Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 20, 2007 8:25:03 GMT -5
my69z
Ace of Diamonds
..Frizz,,Derivative,,Phxgold..
« Thread Started on Today at 5:10am »
Go back to '05 and remember when Frizz sent that Shareholders Derivative Rights Letter??
Askin Mr.Stoeckline to pass along the John Edwards/NevWest,Levine and others info with a request to cancel their shares and recoup any ill gotten gaines??
Look at that stuff again,,,,,he said in order to COMPLY,,,with state and federal laws.......we all thought Frizz was being blown off with no reply within 30 days.
Look at the law.....you must be specific in what you want the company to do.....and you can take action against insiders if the company won't.
Buutt,,,you must 1st show you went this route.So basically, Don wasn't supposed to reply to Frizz.It now gives the shareholders the right to go after the insiders.
I think,,it's good the SEC has never filed against "JE" or NevWest.Now a Shareholders Derivative will bring any insider cash back to who???....the company.....not the SEC.
And think back to Michael Willams when he was supposed to be hired.But not until after CMKX got BOD insurance right?
So CMKX has never pay a dime to insure these guys ( kinda neat how the ones unprotected haven't been named ) and under the Indeminety Clause....fraud cancels any umbrella of protection from the company.
Why would Frizz now wanna go after something that brings money back to the company if he didn't think the crooked insiders haven't or won't be removed from CMKX??....dosen't make sense huh? Like Frizz recently said,,,,he has the evidence....and I think it's a bluff.
--- A shareholders derivative lawsuit......We now see how Frizz is to get paid.I think John Martin will be the qualifying shareholder & Frizz the attorney. Frizz legally gets a cut of what he collects and the rest legally goes back to the company.These lawsuits are only against the thieves who left and is very good news for us that won't even hold "us" up.
---- Phxgold.....I noticed last week your wording had changed to one of a business man. Excellent.....and IMO,,,,your letter is also a set-up for Derivative action.
Frizz's demands was about free market trading ( he said brokers usually bought back),,,,,your demands deal with the newer version.....the Interpleader.
Frizz talked about a margin call.....yours is a mandatory buy-in.
Frizz said around 600B......yours,,,622B
And everyone should go back and read Frizz's letter to Stoeckline and the NASD Letter. In conjuction with yours,,,,,it all makes sense.
Why everyone was kept seperate and Maheu went after our real problem.....Wallstreet
I gotta run,,,,there's more but I think there's alot goin on that we should all be very happy with now.
And oh yeah....my bet,,,,,,,,Moran dosen't reply. LOL
Rule 23.1 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent part:
In a derivative action...the complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he desires served, from the directors...and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. The derivative action shall not be maintained if it appears that the plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interest of the shareholders or members...similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation.
Gltua and thanks Frizz and Phx and whoever else joins in!
Chris
Ace of Diamonds
..Frizz,,Derivative,,Phxgold..
« Thread Started on Today at 5:10am »
Go back to '05 and remember when Frizz sent that Shareholders Derivative Rights Letter??
Askin Mr.Stoeckline to pass along the John Edwards/NevWest,Levine and others info with a request to cancel their shares and recoup any ill gotten gaines??
Look at that stuff again,,,,,he said in order to COMPLY,,,with state and federal laws.......we all thought Frizz was being blown off with no reply within 30 days.
Look at the law.....you must be specific in what you want the company to do.....and you can take action against insiders if the company won't.
Buutt,,,you must 1st show you went this route.So basically, Don wasn't supposed to reply to Frizz.It now gives the shareholders the right to go after the insiders.
I think,,it's good the SEC has never filed against "JE" or NevWest.Now a Shareholders Derivative will bring any insider cash back to who???....the company.....not the SEC.
And think back to Michael Willams when he was supposed to be hired.But not until after CMKX got BOD insurance right?
So CMKX has never pay a dime to insure these guys ( kinda neat how the ones unprotected haven't been named ) and under the Indeminety Clause....fraud cancels any umbrella of protection from the company.
Why would Frizz now wanna go after something that brings money back to the company if he didn't think the crooked insiders haven't or won't be removed from CMKX??....dosen't make sense huh? Like Frizz recently said,,,,he has the evidence....and I think it's a bluff.
--- A shareholders derivative lawsuit......We now see how Frizz is to get paid.I think John Martin will be the qualifying shareholder & Frizz the attorney. Frizz legally gets a cut of what he collects and the rest legally goes back to the company.These lawsuits are only against the thieves who left and is very good news for us that won't even hold "us" up.
---- Phxgold.....I noticed last week your wording had changed to one of a business man. Excellent.....and IMO,,,,your letter is also a set-up for Derivative action.
Frizz's demands was about free market trading ( he said brokers usually bought back),,,,,your demands deal with the newer version.....the Interpleader.
Frizz talked about a margin call.....yours is a mandatory buy-in.
Frizz said around 600B......yours,,,622B
And everyone should go back and read Frizz's letter to Stoeckline and the NASD Letter. In conjuction with yours,,,,,it all makes sense.
Why everyone was kept seperate and Maheu went after our real problem.....Wallstreet
I gotta run,,,,there's more but I think there's alot goin on that we should all be very happy with now.
And oh yeah....my bet,,,,,,,,Moran dosen't reply. LOL
Rule 23.1 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent part:
In a derivative action...the complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he desires served, from the directors...and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. The derivative action shall not be maintained if it appears that the plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interest of the shareholders or members...similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation.
Gltua and thanks Frizz and Phx and whoever else joins in!
Chris