Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 28, 2007 22:42:11 GMT -5
Carats4me
DIAMOND JEDI
By Phxgold: what Frizzell intends to do
I see people all over the boards misinterpreting what is occuring and stating falsehoods. I do not know if it is becasue they are ill informed or are misguiding others. I am not pointing fingers here at all but I felt I needed to interject for only a moment.
Does anyone know what Bill is doing with his dirivitive action suits he is filing this week?
he is acting within the rights given to us as shareholders under frcp 23.1 as stated in his letter.
has anyone looked into what a diriviative suit like this will do for us as shareholders?
It will allow bill to act in the manner we have been asking the company to act for years1
That means going after and having prosecuted those that screwed us. hopefully regaining some of the money robbed from the company by the sale of shares illegally, the issuance of shares illegally, teh squandering of money illegally.
These suits will give us access to the T/A books. The lawyers records. The brokers that sold cmkm illegally's books. The Auditors books. and those that recieved shares and the opinion letters and reasoning behind them.
everything that was alleged by frizzell in 2005 in the original letter and requested to be resolved by frizzell to stoeklein to the letter. But was not done Is our right now.
Nothing More nothing less.
The statute that bill cites is very specific about what he can go after on our behalf in the companies name. There is no "Slipping something in there" He must first be very specific in what he intends to do and he must first request the company to do so and have them fail to do so before he can move.
Please take the time to read what is being done before you make any assumptions.
Rule 23.1. Derivative Actions by Shareholders
In a derivative action brought by one or more shareholders or members to enforce a right of a corporation or of an unincorporated association, the corporation or association having failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it, the complaint shall be verified and shall allege (1) that the plaintiff was a shareholder or member at the time of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains or that the plaintiff's share or membership thereafter devolved on the plaintiff by operation of law, and (2) that the action is not a collusive one to confer jurisdiction on a court of the United States which it would not otherwise have. The complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action the plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, and the reasons for the plaintiff's failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. The derivative action may not be maintained if it appears that the plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders or members similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation or association. The action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to shareholders or members in such manner as the court directs.
www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule23_1.htm
phxgold
if it was done illegally then we have redress.
see one thing is very certain according to the master shareholders list.
the company never sold any shares to raise capital.
everything was done as personal liability. every share sold personal liability.
if they were issued legally and sold illegally
personal accountability
if they were issued illegally
corporate accountability.
thats the beauty of it.
if insiders acted in a manner that harmed the shareholders.
in a dirivitive suit then frizzell can act on behlf of the company and seek repairations for damage done.
no more hiding anything.
period.
DIAMOND JEDI
By Phxgold: what Frizzell intends to do
I see people all over the boards misinterpreting what is occuring and stating falsehoods. I do not know if it is becasue they are ill informed or are misguiding others. I am not pointing fingers here at all but I felt I needed to interject for only a moment.
Does anyone know what Bill is doing with his dirivitive action suits he is filing this week?
he is acting within the rights given to us as shareholders under frcp 23.1 as stated in his letter.
has anyone looked into what a diriviative suit like this will do for us as shareholders?
It will allow bill to act in the manner we have been asking the company to act for years1
That means going after and having prosecuted those that screwed us. hopefully regaining some of the money robbed from the company by the sale of shares illegally, the issuance of shares illegally, teh squandering of money illegally.
These suits will give us access to the T/A books. The lawyers records. The brokers that sold cmkm illegally's books. The Auditors books. and those that recieved shares and the opinion letters and reasoning behind them.
everything that was alleged by frizzell in 2005 in the original letter and requested to be resolved by frizzell to stoeklein to the letter. But was not done Is our right now.
Nothing More nothing less.
The statute that bill cites is very specific about what he can go after on our behalf in the companies name. There is no "Slipping something in there" He must first be very specific in what he intends to do and he must first request the company to do so and have them fail to do so before he can move.
Please take the time to read what is being done before you make any assumptions.
Rule 23.1. Derivative Actions by Shareholders
In a derivative action brought by one or more shareholders or members to enforce a right of a corporation or of an unincorporated association, the corporation or association having failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it, the complaint shall be verified and shall allege (1) that the plaintiff was a shareholder or member at the time of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains or that the plaintiff's share or membership thereafter devolved on the plaintiff by operation of law, and (2) that the action is not a collusive one to confer jurisdiction on a court of the United States which it would not otherwise have. The complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action the plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, and the reasons for the plaintiff's failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. The derivative action may not be maintained if it appears that the plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders or members similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation or association. The action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to shareholders or members in such manner as the court directs.
www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule23_1.htm
phxgold
if it was done illegally then we have redress.
see one thing is very certain according to the master shareholders list.
the company never sold any shares to raise capital.
everything was done as personal liability. every share sold personal liability.
if they were issued legally and sold illegally
personal accountability
if they were issued illegally
corporate accountability.
thats the beauty of it.
if insiders acted in a manner that harmed the shareholders.
in a dirivitive suit then frizzell can act on behlf of the company and seek repairations for damage done.
no more hiding anything.
period.
