|
Post by hundredtoone on Feb 19, 2008 11:07:40 GMT -5
By: Bellingus 19 Feb 2008, 10:44 AM EST Msg. 29832 of 29832 Jump to msg. # Timeline off? Was skimming an excerpt from Faulk's book and noticed the date of the meeting with KW, Moran and UC was noted as March 27, 2006. Seems to me like that's about a year too soon. We were only a few months into the cert pull then, and as I recall there was no talk of KW being anywhere near taking the reigns of the company at such an early date. Am I mistaken or has Mr. Faulk stated the date in error? And if that date is wrong, one might wonder about the accuracy of other stuff in the book. My apologies to him if I'm the one in error ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKI&read=667464...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial)
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Feb 19, 2008 12:06:54 GMT -5
Remember about a year ago when patience was running thin? Then came a little burst of pacification. Followed by no results and more silence. The beginning fade to black of the all so important interplead. I wonder how well THE BOOK maps the meandering course of this apparently unfulfilled action.
-3bid
DrDiamond Ace of Diamonds Hi Everyone! 31 Jan 2007
Hi Everyone!
I hope this message finds you well.
I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the progress that is being made, per my conversation with Kevin West/CMKX CEO at 10:30 PM EST, 31 Jan 2007 (tonight). We are still moving forward. There was an unexpected development that arose 10 to 14 days ago that had to be reconciled before the Interplead could be filed. It was vitally important that this unexpected development surfaced when it did and especially before the interplead was filed. The resolution of this unexpected development is beneficial to our (CMKXers) purpose and desired goal. The research and extensive investigations being accomplished by Mr. Moran and the other attorneys are vital for our desired outcome.
As communications are going well at this time between Kevin West, Mr. Moran’s office and Urban Casavant, it is imperative that nothing is done to impede this progress. The accomplishments of the shareholders’ stand a few months ago still loom in the mind of the attorneys. Nothing needs to be done by the shareholders at this time that might disrupt that harmony. The expectation is that within the next 10 to 14 days the interplead will be filed and in the hands of the Judge. It benefits all of us at this time and for the future to be patient and allow this stage of development to be completed. I understand the uneasiness in the hearts and minds of all of the shareholders as I too, am in these pangs alongside you.
Kevin West is still confident and believes that the progress with the interplead is acceptable at this time and that is good enough for me. I believe the interplead in the hands of the Judge reveals the light at the end of this tunnel.
We may not know everything that there is to know about the final outcome or the future development of CMKX, but this I do believe and am convinced of: “That the interplead is the “key” that unlocks our future with CMKX.” Anything that delays or detours us from that filing being accomplished will be overcome when necessary.
Hold fast to what you have and beware of those that would disrupt your peace and your continued support of our present goal. There are those that loom in our midst that have an agenda that is destructive and subversive. Communications have been established with the company therefore we do not have to rely on the rumor and propaganda of glory seekers around the boards to fill us with empty promises and deceptions.
It is rumored that an all out assault is being planned on Mr. Moran's office at this time, but I assure you with no hesitation that this is not needed and would be a definite NO NO for our goal is to be accomplished. The first message the shareholders made to them was made quite clear and is still being effective.
These are my opinions and I ask that you treat them as such.
Success is at hand!
Dr.D
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Feb 19, 2008 14:08:42 GMT -5
By: abadgoodgirl 19 Feb 2008, 01:23 PM EST Msg. 667617 of 667672 (This msg. is a reply to 667606 by billy80817.) Jump to msg. # All CMKX call the SEC w/phone calls: 202-551-2100 explain to them how the clearing system doesn't work and how they are responsible for crimes of treason during war because of their 'cover-up'.
Also ask Cox why he's allowing the DTCC/Federal Reserve to run a fractional securities system.
That is Cox's office. (202) 551-2100 Paul Atkins (imo, he's an evil) 202-551-2700 Kathleen Casey 202-551-2600
We're not part of the fair funds department at the SEC, the one set up on FEB. 5th, because we don't fit the definition. You can get transferred to the SEC's new disbursement deparment by any of those public numbers.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Feb 19, 2008 14:13:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Feb 19, 2008 14:16:36 GMT -5
By: upedo 19 Feb 2008, 01:37 PM EST Msg. 667640 of 667675Jump to msg. # Absolutely no insiders for CMKM will go to jail. Shares and assets will be reclaimed and reorganized. Kevin will resign and Bill will quit. Checkmate. Keep your Certificates filed away in a safe place and if you need to pass them on to someone you love, do it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Feb 19, 2008 14:20:43 GMT -5
By: upedo 19 Feb 2008, 01:43 PM EST Msg. 667655 of 667677 Jump to msg. # Pay attention to my69Z.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Feb 19, 2008 14:22:12 GMT -5
By: david_stevens 19 Feb 2008, 01:46 PM EST Msg. 667661 of 667678 Jump to msg. # lil birdie told me that we should be trading before the election
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Feb 19, 2008 14:41:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 19, 2008 14:43:54 GMT -5
This will get it back on track...LOL Port posted this on 76..................Hang in there single....We've all done it.......
Compliments of TC:
The Swiss do have rather lax rules regarding fiscal crime:
http://www.usextradition.com...i.htm
3. The Requested State may deny extradition for acts which:
(a) violate provisions of law relating exclusively to currency policy, trade policy, or economic policy;
(b) are intended exclusively to reduce taxes or duties; or
(c) constitute an offense only under military law.
but it is rather vague - ( see attached )
Article 3(3) provides that the executive authority of the Requested State may refuse extradition for acts which (a) violated provisions of law relating exclusively to currency policy, trade policy or economic policy, (b) are intended exclusively to reduce taxes or duties, or (c) constitute an offense only under military law. The provisions in subsections (a) and (b) were included in the Treaty because Swiss law for the most part prohibits extradition for purely fiscal or tax offenses. This provision would not be used to shield from extradition underlying criminal conduct, such as fraud, embezzlement, or falsification of public documents, if that conduct is [*8] otherwise extraditable.
Sooooo....the Swiss WILL extradict........
Next.............
Germany
http://www.usextradition.com...i.htm
13. Fraud, including offenses against the laws relating to the unlawful obtaining of money, property or securities, to fiduciary relationships or to exploitation of minors.
14. Offenses against the laws relating to forgery, including the making of forged documents or records, whether official or [*32] private, or the uttering or fraudulent use of such documents or records.
15. Receiving, possessing, or transporting for personal benefit any money, valuable securities, or other property, knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.
The Germans are with us.........that leaves the Austrians
http://www.usextradition.com...i.htm
The Austrians have an interesting caveat:
Article 9 states that extradition may be refused for a person who has been found guilty in absentia, unless the Requesting State supplies assurances that the person has had or will be given an adequate opportunity to present a defense, or that there are adequate remedies or additional proceedings available to the person after surrender.
Oh wait - we're serving Urban by publication so that's moot.
Can't find anything else on there - so I guess ALL 3 extradite.
TC
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Feb 20, 2008 9:45:25 GMT -5
More on the subject: the excerpt from the book
By: Bellingus 19 Feb 2008, 10:44 AM EST Msg. 29832 of 29860 Jump to msg. # Timeline off? Was skimming an excerpt from Faulk's book and noticed the date of the meeting with KW, Moran and UC was noted as March 27, 2006. Seems to me like that's about a year too soon. We were only a few months into the cert pull then, and as I recall there was no talk of KW being anywhere near taking the reigns of the company at such an early date.
Am I mistaken or has Mr. Faulk stated the date in error? And if that date is wrong, one might wonder about the accuracy of other stuff in the book.
My apologies to him if I'm the one in error.
By: seatech3 19 Feb 2008, 12:03 PM EST Msg. 29839 of 29860 (This msg. is a reply to 29832 by Bellingus.) Jump to msg. # Bell - I noticed that also. If I remember correctly Kevin didn't come on board until around September of 2006. And the end of March in 2007 is when everything came apart, or so it seemed.
As far as everything else in the book, you basically have a book with no ending, full of hearsay, quotes from board posters and we all know how reliable they are, and quotes from people who cannot tell you the story/truth at this point in time. None of the agencies involved will answer any questions related to this situation so I don't know how he quoted them. Unless the info came from Tyler and why would they be discussing this with a non-shareholder?
O, and we are all delusional so it's probably not a good idea to purchase and read the book. Could cause permanent mental damage.
Too many questions, too little time.
By: sparkysantos 19 Feb 2008, 01:07 PM EST Msg. 29844 of 29860 (This msg. is a reply to 29832 by Bellingus.) Jump to msg. # Bellingus: Have you personally ever seen anyone shake so badly that you could hear their watch rattle?
Well in Sparky's opinion, that one little rattling-watch white lie, which the aiuthor repeated without hesitation, speaks volumes about the book's "sensationalistic" (if that's even a word) tone.
Just a speculative, pre-read opinion, of course.
By: Bellingus 19 Feb 2008, 04:49 PM EST Msg. 29849 of 29860 (This msg. is a reply to 29839 by seatech3.) Jump to msg. # Sea and Sparky... The questionable date of the meeting (March 27, 2006) is interesting but what about the actual conversation that followed? Okay, we've got three guys in a room talking. Two have had a business relationship for some time. Mr. Faulk says KW reported a discussion about the possibility of UC having to serve time and that his only choices were to flee the country.
I'm not disputing that the conversation took place, I wasn't there. What's interesting to me is that Faulk would actually put it in print. Apparently (I say apparently because I'm not at all familiar with Faulk's work or opinions other than what I've read recently) he's on record with his position that UC is guilty of a lot of stuff and that Moran is guilty of giving advice which is illegal or unethical. Personally I don't go along with those opinions but that's just me. But if the author does believe it why would he put himself, kw, and Togi Entertainment, the publisher, in a position of liability?
What's to stop both Moran and UC from saying that no such conversation took place and suing Faulk, kw and Togi? Perhaps Mr. Faulk believes kw has more credibility than the other two. But as far as I know, neither Moran or UC has ever been convicted of any crime so there is no realistic ‘character’ issue. And the fact that Urban has a bunch of unproven charges against him in a civil suit would not even be admissible in making the argument that he was lying about what was said that day.
So, at least to me, it appears that Mr. Faulk has put himself and kw in a position of liability. Of course, I don't believe Moran or Urban would ever file suit. And I do believe that somewhere in time a discussion similar to the one Faulk describes took place, just not quite in the way he's reported it.
AMHO
By: seatech3 19 Feb 2008, 05:12 PM EST Msg. 29851 of 29860 (This msg. is a reply to 29849 by Bellingus.) Jump to msg. # Bell - One other thing to consider even though it is not a potential legal issue. Or could it be?
Why is this type of detailed, confidential information being shared with a NON-shareholder when REAL shareholders can't even get answers to more basic questions?
Reference all of the unanswered questions on the last FAQ.
By: Bellingus 19 Feb 2008, 06:14 PM EST Msg. 29856 of 29860 (This msg. is a reply to 29851 by seatech3.) Jump to msg. # Good point... Another thing I thought of, if this conversation went on in March of 06, why the rosy outlook communications in Spring of 07, saying UC was a good guy, Kotch is looking after the claims, etc. - only later to be called 'bad info'? Something doesn't add up.
By: jfarn 19 Feb 2008, 08:17 PM EST Msg. 29859 of 29860 (This msg. is a reply to 29856 by Bellingus.) Jump to msg. # Great point. Maybe Kevin could explain this in his next update. I would have expected KW to SCREAM foul after he was told to cover his ears. LOL. You can't make this stuff up. Hey Kev, speak up.
|
|