|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 18, 2007 15:44:55 GMT -5
my69z Ace of Diamonds Re: New info on cmkm diamonds site « Reply #17 on Yesterday at 7:19pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I said in an MP3 months ago what my "personal" opinion on Urban was,,,,probably made mistakes by gettin ahead of himself. Either way,,,,,,fraud is fraud and he'll lose it all......whatever that is....and will most likely be a witness when criminal stuff comes. That's how i still feel And i'll add,,,,,,,,,after seen just even a scratch of the surface........criminal needs to come and i don't expect a company to go to such detailed lengths and NOT press for criminal. Glty, Chris cmkxgroup.proboards88.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1197853536
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 18, 2007 15:45:29 GMT -5
my69z Ace of Diamonds Re: New info on cmkm diamonds site « Reply #12 on Yesterday at 5:21pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe,,,,maybe Urban had no choice on the hiring of Kevin? ? ? Think about that..... Just a thought my69z Ace of Diamonds Re: New info on cmkm diamonds site « Reply #13 on Yesterday at 5:23pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i'am not sayin "Kevin" had some type of info on "Urban" to squeeze him into doing anything........i don't think that happened myself. Chris cmkxgroup.proboards88.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1197853536
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 18, 2007 15:46:03 GMT -5
By: lowriderbill 18 Dec 2007, 02:45 PM EST Msg. 28545 of 28552 (This msg. is a reply to 28542 by mquietstorm3.) Jump to msg. # MQ3 - Many of us are not talking... ...about CMKX because we believe very differently than the majority on other boards. We'd rather not engage naysayers or get bogged down in debate as there really isn't any point to it. All of the evidence that is currently being put out for public consumption supports what the naysayers have been saying all along. Those of us that believe there is more to the story don't have much public info to support our opinions or conclusions. Vindication would be nice, but all anyone really wants is to get paid. It doesn't matter where the money comes from or who looks like the hero either. However, I will reiterate what a few of us still believe. 1) That there was a large short at one time and shorty was forced to buy in. 2) That there is a trust with monies being held for distribution to shareholders. 3) That we will receive an offer to buy our shares at some point. 4) That we will have an opportunity to convert to another company and follow the claims. 5) That the big money is down the road in the development of the claims. 6) That we will never know what happened behind closed doors. Of course people are thinking what you've said. Many just take issue with your delivery. Rather than ask so many questions, why don't you give us your opinion of the following: 1) The current legal maneuvers by the Tyler team. 2) The possibility of receiving up front money before a mine in 2010. 3) The potential of the claims including Koch, Cree, Shore, Star, etc. 4) The building of a conglomerate, ie evolves then emerges. 5) How this will all play out. 6) Urban Casavant himself. I think it's time for you to come clean as I know that you know much more than what you share. We're way past you telling us you're a mere shareholder Milton. I think the loyal longs deserve to hear what you know. Thanks in advance for taking the time. If you'd rather contact me directly, you can do so at breichle@aol.com. Have a Merry Christmas. Lowriderbill ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB01247&read=28545
|
|
|
Post by Ed Jagacki on Dec 18, 2007 15:46:13 GMT -5
From me... on RB... (n response to his post found at the end of page 2 on this thread)
Jay-adobe:
You infer that only a nay-sayer would treat official documents as official documents - and so, factor those things into ones perspective.
So, WHO is nuts?
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 18, 2007 15:59:24 GMT -5
From millionaires..................
By: abadgoodgirl 18 Dec 2007, 02:21 PM EST Msg. 634593 of 634627 Jump to msg. #
oil.ipo, in the absence of information, we have to think using critical thinking skills and we have to play war games.
we know about the trillions of shares.
we know via procedure, in a physical cert pull, the shares must be purchased.
Our team told us to request delivery of our cert to extract maximum value and something about righting a monumental wrong permeating the entire market system.
Well, who has the money that was paid for our certs that WE extracted with OUR delivery requests?
Maybe they will have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday with OUR part of the damages.
Seems the Tyler camp is being absolutely awful to Urban. Out of all them, including IBM and Stoecklein, I trust Urban the most.
Why doesn't IBM put an end to Tyler? What if IBM, the big oil companies and Stoecklein betrayed Urban and are still trying to get custody of his claims and refusing to pay the bonafide stockholders their part of the ROI?
Our only hope may just be Canada.
If Maheu can still condition atmospheres from here to the Middle East, why doesn't he condition Tyler to stfu and stop bashing UC.
Why would UC pick the mullet and his side kick, BF, to preside over CMKX?
What if UC was double crossed by them all. I think there is a lot at stake here.
So many questions...and no answers.. just gut feelings and some history. History tells us IBM is on the side of the bona fide stockholders versus the corruption rampant in SEC, Gov't and Federal Reserve and DTCC.
History also tells us that IBM would likely throw his hat into the ring on the side of the Independents and not the oligarchy big oil companies. Conoco and Phillips were independents until they joined up after 9/11, then they became one of the big players via their merger.
Hughes hated the seven sisters.. I imagine Maheu might know something about that.
But all that aside.. where is the notification of the extracted funds? Is Maheu still the trustee. Did they go to bat on our behalf or on behalf of themselves and some other group besides Urban.
Imagine if they double crossed UC AND the stockholders? That would be like finding out you were double crossed by your own father... imo
Well, I'm sure it's a wonderful holiday season for the criminal cabal, yet again... and probably for those who got the $$$ from our request of delivery of our certs....
Once again it looks like the criminals get the big bonuses and the CMKX stockholders get coal.. [we need a miracle]
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 18, 2007 18:36:20 GMT -5
haney Diamond Finder and Miner Re: Consensus on when were getting paid and why*** « Reply #3 on Today at 3:46pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today at 3:20pm, cmkxaholic wrote:Why do we deserve to get paid by law? do you have a link to support that statement? I so wish that was true. ABGG claims that the DTCC owes $1.00 by law for every FTD. Although I have never seen anything in writing on this, I would tend to believe that it is true.... tramp2.proboards88.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1198014217
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Dec 18, 2007 20:59:55 GMT -5
By: gusjarvis 18 Dec 2007, 02:14 PM EST Msg. 634577 of 634706 Jump to msg. # hey fishing or anyone here is a question since kevin and bill are obviously hiding much of the information and only giving out a tiny bit to present a skewed version of reality here is a question. Since bill was the shareholders lawyer and not the companies lawyer does he not have the legal duty to release the information and evidence and documents he gathered just as the shareholders lawyer and all the proof he gathered to back up the og updates to us.
I know he is selectively putting out info from the boxes urbans lawyer gave over to another lawyer in her law firm but what about the legal duty to give out the info from when he worked for the shareholdes, is it legal to hide information from your clients.
Where is the evidence he gathered to say we had oil concessions, were if the evidence of the largest proven naked short ever, where is his evidence he gathered to prove our claims were being maintained like he said and that we had the goods, where is the information he gathered on john edwards to know he was an extortionist in this stock and other stocks like he said, where in the hellll is all the work he did for the shareholders. And where is his accountability to the shareholders. I can show you a hundred thousands posts where friends of the og said urban scammed us three years ago two years ago a year ago or maybe the bank accounts we all saw or the surrendered shares list, so it is not only not acceptable to have this farce of an ending where he now says urban scammed him, it says bill is responsible for letting this happen due to his negligence and so he would be liable to his clients he worked for, right.
As far as i know it is not legal to hide the work you did for your own clients is it? - - - - -
By: imsoweary 18 Dec 2007, 04:48 PM EST Msg. 634690 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634577 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # gusjarvis, "since kevin and bill are obviously hiding much of the information and only giving out a tiny bit to present a skewed version of reality..."
That statement alone shows your intentions more clearly than anything else you could ever post. It is a shame to see you and others resort to such low attacks on Bill & Kevin when faced with the undeniable evidence they are presenting. If you think their info is skewed, then by all means, post your own *documentation* proving otherwise. No opinions, rumors or hearsay, show us real evidence. I know you can't, there isn't any. - - - - -
By: gusjarvis 18 Dec 2007, 05:36 PM EST Msg. 634698 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634690 by imsoweary.) Jump to msg. # weary I am certainly not attacking bill or kevin that is for dam sure, i am attacking those pulling their strings and those really in charge of this joke, and it sure as hellllll ain't them. Bill and kevin are behind the shareholders but those pulling their strings could care less about us imo, they only care about the bigger picture. - - - - -
By: demntx 18 Dec 2007, 02:17 PM EST Msg. 634584 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634577 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # Gus....come on....you are not stupid....he works for cmkm diamonds now....not for any specific group of shareholders....geez - - - - -
By: gusjarvis 18 Dec 2007, 02:22 PM EST Msg. 634597 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634584 by demntx.) Jump to msg. # demntx come on you're not stupid now he worked for years for the shareholders, I am saying for the years he worked for the shareholders he legally has to give them the information he collect for them, i don't give a ratz azz about the new information, and i am not even talking cert pull or interplead info, just the info he gathered for his clients when he was the shareholders lawyer, all the info to back up the og updates is owed to the shareholders, and it makes no difference who he works for now - - - - -
By: demntx 18 Dec 2007, 02:24 PM EST Msg. 634598 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634597 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # Gus, leagally, no he does not...eom - - - - -
By: gusjarvis 18 Dec 2007, 02:26 PM EST Msg. 634603 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634598 by demntx.) Jump to msg. # you are clueless if I have a lawyer work for me is he allowed to hide his work that he did for me, no, as bill is not legally allowed to hide the work he did when the shareholders lawyer unless it is sealed and he hasn't said it is. It is his duty and legal obligation to his clients to present them the work he did and prove he did the work he said,end of story - - - - -
By: 07isback 18 Dec 2007, 02:36 PM EST Msg. 634619 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634603 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # OT} gus, sence your so worried about that, call tyler, set up an appointment with frizzel, then go to tyler and let bill frizzel answer your questions, instead of whinning here on the board with your childish antics, in and attempt to discredit him,,,
its clear you have an agenda that against frizzel/west, i cant speak for the rest of the share holders, but personnelly you are nothing more then a disgusting little person with your feeble atempt to discredit the only person that is in the share holders corner, trying to right the corruption.and greedy that was perpatrated upon the share holders here, by that goddam theif,,,, and i resent the hell out of you and the others that are either knowing or unknowingly try to F~up the only hope we have for my and others investment here,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - - - - -
By: gusjarvis 18 Dec 2007, 02:43 PM EST Msg. 634627 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634619 by 07isback.) Jump to msg. # clearly you are not smart enough to know what my agenda is, and the fact that you don't care about these things shows how fake you are, so carry on with your continued bullchit you do day after day - - - - -
By: whyme176 18 Dec 2007, 05:21 PM EST Msg. 634694 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634627 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # Gus Good post and I do agree with it..
Now if we could get the fake mkay to admit it.
- - - - -
By: gusjarvis 18 Dec 2007, 05:41 PM EST Msg. 634702 of 634706 (This msg. is a reply to 634694 by whyme176.) Jump to msg. # ya whyme the liars I can understand that is easy but the regular shareholders who believe this ending must question the skills of the lawyers involved as they didn't do a thing to protect us and in fact were wrong about every single thing they did pretty much and were wrong about almost every og update that was given while we were still trading therefore affecting the decisions of many to buy more stock in this supposed scam, if you believe them that is. Obviously nobody can get everything wrong and not be questioned, if you don't question them you are exposing yourself for the fraud you are. If you don't expect any answers from them for the work they did or lack there of then you are a fraud imo.
If you are just expecting that the og is in fact hiding most of the info do to legal reasons that is fine, but then you don't fall for the fake ending, you just live with it.
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Dec 18, 2007 21:00:16 GMT -5
By: 07isback 18 Dec 2007, 05:40 PM EST Msg. 634700 of 634707 (This msg. is a reply to 634698 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # well gus, perhaps i have miss judged you, it did seem to me as though you were attacking bill and kevin, with the constant reposting of the same questions,,,,
if true then i apologise, if not then THWY - - - - -
By: gusjarvis 18 Dec 2007, 05:44 PM EST Msg. 634703 of 634707 (This msg. is a reply to 634700 by 07isback.) Jump to msg. # I understand you could take my posts wrong but I have nothing bad to say at all about kevin and bill, they to me are more sybmols of "it will be ok" but it is going to get ugly. They are not our saviors, they are doing their jobs imo and are in fact looking out for the shareholders best interest for sure. CMKX was done a long time ago, and all this info was known a long time ago, and this ending was planned a long time ago. That is why they said urban may have to take the fall three years ago - - - - -
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Dec 18, 2007 21:00:49 GMT -5
By: notill 18 Dec 2007, 04:27 PM EST Msg. 634686 of 634707 Jump to msg. # Throw us a bone Kevin, show us one favorable document. - - - - -
By: ejagacki 18 Dec 2007, 05:15 PM EST Msg. 634693 of 634707 (This msg. is a reply to 634686 by notill.) Jump to msg. # notill:
They didn't hire forensic accountants, Susan T. and other attorney's to represent us in discovery, civil damage suits, and possibly criminal court - in order to locate "warm-n-fuzzies".
You want something "nice" about Urban - go to Melvin and ask him how Urban was a real pal when his mother was sick.
You want to know how he and others ripped off the shareholder's - then keep following the Tyler boys...
Ed
- - - - - By: notill 18 Dec 2007, 05:31 PM EST Msg. 634696 of 634707 (This msg. is a reply to 634693 by ejagacki.) Jump to msg. # egaq now I wonder if there were only 7 boxes? Did they throw the bad stuff away already? - - - - -
By: abadgoodgirl 18 Dec 2007, 05:35 PM EST Msg. 634697 of 634707 (This msg. is a reply to 634696 by notill.) Jump to msg. # remember those boxes came from Urban's lawyers..soooo - - - - -
By: gusjarvis 18 Dec 2007, 05:45 PM EST Msg. 634704 of 634707 (This msg. is a reply to 634697 by abadgoodgirl.) Jump to msg. # abad not only did they come from urban's lawyer they were given to another lawyer from her law firm, or ex of her law firm, now that says it all
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Dec 19, 2007 7:17:42 GMT -5
By: lilburrito0 18 Dec 2007, 10:40 PM EST Msg. 634792 of 634850 (This msg. is a reply to 634754 by gr8hiker.) Jump to msg. # gr8hiker
Re: Burrito: I'm assuming you're either kidding around , or had a brain fart with that response to Lowrider. Your point doesn't prove anything regarding his question. Huge numbers of shares were kept out of the counter according to Frizzy . But we all knew that anyway when he statred publically assailing Deli's shares among other's
Link please!
I would like to read what Frizzell actual said!
TIA
By: gr8hiker 18 Dec 2007, 11:35 PM EST Msg. 634819 of 634850 (This msg. is a reply to 634792 by lilburrito0.) Jump to msg. # burrito: Actually ,he stated it to me personally ,, as well as several other shareholders on several occasions when asked , among other things, " why has the counter stopped at this number when so many people are still faxing in certs to be recorded". Now , you can either confirm it with him , think mutiple people , including myself are making it up , or if it's denied by Tyler, realize that it's you that's being lied to . I could care less.
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Dec 19, 2007 7:19:14 GMT -5
By: lowriderbill 18 Dec 2007, 10:18 PM EST Msg. 634784 of 634789 (This msg. is a reply to 634773 by 07isback.) Jump to msg. # 07 - One would think so...
...but we all know the loopholes within the system. I've been saying for a few years now that we used Shorty's own system against him. Your question goes right to the heart of the problems within the system and how hedgies, off shore accounts, market makers, etc have fleeced the American markets.
It really doesn't matter who the bad guy is that takes a bullet or who the good guy is that ends up looking like a hero. That is, as long as the shareholders are paid for their particpation and given an opportunity to move forward with what they originally invested in. In one way or another I believe we shareholders will receive an offer for our shares at some point, FOLLOW the claims to another entity and ultimately reap the benefits, or a combination of both. IMO, there are many that owe us an answer including the government, the Tyler team, AND the Casavant clan.
Just so you know I've never listend to any guru's or even been to Paltalk. I've always been respectful to my fellow shareholders as they're people just like me. We want to see a great return on our investment and make life a little easier. Somehow, someway this will work out for us. Just remember that at some point we'll all meet at the crossroads and hopefully have done right by each other.
Until then enjoy your evening...
Lowriderbill
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 19, 2007 8:20:41 GMT -5
By: lowriderbill 18 Dec 2007, 08:01 PM EST Msg. 634729 of 634786 (This msg. is a reply to 634720 by f4ds.) Jump to msg. # F4D - There is one important bit of info.. ...that everyone here, including Phoenix Gold and Frizzell are missing. What happened to the shares that were sold? IMO, the shares were purchased by a trust. This trust held an offsetting electronic position and was used when brokers had to buy-in. Shareholders then received certificates. Ultimately, the proceeds were retained in trust for future distribution to the bonafide shareholders. So far I haven't seen any evidence from the Tyler team proving what happened after the shares were sold. In addition, they haven't given us any info as to what the value of the assets in the TRO are. Lowriderbill - - - - - By: lowriderbill 18 Dec 2007, 09:10 PM EST Msg. 634762 of 634782 (This msg. is a reply to 634734 by lilburrito0.) Jump to msg. # Pedro - Evidently you didn't understand... ...what I wrote. You can't prove what happened to those shares any more than I can. You have absolutely no way to track them. However, I know of two agencies that can:) If a trust was created outside of the United States and held an electronic position, purchased through a broker that doesn't report to ADP/OBO/NOBO, then the shares would never be included in the Cede & Company count. The brokers could then buy back their electronic markers from this trust. IMO this is how the short was covered. If you don't understand the explanation, then it's not my problem. Feliz Navidad Vato! Lowriderbill ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKI&read=634762
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 19, 2007 8:26:22 GMT -5
~¤Franko¤~ DESIGNER Re: Lowriderbill « Reply #3 on Yesterday at 11:46pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The shares were purchased by us,.. millionaires.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=1198033850IceCrush Mod Squad Re: Lowriderbill « Reply #4 on Yesterday at 11:55pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're saying purchased by us, held in trust, to be sold back to cover the short? Then, there would be a trust established, by which money from the share sales would be kept. Would the shares have to be sold back at market value, or at the value established by those who held the shares in trust......depending on supply and demand..............thus......any price that the buyer could possibly pay for them? IceCrush sptrader DIAMOND JEDI MASTER Re: Lowriderbill « Reply #5 on Today at 12:11am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What shorter would bother to cover a stock that isn't trading ? It's a 100% profit for them, a shorter's dream. 703bil shares were sold to US ! The entire OS. There were no "magic nss settlements" done in secret. If you have proof of a lower O/S then 703bil, I'd love to see it. Why do you think Kevin is trying to get us trading again ? To FORCE a cover or settlement, is my guess. jmho l owriderbill DIAMOND DIGGER Re: Lowriderbill « Reply #6 on Today at 12:50am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yesterday at 11:46pm, ~¤Franko¤~ wrote:The shares were purchased by us,.. Franko, You're correct that 703 billion were purchased by us. However, there were many more shares purchased overall. That's why they call it a naked short or failure to deliver. What I'm suggesting is that UC also purchased more stock from the market through a trust. In other words enough shares to offset the O/S. By making legitimate purchases, the trust would then have as much right, title, and claim to the certificates as anyone else. The only way for all of us to receive certs and for the short to be covered was for shorty to buy-in by purchasing the electronic markers. The markers would then be eliminated while the funds were retained by the trust for future distribution to those that had rightful ownership of the company, ie bonafide shareholders. Thank you for the reply... Lowriderbill lowriderbill DIAMOND DIGGER Re: Lowriderbill « Reply #7 on Today at 12:56am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yesterday at 11:55pm, IceCrush wrote:You're saying purchased by us, held in trust, to be sold back to cover the short?
Then, there would be a trust established, by which money from the share sales would be kept. Would the shares have to be sold back at market value, or at the value established by those who held the shares in trust......depending on supply and demand..............thus......any price that the buyer could possibly pay for them?
IceCrush Ice, Correct on all accounts. However, I'm not sure how the purchase price would be established. If the trust is funded and ready for distribution, then maybe a default judgement against Urban is what is required in order to move things forward. He would then be able to retain his silence on all of this while we get paid:) Good to see you again... Lowriderbill lowriderbill DIAMOND DIGGER Re: Lowriderbill « Reply #8 on Today at 1:04am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today at 12:11am, sptrader wrote:What shorter would bother to cover a stock that isn't trading ? It's a 100% profit for them, a shorter's dream. 703bil shares were sold to US ! The entire OS. There were no "magic nss settlements" done in secret. If you have proof of a lower O/S then 703bil, I'd love to see it. Why do you think Kevin is trying to get us trading again ? To FORCE a cover or settlement, is my guess. jmho SP, Roger Glenn stated in his work that the best way to break a short is through a merger. A complete accounting of all shares must be performed and any open fails must be covered. This was the purpose of revocation, to lock in the short and force a settlelment. All we needed was for the company that we're merging with to have value and a tightly held O/S, if not a private company:) Oh, I don't think we have an O/S lower than 703 billion. I believe we'll receive an offer to buy our shares at some point, a conversion into the new company, or a combination of both. BTW, Kevin doesn't even know how many shares Urban holds. He's stated it in the company updates. If he doesnt even know that, then how can he know what the true share structure is and return us to trading? Have a good evening... Lowriderbill
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 19, 2007 8:28:20 GMT -5
lowriderbill DIAMOND DIGGER Re: Lowriderbill « Reply #11 on Today at 3:04am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An excellent post by Elvis... ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKI&read=604736By: elvis-is-here 20 Sep 2007, 03:30 PM EDT Msg. 604736 of 634844 (This msg. is a reply to 604721 by klonopin2mg.) Jump to msg. # Klonopin2mg: They want us to believe that IBM w/ Global Intelligence, Stoecklien, Edwards & Angels... were all scammed by UC, JE. If E&A follows any protocol when issuing opinion letters, then many attorneys reviewed the opinion letters to increase the o/s all the way to 700 bil. No one seems to question RG and his integrity. Yes, Global Intel tracks money laundering internationally. If this is/was a sting then it took leverage to institute change. If it was about NSS money disappearing offshores, or the stock borrow program (essentially fractional reserve lending of stocks), or the Fed Reserve and its printing press usurping congressional power, SEC, broker and market maker compliance....then mere legislation could not accomplish what 40-70k shareholders could do to prove the system is flawed, biased and unfair. Too many folks were on the take, and tooo much red tape to accomplish what we may have accomplished. Many many folks have resigned before their appointment to position was over. Too many coincidences. If any of the above scenarios is correct, then the mission needs to be accomplished before the awards are handed out. What was the timing of the DTCC's dematerialization goal with the certificate pull of CMKX? Doors seemed to close after CMKX passed thru. Anyway the above is just my opinions. Elvis
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 19, 2007 11:20:48 GMT -5
By: bobbybdb110 18 Dec 2007, 07:21 PM EST Msg. 634719 of 634856 (This msg. is a reply to 634702 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # gusjavis,I Believe that Bill Frizzell was hired, and had a fiduciary responsibility to only John Martin, he was never our legal council, we just helped pay the fright.
Bill told us many times in his up date, that he represents John Martin only. - - - - -
By: gusjarvis 18 Dec 2007, 09:51 PM EST Msg. 634778 of 634855 (This msg. is a reply to 634719 by bobbybdb110.) Jump to msg. # bobbydbd110 no true, everyone who paid their 25 bucks everyone who joined the shareholders group and paid their money are his clients, and in the end everyone who was a shareholders was reallty represented by bill. But for sure he had many many clients who paid their money and deserve answers for exactly what he did do for them, and if every one of the og updates is wrong then he should explain that with proof.
By the way I did talk to a lawyer today and all those clients have the right to see the work he did for them, he can not hide the work legally, he is just doing it. Well unless this case is sealed or he is working with nda's, but even if he is his clients should get the info and sign nda's themselves.
|
|