|
Post by himthrume on May 28, 2010 17:05:55 GMT -5
how do we argue such a huge return? a million dollars for every 30-40 dollars spent on stock? Sound great to me... but I dant see the arguement for it. The bottom line is that when the government takes action and collects... it holds the discretion as to what is done with what it collects... and there is no private interest in the property it collects... argh... Maybe, but what if there is a written agreement agreeing to what was to be paid signed off by all parties. This would equate to a contract.k Contract = offer + acceptance + consideration Davesaint That would definitely be something... I would also have a hard time with the fact that my right were violated by these individuals and that an agreement was made to allow them to walk w/o my consent... I either want what was collected or I want them in jail! Otherwise the government is basically stepping in and saying... Hey I know you screwed over a lot of people... but if you give us (the govt) the money... we wont let those people have justice... and we will let you walk. If the government keeps the money then they are flat out being paid to protect criminals from the american people. When did our government become the GODFATHER of organized crime... oh wait... a long time ago...
|
|
|
Post by agfadoc on May 28, 2010 17:05:57 GMT -5
Your government hard at work for you!
Hey How about making it bigger and MORE intrusive.. with more power to boot!
Insert sarcasm here__________
|
|
|
Post by davesaint on May 28, 2010 17:05:59 GMT -5
I'm basing the contract on the facts alleged by Al that Mahue, the Govt and bad guys agreed to a settlement.
Davesaint
|
|
|
Post by himthrume on May 28, 2010 17:16:27 GMT -5
Maybe this has already been mentioned... as I am not patient enough to read all 80 posts on this subject... but one good thing I see from this motion is that they didnt say... WHAT MONEY?
They actually referred to the money existing when they said "You dont have a claim to it"
I would thinnk if the money wasnt collected... then the best arguement for a motion to dismiss would be... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? 3.87 Trillion dollars?!? WHERE?
But they didnt say that...
|
|
|
Post by himthrume on May 28, 2010 17:17:12 GMT -5
Maybe this has already been mentioned... as I am not patient enough to read all 80 posts on this subject... but one good thing I see from this motion is that they didnt say... WHAT MONEY? They actually referred to the money existing when they said "You dont have a claim to it" I would thinnk if the money wasnt collected... then the best arguement for a motion to dismiss would be... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? 3.87 Trillion dollars?!? WHERE? But they didnt say that... Which is going to make me even more angry if we dont get it...
|
|
|
Post by justinfitz1 on May 28, 2010 17:17:20 GMT -5
Two more quotes and I will quit: To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.... ....Moreover, numerous cases illustrate the proposition that an individual has no property interest in a particular benefit where a government agency retains discretion to grant or deny the benefit. So as long as we claim it is at their discretion, we have no claim at all. Do I read that right? This is pretty interesting... it seems the government is pretty much saying... "we have the money you are requesting... but you have to have more then a desire for it, a want or need for it, you need to have more then an expectation for it... you need to have a legitimate right to it... and frankly you dont! Also, the past has shown that in a case where the government retains the right to grant or deny the benefit... no one has a property interest in it." It seems they are saying they collected the money at their discretion and they will decide what is done with it. I'm not sure how to argue this point... the bottom line is we all feel entitled for compensation for being used by the government... but the government uses people all the time for what it deems as the greater good. While I dont disagree that we should be compensated for our financial losses... how do we argue such a huge return? a million dollars for every 30-40 dollars spent on stock? Sound great to me... but I dant see the arguement for it. The bottom line is that when the government takes action and collects... it holds the discretion as to what is done with what it collects... and there is no private interest in the property it collects... argh... If they did wrong and paid into a Trust for naked shorting (cmkm/cmkx), then who is to say how much we get paid! And how is how much we paid for the stock even relevent??? THEY DID WRONG AND PUT MONEY IN A TRUST FOR EVERY SHARE THEY CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR THEY CANT TELL US HOW MUCH OF IT WE GET!!! It's for the shareholder and will be split up evenly. IMO
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on May 28, 2010 17:20:12 GMT -5
The entire Complaint (to the extent it is not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or because it names the wrong defendants) should be dismissed because it lacks “facial plausibility”; that is, it does not, as required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 1952 (2009), contain factual allegations “sufficient to plausibly suggest” that Defendants took steps to prevent Plaintiffs from receiving funds in which Plaintiffs had a property interest. __________________________________________________________________________
The attorney actualy makes a pretty good point. If you are going to sue for 3.87 trillion dollars, the suit should have more than mere allegations. I think that has been the concern of many from day one.
A definition of facial plausibility: •A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged .
Briwadd
|
|
|
Post by himthrume on May 28, 2010 17:20:19 GMT -5
This is pretty interesting... it seems the government is pretty much saying... "we have the money you are requesting... but you have to have more then a desire for it, a want or need for it, you need to have more then an expectation for it... you need to have a legitimate right to it... and frankly you dont! Also, the past has shown that in a case where the government retains the right to grant or deny the benefit... no one has a property interest in it." It seems they are saying they collected the money at their discretion and they will decide what is done with it. I'm not sure how to argue this point... the bottom line is we all feel entitled for compensation for being used by the government... but the government uses people all the time for what it deems as the greater good. While I dont disagree that we should be compensated for our financial losses... how do we argue such a huge return? a million dollars for every 30-40 dollars spent on stock? Sound great to me... but I dant see the arguement for it. The bottom line is that when the government takes action and collects... it holds the discretion as to what is done with what it collects... and there is no private interest in the property it collects... argh... If they did wrong and paid into a Trust for naked shorting (cmkm/cmkx), then who is to say how much we get paid! And how is how much we paid for the stock even relevent??? THEY DID WRONG AND PUT MONEY IN A TRUST FOR EVERY SHARE THEY CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR THEY CANT TELL US HOW MUCH OF IT WE GET!!! It's for the shareholder and will be split up evenly. IMO I agree... but from the motion it appears that the SEC is saying that we have no claim to the money... We are saying that it was put in a trust for us... and they are saying it wasnt for us at all... thats the impression I am getting from the Motion...
|
|
|
Post by TallyHo on May 28, 2010 17:29:29 GMT -5
The entire Complaint (to the extent it is not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or because it names the wrong defendants) should be dismissed because it lacks “facial plausibility”; that is, it does not, as required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 1952 (2009), contain factual allegations “sufficient to plausibly suggest” that Defendants took steps to prevent Plaintiffs from receiving funds in which Plaintiffs had a property interest. __________________________________________________________________________ The attorney actualy makes a pretty good point. If you are going to sue for 3.87 trillion dollars, the suit should have more than mere allegations. I think that has been the concern of many from day one. Briwadd Thank you.....my point as well
|
|
|
Post by enoughalready on May 28, 2010 17:33:57 GMT -5
Maybe that is a good sign for us because it was just part of the plan and they didn't want details out there for people to see..I don't know anymore..hopefully we will hear from BH or AH to explain ============
e entire Complaint (to the extent it is not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or because it names the wrong defendants) should be dismissed because it lacks “facial plausibility”; that is, it does not, as required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 1952 (2009), contain factual allegations “sufficient to plausibly suggest” that Defendants took steps to prevent Plaintiffs from receiving funds in which Plaintiffs had a property interest. __________________________________________________________________________
The attorney actualy makes a pretty good point. If you are going to sue for 3.87 trillion dollars, the suit should have more than mere allegations. I think that has been the concern of many from day one.
Briwadd
|
|
4star
Diamond Finder
Posts: 80
|
Post by 4star on May 28, 2010 17:34:10 GMT -5
If the evidence was in the lawsuit, there would be no bank from which to get your money.
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on May 28, 2010 17:34:52 GMT -5
Besides, why sue the SEC? I have not read anything from Hodges that would suggest the SEC is witholding the funds. According to Hodges, the money sets in a bank in Richmond and can only be released by signature of the President!
Briwadd
|
|
|
Post by bubba on May 28, 2010 17:36:01 GMT -5
This is getting depressing and more and more confusing. I hope this is the final cover up to make it look like we are nut jobs and then they secretly pay us. Whooooo
|
|
|
Post by thematrix on May 28, 2010 17:50:32 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I was told by someone I trust that if we saw a dismissal, then we have ER. That hodges proof is overwelming and the SEC would stand no chance in court. It's a motion for dismissal, most cases work this way if you have ever been in a lawsuit.
Stay strong, I think we will hear something within the weekend.
|
|
4star
Diamond Finder
Posts: 80
|
Post by 4star on May 28, 2010 17:54:52 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I was told by someone I trust that if we saw a dismissal, then we have ER. That hodges proof is overwelming and the SEC would stand no chance in court. It's a motion for dismissal, most cases work this way if you have ever been in a lawsuit. Stay strong, I think we will hear something within the weekend. hmmm
|
|