|
Post by thunkerdrone on May 6, 2010 14:53:24 GMT -5
this could be bad news, then. Wasn't Urban supposed to be one of the good guys on our side?
|
|
|
Post by hafizesh on May 6, 2010 15:20:07 GMT -5
Woah... what does this mean
|
|
|
Post by scorpion on May 6, 2010 15:35:06 GMT -5
Charged with, not convicted of. Nor does this indicate a judgement against. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by yetihunter on May 6, 2010 15:44:46 GMT -5
kinda puts a dent in the sting theory if correct, no?
|
|
|
Post by beavis on May 6, 2010 15:49:15 GMT -5
Took em long enough... didn't Al Hodges say something to the affect that Urban "did some stupid things". I think this was a sting, a scam, and a case of a guy who perhaps had "the goods" but also "did some stupid things"... well, just pay us and let them paint the picture for the public.
I'm sure Al Hodges is aware of this, and most likely he was expecting this - it is a totally different case though.
Also, even if this wasn't a sting, the whole point of Hodges case against the SEC is because they "allowed" this to happen to us, the ones that settled (brokers, etc) put $ in an account for us, and the SEC infringed upon our constitutional rights to collect our $... right?
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on May 6, 2010 17:30:17 GMT -5
I think this surpasses "did some stupid things". I can't see this as a positive and it certainely raises alot of questions as it relates to the suit.
Some of you guys could spin a turd into a tulip.
Briwadd
|
|
|
Post by scorpion on May 6, 2010 17:41:28 GMT -5
Strange timing to put something out like this.
Like I said earlier, something going on every week to keep us busy.
Just
I wonder how long it will go on. Makes me think its going to take some more time than days or hours. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Duc N Altum on May 6, 2010 18:34:18 GMT -5
And my belief has always been that UC will take the brunt off the corrupt market and carry it himself. Basically take the focus off the market and put it on he to have focus be on that side show and I can see that being of a Maheu like script.
As scorpion said though, "charged, not convicted" so far. And I like the post by Joerockss, "memory Lane thread" where this topic kind of speaks of this situation of UC's name in this kind of light. My respects to the man because I have a very hard time believing that UC spent over 19 + years acquiring the claims and then once he was ready to open shop he then has all that has gone on up to this point with what we all have experienced. We think we have it tough, which I can see that many do, but just putting out the possibility of my belief that UC is not what they make him out to be, especially being a former prison guard and seeing all that he saw and I am sure that could make anyone extremely sensitive on not crossing the line of the law to then wind up being on the other side of the bars and the inmates would have no mercy on him.
And also I remember in February of 2006 Salty Dog did a post to Jay Adobe telling him that with what he saw of the claims maps then, that he saw a valuation of 30 TRILLION dollars. I believe Jay Adobe replied back saying something along the lines of, "very good, what do you think the valuation will be 10 years from now?" And lets just say that it is much less or it is the 30 Trillion in valuation, I would personally believe a person would have to be off the charts stupid to go after the piddly couple hundred MILLION and sacrifice Billions if not Trillions of dollars?
Well if I have my thoughts correct of that post of 06 or not, it still does not matter because obviously there has to be something MAJOR to an UNREAL level with the fact that we all are still here and also all the big names that have shown up and attached their names to this CMKX name. Hmmmmm? What for folks? My personal belief is that things are not as they really seem. As that being an obvious statement we all realized many many years ago but just thought I would bring that thought to the surface. Anyway, just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 6, 2010 19:44:21 GMT -5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Click link to read more......en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_ActRICO--- Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActSummaryUnder RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity ." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict. In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[4] There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.[5] Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[4] The time before RICO was signed into law (October 15, 1970), was referred to as "The Golden Age" by those involved in organized crime. The term "The Golden Age" can be found on any of the multitude of "Mob Speak" glossaries on the internet. Like any one of them would still have a substantial amount of money in their "pockets"....<sigh>??
|
|
|
Post by blu1236 on May 6, 2010 19:54:58 GMT -5
If proven dtcc is on the hook for 3 dollars a share I believe. I wonder if they would make that stick to sub penny stocks.
|
|
|
Post by beavis on May 6, 2010 19:59:20 GMT -5
I think this surpasses "did some stupid things". I can't see this as a positive and it certainely raises alot of questions as it relates to the suit. Some of you guys could spin a turd into a tulip. Briwadd You telling me I'm spinning again? I don't spin shi*. Don't disrespect me. I'm calling it like I see it - UC will go down for his part no doubt. Now tell me, what does this have to do with Hodges case?
|
|
|
Post by arctan on May 6, 2010 20:01:49 GMT -5
Does RICO charges apply to NSS??? Yes would be nice!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on May 6, 2010 20:07:44 GMT -5
I think this surpasses "did some stupid things". I can't see this as a positive and it certainely raises alot of questions as it relates to the suit. Some of you guys could spin a turd into a tulip. Briwadd You telling me I'm spinning again? I don't spin shi*. Don't disrespect me. I'm calling it like I see it - UC will go down for his part no doubt. Now tell me, what does this have to do with Hodges case? Toughen up.... I was simply saying that whatever transpires (good or bad), many will try to spin it positive. UC is wanted on RICO charges, some may view this as the master plam. Considering we have been led to believe that this is a major sting and CMKX was working with Mahue, SEC, DOJ etc, I don't can't see how this may be construed as a positive development. Briwadd
|
|
|
Post by Zoinkers on May 6, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
I think this surpasses "did some stupid things". I can't see this as a positive and it certainely raises alot of questions as it relates to the suit. Some of you guys could spin a turd into a tulip. Briwadd You telling me I'm spinning again? I don't spin shi*. Don't disrespect me. I'm calling it like I see it - UC will go down for his part no doubt. Now tell me, what does this have to do with Hodges case? If he's quoting you.... like this.. then yep, he is more then likely talking to you. If he's just posting after you do, well that's more then likely just the timing or he is just replying to the thread. Your wound so tight you could crap out a diamond all by yourself. ;D Z.
|
|
|
Post by beavis on May 6, 2010 20:31:53 GMT -5
You telling me I'm spinning again? I don't spin shi*. Don't disrespect me. I'm calling it like I see it - UC will go down for his part no doubt. Now tell me, what does this have to do with Hodges case? Toughen up.... I was simply saying that whatever transpires (good or bad), many will try to spin it positive. UC is wanted on RICO charges, some may view this as the master plam. Considering we have been led to believe that this is a major sting and CMKX was working with Mahue, SEC, DOJ etc, I don't can't see how this may be construed as a positive development. Briwadd Ok, fair enough - I'll grow a pair. As far as UC, it seems he was "a kid in a candy store" to say the least, perhaps worse... I thought it was a given all along that UC would go down (maybe not for the "leowantas" out there) but not surprising for the rest of us, wouldn't you agree. It was no surprise (at least to me) that all the insiders shares were finally cancelled either. Regarding Hodges case, the more I think about it, this backs up the sting, imo: it seems obvious that the brokers/mm's, etc, "smelled blood in the water" and ran with it knowing that UC and pals would take the fall while they counterfitted the hell out of us, "under the watchful eyes" of the SEC. Seems the SEC wanted to bust the penny stock scammers, UC "got happy" spending or was part of the scammers (maybe just maybe he played a part), the brokers/mm's/etc had a field day with the situation, and the shareholders suffered. Fortunately this didn't go away like they all figured it would.
|
|