|
Post by cmkxerlong on Nov 9, 2010 9:49:22 GMT -5
It was not game over 5 years ago because there was no lawsuit to threaten/force these criminals to release our funds. The game is different now. If hodges have the proof like he alleges in the lawsuit and we present it to the judge and jury, it's GAME OVER. This tells me that Hodges has a copy of the agreement. GAME OVER Not so sure the "Game" is over as you state. That 1 year has elapsed many years ago so what's to stop them from stonewalling another 5 years. People don't part with that kind of money so easily and they will do everything in their power from ending this "Game".
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 9, 2010 9:50:23 GMT -5
We just have to prove it was never payed.. I didn't get a check.. Did any of you guys get one...? I think the plaintiffs first need to prove that a trust even exists. It is my understanding that the defendants want this thrown out on that very basis. I can't think of any reason why Al would do this if he didn't have the puddin...
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 9, 2010 9:51:09 GMT -5
It was not game over 5 years ago because there was no lawsuit to threaten/force these criminals to release our funds. The game is different now. If hodges have the proof like he alleges in the lawsuit and we present it to the judge and jury, it's GAME OVER. Not so sure the "Game" is over as you state. That 1 year has elapsed many years ago so what's to stop them from stonewalling another 5 years. People don't part with that kind of money so easily and they will do everything in their power from ending this "Game". It won't go that far.. IMO
|
|
|
Post by ccohen5017 on Nov 9, 2010 9:51:10 GMT -5
link did not work, can someone post the file? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by agfadoc on Nov 9, 2010 9:51:32 GMT -5
If Hodges has the terms of an agreement, and can prove that funds were given by the Plaintiffs to the SEC, then isn't that all he should have to prove?
What they did with it once in their possession cannot be proved by the plaintiff, unless he has something else, but just proving that there is an agreement and that funds were provided to the SEC should be enough in my non legal mind.
|
|
vcalv
Diamond Finder
Posts: 99
|
Post by vcalv on Nov 9, 2010 9:51:56 GMT -5
I think the plaintiffs first need to prove that a trust even exists. It is my understanding that the defendants want this thrown out on that very basis. I can't think of any reason why Al would do this if he didn't have the puddin... I agree...I think something is there, but why would the defendants want this to go to trial and be exposed...isn't that why they supposedly settled in the first place??
|
|
|
Post by enoughalready on Nov 9, 2010 9:53:21 GMT -5
This also doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies that this will be over before the end of the year and maybe sooner what the plantiffs have been saying recently..
|
|
|
Post by agfadoc on Nov 9, 2010 9:53:23 GMT -5
Or funds were transferred to the SEC from the clearing houses/brokers/hedge finds.. I should add
|
|
|
Post by lovindiamonds on Nov 9, 2010 9:53:39 GMT -5
The Judge and the jury will make them pay if all is in order.. We just have to prove it was never payed.. I didn't get a check.. Did any of you guys get one...? Still waiting on mine
|
|
|
Post by wolfbela on Nov 9, 2010 9:57:23 GMT -5
Simple request of Mr. Hodges.
Supply the court a copy of the trust agreement.
That should end all speculation.
BJ.. we were on the same wavelength....
Jerry WB
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 9, 2010 9:57:53 GMT -5
I can't think of any reason why Al would do this if he didn't have the puddin... I agree...I think something is there, but why would the defendants want this to go to trial and be exposed...isn't that why they supposedly settled in the first place?? Enough said... I rest my case...
|
|
|
Post by bjenkins on Nov 9, 2010 10:01:34 GMT -5
Simple request of Mr. Hodges. Supply the court a copy of the trust agreement. That should end all speculation. BJ.. we were on the same wavelength.... Jerry WB Wolfbela, You were right in what you said was happening many months ago and what we talked about. Thank you for putting the AG action together.
|
|
|
Post by davesaint on Nov 9, 2010 10:01:54 GMT -5
Below are some of the summary excerpts from Al's latest response. The main difference I see is more detail and Al tying the actual defendants by name to what they did. Now the question is can Al prove it?
Defendants Glassman, Atkins, and Campos, had an order placed on CMKM preventing any public disclosure of anticipated mergers or other development information.
The sales of the majority (2.25 Trillion Phantom shares) were at all such times know to Defendants Cox, Glassman, Atkins, Campos and Nazareth.
Defendants Glassman, Atkins, And Campose in concert with the DOJ, combine with Robert Maheu an others facilitated a “sting operation,” using CMKM Diamonds with knowledge or consent of its shareholders.
Defendants Glassman, Atkins and Campos in conjunction with the DOJ and Homeland Security believe short sellers were utilizing their activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment of taxes, and to support foreign terrorist operations.
Defendants encouraged the company to “pump the stock
Consented to, facilitated and supported numerous other acts and deceptions consistent with effecting the “sting operation.”
Defendants facilitated the “sting operation” with CMKM shareholders knowledge knowing in would drive CMKM out of business.
Defendants authorized and consented to the sale of mineral claims to Chinese corporations, funds placed in a trust to be disbursed at liquidation.
Once money was collected (Defendants named) assumed disbursement control of the funds. SEC had the right to determine when the release of the moneys to the shareholders would occur. Because it was required to fulfill the “sting operation” goals. Robert Maheu agreed that these Defendants should control the distribution time for the funds after they determined the “sting operation” goals had been fulfilled. Robert Maheu further agree that no CMKM liquidation assets would be distributed without the consent of the Defendant Commissioners.
Said moneys collected for the benefit of shareholders have been placed in a trust, or are otherwise held in a trust, by the DTCC………pursuant to a Trust Agreement on behalf of the shareholders.
By operation of Federal Law, the then acting Chairpersons and Commissioners of the SEC (name Defendants herein) held and hold the sole, final and absolute discretion to determine when moneys collected pursuant to the scheme set forth above would and could be released for distribution, and must do so pursuant to their mandate under the law to protect the shareholders.
Pursuant to the terms of the agreements entered into, all moneys were to have been released within one year of the time the company was originally de-listed, in October of 2005. It has now been almost five years, and the Defendants, and each of them, have failed and refused to release these funds to the shareholders.
These repeated actions of withholding distribution of said moneys, without compensation, and without due process of law, amount to a taking of the property of the individual Plaintiffs and all similarly situation.
Davesaint
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2010 10:03:36 GMT -5
Got to be something there or we wouldnt be here.... none of this would be going on... but that is just my opinion because we have no facts...we could very well be sitting here come 2011 in the same boat...the circus keeps rollin!
|
|
|
Post by agfadoc on Nov 9, 2010 10:03:39 GMT -5
Simple request of Mr. Hodges. Supply the court a copy of the trust agreement. That should end all speculation. BJ.. we were on the same wavelength.... Jerry WB I agree, that would be all that's needed. I can't see anyone being able to "Prove" there is a trust, I can see that someone can prove there is an agreement, and prove that funds have been transferred... But from the respectable attorneys that I know, that like remaining a lawyer, you can't just assert something of this magnitude that you aren't prepared to provide in discovery. Otherwise you can have your license taken away. The Judge knows it and they know it, otherwise there would be words like " the assertion of an agreement" etc. IMHO
|
|