|
Post by MannyFin on Aug 31, 2010 17:33:26 GMT -5
I AM JUST GOING TO ASK ONE MORE TIME, THIS IS THE RUMOR THREAD, PLEASE TREAT AS SUCH AND NO GOB, I WILL NOT GET OVER IT!! I will say this much to gob, at this point, are you for us or against us??
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Aug 31, 2010 17:37:29 GMT -5
I AM JUST GOING TO ASK ONE MORE TIME, THIS THE RUMOR THREAD, PLEASE TREAT AS SUCH AND NO GOB, I WILL NOT GET OVER IT!! I will say this much to gob, at this point, are you for us or against us?? I was wondering the same thing and wait anxiously for the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Aug 31, 2010 17:50:55 GMT -5
Brig. You've transcribed the sweet spot in Hodges' "testimony." No doubt about it. Everything depends on its being exactly as claimed ... and on the evidence to prove it.
I find a curious subtext to this transcription that hasn't been discussed to my knowledge. Take a closer look at the line, "the sec commissioners prevailed and convinced Mr. Maheu and his associates it had to be their decision because only they and the rest of the government could determine when this sting had fulfilled its function."
Let's assume for the moment that the sting and the trusts, and indeed the content of this last statement are FACTS.* By his own assertion, Hodges is claiming that we are due payment when the "sting (has) fulfilled its function." But who determines when that moment occurs? The answer, according to Hodges, is "The SEC." And how would Hodges know when that function is fulfilled?
If it's indeed the case that the SEC determines when the release of funds is appropriate, then for Hodges to claim a "taking," he must show that the sting's function has been "fulfilled." Otherwise we can wait until forever ... and a day.
....Warren
*Huge assumption, but for the sake of argument I'll resist my reservations.
|
|
|
Post by Brigantine on Aug 31, 2010 17:52:38 GMT -5
Good Point. However, Hodges also has stated several times that the SEC has on numerous occasions indicated that we would be paid momentarily. By virtue of having declared we are about to be paid, presumably the SEC has determined the sting has fulfilled its function.
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Aug 31, 2010 17:55:21 GMT -5
Good Point. However, Hodges also has stated several times that the SEC has on numerous occasions indicated that we would be paid momentarily. By virtue of having declared we are about to be paid, presumably the SEC has determined the sting has fulfilled its function. Also a good point. Let's hope there's darn good proof of that. And let's hope, too, that the proof involves an explicit admission of the mission's "fulfillment."
|
|
|
Post by Ed Jagacki on Aug 31, 2010 17:56:03 GMT -5
Wow... some really good discussion going on here...
imo
|
|
|
Post by BHollenegg on Aug 31, 2010 17:57:12 GMT -5
There are legal documents stating there are Trust Funds for the CMKX Shareholders; Are there? That would make me feel a lot better. Yes. There are legal documents stating that there is a trust fund. The Bivens suit itself is one such document. The FACT that such a document exists claiming the existence of a trust fund DOES NOT PROVE there is a trust fund. I think what you're really asking, lovindiamonds, is to see the TRUST FUND DOCUMENT itself. Fat chance on that desire being satisfied. And Robert, you know the difference. That was misleading at best and somewhat disingenuous. ...Warren I am not misleading and I was not disingenuous...taking statements out of context to make pot shots is. Sometimes we focus on the meaning of a word to make a point instead focusing on the point of the message and its meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Aug 31, 2010 18:06:05 GMT -5
I am not misleading and I was not disingenuous...taking statements out of context to make pot shots is. Sometimes we focus on the meaning of a word to make a point instead focusing on the point of the message and its meaning. Robert. Please consider my post numbered 233. I think I got the point of your message. Moreover, I think you'll agree after reading that post. Others, like lovindiamonds, did not get the point of your message. And, to my thinking, that happened because your presentation was misleading. As I said, I doubt you did that on purpose. I suppose it was simply carelessness. ...Warren
|
|
|
Post by BHollenegg on Aug 31, 2010 18:07:29 GMT -5
As I have said before, Al Hodges would not have said in open court that they exist, if they did not. That is the point BH is making above. (in addition to ripping on the lying bastiche he was replying to.) Thank you Brig...you are 100 % correct, BHollenegg
|
|
|
Post by BHollenegg on Aug 31, 2010 18:15:36 GMT -5
I am not misleading and I was not disingenuous...taking statements out of context to make pot shots is. Sometimes we focus on the meaning of a word to make a point instead focusing on the point of the message and its meaning. Robert. Please consider my post numbered 233. I think I got the point of your message. Moreover, I think you'll agree after reading that post. Others, like lovindiamonds, did not get the point of your message. And, to my thinking, that happened because your presentation was misleading. As I said, I doubt you did that on purpose. I suppose it was simply carelessness. ...Warren Warren, just read your follow-up. I understand...thank you. I received a phone call in the middle of my response to you. I just read the rest of the thread. Thank you, BHollenegg
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Aug 31, 2010 18:24:23 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to read it, Robert. You're a good man. Expect more trouble from me though. LOL. I'm a stickler for detail and I don't always know when to shut up. And since I'm as error prone as the next guy, I'll expect to earn some trouble of my own in return.
Here's to prevailing!
...Warren
|
|
|
Post by joe on Aug 31, 2010 18:36:10 GMT -5
I AM JUST GOING TO ASK ONE MORE TIME, THIS THE RUMOR THREAD, PLEASE TREAT AS SUCH AND NO GOB, I WILL NOT GET OVER IT!! I will say this much to gob, at this point, are you for us or against us?? HE IS AGAINST US LOOK AT HIS POSTING HISTORY
|
|
|
Post by MannyFin on Aug 31, 2010 18:44:17 GMT -5
I AM JUST GOING TO ASK ONE MORE TIME, THIS THE RUMOR THREAD, PLEASE TREAT AS SUCH AND NO GOB, I WILL NOT GET OVER IT!! I will say this much to gob, at this point, are you for us or against us?? HE IS AGAINST US LOOK AT HIS POSTING HISTORYAre you referring to me?
|
|
|
Post by joe on Aug 31, 2010 19:12:20 GMT -5
HE IS AGAINST US LOOK AT HIS POSTING HISTORY Are you referring to me? goodolboy
|
|