|
|
Post by sandye14 on Dec 29, 2010 9:38:22 GMT -5
There will always be Security Threats, Terrorist, Corrupt Politicians,Crazy Dictators, Evil Doers .......TO them I say "  " That's why we have The Constitution and The Second Amendment to the above mentioned I say " Come Get Some "  |
|
|
|
Post by ishmel on Dec 29, 2010 9:44:07 GMT -5
It is just the next line of excuses why we were not paid like they say it would happen.
Anybody who makes predictions off of misinformation, always has a way out. The newest back door off the Guru stage is "If we are not paid by Jan 1st then the law of the land does not apply anymore.
All the more reason to bring this to our State & Local representatives. If this is truly the case then a massive revolution needs to take place in America. While we may have our issues in the USA, I still believe this to be the freest & most democratic society on the face of this great earth.
|
|
nctx92
Diamond Hunter
Posts: 11
|
Post by nctx92 on Dec 29, 2010 10:20:30 GMT -5
The amount of disinformation is exceeded only by the lack of accountability by those who put it out. Has anyone tried to search and find out what ER is? or WGS? As best as I can determine, these terms exist only in the world of CMKX. The same goes for who Lindell Bonney, Paymaster really is? Any information you find leads back to CMKX, and that information only comes from the usual suspect internet sources like the bayareabaptistchurch. And yet we are chastised for wanting more answers. What was once a legit case now seems too fantastical to believe by anyone who's not a shareholder...and rightly so. Pursuit of liquidation of company assets and any monies that may have been set aside to reimburse shareholders for the cost of their stock is a worthwhile cause. Pursuit of a giant trust fund that no one can proves exists and somehow tying this to world security, revaluation of the dollar, global shifts of power, etc etc etc is fiction. Sorry...just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by georgie18 on Dec 29, 2010 10:27:42 GMT -5
If we are NOT paid this week and there is a SC order then WHY would Al not walk into the appeals court and lay down EVERY piece of evidence he has and shove it up there A$$  IF WE are not paid and he does not do this makes no sense UNLESS HE does not have the goods and I think he does. cheechman The last update I received from Attorney Hodges was the 12/23 Update. The last time Attorney Hodges did not answer my emails he was on silence mode. I understand the shareholders want to know all the details. I have provided what I can without compromising the progress made, as well as, the safety of the individuals involved in releasing the funds. Attorney Hodges has a considerable amount of responsibility on his shoulders. Attorney Hodges is determined to see this to the end and to the optimum results for the shareholders. Attorney Hodges is in this to win. Informing the opponents of what you are going to accomplish is fine, but informing the opponents how by providing information which will give the opponents strategic advantage is not the way to win. The final win is when the shareholders are in possession of all their CMKX Funds. At what cost are the shareholders willing to take to make the strategic information public before receiving the funds? Does it make sense to contact the opponents and provide details of information acquired by Attorney Hodges, file a report with the police against Attorney Hodges because he will not make public strategic-confidential information, to harass and threatened the ones who are working to release the funds, and then demand results by a certain date? When the XXX is involved, this is serious stuff..he does not play games when it comes to security issues. The XXX's priority is national security. We are part of a huge settlement. Other governments are involved. The XXX feels there are security issues, then he will do his job and will not give permission until he takes care of it. The XXX will not be forced by shareholders to make a decision. I will continue to support those who are actually making progress and focused on releasing the funds to the shareholders. I will wait until Attorney Hodges is allowed or ready to communicate with the shareholders. Thank you, BHollenegg Bob thank you for your response but with all due respect all that you mention did not arise this week....these factors have always been expressed by you numerous times......you would think that after all this time these factors could be approached with a keen eye....certainly this week is not the first time we have been confronted with these scenarios..and if these issues continue to arise,what will prevent any future occurrences....this can be never ending is the point... I pray that XXXX deals with the security issues and give permission for the release.....Be Well.... |
|
onelove
Diamond Finder
If you're in, you win!
Posts: 64 
|
Post by onelove on Dec 29, 2010 10:52:57 GMT -5
People, if we are being lied to and being lead to a date (1/1/11) only to see it come and go with no resolution... OBVIOUSLY it is what they want... for us to give up all hope and sink away into the shadows.
If that happens, they win!
Remember, Hodges told us the lawsuit was for leverage? I look at Wolf's preempative strike in the same light.
I.M.O.
One
|
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Dec 29, 2010 11:04:05 GMT -5
WHEN YOU FEEL ALL IS LOST... READ READ READ.. TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS SAYING HERE----------- BTW THIS IS HIS LAST UPDATE 12-07-10---------------->
Litigation Update - December 7, 2010
I understand that many are anxious to receive an update directly from the horse’s mouth regarding the litigation and the Federal Court hearing of December 6; this is it. Let me begin by quoting a post of Mona’s from Tramp’s board which I found to be cogent and to the point [the bracketed portions are mine]:
The following is a MOST EXCELLENT post and the last sentence SAYS IT ALL as we move forward!
Protocol:
To the best of my recollection, Al mentioned to those of us standing outside the courtroom:
1. 300 people had been served [and/or being prosecuted] for financial fraud and there are more to follow with arrests.
2. Everyone wants to see proof however.
The reason for the hearing was not about presenting proof but about whether the complaint that was framed and filed has legal standing in this court.
a. One of the points here is that the judge and the other side have to assume that every point in the filing submitted is true.
b. The test this court was constrained to rule on [consider] was that if the plaintiff (Al Hodges) goes to trial and proves everything stated in his complaint, is he entitled to a judgment/verdict?
c. This court says, NO
d. No, because we don't qualify for the takings clause. [Essentially because no prior Ninth Circuit or USSC case has so held.]
e. No, because we don't have property interest in the shares we hold. [Essentially because no prior Ninth Circuit or USSC case has so held.]
That's the current state of the law in the 9th circuit court.
Al argued yesterday that it was in fact a taking and the shareholders did hold shares considered to be property that had value.
The company (CMKM) was structured and had business rulings that rendered the shares of CMKM real and valid.
The shareholders had no other recourse or means of redress against the government and this appeal was the only means of acquiring justice and restitution. [Therefore, making this a perfect Bivens situation.]
As far as the US attorney that was there representing the defendants:
Al said this guy is the head [actually one of the Senior] US attorney in the LA office and he is very competent.
He doesn't know much of anything because his clients are not communicating with him and do not need to at this point.
So, when he stands up there to argue, he is doing so with minimal understanding of his client’s true role and culpability. They are not giving him direction or facts.
If we go along with the idea this was scripted and yielded plausible deniability for the government then it makes sense when AL says this is [should be] over by Christmas...
Yesterday’s hearing lent to logical reasoning that this has reached a conclusion.
Al can of course take this further with an appeal in 30 days which he says he will do if we are not paid.
We will see where it goes by the end of the year.
God willing, all the work behind the scenes is done and payments begin shortly!
Proto
Let me add a few other comments:
• I did have a colloquy with Mr. Staub prior to the hearing in which I confirmed that he had essentially little or no input from his individual clients and/or the SEC; he as well confirmed that he had absolutely no knowledge of any “behind-the-scenes” discussions or other activities.
• When the hearing began, I reviewed briefly for the Court the insistence of many of the original 13 states that the Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution as a condition of ratification, how the Fifth Amendment came about and what it means [e.g. it talks about all property – not just real property], the seminal decision of Marbury v. Madison (1803) and the more recent Bivens case; I also explained in some detail why the Broad case raised by defendants could not and was not controlling here; and, although I had to concede that no prior Bivens or ‘Takings’ case of any similarity could be found, I detailed for the Court the reasons why that should not stand in the way of this Court upholding the spirit of the Constitution and all the relevant Supreme Court cases decided there-under.
• The Court explained to all that the essence of the decision rested on the absence of any decided cases of similarity to this one; he did suggest that we might find a sympathetic ear in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
• I did take the opportunity to meet and speak with some of the 25 plus shareholders in attendance, after the hearing; most of the ‘quotes’ of my statements that you have seen posted are accurate; e.g. I did say that “.... if I were a betting man, I would bet that we will receive payment by Christmas.”
• I am of the opinion that we are at the last turn in the road. More straight forwardly I do believe, based upon information from many, many sources including my work on securing release of the World Global Settlement funds, that payment is imminent.
• Apparently, dismissal [one way or another] of this litigation was required by the Government as a condition of the release of CMKX payments; we shall soon see if that assessment is correct. Whether it is or not, be assured that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit [and the USSC if necessary] will be timely taken and aggressively pursued, until such time as the payments are made.
Let me also take this opportunity to correct some prior misunderstandings of some shareholders:
• It has been asserted that I am the trustee – I AM NOT.
• It has been asserted that I am pursuing litigation on behalf of Mr. Bonney and/or Mr. Cottrell [and that this is being done at the expense of CMKX] - I AM NOT. I hasten to add that I have written correspondence on their behalf in the belief that it would assist in speeding up the WGS payouts, and in turn the CMKX release.
• It has been suggested that my actions and/or lack of same is delaying receipt of payment by CMKX shareholders – IT IS NOT.
• It has been asserted that the WGS have nothing to do with, or affect CMKX – INCORRECT.
• Some seem to believe that I have instructed various plaintiffs [most of whom have their own sources of information] to go to the boards/pal-talk and release information [either for some specific purpose or to serve some ulterior agenda] – I HAVE NOT.
• Some seem to believe that my purpose here has been to mislead, string-along, etc., and is part of some ‘master-plan’ – NOT TRUE. This litigation was [and still is] meritorious and brought in good faith to assert the rights of shareholders who had been severely robbed and otherwise damaged as the direct result of Government actions which were outside of the bounds of permissible behavior; it was also believed that the filing would precipitate the kind of attention and focus required to bring this matter to conclusion.
Some will ask why I am so confident that we are about be finished with this unnecessarily lengthy travail. The only answer that I can give you at the moment is to ask you to consider how much of my time [most of it] and other resources [substantial sums of $$] have been devoted to the matters associated with CMKX during the past year. Although you can’t know for sure, most have an idea that it has been a very bizarre, complex, convoluted battle against some of the most powerful entities in the world; it’s been that and oh, so much more. At any rate, the reason I mention it at all, is as a basis for you to understand that I now receive almost daily information from FBI, CIA, NSA, Pentagon, and JCS sources, as well as a plethora of other people with whom I have established a rapport and respect, and who have met certain screening criteria. It is information assembled from these sources that persuade me.
Some will next ask if their information is so good and accurate, why were we not we paid months ago “as you indicated we would be.” The detailed answer to that question will of necessity have to wait for another day; however, the short answer is for you to look at our competition and the results of our efforts.
My very best regards to all,
Al Hodges
|
|
|
|
Post by BHollenegg on Dec 29, 2010 11:15:56 GMT -5
Bhollenegg, I respect your call for level headed thinking, but I think it is human nature to be at wits end at this point. When Christmas came and went without money in hand and AH didn't even give a reassuring message through one of the plaintiffs I think it turned up the we've been played emotion to the breaking point. His SC court directive for the end of this year is 2 business days away and if that passes it will be pretty cut and dry we have been lied to. The fact that he has not updated you in 5 days of which included the infamous Christmas prediction should be very alarming to you as you are a plaintiff in his suit. "Silent mode" as you called it from an atty to his plaintiff is unacceptable and unprofessional, silent mode from you to us is understandable should the situation require. As for "At what cost are the shareholders willing to take to make the strategic information public before receiving the funds?" Here is something I think all stuckholders could accept and benefit from that wouldn't risk a thing. Obviously AH or transfer online etc has the name and cert #'s of all the bonafides. Have transfer online set up a copy of the trust agreement on there site only accessable by entering the correct name and cert number for bonafides to view. They can remove any names they feel would jeopardize a person or this suits safety. Obviously the opposition is well aware of the trust so they would gather nothing new and it would calm alot of stuckholders fears that they have been played all along. GLTUA and thank you. E362...you brought up several good points. Attorney Hodges did provide the plaintiffs updates. He requested the plaintiffs not to post the update due to sensitive information which cannot be made public. A shareholder posted a copy of the update he received from a plaintiff. The individuals named in the update were called several times and harassed about Attorney Hodges. This happened before and compromised Attorney Hodges position. I can understand why Attorney Hodges is concerned about sharing sensitive information with the plaintiffs The Trust idea sounds great and may be an acceptable way to review the information. I will check into this. Thank you, BHollenegg |
|
dude
Diamond Finder
Posts: 51
|
Post by dude on Dec 29, 2010 11:18:26 GMT -5
Bhollenegg, I respect your call for level headed thinking, but I think it is human nature to be at wits end at this point. When Christmas came and went without money in hand and AH didn't even give a reassuring message through one of the plaintiffs I think it turned up the we've been played emotion to the breaking point. His SC court directive for the end of this year is 2 business days away and if that passes it will be pretty cut and dry we have been lied to. The fact that he has not updated you in 5 days of which included the infamous Christmas prediction should be very alarming to you as you are a plaintiff in his suit. "Silent mode" as you called it from an atty to his plaintiff is unacceptable and unprofessional, silent mode from you to us is understandable should the situation require. As for "At what cost are the shareholders willing to take to make the strategic information public before receiving the funds?" Here is something I think all stuckholders could accept and benefit from that wouldn't risk a thing. Obviously AH or transfer online etc has the name and cert #'s of all the bonafides. Have transfer online set up a copy of the trust agreement on there site only accessable by entering the correct name and cert number for bonafides to view. They can remove any names they feel would jeopardize a person or this suits safety. Obviously the opposition is well aware of the trust so they would gather nothing new and it would calm alot of stuckholders fears that they have been played all along. GLTUA and thank you. E362...you brought up several good points. Attorney Hodges did provide the plaintiffs updates. He requested the plaintiffs not to post the update due to sensitive information which cannot be made public. A shareholder posted a copy of the update he received from a plaintiff. The individuals named in the update were called several times and harassed about Attorney Hodges. This happened before and compromised Attorney Hodges position. I can understand why Attorney Hodges is concerned about sharing sensitive information with the plaintiffs The Trust idea sounds great and may be an acceptable way to review the information. I will check into this. Thank you, BHollenegg |
|
|
|
Post by humbledd on Dec 29, 2010 11:34:58 GMT -5
NOW THATS REASONABLE
|
|
|
|
Post by lovindiamonds on Dec 29, 2010 11:45:54 GMT -5
The Trust idea sounds great and may be an acceptable way to review the information. I will check into this. Thank you, BHollenegg Bob, If we could do that... I think we could silence a lot of the crap and let everything move the way it is planned. This would be great. Thank you for looking into this, - LD |
|
|
|
Post by georgie18 on Dec 29, 2010 12:33:02 GMT -5
Bhollenegg, I respect your call for level headed thinking, but I think it is human nature to be at wits end at this point. When Christmas came and went without money in hand and AH didn't even give a reassuring message through one of the plaintiffs I think it turned up the we've been played emotion to the breaking point. His SC court directive for the end of this year is 2 business days away and if that passes it will be pretty cut and dry we have been lied to. The fact that he has not updated you in 5 days of which included the infamous Christmas prediction should be very alarming to you as you are a plaintiff in his suit. "Silent mode" as you called it from an atty to his plaintiff is unacceptable and unprofessional, silent mode from you to us is understandable should the situation require. As for "At what cost are the shareholders willing to take to make the strategic information public before receiving the funds?" Here is something I think all stuckholders could accept and benefit from that wouldn't risk a thing. Obviously AH or transfer online etc has the name and cert #'s of all the bonafides. Have transfer online set up a copy of the trust agreement on there site only accessable by entering the correct name and cert number for bonafides to view. They can remove any names they feel would jeopardize a person or this suits safety. Obviously the opposition is well aware of the trust so they would gather nothing new and it would calm alot of stuckholders fears that they have been played all along. GLTUA and thank you. e362.....great idea...The only thing that bothers me is the answer from BHollenegg...if he was so sure that this would be over by the years end by his statement that only the non shareholders would be around in January why would this even be an issue 3 days before the years end...but a great idea by e362... |
|
|
|
Post by e362 on Dec 29, 2010 12:45:40 GMT -5
Bob, Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Dec 29, 2010 13:20:33 GMT -5
Hello Al, I have an idea... Hello, Hello.. I think he hung up on me... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by e362 on Dec 29, 2010 16:11:34 GMT -5
JWLO, It might not have been the best of ideas, but hell, if you can come up with a better idea that would safely ease the stuckholders concerns over if there truly is a trust in the amount mentioned and would most likely result in renewed patience for AH to get the job done, please post it for Bob to pitch to AH and maybe you can follow it up with all those cute emoticons to get your point across.......
|
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Dec 29, 2010 16:18:44 GMT -5
JWLO, It might not have been the best of ideas, but hell, if you can come up with a better idea that would safely ease the stuckholders concerns over if there truly is a trust in the amount mentioned and would most likely result in renewed patience for AH to get the job done, please post it for Bob to pitch to AH and maybe you can follow it up with all those cute emoticons to get your point across....... JMHO... BH is out of the loop and so is AH.....  |
|
" That's why we have The Constitution and The Second Amendment to the above mentioned I say " Come Get Some "
