|
|
Post by portrush on Oct 28, 2014 21:32:53 GMT -5
October 28, 2014
RE: Results of Today’s Hearing in CMKM vs. Wells Fargo
To All CMKM/NHHI Shareholders:
Judge Scann denied Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss today in Clark County District Court. This is excellent news, as we have overcome two difficult obstacles – Wells Fargo’s In Pari Delicto and Statute of Limitations defenses. The judge did throw out a few of our pleadings, which were difficult to document with the necessary specificity due to the lack of discovery provided by Wells Fargo so far. With detailed discovery information, we will have the opportunity to re-plead these issues.
There will be a scheduling hearing in November to set a new time line for discovery as the case proceeds. So, in spite of the incredible delays and setbacks, our case is still alive. I will discuss this matter in more detail during Webinar #35 scheduled for Thursday night, 10/30/14 at 8 PM CDT. Thank you.
Steve Kirkpatrick
|
|
|
|
Post by portrush on Oct 28, 2014 21:52:58 GMT -5
Not an attorney, but my understanding is that In pari delicti means...the defendant is in the better position when the case is made there is mutual fault. So in the CMKX/WF case, it could mean that there was an argument (likely WF's) that both are guilty of wrongdoing. The basis for the pleading is something along the lines of saying the court shouldn't be bothered with mediating disputes between the parties. In essence the result is a plaintiff could be screwed from seeing recovery because of his own wrongful conduct. What this seems to say is that the Court ruled against that argument from WF resulting in CMKM's favor.
Can anyone explain this better?
pr
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 23:07:36 GMT -5
Wow! This is great news! Although, I am not a practicing lawyer, think it basically means that CMKM Diamonds was ruled that it wasn't at total fault and now can proceed with the case. Thank You Steve....for hanging in there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 23:27:39 GMT -5
Wow! This is great news! Although, I am not a practicing lawyer, think it basically means that CMKM Diamonds was ruled that it wasn't at total fault and now can proceed with the case. Thank You Steve....for hanging in there! Of course, overcoming the Statute of Limitations defense is the biggest obstacle to overcome.....looking for a settlement on this case! |
|
|
|
Post by e362 on Oct 29, 2014 6:19:14 GMT -5
Not an attorney, but my understanding is that In pari delicti means...the defendant is in the better position when the case is made there is mutual fault. So in the CMKX/WF case, it could mean that there was an argument (likely WF's) that both are guilty of wrongdoing. The basis for the pleading is something along the lines of saying the court shouldn't be bothered with mediating disputes between the parties. In essence the result is a plaintiff could be screwed from seeing recovery because of his own wrongful conduct. What this seems to say is that the Court ruled against that argument from WF resulting in CMKM's favor. Can anyone explain this better? pr in pari delicto adv. (in pah-ree dee-lick-toe) Latin for "in equal fault," which means that two (or more) people are all at fault or are all guilty of a crime. In contract law, if the fault is more or less equal then neither party can claim breach of the contract by the other; in an accident, neither can collect damages, unless the fault is more on one than the other under the rule of "comparative negligence"; in defense of a criminal charge, one defendant will have a difficult time blaming the other for inducing him or her into the criminal acts if the proof is that both were involved. |
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Oct 29, 2014 6:26:32 GMT -5
My guess is that if they didn't give the rights to Edwards to stamp the Certs then we would'nt be at fault in this case. Am I on the right case..
|
|
|
|
Post by portrush on Oct 29, 2014 10:47:20 GMT -5
Thanks e362.
pr
|
|
|
|
Post by portrush on Oct 29, 2014 10:49:03 GMT -5
My guess is that if they didn't give the rights to Edwards to stamp the Certs then we would'nt be at fault in this case. Am I on the right case.. You're better at this than I am...but my understanding was at least one issue was they gave him medallioned blanks that he could fill in as he pleased, and their employee admitted to doing so. pr |
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Oct 29, 2014 11:16:28 GMT -5
My guess is that if they didn't give the rights to Edwards to stamp the Certs then we wouldn't be at fault in this case. Am I on the right case.. You're better at this than I am...but my understanding was at least one issue was they gave him medallioned blanks that he could fill in as he pleased, and their employee admitted to doing so. pr We Got them by the you know where.. That's enough to put them at fault for our lost in stock price and valuation of the Company. If UC is dead, then who will come forward and say they were working together..? If they were working together.. |
|
