|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 22, 2013 6:40:16 GMT -5
May 20, 2013, 7:15pm, portrush wrote: Peter, I understand your point...no, the carrot dangling wouldn't be better. Perhaps the closure presented by the Bivens rejection thus allows people a better (albeit perhaps bitter) way to compartmentalize this, shelve it, and get on with life.
But I must disagree on one issue...I believe God does know all--including whether this is better or worse for each. But that's a different thread.
Respectfully, pr
May 20, 2013, 8:24pm, rockman wrote: Hey Port - Not sure that I entirely agree with your assessment that the Bivens rejection presents closure. Mr. Hodges states in his update of 16 May that we will be paid from the trust "very soon" BUT not before there is a Global Currency Reset. So as far as I see it we are still caught in an agonizing ambivalence. Add to the mix the fact that our CEO doesn't believe the trust exists in the first place. So rather than closure we have a situation that is still open and yawning.
Best, rockman
portrush Administrator Re: Hodges and Associates May 16, 2013 « Reply #305 on May 20, 2013, 10:02pm » Rock, if you believe in what Al is saying--I agree with you. (I do) But if you cannot bring yourself to believe he is telling it the way it is...then a person can cut bait and have their closure. That's all I meant by that statement.
pr
|
|
|
Post by vulcanized crawler on May 22, 2013 6:44:40 GMT -5
i started listening to the webinar last night , but, fell asleep 15 minutes into it. anything of significance said?
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on May 22, 2013 9:25:24 GMT -5
latteplease DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: you have to wonder What is going on....... « Reply #12 Yesterday at 3:36pm »
I think there is still some gray area here. I see what you are saying and yet there is nothing that we know conclusively on this issue. I think Al's wording was also a bit gray in his recent post:
"Many have asked, “What does this mean [for us shareholders]?” The specific legal effect is to fully and completely terminate the Bivens case. It means that for seven very courageous plaintiff shareholders, they are at no further risk. It means for all shareholders [putative class action members all] that the US Government is free from the threat of additional litigation, at least in the practical sense."
The US Government- does this mean the named SEC members ? What does that mean for the current administration of the SEC? Al sued the individuals. Has the authority transferred to current administration?
Would future litigation exclude the actual Trustee of our fund? We don't know that the SEC holds our fund and it has been indicated that they only have authority to call for the distribution. I believe Al stated this in court, correct me if I am wrong.
If the DTCC holds our funds, which was once stated, then what prevents from going after them? They are a private company. If Peter Maheu is the trustee, same question applies.
Finally, what does Al mean when he says, "at least in the practical sense." In practice? It would be impractical.... I have no idea. imo
john3339 DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: you have to wonder What is going on....... « Reply #13 Yesterday at 6:57pm »
Excellent questions all....and the only one with the expertise in this specific matter...is not going into any further detail. Taking it literally, the time has run out for the Federal government...not just those named in the Bivens claim...for litigation concerning our trust.
In the practical sense would seem to indicate "under normal circumstnces"...or "as the table is currently set". Does that mean there may yet be another avenue to pursue this with the government? I can only imagine what route that might be, but it's too incindiary to actually post it on the board...but I wonder about that too.
I get the feeling that another clock is still running, and we are being put on hold again until this next clock expires on possible litigation. What I can't get beyond speculation, is for who or what the next clock is running to expiration.
During this affair, we have experienced people we have come to trust, and also who not to trust. To take one from the first category and put into the next, is a radical adjustment to what was "normal". It's hard to do and it shakes the soul. I would like to think that those I trusted are indeed trust-worthy.
imo, john
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 22, 2013 9:50:35 GMT -5
This Statement still gets me thinking---> 5. The bottom line is that you will be paid a great deal more than any have the right to expect [based on the amount of their investment]. If it is a trust, then the payout to all would be from a individually account, being the Company has nothing to do with what Al is doing. We wouldn't get paid from the TA. If so, then what would the TA have to do with all of this..? I'm sure if it's all true, then CMKM will disappear into the sunset. I would guess, Steve would also cash in and leave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 13:33:22 GMT -5
This Statement still gets me thinking---> 5. The bottom line is that you will be paid a great deal more than any have the right to expect [based on the amount of their investment]. If it is a trust, then the payout to all would be from a individually account, being the Company has nothing to do with what Al is doing. We wouldn't get paid from the TA. If so, then what would the TA have to do with all of this..? I'm sure if it's all true, then CMKM will disappear into the sunset. I would guess, Steve would also cash in and leave. John, TA merely a list keeper? Who knows. Mike
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 22, 2013 14:21:20 GMT -5
This Statement still gets me thinking---> 5. The bottom line is that you will be paid a great deal more than any have the right to expect [based on the amount of their investment]. If it is a trust, then the payout to all would be from a individually account, being the Company has nothing to do with what Al is doing. We wouldn't get paid from the TA. If so, then what would the TA have to do with all of this..? I'm sure if it's all true, then CMKM will disappear into the sunset. I would guess, Steve would also cash in and leave. John, TA merely a list keeper? Who knows. Mike That's what I meant. If the Co. knows nothing about a trust, then with that statement, the monies would have been put into individual trust accounts when collected, based on the amount of your investment. Then they wouldn't have needed the TA, unless there is more to go after..
|
|
|
Post by portrush on May 22, 2013 16:48:43 GMT -5
The TA represents an ongoing expense to the company and one of its larger creditors at this time. In my questioning SK on this, I suggested suspending the TA until a time much close to returning to trading. As of last night that time got pushed out 12-24 months. That's significant debt to be incurred.
Steve said two things in response to me on this subject, over time. Initially he said the shareholders continue to utilize the TA for changes to their cert--be it new addresses, or allocations--whatever. He stated that he has 500 pages or more of these changes. He didn't state over what time frame, but 500 pages is a ream of paper. At a conservative 10-transactions per page--that's a lot of changes.
In a more recent webinar Steve commented that he had trepidation suspending the TA activity (although expressing he would like to) because we owe them so much money he was afraid they might sue for the balance due. Plus, he mentioned that the TA is making money on the activity from shareholders. I struggle with the logic of incurring more debt because you're afraid your creditor might demand payment for what you're in the arrears for already. Let's just dig a deeper hole. Maybe its just me.
Last evening he addressed the TA subject again and stated that he spoke with the GM who conferred with the owner about the status of the company in comparison to the activity and such. He said the owner understands the state of our company, she is fine with continuing the services provided and believes we will pull back up and be a viable client. Apparently 12-24 months isn't a deterrent.
pr
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 22, 2013 17:08:40 GMT -5
When I spoke to Steve about the TA, he stated that a lot of shares were moving around.. That was a while back when he made that statement.. A LOT OF SHARES MOVING AROUND...
|
|
|
Post by e362 on May 22, 2013 19:32:01 GMT -5
The one thing that will always remain a constant with this stock is the future dates that always show up after another disappointment. This has to be the most resilient revoked stock of all time......
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on May 22, 2013 19:35:43 GMT -5
The problem now is, we don't have a future date...just soon. And on top of that the price per share we are to receive supposedly far exceeds the original .80. So we wait...something I have grown accustomed to.
Briwadd
|
|
|
Post by hurricane on May 22, 2013 19:56:55 GMT -5
Is that because people refuse to let go? One could argue the resiliency is based on imagination and noting real. When has anything ever happened with this stock to the benefit of the shareholder....I seriously can not think of one event. Has any rumor ever turned out to be true?
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on May 22, 2013 20:02:08 GMT -5
I have not seen enough to convince me one way or another...plus I am not having to pay any additional money to keep my seat at this seemingly never ending game.
|
|
|
Post by crajaraman on May 22, 2013 20:04:35 GMT -5
Apart from SK himself, the TA is among the handful of things that provides CMKM a shred of credibility and legitimacy....
|
|
|
Post by e362 on May 22, 2013 20:09:31 GMT -5
Is that because people refuse to let go? One could argue the resiliency is based on imagination and noting real. When has anything ever happened with this stock to the benefit of the shareholder....I seriously can not think of one event. Has any rumor ever turned out to be true? I think it is human nature to believe what you want to believe no matter how much evidence is in front of your eyes. No one wants to admit they have been played, so grasping on to a future date allows us to grasp on to the hope that we weren't all played to begin with. It went way passed obvious for me when posters started sugarcoating AH's decisive defeat with the SC as something good for us.
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on May 22, 2013 20:12:59 GMT -5
I personally think Steve will fall short in his goal to save the company. That is not a jab at Steve, he has just been given an impossible task IMO. And if by some chance we do go back to trading, any remnant of the old CMKX including shareholders will be long gone. The massive R/S will get rid of the majority and those that have a shares left will sell off, leaving Steve with a new share structure, a new company name, and new investors that have never heard of CMKX.
IMO Briwadd
|
|