|
Post by marbearcat on May 1, 2012 10:13:43 GMT -5
After reading the filing ..... SEC is saying that even if a trusts exists shareholders are not entitled to it ..... shoot me ! Maybe the SEC is planning or has already done so, given the $$ back to the shorters?
|
|
|
Post by e362 on May 1, 2012 10:24:59 GMT -5
After reading the filing ..... SEC is saying that even if a trusts exists shareholders are not entitled to it ..... shoot me ! IF a trust does exist it will clearly state who is entitled to the proceeds, the court will have no say. imo
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on May 1, 2012 10:36:43 GMT -5
After reading the filing ..... SEC is saying that even if a trusts exists shareholders are not entitled to it ..... shoot me ! IF a trust does exist it will clearly state who is entitled to the proceeds, the court will have no say. imo I think what is painfully obvious is that whatever happens, it ain't gonna happen in 2012 and definitely not 2013 if this even sees a trial. >"<
|
|
|
Post by enoughalready on May 1, 2012 12:47:26 GMT -5
Honestly, what is AH waiting for?
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on May 1, 2012 12:59:26 GMT -5
I have to agree with the above responses...time to remove the speculation and get down to proof...either we have it..or not....Al unleash the hounds..... At long last! Gabby, you finally made it. Welcome to the world of realistic thinkers. Positive thinking without substance is ultimately non-sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by theotherside on May 1, 2012 14:43:41 GMT -5
After reading the filing ..... SEC is saying that even if a trusts exists shareholders are not entitled to it ..... shoot me ! IF a trust does exist it will clearly state who is entitled to the proceeds, the court will have no say. imo I don't think that's true. If the Big Mac trust exists and it's earmarked for the shareholders (bypassing the company) it will most definitely be challenged in court by the company. Based on corporate law the company would win too. They're the ones that were supposedly put out of business by the evil-doers, not us, we were just along for the ride. From there the corporation would decide what to do with the funds and one of their options would be to pay it all or a portion of it out to the shareholders as a dividend. They could though decide to keep it all, it'd be up to them.
|
|
|
Post by bjenkins on May 1, 2012 15:35:38 GMT -5
After reading the filing ..... SEC is saying that even if a trusts exists shareholders are not entitled to it ..... shoot me ! Look at what I say long long ago The court order says
there is no trust
and if there is a trust the CMKX shareholders are not entitled to the money. I say many many many times the court order says there is no trust and if there is a trust the CMKX shareholders are not entitled to the trust money and that is what I say about the court order.
The government now say in filing the CMKX shareholders are not entitled to the money.
This set up by the government from the beginning is like a ladder and the government did sneaky things step by step to help build the final death to Mr. Hodges lawsuit. Bjenkins is right again
|
|
|
Post by e362 on May 1, 2012 16:28:03 GMT -5
After reading the filing ..... SEC is saying that even if a trusts exists shareholders are not entitled to it ..... shoot me ! Look at what I say long long ago I say many many many times the court order says there is no trust and if there is a trust the CMKX shareholders are not entitled to the trust money and that is what I say about the court order.
The government now say in filing the CMKX shareholders are not entitled to the money.
This set up by the government from the beginning is like a ladder and the government did sneaky things step by step to help build the final death to Mr. Hodges lawsuit. Bjenkins is right again Bjenks, why are you gloating over the govt possibly stealing any trust that was set up for boanfide shareholders?
|
|
|
Post by Ed Jagacki on May 1, 2012 17:25:27 GMT -5
e362:
Pay no attention to the merry prankster...
imo, Ed
|
|
|
Post by jimbob on May 1, 2012 19:09:50 GMT -5
Only those of us that are shareholders, for the most part, fact that our company still exits; regardless what others have tried to do to us. When we trade again, with good mineral test results, we'll see what can happen, in a very short time, and with a company that has staying power. A company with staying power has value, then add the %%%, the @@@, and then the ###.
|
|
|
Post by gabbyhayes2 on May 1, 2012 19:13:00 GMT -5
While I agree that we need closure...imho..it isn't going to happen soon....more fun and games...so kids..consider this a.....I don't know what to consider this...it is...what it ISSSS.....have fun...live life...and tune in in a couple of weeks.....
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on May 1, 2012 19:28:29 GMT -5
IF a trust does exist it will clearly state who is entitled to the proceeds, the court will have no say. imo I don't think that's true. If the Big Mac trust exists and it's earmarked for the shareholders (bypassing the company) it will most definitely be challenged in court by the company. Based on corporate law the company would win too. They're the ones that were supposedly put out of business by the evil-doers, not us, we were just along for the ride. From there the corporation would decide what to do with the funds and one of their options would be to pay it all or a portion of it out to the shareholders as a dividend. They could though decide to keep it all, it'd be up to them. Sorry but the corporation you speak of IS NOT the corporation that was wrapped up and assets dispersed to the shareholders. If you say it is then its all been just another lie!
|
|
|
Post by sittingtight on May 1, 2012 20:39:59 GMT -5
After reading the filing ..... SEC is saying that even if a trusts exists shareholders are not entitled to it ..... shoot me ! Maybe the SEC is planning or has already done so, given the $$ back to the shorters? YA, I think that already happened, to the tune of $16 Trillion the banks received in the bail out.............. Time to pay the fck up................... ST
|
|
|
Post by hurricane on May 1, 2012 21:42:32 GMT -5
Al needs to prove without a doubt a trust exists AND a Bivens is the correct type of case. If he does not succeed this case will be thrown out and I say no chance this would ever be heard by the SC. Anyone that says the 30 day SEC extension was required so "agreements" could occur is off their rocker. You dont submit a reply like this without a reason.
Gut check time. Belly up and show your cards.
|
|
|
Post by jimbob on May 2, 2012 3:10:25 GMT -5
This reply is not much different than the others. The judge has the power to decide whether we have the right to moneys collected using our company. Once our right to property/funds has been established then discovery will begin. The SEC, in their own reply, state that they were aware of phantom shares and irregularities outside of the company business but, also say they aren't saying how they knew; reason for discovery? The judge, I'm sure, is curious by now whether we continue or not.
|
|