|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 5, 2021 11:04:05 GMT -5
S T A L L I N G But why?  There were many people complaining that they were 'cut-off' prior to the 'Town Hall'. Now according to this new post, they re-opened the door until March 31st.... That may have created a huge round of new investigations for FBI. I think many of us felt the list was 'locked' when the Town Hall happened... ...apparently not? So, did that new deadline cause the wait we've been experiencing? |
|
|
|
Post by Santasi on May 21, 2021 12:24:04 GMT -5
New Press Release dated May 21, 2021 regarding Town Hall on May 28, 2021 at 10am PST.
Santasi
|
|
|
|
Post by RoughCut on May 21, 2021 17:51:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vulcanized crawler on May 23, 2021 17:30:33 GMT -5
i was reading judy byington and ran across this on sunday 23May21....says we are in line to get paid when QFS takes over...her report was in ''rumormillnews.com'' she has a report most every day...or at least an update:
Adjudicated Packages: These are lawsuits where plaintiffs won the legal cases. The largest are: CMKX, Native American Claims, Farm Claims, and others. You will know if you are already a part of these.
CMKX: A diamond mine that oversold stock with the help of the SEC. They were sued by key stockholders and won – often referred to as an Adjudicated Package.
|
|
|
|
Post by smeagle on May 28, 2021 12:32:42 GMT -5
Well that town hall didn't really provide any new details, did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by portrush on May 28, 2021 13:17:41 GMT -5
Nothing new, you’re right—but clarity for some. I think he did a good job. Less snarky or condescending. He made clear what many of us have known all along…the DOJ case is not about a Trust. It is only focused on the criminal acts of company insiders, not brokerages. If Maheu collected money put into a Trust it didn’t come from these defendants. They are two separate issues and always have been. |
|
|
|
Post by portrush on May 28, 2021 13:19:01 GMT -5
Didn’t Adobe once say the legal play must finish first? Is this, that? |
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 28, 2021 13:38:11 GMT -5
Didn’t Adobe once say the legal play must finish first? Is this, that?
|
|
|
|
Post by portrush on May 28, 2021 18:00:27 GMT -5
No Sir John, they did not. Nor did they infer why it has taken so long to do anything, even that which they’re doing now. Was it just shelved until shareholders made noise? Most often it seems, it’s not what is said but what is not said that fueled rumors. Gates said he didn’t find a Trust but hasn’t said it’s a fait accompli. Frizz said there was no naked short but didn’t dismiss a fail to deliver. This DOJ attorney said this action isn’t tied to a Trust or some $1 a share fine— but he didn’t say those options were folly. It’s all a mixed bag and no one to date has called a spade a spade. What does it take to be over after 16 years past revocation? |
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 28, 2021 20:28:09 GMT -5
No Sir John, they did not. Nor did they infer why it has taken so long to do anything, even that which they’re doing now. Was it just shelved until shareholders made noise? Most often it seems, it’s not what is said but what is not said that fueled rumors. Gates said he didn’t find a Trust but hasn’t said it’s a fait accompli. Frizz said there was no naked short but didn’t dismiss a fail to deliver. This DOJ attorney said this action isn’t tied to a Trust or some $1 a share fine— but he didn’t say those options were folly. It’s all a mixed bag and no one to date has called a spade a spade. What does it take to be over after 16 years past revocation? |
|
|
|
Post by goldengriff on May 29, 2021 13:01:58 GMT -5
No Sir John, they did not. Nor did they infer why it has taken so long to do anything, even that which they’re doing now. Was it just shelved until shareholders made noise? Most often it seems, it’s not what is said but what is not said that fueled rumors. Gates said he didn’t find a Trust but hasn’t said it’s a fait accompli. Frizz said there was no naked short but didn’t dismiss a fail to deliver. This DOJ attorney said this action isn’t tied to a Trust or some $1 a share fine— but he didn’t say those options were folly. It’s all a mixed bag and no one to date has called a spade a spade. What does it take to be over after 16 years past revocation? Port, as I understand it a naked short creates a fail to deliver If the government or some element (persons) in the government created an undercover operation (sting) then it would be priority one to have "fall guys" to take the blame for the crimes committed. Without the fall guys, the government element would be exposed. That exposure just can't happen particularly in the case of cmkx. What was uncovered through cmkx goes far beyond nss, pump and dump, and fails to deliver GG |
|
|
|
Post by portrush on May 29, 2021 14:18:23 GMT -5
Thank you GG. I must say the sting theory is the only that makes sense to me—over all the other “reasons.” While still unsubstantiated and likely always will be, without it this makes no sense at all. In contrast to Ponzi and Madoff, their criminal acts were equally massive and extensively damaged many innocent people. Different from each other, yet still criminal. The Gov investigated, indicted and sentenced in relatively short order—while the defendants for CMKM spent years in jail without a trial, which in hindsight seems to have led to the inability to recoup any illegal monetary gains they made. The Gov waited too long. Who could argue they did not? Involved with this stock minimally for 17 years and revoked it 16 years ago (purportedly at the company’s request) we still wait months on end for the Gov to finish its investigating people for which there is little to no money to distribute. At this stage I’m inclined to think CMKM shareholders would say close the case and send the $25 (or less) per, to a Veteran’s support organization. Dragging this out wastes more tax dollars and it’s apparent it will result in next to nothing from this criminal case. That’s just my opinion—yours may differ. |
|
|
|
Post by jcnelson298 on Jun 3, 2021 18:17:25 GMT -5
How do you know if you are on a list of share holders ? Have not been around for about 16 years. I still have my cert and from what I can find out the cert number is ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by grouse87 on Jun 4, 2021 10:53:08 GMT -5
Thank you GG. I must say the sting theory is the only that makes sense to me—over all the other “reasons.” While still unsubstantiated and likely always will be, without it this makes no sense at all. In contrast to Ponzi and Madoff, their criminal acts were equally massive and extensively damaged many innocent people. Different from each other, yet still criminal. The Gov investigated, indicted and sentenced in relatively short order—while the defendants for CMKM spent years in jail without a trial, which in hindsight seems to have led to the inability to recoup any illegal monetary gains they made. The Gov waited too long. Who could argue they did not? Involved with this stock minimally for 17 years and revoked it 16 years ago (purportedly at the company’s request) we still wait months on end for the Gov to finish its investigating people for which there is little to no money to distribute. At this stage I’m inclined to think CMKM shareholders would say close the case and send the $25 (or less) per, to a Veteran’s support organization. Dragging this out wastes more tax dollars and it’s apparent it will result in next to nothing from this criminal case. That’s just my opinion—yours may differ. Even if all this was true?The Deep State is back in charge of the Government! They would never let this kind of money go out!! |
|
|
|
Post by supercim1 on Jun 6, 2021 18:31:37 GMT -5
Actually never trust in government about anything related to money.
|
|
