|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jul 7, 2009 15:02:52 GMT -5
taskforceviking DIAMOND MINEr Tomorrow is 10 Business Days « Thread Started Yesterday at 11:50am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On June 23, 2009, the federal district court in the District of Nevada granted the SEC’s motion for summary judgment against defendants John Edwards, Daryl Anderson, and Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso.
The court ordered:
Edwards to pay $28,583,288.98 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $26,400,000; Anderson to pay $2,490,211.04 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $2,300,000; and the Tomassos to pay $702,131.22 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $648,500. The court ordered the defendants to pay these amounts to the Clerk of the Court for the District of Nevada within ten business days. Any amounts paid to the Clerk will be deposited into an interest-bearing account with the Court Registry Investment System.
If they count July 3rd...
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 2, 2009 9:24:23 GMT -5
By: nufced 01 Sep 2009, 05:59 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 864059 of 864221
Jump to msg. # Carrano lawsuit excerpt..28. Because John Edwards, Urban Casavant, New Concept, and Vincent Carrano were and are under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Vincent Carrano asked that their names be left off the stock purchase agreement.
29.In order to keep John Edwards, Urban Casavant, New Concept, and Vincent Carrano off the Stock Purchase Agreement, Vincent Carrano proposed that IB2000.COM and John E. Dhonau represent the stock purchasers John Edwards and Urban Casavant and that EMCO Corporation and Francisco Carrano represent Vincent Carrano and ELIC.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 3, 2009 18:54:32 GMT -5
nufced1 Viking Sept 2 Dale Casavant Case « Thread Started Today at 11:01am » Doc 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT Judge CAUSE STYLE: CAUSE NO: V. This is to advise you that the above cause has been filed/transferred and bears the above case number and style. All future instruments should be referred to by this number and filed with the appropriate divisional office of the Eastern District of Texas. You are further advised that this case has been assigned to the above named judge. Date: DAVID J. MALAND, CLERK Doc 2 tinyurl.com/nl7j9cpickleman773 Musketeer Re: Sept 2 Dale Casavant Case « Reply #3 Today at 3:06pm » So Tyler is transferring it from State Court to Federal Court? tec1958 Global Moderator Helmsman Re: Sept 2 Dale Casavant Case « Reply #4 Today at 3:24pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- that would be yes just a walk across the street cmkxdiamond.proboards.com/index.c....ay&thread=58691
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 8, 2009 18:04:55 GMT -5
Posted by: nufced Date: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 6:51:16 PM In reply to: None Post # of 277515
Dale Casavant Federal Court Sept 2 2009..IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. v. DALE CASAVANT, CORRINE WARD, ERIC REID, MARGARET REID, CAROLYN CASAVANT, RON CASAVANT, VICTOR CASAVANT, MAX CASAVANT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:09-cv-391
ORDER AND ADVISORY Before the Court is the above styled and numbered case. The Court has received Defendants' Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) and therefore enters the following Order and Advisory. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require parties to replead following removal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2). However, the parties should note the different pleading standards in state and federal court. In particular, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b) mandates that a defending party admit or deny each allegation against it. Also, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 sets forth heightened pleading requirements for certain matters. In the interest of efficient management of its docket, the Court ORDERS the parties to replead as necessary to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules. Plaintiffs amended complaint is due twenty (20) days from the date of this order. Defendants' amended answer is due fourteen (14) days from receipt of the amended complaint. The Court also directs the parties' attention to Local Rule CV-7. While the parties should be familiar with all the Federal and Local Court Rules, the Court points to this rule specifically as it renders moot all motions urged prior to removal. Accordingly, the Court will only consider motions reurged in this Court. It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 2nd day of September, 2009. MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Posted by: nufced Date: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 6:53:02 PM In reply to: None Post # of 277515
Dale Casavant District Court Smith County Texas
Events and Orders of the Court 09/04/2009 SCHEDULING ORDER 09/04/2009 MEDIATION ORDER 08/21/2009 SPECIAL APPEARANCE
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 8, 2009 18:28:50 GMT -5
hate this legal mumbo jumbo.... never understand it......and have no patience for it.... So what does this mean.... refile & start over?? and is the Judge giving someone a lesson in "Law 101" ?? anyone who IS one of the bright bulbs on the tree... please help? tia
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Sept 8, 2009 19:23:39 GMT -5
I'd like to see anyone ever directly involved to the CMKX saga brought into federal court to answer for their part in the saga. Maybe that's what Maheu meant about Federal Court Action.. Everyone needs to be probed and you can't be selective in doing that......Insiders, Outsiders, Brokerage Firms, The list of Professionals and so on... That's the only way to get to the bottom of things....imo....Bring it on !
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 9, 2009 15:10:17 GMT -5
I'd like to see anyone ever directly involved to the CMKX saga brought into federal court to answer for their part in the saga. Maybe that's what Maheu meant about Federal Court Action.. Everyone needs to be probed and you can't be selective in doing that......Insiders, Outsiders, Brokerage Firms, The list of Professionals and so on... That's the only way to get to the bottom of things....imo....Bring it on ! I'm with you Joe.... Let them do whatever the hell has to be done, to get this nightmare, of a saga, to it's final chapter. <sigh> Single
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2009 15:45:41 GMT -5
ty..... nufced Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:46:27 PM
CMKM DIAMONDS INC. VS. CORRINE WARD, ET AL
Filed on 09/05/2008 Case Type: OTHER Current Status: Filed[/b]
DEFENDANT DEFENDANT Attorneys Ward, Corrine Reid, Eric Reid, Margaret Casavant, Carolyn Casavant, Dale Liles, Todd J 2001 BRYAN STREET, SUITE 4000 DALLAS,TEXAS 75201 Casavant, Ron Casavant, Victor Casavant, Max
PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF Attorneys Cmkm Diamonds Inc Frizzell, Bill 602 SOUTH BROADWAY TYLER, TEXAS 75701
Hearings 08/14/2009 Friday 10:00am DWOP DOCKET CALL 06/11/2010 Friday 9:00am PRE-TRIAL 06/21/2010 Monday 9:00am TRIAL
Events and Orders of the Court 09/09/2009 NOTICE OF FILING OF REMOVAL
Posted by: jarta Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009 3:01:11 PM In reply to: goodolboy who wrote msg# 277541 Post # of 277548
goodolboy, ... Yes, removal. The case has been removed from state court to federal court and is pending in federal court. It may be sent back by the federal court at a later time if the federal judge finds removal was not justified. But, for now, nothing happens in state court and all proceedings take place in federal court.
Please direct all additional questions to Pedro. Pedro knows. ... eom
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 11, 2009 20:43:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 16, 2009 10:20:31 GMT -5
ty: ......nufced Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:03:38 AM In reply to: goldbarren58 who wrote msg# 277749 Post # of 277761
Hey! lol...lookie here - The Dale/Tyler suit- Events and Orders of the Court 09/15/2009 RULE 11 AGREEMENT
ty: goldbarren58 Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:15:36 AM In reply to: nufced who wrote msg# 277750 Post # of 277761
RULE 11. AGREEMENTS TO BE IN WRITING Unless otherwise provided in these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties touching any suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of record.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 23, 2009 13:42:18 GMT -5
Posted by: nufced Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:11:31 PM In reply to: None Post # of 278677
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Craig B. Shaffer Laura Blunkall
United States Magistrate Judge Deputy Clerk
Case Number: 09-mj-01164-BNB FTR CBS AM
September 22, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA John Haried
v.
BRIAN DVORAK Not Present ______________________________
IDENTITY HEARING ON RULE 5 FROM THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
__________________________________________________________________
Court in session: 10:44 am
Court calls case and appearances of counsel.
Neither the defendant nor defense counsel appear.
When the defendant surrendered his passport, he also tendered a waiver
of Rule 5 & 5.1 Hearings to the Clerks’ Office.
The government addresses the court and is not aware of defendant’s next
court date in the District of Las Vegas.
ORDERED: The government is ordered to notify the courtroom deputy of
defendant’s appearance date in the District of Nevada. A status
conference will then be set in the District of Colorado.
Clerk’s Note: The court has been notified that the defendant is to appear in the District of Nevada on October 2, 2009 at 3:00 pm before Magistrate
Judge Leen. A status conference is set in the District of Colorado on
October 6, 2009 at 10:30 am to ensure defendant appeared in the District
of Nevada.
Case 1:09-mj-01164-BNB Document 5 Filed 09/22/2009 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Court in recess: 10:47 am
Total Time: 3 minutes
Hearing concluded.
Case 1:09-mj-01164-BNB Document 5 Filed 09/22/2009 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2acer
|
|
|
Post by eastcoastswing on Sept 23, 2009 13:55:10 GMT -5
This is going to take forever to play out isnt' it?
=================================================================
Clerk’s Note: The court has been notified that the defendant is to appear in the District of Nevada on October 2, 2009 at 3:00 pm before Magistrate
Judge Leen. A status conference is set in the District of Colorado on
October 6, 2009 at 10:30 am to ensure defendant appeared in the District
of Nevada.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 29, 2009 21:32:53 GMT -5
Posted by: nufced Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:25:02 PM
JOHN M. McCOY III, Cal. Bar No. 166244 E-mail: mccoyj@sec.gov MOLLY M. WHITE, Cal. Bar No. 171448 E-mail: whitem@sec.gov LESLIE A. HAKALA, Cal. Bar No. 199414 E-mail: hakalal@sec.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission Rosalind R. Tyson, Regional Director Andrew G. Petillon, Associate Regional Director 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90036-3648 Telephone: (323) 965-3998 Facsimile: (323) 965-3908 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., URBAN CASAVANT, JOHN EDWARDS, GINGER GUTIERREZ, JAMES KINNEY, ANTHONY TOMASSO, KATHLEEN TOMASSO, 1ST GLOBAL STOCK TRANSFER LLC, HELEN BAGLEY, NEVWEST SECURITIES CORPORATION, DARYL ANDERSON, SERGEY RUMYANTSEV, ANTHONY SANTOS, and BRIAN DVORAK, Defendants. Case No. 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 1 of 5
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES: PLEASE TAKEN NOTICE that this case, which was filed by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2008, may be related to another action currently pending in the District of Nevada, USA v. John M. Edwards, et al., Case No. 02:09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ (“Criminal Action”). The indictment in that case was unsealed on September 17, 2009. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Superseding Indictment in the Criminal Action issued on May 27, 2009 (Document No. 7). The Commission believes that these cases may be related (as that term is defined in General Order No. 2006-05) because they appear to: (1) involve the same parties and be based on the same or similar claims; and (2) involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law such that assignment to the same District Judge and/or Magistrate Judge may effect a substantial savings of judicial effort, because the same result should follow in both actions.
Dated: September 29, 2009 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Molly M. White Molly M. White Leslie A. Hakala Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 2 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is: [X] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036-3648 Telephone No. (323) 965-3998; Facsimile No. (323) 965-3394. On September 29, 2009, I caused to be served the following document entitled Notice of Related Case on the parties as stated on the attached service list, by: [X] OFFICE MAIL: By mailing today following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. [ ] PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service. Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid. [ ] EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a facility regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postage paid. [ ] HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to the office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list. [ ] FEDERAL EXPRESS: By placing in sealed envelope(s) designated by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, which I deposited in a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express or delivered to a Federal Express courier, at Los Angeles, California. [X] ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail to the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list. [ ] FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. [X] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court, at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: September 29, 2009 /s/ Molly M. White MOLLY M. WHITE Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 3 of 5
SEC v. CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., et al. United States District Court - District of Nevada Case No. 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ SERVICE LIST Irving M. Einhorn, Esq. Law Offices of Irving M. Einhorn 1710 10th Street Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Email: ime@einhornlaw.com Attorney for Defendant John Edwards Mark S. Dzarnoski, Esq. Gordon & Silver, Ltd. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ninth Floor Las Vegas, NV 89169 Email: mdzarnoski@gordonsilver.com Attorney for Helen Bagley and 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC Urban A. Casavant RR 5 Site 16 Box 29 Prince Albert, Saskatchewan S6V 5R3 Canada Email: ucasavant@shaw.ca John Wesley Hall, Jr., Esq. 1311 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72202-4843 Email: forhall@aol.com Attorney for Brian Dvorak Kathleen Tomasso 9580 Lake Serena Drive Boca Raton, FL 33496 Email: ttomasso@ncfgcomm.com Anthony Tomasso 9580 Lake Serena Drive Boca Raton, FL 33496 Email: ttomasso@ncfgcomm.com Sergey Rumyantsev 1951 North Jones Boulevard, #G-202 Las Vegas, NV 89108 Email: chaptak@embarqmail.com Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 4 of 5
NevWest Securities Corporation c/o Anthony Santos 6965 North Durango Drive, Suite 1115-208 Las Vegas, NV 89149 Email: Ams.nwst@gmail.com Douglas E. Griffith, Esq. Kesler & Rust McIntyre Building, 2nd Floor 68 S. Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Email: dgriffith@kesler-rust.com Attorney for Daryl Anderson Michael R. Bakst PMB 702 222 Lakeview Avenue, #160 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Email: michael.bakst@ruden.com Anthony Santos Infinite Software Corporation 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 415 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Email: asantos@infinitecorporation.com Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 5 of 5
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 2, 2009 18:54:03 GMT -5
Posted by: nufced Date: Friday, October 02, 2009 11:25:49 AM In reply to: None Post # of 279348
New filings in the Tyler vs Edwards and crew, in Clark County No details
10/01/2009 Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order 10/01/2009 Temporary Restraining Order Temporary Restraining Order and Order Setting Hearin on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 10/01/2009 Affidavit in Support Affidavit of Kevin West in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order 10/20/2009 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Delaney, Kathleen E.)
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Oct 2, 2009 20:47:49 GMT -5
I wonder what happened in court today?
Arraignment and Plea for Brian Dvorak - Oct. 2, 2009 @ 3:00, Courtroom 3B
|
|