|
Post by vpd on May 2, 2012 7:58:09 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. Couldn't agree more. Just the fact that Al has had more than ample numbers of times to show what he has got and has not done so leads one to believe that this just may be a total bluff based on a story Al was told. And we have all been led down a garden path to no where. If this is indeed is nothing more than a bluff, the question that is and will always remain based on Al's many pronouncements that we have won and imminent payment etc. is WHY?
|
|
|
Post by jimbob on May 2, 2012 8:49:46 GMT -5
As I understand it Al has 14 days to reply then the judge will decide whether we have rights or not.
|
|
|
Post by theotherside on May 2, 2012 9:26:35 GMT -5
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! You might be right, I don't know for sure. I don't believe that the company was ever officially wound up though. "Winding up" isn't just a meaningless phrase or term that's used, it's an actual process with steps that have to be followed in order for a business to officially close and it ends with the company ceasing to exist. That didn't happen here. The company has gone through many different sets of officers and has gone through a change of domicile but I believe that legally it'd still be viewed as the same company.
|
|
|
Post by gjfromfla on May 4, 2012 8:37:00 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 ###. Unless the existing shareholders receive financial restitution, you would be crazy to invest again in this company. Based upon their previous financials, Company Executives and employee turn-overs, etc... You are putting good money into bad IMO.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 5, 2012 23:08:05 GMT -5
thanks seagul...
By: John3339 Re: SEC Answer is filed 35 pages!! « Reply #164 Yesterday at 3:48am »
----------------------------------------------------- Roughcut, you make great points, imo. A lawyer of Mr. Hodges' caliber does not make stuff up and tell this "made up" stuff to the public. I've also long held the belief that one does not lie to a lawyer without suffering consequences.
I believe what Mr. Hodges told us was the truth. I believe that whomever it was that told him about the preliminary payment was telling the truth - as it was when they told Mr. Hodges about the preliminary payments.
Seems to me, the continual denials from Global Intelligence are where the weak link lies...and of course as we pretty much concur, the business paradigm for Global Intelligence is not one based on truth and candor.
So to me, that's where one of the hang ups is...Global Intelligence, and whoever it is that controls what is confirmed and done by Global Intelligence. It could well be that with them holding the preliminary payment, they well might be actually holding the entire trust as it was created by IBM...who also happens to be the father of the current CEO of Global Intelligence. Who else would IBM trust more than his own flesh and blood?
Next question should be - who now exerts control over Global Intelligence, that could prevent Peter Maheu from releasing the trust as per the provisions that I assume were made through IBM?
Considering who it was that IBM worked for/with, I could only think that if it were a matter of national security, that would be the why...the highest levels of US Federal government would be the who. President...CIA...NSA...FBI (Justice Department)...but not many others.
Wish I knew more about what potential national security risks there might be with up to 40,000 shareholders having nearly $4 trillion dollars (after taxes) in spendable income all of a sudden. Except for those I've read who endorse the concepts of tearing down the established government for their own agendas...THAT might be considered a national security risk...a few more George Soros-types running around!
This series of posts give me much hope, and things to think about. Thanks to all involved.
john
|
|