|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Apr 14, 2009 15:21:13 GMT -5
smeagle DIAMOND JEDI Re: buzz'n chatter - week of 4/13 « Reply #23 Today at 12:22pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last Hear 10/07/2008 For DEFT'S MTN TO CONSOLIDATE WITH A569615/02 Outcome GRANTED See below, so we consolidated with Fuego case against viashow. On tyler website it says: "Note re. CMKM vs. ViaShow lawsuit: CMKMs attorneys have brought this action on its own behalf and on behalf of Stephen Pecevich and the MDW and GRW 2000 Irrevocable Trust in this litigation. As a result of negotiations with various parties to the Viashow contract, an agreement has been reached which gives CMKM certain rights in the written contract. Representation of the MDW and GRW 2000 Irrevocable Trust is limited to this cause of action. So how will this work out in court? Case 08-A-569615-C Status ACTIVE Plaintiff Fuego Entertainment Inc Attorney Spear, Edwin R Defendant Viashow Inc Attorney ## Unknown ## Judge Walsh, Jessie Dept. 10 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Filed Date 08/14/2008 courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us:8490/DistrictCourt/asp/SearchKeywordResults.asp?Keyword1=VIASHOW+++&Keyword2=++++++++++&CaseSubType=%2A%2A&PartyTy pe=%2A%2A
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Apr 14, 2009 15:57:23 GMT -5
By: nufced 14 Apr 2009, 03:44 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 826116 of 826135 (Reply to 826115 by pete85204)
Jump to msg. # pete__Case 08-A-569762-C Status ACTIVE Plaintiff CMKM Diamonds Inc Attorney Koch, David R. Defendant Viashow Inc Attorney Ryan, Thomas G. Judge CADISH, ELISSA Dept. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total of 32 entries, presently displaying 1 through 10. Entries are displayed most recent first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Filed Date Description Performed 04/03/2009 AMENDED ORDER SETTING CIVIL NON-JURY TRIAL AND CALAENDAR CALL For All Parties Filed By State of Nevada 2 pages 04/02/2009 MINUTE ORDER RE: PROCEEDINGS OF 4-14-09 04/02/2009 Outcome GRANTED For NP 03/30/2009 DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF NON OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT For All Parties Filed By Viashow Inc 3 pages 04/03/2009 CALENDAR CALL 03/09/2010 For All Parties 03/18/2009 ORDER SETTING CIVIL NON-JURY TRIAL AND CALENDAR CALL For All Parties Filed By State of Nevada 2 pages 03/18/2009 CALENDAR CALL VO 04/03/09 10/06/2009 Outcome VACATED For All Parties 03/18/2009 STATUS CHECK: 12/15/2009 For All Parties 03/18/2009 NON-JURY TRIAL 03/15/2010 For All Parties 03/10/2009 SCHEDULING ORDER For All Parties Filed By State of Nevada 3 pages 03/16/2009 PLTFS' JOINDER TO MTN FOR ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT/4 Vl 4-2-09 04/14/2009 Outcome VACATED For All Parties 3 pages
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Apr 24, 2009 21:26:11 GMT -5
nufced1 Viking Marco~Stipulated Discovery Plan 4/24/2009viewer.zoho.com/docs/rbckvg cmkxgirl Global Moderator Update on Deli « Thread Started Yesterday at 9:08pm » Docket Text: ORDER that Defendant shall file a Certificate of Interested Parties by 5/4/2009. Failure to comply may result in the issuance of an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Signed by Magistrate Judge George W Foley, Jr on 4/22/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
|
|
|
Post by hundredtoone on Apr 24, 2009 21:34:23 GMT -5
Good ole MARCO...he helped me get a WRITE OFF on my TAXES ...I used his case to prove to my accountant that CMKX shares can NOT be SOLD...and so it was easy to write them off as a LOSS...if I ever get a ROI...I will call it PROFIT but most likely it will be a TAX FREE SETTLEMENT so no big deal...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial)
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 2, 2009 0:18:13 GMT -5
nufced1 Viking Marco~Stipulated Discovery Plan 4/24/2009viewer.zoho.com/docs/rbckvg cmkxgirl Global Moderator Update on Deli « Thread Started Yesterday at 9:08pm » Docket Text: ORDER that Defendant shall file a Certificate of Interested Parties by 5/4/2009. Failure to comply may result in the issuance of an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Signed by Magistrate Judge George W Foley, Jr on 4/22/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS) Posted by: Pedro2004 Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009 6:57:33 PM In reply to: janice shell who wrote msg# 271561 Post # of 271638 Marco Glisson SEC filings 04/30/2009 viewer.zoho.com/docs/tvcddeviewer.zoho.com/docs/twkfeYou’ll like the second link! IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Robert Bretz file a Motion for Permission to Practice Pro HacVice and Designation of Resident Attorney Admitted to the Bar of this Court and Consent Theretowithin ten (10) days of the entry of this order. Otherwise, counsel is to cease appearances on behalf ofDefendant Posted by: jarta Date: Friday, May 01, 2009 8:07:17 AM In reply to: Pedro2004 who wrote msg# 271565 Post # of 271638 Pedro, ... Don't read too much into the two most recent orders in the Glisson case. The first order (the schedule) was agreed to by Bretz and Molly White from the SEC. They provided a draft order to the judge which they had already signed off on. The judge signed an order giving them the dates they had asked for. The 2nd order has more effect on Glisson than on Bretz. Bretz is admitted in California. If you are not a member of the Nevada bar, you make a motion to practice pro hac vice (Latin for this case only) - which is routinely granted if a member of the Nevada bar vouches for you and is brought into the case as local counsel in case an emergency arises and a local attorney has to get over to the courthouse without much notice. The local counsel could also incur the wrath of the judge if Bretz turns out to be a nut case. All Bretz has to do is find someone local to sponsor him. All Glisson has to do is pay the local attorney. Unless Bretz is some sort of nut case (I don't know, but he doesn't look like one from what I was able to find out), the only problem might be getting funds from Glisson. The Statement of Economic Interests is due soon. I would not expect it to be as juicy as you have speculated. But, we'll just have to see what it says. ... eom Posted by: Pedro2004 Date: Friday, May 01, 2009 8:16:39 AM In reply to: jarta who wrote msg# 271602 Post # of 271638 jarta -- you're an a$$hole that never quits. Even Allen knows when to shut up! Posted by: jarta Date: Friday, May 01, 2009 8:24:22 AM In reply to: Pedro2004 who wrote msg# 271603 Post # of 271638 Pedro, ... You are a layman interpreting a complicated system you do not function in every day. I am a licensed professional who has had to navigate through that system every day for the last 40 years. You can find materials quite well. Your interpretation of the meaning of court materials you find is sorely lacking. Gotta go now. I'm on trial today. Have a nice one! ... eom
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 13, 2009 9:46:50 GMT -5
granny2shoes #1 CMKM/USCN EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR From Glisson's case, found on PACER « Thread Started Today at 9:10am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Glisson's case, found on PACER:
"This matter is before the court on Defendant’s failure to file a Certificate as to Interested Parties required by LR 7.1-1. Defendant filed his Answer (#9) on March 12, 2009. Defendant did not file the required Certificate as to Interested Parties, and on March 25, 2009, this Court entered an order (#10) requiring the Defendant to file a Certificate as to Interested Parties no later than April 6, 2009. The Court again entered an order (#11) requiring Defendant to file a Certificate as to Interested Parties no later than April 22, 2009. To date, Defendant has not complied. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall show cause, in writing, no later than May 22, 2009, why sanctions should not be imposed for Defendant’s failure to file the required Certificate as to Interested Parties, and failure to comply with this Court’s prior orders. Failure to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the imposition of sanctions up to and including a recommendation to the District Judge of striking Defendant’s Answer and a judgment entered for violation of the Court’s order."
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 13, 2009 18:31:43 GMT -5
granny2shoes #1 CMKM/USCN EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR From Glisson's case, found on PACER « Thread Started Today at 9:10am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Glisson's case, found on PACER: "This matter is before the court on Defendant’s failure to file a Certificate as to Interested Parties required by LR 7.1-1. Defendant filed his Answer (#9) on March 12, 2009. Defendant did not file the required Certificate as to Interested Parties, and on March 25, 2009, this Court entered an order (#10) requiring the Defendant to file a Certificate as to Interested Parties no later than April 6, 2009. The Court again entered an order (#11) requiring Defendant to file a Certificate as to Interested Parties no later than April 22, 2009. To date, Defendant has not complied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall show cause, in writing, no later than May 22, 2009, why sanctions should not be imposed for Defendant’s failure to file the required Certificate as to Interested Parties, and failure to comply with this Court’s prior orders. Failure to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the imposition of sanctions up to and including a recommendation to the District Judge of striking Defendant’s Answer and a judgment entered for violation of the Court’s order." Posted by: jarta Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:42:59 PM In reply to: nufced who wrote msg# 271960 Post # of 271966 nuffie, ... "any idea why Deli would not respond?" No. I don't know the reason for Glisson's non-compliance. Usually, it's pretty easy to comply. But judges really, really want compliance with this rule early in the suit so that conflicts of interest can be exposed and avoided. It could be a money issue. Or, Glisson's new lawyer may not have been informed by his client that the earlier order had been entered. Glisson's a sociopath and sociopaths never think the rules apply to them - until it's too late. Glisson may not yet understand depth of the predicament he's in. Whatever the reason, Glisson or his attorney had better have something on file by May 22 that includes apologies (and lame reasons) for not having filed earlier. And, by that date, local counsel for Glisson had better be retained and named. If Glisson gets something on file, it will all probably blow over; if not he will be sanctioned. ... eom nuffie, ... Here's what happened to someone else who ignored filing a certificate in a criminal tax case. Note that the court talks about recusal (getting off the case) as a reason why the rule must be complied with: www.usdoj.gov/tax/DiLullo_Order.pdf
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 20, 2009 13:53:24 GMT -5
Posted by: jarta Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:28:19 PM In reply to: None Post # of 272037
Glisson filed his Certificate of Interested Parties yesterday. It is posted on PACER now. The certificate says to the best of his knowledge that, except for the parties to the suit, there are no interested parties who have an interest in the outcome of the suit.
Ho hum! Guess it isn't a very juicy disclosure.
Not filed by an attorney. Maybe there isn't one and the reason for the delay in filing the certificate was a lack of funds to pay an attorney. We'll see more if and when Bretz has a "local attorney" file a pro hac vice motion. ... eom
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 27, 2009 17:15:53 GMT -5
pete85204 DIAMOND DIGGER Re: Judge Larry R. Hicks who is he? « Reply #41 Today at 3:35pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FWIW - I just called and talked to the Docket Clerk @(702) 464-5400, option 5. And asked if there were any updates Re: Case # 2:08-CV-0437, Case # 08-A-569762-C ( Consolidated ) or Case 08-A-56915. She said nothing new since April. Don't shoot the messenger. Later, Pete...
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 28, 2009 13:35:26 GMT -5
Posted by: nufced Date: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:08:56 AM In reply to: None Post # of 272363 New Marco document, I see the name of Atty Bretz at the top of the page. Does that mean hes preparing them? viewer.zoho.com/docs/pb6xu
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 28, 2009 17:22:20 GMT -5
jo Administrator Re: Call Judge Larry Hicks to make decision on JE. « Reply #9 Today at 4:44pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok here is the website for Pacer, to look up court docs and see the current status of cases: pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 3, 2009 22:52:54 GMT -5
Posted by: nufced Date: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:51:21 PM In reply to: None Post # of 272644 jarta__Michael Williams was served again. This would be his 3rd(?) notice to show up for a deposition. How many chances does he get? Posted by: Pedro2004 Date: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 7:45:04 PM In reply to: goldbarren58 who wrote msg# 272564 Post # of 272644 I guess a quick check of the docket would have answered the question! viewer.zoho.com/docs/d9duj
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 4, 2009 19:45:07 GMT -5
Wonder where this info is coming from??
By: planter82 04 Jun 2009, 12:32 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 838864 of 838919 Jump to msg. # just out Delidog has been charged with criminal charges its no longer civil By: snoopstock5 04 Jun 2009, 12:40 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 838866 of 838919 (Reply to 838864 by planter82) Jump to msg. # Planter do you have the link? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 5, 2009 8:32:59 GMT -5
ShowMeTheMoney Mod Squad Re: Other Gossip, etc..6/1/09-> « Reply #82 Today at 12:34am »
Koolmoney called Delidog today. Deli told him there is no truth to this rumor.
- Show
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 24, 2009 12:01:09 GMT -5
By: jonathonanders 24 Jun 2009, 12:36 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 843784 of 843785 Jump to msg. # Judgement on Edwards, Anderson and Tomassos has been signed by judge. 54Million + for edwards 2.3 Million for Anderson 640k or so for Tomassos Posted by: nufced Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:41:02 PM In reply to: None Post # of 273202 Edwards Judgement June 24 2009... viewer.zoho.com/docs/npkbbc Posted by: nufced Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:48:09 PM In reply to: None Post # of 273202 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE V. Case Number: Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has d d rendered its verdict. Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a d decision has been rendered. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Clerk (By) Deputy Clerk /s/ Lance S. Wilson Date Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment. A notice of acceptance with offer of judgment has been filed in this d case. Nevada 2:08-cv-0437-LRH-RJJ that Summary Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission and against Defendants John Edwards, Daryl Anderson, Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso. June 24, 2009 /s/ Andrew Mennear Plaintiff, Defendants. Securities and Exchange Commission CMKM Diamonds, Inc., et al., That Summary Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff SEC and against Defendants: John Edwards in the amount of $2.183.288.98 and penalty in the amount of $26,400,400.; Daryl Anderson in the amount of $190,211.01 and penalty in the amount of $2,300,000.; Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso in the amount of $1,350,631.22 with penalty of $648,500.
|
|