|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Jun 17, 2015 18:49:37 GMT -5
Then again, let's see what happens when they wipe away all of Edwards and Co. shares.
|
|
|
|
Post by mygirlwantsarock on Jun 17, 2015 19:41:23 GMT -5
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318309/000110465905032187/a05-12132_1sc13d.htmAn oldie but goodie from Edwards/Crown Financial courtesy of an SEC filing. Crown is a NJ corp but Edwards, the Rissington Trust (China business trust) and Mining Feasibility Corp listed at the UPS store on Lake Mead. If memory serves me correct, Goldman Sachs handled much of Crowns MM clearings. Sherwood Cook was the attorney on the filing D Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Jun 19, 2015 15:02:33 GMT -5
millionaires.proboards.com/thread/48729/read-lips?page=17 ( kfl has a legal background ) by KFL 6/19/2015 Hello Ines, I remember meeting you at both the NASDAQ Protest, as well at the Shareholder-Beneficiary Party, which was held at Texas Station Casino in Las Vegas. Glad to learn you are still around. My view of our current circumstances follows: 1. On June 10, 2015, Al Clifton Hodges, Esq. wrote, "I am a simply a shareholder-beneficiary as are each of you." His statement makes clear his state of mind, that all shareholder-beneficiares have equal rights. 2. ACH, Esq. has made numerous written representations that a Trust for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM shareholders, indeed exists. However, he has not disclosed how he has arrived at this conclusion. 3. It is well established that Beneficiaries of a Trust may demand an Accounting of the Trust from their employee, the Trustee. This is an individual right, and may be exercised by any and all Beneficiaries, at their sole discretion. 4. In order for a Beneficiary of a Trust to exercise their individual right to demand an Accounting of the Trust, both the identity of the Trust, and the identity of the Trustee, must be known. 5. Based on my observation, only one shareholder-beneficiary has written of knowledge of the existence of a Trust for the benefit of CMKM/CMKM shareholders. How was this information obtained? If we all are "...simply a shareholder-beneficiary...", why does only one person have knowledge of the existence of a Trust for the benefit of all shareholder-beneficiaries, rather than all shareholder-beneficiaries? 6. ACH, Esq. wrote on June 10, 2015, "READ MY LIPS - YOU WILL BE PAID WHEN, AND ONLY WHEN, WE HAVE ASSET-BACKED CURRENCY AND A SAFE BANKING SYSTEM TO GO WITH IT." (sic). However, he has not disclosed how he arrived at this conclusion, nor has he provided definitions for "we", "asset-backed currency, or "a safe banking system". Further, ACH, Esq. has not disclosed how he can make these written representations with such certainty. Are the foregoing undefined terms, actual conditions precedent delineated in a Trust for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM shareholders? 7. Do one or more "...simply shareholder-benficiaries..." possess exclusive knowledge of the existence of a Trust for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM shareholders, as well as exclusive knowledge of the Trust's terms, and conditions precedent? If so, why? When one wishes to write persuasively, it is fundamental that blanket statements are qualified with the requisite facts to prove the accuracy of the respective statements. An example of this is the use of both footnotes and endnotes in scholarly works, providing the requisite specificity to justify written assertions. No such specificity has been offered to me since I first purchased shares of CMKX/CMKM in February, 2004. Accordingly, my foregoing questions and concerns are logical, reasonable, pertinent and intelligent; I believe all shareholder-beneficiaries share the same questions and concerns. Dennis Smith, a.k.a. "particlewaves" previously referred to the plight of CMKX/CMKM shareholders as a "slog". I suggest to you that said slog has only grown deeper and wider in the subsequent years since he made that written characterization. I am ready to exercise my individual right, to make my personal demand for an Accounting to the unknown Trustee, administering and managing the unknown Trust, that I have been reassured I am a Beneficiary of. Talk about a slog. Have a great weekend, Ines, and thanks for saying hello.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Jun 19, 2015 15:06:03 GMT -5
millionaires.proboards.com/thread/48729/read-lips?page=15smeagle Avatar yesterday at 11:25am smeagle said: Has it ever been explained as to WHY our money got caught up in the Cottrell saga? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Answer by KFL : No. However an undefined, esoteric term "...by attachment..." was proffered, purportedly to justify and allow an unknown/unidentified third-party to both commandeer and divert the funds purportedly for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM bona fide certificate holders. Further, no legal authority was introduced, such as a statute, regulation, treaty, or precedential case law, to allow for said "...attachment...."A trust is administered and managed in accordance with the precise terms and conditions set forth by the Trustor. The Trustee administers and manages the Trust in accordance with these precise terms and conditions, holding a fiduciary responsibility to the Beneficiaries. Upon fulfillment of the conditions precedent delineated in the Trust, the Trustee will supervise the release of the Trust's assets (i.e., the funds purportedly designated for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM bona fide certificate holders). All Trust Beneficiaries have standing to seek an accounting from the Trustee. It is via this right that one or more Beneficiaries can enforce the Trust's terms and hold the Trustee accountable. In the instance of the purported CMKM/CMKX Trust Beneficiaries, this appears to be difficult, as no notice of our purported Beneficiary status has been given. Such notice would include at a minimum, the name of the Trust and the identity(ies) of the designated Trustee(s). If you are interested, the following link provides an educational overview of the subject: www.baskinfleece.com/wp-content/themes/baskinfleecefl/media/holding_the_trustee_accountable.pdf
You asked a very logical, intelligent question, the answer to which I also attempted to have answered via both electronic and telephonic communication. The courtesy of a reply was not forthcoming from ACH, Esq.'s office.In light of the foregoing, the following, logical, intelligent questions exist: 1. If a Trust for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM bona fide Certificates holders exists, why have we not received notice? 2. What are terms, and conditions precedent of the purported Trust? 3. What is the name and contact information for the Trustor(s)? 4. What is the name and contact information for the Trustee(s)? Al Clifton Hodges, Esq. wrote above: "I am simply a stockholder-beneficiary as are each of you." Why has the Trustee(s) provided only ACH, Esq. with specific knowledge of the existence of the Trust for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM shareholders? On its face, this appears to be a prima facia case for breach of fiduciary duty by the Trustee(s), by selectively releasing Trust information to only one shareholder-beneficiary.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Jun 19, 2015 15:07:50 GMT -5
by KFL
It appears the Trustee(s) of the purported Trust for the benefit of all CMKX/CMKM shareholder-beneficiaries has/have bestowed special status to ACH, Esq., by disclosing information about the Trust's existence, its terms, and conditions precedent, to only him.
One of the board administrators recent wrote that all shareholders deserve to know the truth of this saga. The vehicle to learn said truth is to demand an Accounting of the Trust from the Trustee(s). This is a well established practice in Trust law and it is an individual right each and every Trust Beneficiary possess.
I would attempt to contact ACH, Esq. myself, but he long ago stopped responding to both my telephonic and electronic communications, in an attempt to discuss the substance of this and my several posts today. In fact, the private phone number I would dial to enable conversations with his Associate, Dennis Smith, was long ago disconnected.
We all deserve the truth, not just ACH, Esq. and I have identified the legal vehicle - exercising our individual right to demand an Accounting of the Trust from the Trustee.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Jun 19, 2015 15:11:06 GMT -5
by kfl millionaires.proboards.com/thread/48729/read-lips?page=16 When an attorney files a Complaint in Federal District Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, require that the attorney that signs the Complaint, attach a separate "Affirmation", wherein she/he attests that to their knowledge and belief, the contents of the Complaint, most importantly, the allegations, are true.  When filing a Complaint that petitions the Court to release a Trust to its denoted Beneficiaries, the two most persuasive strategies, in my view, are to specifically identify the Trust in the Complaint, and also attach the Trust as an Exhibit. This allows the Court to review the Trust's terms, and conditions precedent, allowing the Court, at some future point in the litigation, to examine and review if all terms, and conditions precedent have been satisfied, which would allow for the release of the Trust. Via analogy, if you experience discomfort in your mouth, and subsequently visit your dentist, you must open your mouth and allow the dentist to examine the area you are seeking relief for. Similarly, the Federal District Judge can only examine the Trust, if, and only if, the Trust document has been presented for examination and review, before a determination can be made if the petitioned for relief is meritorious. If the Trust is not identified in the Complaint, and, if the Trust document is not annexed as an Exhibit, the Court has no basis to make a determination for the petitioned for relief. Further, the Court may on its own volition, dismiss the Complaint, for failure to provide the Trust document. Additionally, the attorney that signed the Complaint may be the subject of a malpractice suit. Lastly, the attorney runs the risk of censure, fines, suspension or being disbarred, if it is proven that the Trust does not exist, or if the allegations in the Complaint are false.
Given these foregoing proscriptions, the logical inference is made that the representations and allegations made in the Complaint, are true and meritorious, regardless if the source of that information is the attorney's review of the Trust document, a conversation with the Trustee, or a myriad of other possibilities that the information was obtained. The Court's practice is to accept the allegations as true, unless the source of same later becomes an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Jun 19, 2015 15:12:41 GMT -5
by kfl I never left the board, as I continued to read the cornucopia of divergent thoughts from the usual suspects, often shaking my head after reading unsubstantiated, emotional (and sometimes bizarre) claims, that have yet to come to fruition. I will take the high road, and not provide specificity regarding who the usual suspects are. Nevertheless, presuming the repeated representations that a Trust for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM shareholder-beneficiaries are actually true, then it both logically and legally follows that a Trust document must exist. Accordingly, given the legal requirement that a trust document must exist, it logically and legally follows, that the identity of the Trustor, the Trustee, the Beneficiaries, as well as the applicable terms, and conditions precedent, are all recorded therein. Specifically, this means that both JRSwails and KFL, must be listed in the Trust document (of course, not by our screen names, but our legal names listed on our Certificates, and as recorded at Transfer Online). Alas, I have no personal knowledge of the location of the purported Trust document; perhaps a CMKX/CMKM shareholder-beneficiary will come forward and advise of its location. Remember, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I will leave you with two links describing a "Petition for Declaratory Judgement", which maybe, could be, perhaps might be a viable alternative legal route for CMKX/CMKM shareholder-beneficiaries to follow, provided, and only provided, if, and only if, a copy of the actual Trust document (that must exist if the Trust exists), actually exists.Declaratory Judgement: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/declaratory+judgment Cornell University Law School regarding Declaratory Judgement: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2202Be well, JR.... millionaires.proboards.com/thread/48729/read-lips?page=16 |
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Jun 19, 2015 16:13:40 GMT -5
John, you're missing the point on this. If you've been paying attention, (and I know you have been) you should know that everything about this fiasco has been very carefully orchestrated. What he's saying here, in his very specific language, is that the government is now free from litigation on this trust. Based on this ruling, the "class" and anyone who purports to be from the class now has a door closed in regards to litigating their way into the class / payment. IOW, this was done so that when we do get paid, no one can sue because they weren't on the list. The limitations may not be that broad, I am not a lawyer. But, that's the way I read it. Think about the implications of that. Assume for a minute, the trust exists and I for one, believe it does. Before the beneficiaries and those who won't benefit from it even are officially notified, there has been litigation to confirm and limit litigation regarding the trust. Sounds to me, like someone is working a plan... It's not a cop-out at all. It's a statement of fact. 21 hours ago portrush said: Respectfully, you tell me. I never asked on what basis he took it all the way to SCOTUS...I just felt it was an incredible effort that he was willing to do so. A gift, if you will, should he have been able to actually argue the case. And while I do feel shareholders are due the transparency and truth about this adventure, I believe that to be responsibility that comes from somewhere other than Al Hodges. He is a shareholder who happens to be an attorney who thought he could do something based on his contacts, knowledge and ability. He spent his money, gave it a try and got shut out by the court. I admire his tenacity and generosity. Wish he could have made the case. pr |
|
|
|
Post by e362 on Jun 20, 2015 11:25:35 GMT -5
John, you're missing the point on this. If you've been paying attention, (and I know you have been) you should know that everything about this fiasco has been very carefully orchestrated. What he's saying here, in his very specific language, is that the government is now free from litigation on this trust. Based on this ruling, the "class" and anyone who purports to be from the class now has a door closed in regards to litigating their way into the class / payment. IOW, this was done so that when we do get paid, no one can sue because they weren't on the list. The limitations may not be that broad, I am not a lawyer. But, that's the way I read it. Think about the implications of that. Assume for a minute, the trust exists and I for one, believe it does. Before the beneficiaries and those who won't benefit from it even are officially notified, there has been litigation to confirm and limit litigation regarding the trust. Sounds to me, like someone is working a plan... It's not a cop-out at all. It's a statement of fact. Brig, thats one way of looking at it. Another would be he was trying to get all the deli type shares that were bought after the task force deadline and not certed and recorded as per task force direction included but failed. But as with anything in this debacle it is anyones guess. |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 21, 2015 19:00:01 GMT -5
oldepro
DIAMOND JEDI
Post by oldepro on 8 hours agoIt's All Greek To Me High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09931350-15b8-11e5-be54-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3diDbPrasI was going to copy and paste, but I must respect Copyright Laws. It's worth clicking the link, imo. To me, this is strong support for ACH's claims. Again, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 21, 2015 19:00:44 GMT -5
oldepro
DIAMOND JEDI
Post by oldepro on 8 hours agoIt's All Greek To Me High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09931350-15b8-11e5-be54-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3diDbPrasI was going to copy and paste, but I must respect Copyright Laws. It's worth clicking the link, imo. To me, this is strong support for ACH's claims. Again, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Oct 1, 2015 16:41:21 GMT -5
READ MY LIPS - YOU WILL BE PAID WHEN, AND ONLY WHEN, WE HAVE ASSET-BACKED CURRENCY AND A SAFE BANKING SYSTEM TO GO WITH IT. Please understand that I am NOT the Trustor NOR the Trustee; I have no power to change the Trust's provisions, nor to affect it in any manner. I am simply a stockholder-beneficiary as are each of you. I have no obligation, nor duty to any of you, except the duty and obligation to make this life for me and those I care about (and humanity in general) better, happier, more fulfilling, and more loving - one to all others; in the words of the Declaration of Independence, I have pledged my Life, my Fortune and my sacred Honor to do so. I happen to believe and embrace the words which appear below my avatar: "All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." I have tried to live my life accordingly. And, MLK was quite correct when he said "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." As a result, in no small portion attributable to my direct involvement in CMKX, essentially as a volunteer working off my own wealth, I feel more alive today than at any previous time in my life; in addition, I have learned more about the important things in life in the last ten years, than in the previous 50+. Just for the record, I'm as sick and tired as all of you about the inordinate time lapse that we have all endured. However, it turns out that the 'cabal' was much more deeply entrenched around the world, especially the western world, than anyone fully appreciated; additionally, the cabal has been willing to do anything and everything imaginable to delay the coming dénouement in hopes of wholly avoiding it. They are responsible for "9/11," which is finally beginning to come to light; they are responsible for the fact that Washington, D.C. has operated our Republic as a corporation for the last 150+ years; they are responsible for hiding all of these facts from you; they are responsible for ISIS; they are responsible for attempting to ignite WWIII; and, they are directly responsible for much much more. I have done my very, very best to keep you all apprised of the benchmarks of this long and arduous journey. In part, I felt it necessary to do so in recognition of the simple fact that you never purchased your stock with the idea that you were becoming one piece of a huge operation to free the world from centuries of financial slavery. The fact remains that such is the case. You have each played a pivotal role in freeing America, once more. Take pride and joy in such an accomplishment, and look forward to finally receiving your monetary reward with some measure of patience. Please show compassion and understanding to your fellows - have a loving outlook when you resist the temptation to react with your flight-or-fight response. My very best regards to all. Blessings, Al Hodges
Delegates to the Democratic National Convention (Chicago 1896) carrying William Jennings Bryan shoulder high after he delivered his “Cross of Gold” speech
In 1896, William Jennings Bryan said:
“We believe that the right to coin and issue money is a function of government. . . . It is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. . . . I stand with Jefferson . . . that the issue of money is a function of government, and that the banks ought to go out of the governing business . . . When we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other reforms will be possible, but until this is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished.”
History shows that Bryan was on the money. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will ever be accomplished in the USA and elsewhere until the people vanquish the bankers.
www.veteranstoday.com/2015/09/30/a-century-of-purse-snatchings-smears-and-assassinations/
|
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 6, 2015 18:09:42 GMT -5
millie
DIAMOND JEDI MASTER
****
*How we will get to GOLD BACKED- IMO*
It really makes me wonder who is telling the truth, who is right and who is wrong and how do 'they' come up with such a vast difference of opinion on whether or not the dollar will survive or fail. You just can't trust anyone anymore!! There are so many conflicting pieces of information floating around. I really don't think anyone knows what's going on - we just have a bunch of armchair gurus who like to express themselves in print for lack of something more meaningful to occupy their time. I believe Mr. Hodges is the ONLY one who knows the story. To quote Paul Harvey who used to say, 'Now for the rest of the story', Mr. Hodges is NOT going to give us the rest of the story any time soon or maybe even ever. JMO
|
|
