By: leowanta
03 May 2010, 04:45 PM EDT
Rating: Msg. 930174 of 930218
Jump to msg. #
signed original certified mail return receipt card stapled to the back of the Proof of Service is acceptable in CA Central Federal Court....
the district clerk on 3/1/2010 entered this on the docket sheet:
"PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff David Anderson, Patrick Cluney, Nelson L Reynolds, Reece Hamilton, Robert Hollenegg, Allan Treffy, Sheila Morris, upon Per FRCP Rule 4(i)(1)(B) Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Frank B. Kawano, Mail Clerk, c/o Civil Process Clerk. The Attorney Generals Office of the United States was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original
Proof of Service clearly states:
Person Served: Frank B. Kawano,
Title of Person: Mail Clerk
Date and time of service: (date) FEBRUARY 25, 2010 (time) 1:12 p.m.
THIS PROOF OF SERVICE IS TO SETTING OFFICIALS AT THE SEC...THEY HAD TO RESPOND 60 DAYS FROM THE DAY THEY WERE SERVED....APRIL 26, 2010
THERE WAS NO MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FILED/ENTERED BY THE DEFENDANTS WHO WERE SERVED ON FEBRUARY 25, 2010?
? i've got a call into the SEC to tell me why there was no answer filed.
*************************************************************
DOCKET SHEET ENTRY
3/30/2010 STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from April 26, 2010 to July 26, 2010 Re: Scheduling Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings 6 filed by Federal Defendants Christopher Cos. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Staub, Keith) (Entered: 3/30/2010)
_________________________________________
3/30/2010 ORDER to Continue Scheduleing Converence by Judge James V. Selna.
_________________________________________
THE STIPULATION...STIPULATION MEANS BOTH PARTIES AGREE TO WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THE PLEADING. THE ORDER REFLECTS THE STIPULATION (PROPOSED ORDER WAS FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PLEADING)
LOOK AT #3 OF THE STIPULATION...
3. Plaintiffs intend to effect service of the defendants forthwith.
Defendants will have 60 days from the date of service in which to
respond to the complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(a)(3)
*************************
i am guessing these defendants are the INDIVIDUALS, hodges is suing (officially and individually)...but has not served them individually yet, as there is no proof of service filed?
little bit different than Texas Federal Courts....when you serve them officially and individually, you do it at the same time, you hand defendants two pleadings...which is the way it would have been done in Texas Federal Court.
Since #3, clearly states: Plaintiffs INTEND to effect service of the defendants forthwith.....means on 3/30/2010 INDIVIDUALLY, Hodges had not served them individually, i'm guessing
....again, i've a call into the SEC to understand why there was no answer filed april 26, 2010 by Mary Schapiro, setting officials...
first blush, looks like a default judgment in favor of Al Hodges if i am correct.....this is not a sealed case...the docket does not show any Motion for an Extension of Time, or Order granting an extension of time.
Mother's Day could be one to remember this year!
Thank You Father
leowanta
By: oreodiamonds
03 May 2010, 05:34 PM EDT
Rating: Msg. 930180 of 930218
(Reply to 930174 by leowanta)
Jump to msg. #
Leo - if Hodges has NOT served any plaintiff then under Rule 4 (120 days) the court will address to the plaintiff/laywer in a motion why they have NOT been served. IMHO
I calculate that date to be on around May 8th or May 10th which is a Monday!
By: leowanta
03 May 2010, 06:43 PM EDT
Rating: Msg. 930191 of 930218
(Reply to 930180 by oreodiamonds)
Jump to msg. #
oreodiamonds i agree with you...except today i learned that
attaching the postal return receipt required original to the Proof of Service would suffice in lieu of the Original Complaint....therefore, the Proof of Service filed 3/1/2010 and served February 25, 2010 is valid....
it's 60 days from that Proof of Service that the setting SEC officials had to file their answer, April 26, 2010...this would be filed by the Assistant U.S.Attorney.....he failed to file, therefore it's an automatic default on the SEC, hodges wins...was this done on purpose....i'm beginning to think so.
3/30/2010 there was a stipulation entered...this was for serving the defendants, INDIVIDUALLY, Hodges states he INTENDS to serve them and it's agreed that a Mr. Humne (sp) would accept service...however, no proof of service has been entered therefore INDIVIDUALLY, THE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED AND ON MAY 8TH, THE JUDGE WILL ENTER A DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION....
ALL IN ALL....THIS LAWSUIT IS OVER....my belief is this is the way the SEC wanted to pay us, by Court Order...default...however, the complaint is for 3.87T amongst 7 plaintiffs...eeerrrrrr that's a problem.
i'm guess therefore that the default judgment will specify that the judge will order the SEC to make distribution of the existing 3.87T trust, and none other.....i'm thinking this was all planned when the SEC promoted the lawsuit by releasing it to the press ....many well-known business outlets...we all saw that happen......
therefore, i'm waiting for the judge to enter his default judgment...it's be a week....it's also possible Mary decided this was the best way to stop obama from trading our trust....by court order for it's distribution.
i'll find out when they return my call, or send me an email in response to my questions.
Have a nice evening
leowanta
By: leowanta
03 May 2010, 06:51 PM EDT
Rating: Msg. 930192 of 930218
(Reply to 930191 by leowanta)
Jump to msg. #
most likly, the judge will wait until after May 8th and order the default judgment and dismiss the individual defendants that have not been served in one judgment, after May 8th.
again, once the default judgment is filed....we have to be paid immediately.
tyler texas is in no way involved with cmkxers....i'm looking for them to close their doors real soon...
with hodges out of the picture, and SEC making distribution, URBAN can move forward with CIM if that's his plan....we bona fide shareholders belong to Urban's private company and no other. Once we get our like kind and quanitity, then we can stay or go on....i am pretty certain i'll be moving on.....i am very tired of this roller coaster....i'll take my shore gold shares and my damages and will be very happy!
you all have a nice evening.
leowanta