prevailed. I also made arrangements for BISHCA to have a set, which is still in their possession, for the same reason: to preserve the film on behalf of investors in yet a third way.
Here's a curiously unreported fact:
Today, March 27, 2013, after "working" on "his" (Lou's?) film for 14 years, Mac Parker has no film.
Here's another unreported fact:
Shortly after receiving the one set of hard drives, in June 2010, Mac Parker abandoned the film that investors funded in favor of starting over from scratch on a new film - either a docudrama or a documentary (not decided!) about the making of the film. I have a two hour audio tape in which the "new editor" (who had received the one set of hard drives cited) informs a group of horrified investors that the decision to do this was over - a done deal. That's why those investors filed that petition to take back the film. I gave Mr. Hemingway a copy of key points of the transcript of this audio recording - why was this critical fact unreported?
Mac Parker, unaware of the existence of the audiotape proof, denied this ever happened. There's a problem with the truth here, folks.
Here's yet another unreported fact:
At my own expense, I completed the film I had thus preserved by January 2011 - the same version that investors screened over a three year period and believed they had funded - the same film that inspired Christopher White and his wife to embrace the message of the film - and secured a worldwide distribution deal on February 17, 2011 in writing from a company who has just made a deal with 20th Century Fox to distribute a prequel/sequel to Raging Bull and has the film they produced prior to that one released via Sony as we speak. This opportunity clearly had the capacity to provide all the people that Parker has harmed a very real, and possibly the only, chance to see the message they had embraced be delivered to the world, and to recoup at least some significant part of their money, if not all.
I screened this completed film for Mr. Hemingway and he has had a copy of this written offer from the distributor for a very long time - why were these facts neglected in the story here? These omissions mislead the public into thinking that no film exists and denies them knowledge that there has been hope in the form of a distribution deal for a very long time.
I hear readers thoughts: what happened to distribution of the completed film?
Mac Parker himself deliberately thwarted the deal. That is the clearest indication yet of his real concern for investors.
Luckily, the distributor never lost faith in the project. I have preserved the deal as well for over two years, and in it's reconstituted form, it is the very basis upon which the three filers in the involuntary bankruptcy case filed the case in the first place - to get the film that they funded to market via this long-standing offer.
AT this moment, the fate of the film - whether the completed film goes to market, or whether Birth of Innocence dies on the vine forever, lies in the hands of the bankruptcy trustee.
He has an offer in writing in front of him that I personally delivered on March 5, 2013 which proposes a majority share of film profits be delivered to the estate over the life of the film and stipulates that the distributor will bear all costs of mastering for theater delivery and marketing. The trustee is capable of acting upon this offer immediately. If he chooses to embrace the offer, the distributor and I will immediately begin the digital intermediary process and launch distribution of the film worldwide on behalf of all Parker creditors/Parker investors/Parker lenders - friend and "foe" alike.
In my opinion, should the trustee choose to sell Parker's assets for cash only, and he might because he is concerned about being able to fund his considerable expenses in the case, he will literally be purchasing the end of hope for the release of the film, and thus the end of hope for recovery of everyone's funds.
My personal target for marketing this film has always been to equal the 108 million worldwide gross sales of March of the Penguins. Lofty, maybe, but possible. I have the contact information of every distributor who contributed to the success of that film to supplement the already considerable marketing machine of the distributor who has made this offer. I believe Birth of Innocence will enjoy the same audience pool of people that would appreciate a film like March of the Penguins, and that there is no reason why BOI can't match it's marketing performance.
Let's hope the trustee in the case, Douglas (not Adam) Wolinsky makes the right choice for the estate, which does indeed include everyone who has been arguing about what to do.
Horace Williams, Jr.
Day 4: The death of trust | Burlington Free Press | burlingtonfreepress.com
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/arti ... eath-trust
Horace Williams Jr
Good writers report things in error sometimes, and their stories can often have critical omissions. I'd like to correct and append the public record.
The trustee's name in Mac Parker's involuntary bankruptcy case is Douglas Wolinsky, not Adam Wolinsky.
I've worked on Birth of Innocence from 2004 - just after Mac scrapped a nearly completed version of the film - through the present moment. Mac asked me to re-construct an entirely new film - from scratch - in spring of 2005.
No one has more authority over the facts in this case as to the process of creation of the film itself from 2004 forward than I - not even Mac Parker - because he wasn't physically present most of the time I worked on it.
I was never fired from the project. Mac Parker refused to complete the film with me on the evening of May 8, 2010, when he realized that my loyalty had slid from him due to his malfeasance and migrated toward the investors. Parker had no grounds to fire me; I was a creative partner who had re-built the film from scratch virtually alone for the preceding three and one half years and have a record of 500+ emails in Parker's own words to prove this.
Reporting that I had refused to turn over hard drives in order to collect $7000.00 in May/June 2010 is a gross misrepresentation of what occurred, and amounts to carelessly parroting Mac Parker's spin on what occurred, instead of reporting the facts.
What was agreed to on the evening of May 8, 2010 after Parker refused to complete the film with me, was for me to hand over a single set of hard drives, provided Parker do several things - including informing the investors and BISHCA of his refusal to complete the film with me. Parker subsequently violated all conditions agreed to that night.
He then upped his demand to include all copies of the hard drives, not just one set.
What I refused to do, was hand over all copies of the hard drives. I did this because I was certain by this time, given Mac's malfeasance and Lou's insanity, that Mac Parker would never finish a film if I put all those eggs in one basket.
I was correct. Mac cannot screen a film today; hasn't even got the beginning of a new assembly.
I insisted on holding on to one set of those hard drives in order to preserve the film on behalf of investors , and to protect my own considerable intellectual property interest in the film. As I said, and can prove, I had worked for five years on the film at that point and had created numerous original sections of the film where Parker was bewildered as to what to do, and Parker had come to work for only three days between December 2006 and November 2009 (other than bringing people to screenings). I had the right to a set of hard drives because my intellectual property interest in the film gave me legal grounds to have a copy. My assertion of this right was legally tested and I prevailed. I also made arrangements for BISHCA to have a set, which is still in their possession, for the same reason: to preserve the film on behalf of investors in yet a third way.
Here's a curiously unreported fact:
Today, March 27, 2013, after "working" on "his" (Lou's?) film for 14 years, Mac Parker has no film.
Here's another unreported fact:
Shortly after receiving the one set of hard drives, in June 2010, Mac Parker abandoned the film that investors funded in favor of starting over from scratch on a new film - either a docudrama or a documentary (not decided!) about the making of the film. I have a two hour audio tape in which the "new editor" (who had received the one set of hard drives cited) informs a group of horrified investors that the decision to do this was over - a done deal. That's why those investors filed that petition to take back the film. I gave Mr. Hemingway a copy of key points of the transcript of this audio recording - why was this critical fact unreported?
Mac Parker, unaware of the existence of the audiotape proof, denied this ever happened. There's a problem with the truth here, folks.
Here's yet another unreported fact:
At my own expense, I completed the film I had thus preserved by January 2011 - the same version that investors screened over a three year period and believed they had funded - the same film that inspired Christopher White and his wife to embrace the message of the film - and secured a worldwide distribution deal on February 17, 2011 in writing from a company who has just made a deal with 20th Century Fox to distribute a prequel/sequel to Raging Bull and has the film they produced prior to that one released via Sony as we speak. This opportunity clearly had the capacity to provide all the people that Parker has harmed a very real, and possibly the only, chance to see the message they had embraced be delivered to the world, and to recoup at least some significant part of their money, if not all.
I screened this completed film for Mr. Hemingway and he has had a copy of this written offer from the distributor for a very long time - why were these facts neglected in the story here? These omissions mislead the public into thinking that no film exists and denies them knowledge that there has been hope in the form of a distribution deal for a very long time.
I hear readers thoughts: what happened to distribution of the completed film?
Mac Parker himself deliberately thwarted the deal. That is the clearest indication yet of his real concern for investors.
Luckily, the distributor never lost faith in the project. I have preserved the deal as well for over two years, and in it's reconstituted form, it is the very basis upon which the three filers in the involuntary bankruptcy case filed the case in the first place - to get the film that they funded to market via this long-standing offer.
AT this moment, the fate of the film - whether the completed film goes to market, or whether Birth of Innocence dies on the vine forever, lies in the hands of the bankruptcy trustee.
He has an offer in writing in front of him that I personally delivered on March 5, 2013 which proposes a majority share of film profits be delivered to the estate over the life of the film and stipulates that the distributor will bear all costs of mastering for theater delivery and marketing. The trustee is capable of acting upon this offer immediately. If he chooses to embrace the offer, the distributor and I will immediately begin the digital intermediary process and launch distribution of the film worldwide on behalf of all Parker creditors/Parker investors/Parker lenders - friend and "foe" alike.
In my opinion, should the trustee choose to sell Parker's assets for cash only, and he might because he is concerned about being able to fund his considerable expenses in the case, he will literally be purchasing the end of hope for the release of the film, and thus the end of hope for recovery of everyone's funds.
My personal target for marketing this film has always been to equal the 108 million worldwide gross sales of March of the Penguins. Lofty, maybe, but possible. I have the contact information of every distributor who contributed to the success of that film to supplement the already considerable marketing machine of the distributor who has made this offer. I believe Birth of Innocence will enjoy the same audience pool of people that would appreciate a film like March of the Penguins, and that there is no reason why BOI can't match it's marketing performance.
Let's hope the trustee in the case, Douglas (not Adam) Wolinsky makes the right choice for the estate, which does indeed include everyone who has been arguing about what to do.
Horace Williams, Jr.
Day 4: The death of trust | Burlington Free Press | burlingtonfreepress.com
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/arti ... eath-trust
Re: Mac Parker and the secret partner ?
Horace Williams offers two other trailers.
http://www.littlecastle.com/TrailerTIOL ... 4-7-12.mp4
http://www.littlecastle.com/TrailerJess ... 4-7-12.mp4
Birth of Innocence - a film by Mac Parker (trailer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wAx0go69r4
Do you find that messages are "compatible" with the slogans of JZK / Ramtha?
http://www.littlecastle.com/TrailerTIOL ... 4-7-12.mp4
http://www.littlecastle.com/TrailerJess ... 4-7-12.mp4
Birth of Innocence - a film by Mac Parker (trailer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wAx0go69r4
Do you find that messages are "compatible" with the slogans of JZK / Ramtha?