|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:35:12 GMT -5
By: oldno70
05 Sep 2008, 08:06 PM EDT
Msg. 761285 of 761345
Jump to msg. #
The Corporate Rico Reform Act of 2004
It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct [or], participate, or aid, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
Commentary: This proposal legislatively overturns the Supreme Court’s decision in Reves v. Ernst & Young.[232] It thereby permits RICO to reach corrupt outside professionals—such as lawyers and accountants—who knowingly aid and abet others violating this subsection.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:38:23 GMT -5
By: aladin99 05 Sep 2008, 08:13 PM EDT Msg. 761291 of 761346 Jump to msg. # Sting makes some UC's folks look bad...  .... They will give up those shares w/o a fight.....will see... |
|
|
|
Post by hundredtoone on Sept 5, 2008 20:38:48 GMT -5
Watch out NUFFY and BURRITO and the rest that helped PUMP and got FREE SHARES from it...also Brewer and DELI and anyone else selling UNREGISTERED SHARES...IMO...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial)
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:39:01 GMT -5
By: restripe2007
05 Sep 2008, 08:23 PM EDT
Msg. 761296 of 761346
Jump to msg. #
this stock has more lives that a cat
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:39:55 GMT -5
By: aladin99 05 Sep 2008, 08:26 PM EDT Msg. 761303 of 761347 Jump to msg. # UC and his few family members.... take the FALL?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:40:36 GMT -5
By: my69z 05 Sep 2008, 08:27 PM EDT Msg. 761307 of 761347 Jump to msg. # The RICO Act allowed law enforcement to charge a person or group with racketeering, defined as committing multiple violations of certain varieties within a 10 year period. The purpose of the RICO Act was stated as "the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce." S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1969). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1961(10) of Title 18 provides that the Attorney General may designate any department or agency to conduct investigations authorized by the RICO statute and such department or agency may use the investigative provisions of the statute or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law. Absent a specific designation by the Attorney General, jurisdiction to conduct investigations for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 lies with the agency having jurisdiction over the violations constituting the pattern of racketeering activity listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961.[2] So the Attorney General or...." the agency having jurisdiction over the violations ",,,,are gonna give Bill Frizzell RICO authority?? Hell,,,people were callin him an ambulance chaser 3 yrs ago....now he's qualified,,,and the only one at that....to take such a large RICO case??,,,,if there was to be one at this stage lol That's as funny as so many not realizin a "disgorgement" by the SEC would have to be authorized by the SEC.....the very agency Kevin/Bill had "CMKX" in a blind rage over. lol,,,,,,lol By: oldno70 05 Sep 2008, 08:37 PM EDT Msg. 761315 of 761348 (This msg. is a reply to 761307 by my69z.) Jump to msg. # Chris: Can a plaintiff bring a civil RICO claim against a defendant even if the defendant did not commit any crime? Every RICO claim must be based on a criminal violation or, as the statute states, an "act of racketeering." "Acts of racketeering" are all serious crimes and are listed in section 1961(1) of the RICO Act. A civil plaintiff must not only prove that the defendant engaged in acts if racketeering, but must also prove that these acts constituted a "pattern" and must prove all of the other elements of a civil RICO claim. The burden of proof that must be sustained by a civil plaintiff is, however, less onerous than the burden imposed upon criminal prosecutors. A civil plaintiff need only convince a jury by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant committed the acts of racketeering; whereas, a criminal prosecutor must establish the acts of racketeering beyond the reasonable doubt of the jury. The other difference between a civil and criminal RICO claim is the resulting penalties. If a plaintiff succeeds in establishing a civil RICO claim, he or she will be awarded monetary damages, in particular three times the actual damages established at trial plus the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. If a prosecutor establishes a criminal RICO claim, the defendant goes to jail. The greater burden of proof imposed upon a prosecutor arises from the fact that the end result of a successful criminal prosecution is the loss of the defendant's liberty, not just his money. www.ricoact.com/ricoact/faq.asp#remedies |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:41:07 GMT -5
By: aladin99
05 Sep 2008, 08:34 PM EDT
Msg. 761311 of 761348
(This msg. is a reply to 761307 by my69z.)
Jump to msg. #
My69z...White color crime laws don't work very well...
By: my69z
05 Sep 2008, 08:40 PM EDT
Msg. 761317 of 761348
(This msg. is a reply to 761311 by aladin99.)
Jump to msg. #
Nope,,,and a simple default will be juust fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:41:34 GMT -5
By: my69z
05 Sep 2008, 08:37 PM EDT
Msg. 761314 of 761348
Jump to msg. #
"RICO" aside...171B issued and 13B left in cert form??....ouch
If you "extrapolate"....CMKX needs a miracle on share reduction/cancelations from whoevere else they go after....and recover alot,,,,alot,,,of the funds.
It'll have to just about balance out and 171 to 13 is not a good start.....unless they can recover 70% plus of those funds
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:45:48 GMT -5
By: aladin99
05 Sep 2008, 08:28 PM EDT
Msg. 761309 of 761350
Jump to msg. #
Joanas...U said my certs are worthless....
then why tyler wanted 13.4B to be canceled???
Think before reply.....
By: msdonnaharrison
05 Sep 2008, 08:36 PM EDT
Msg. 761313 of 761349
(This msg. is a reply to 761309 by aladin99.)
Jump to msg. #
aladin, stop being silly. This lawsuit makes it clear that all CMKX certs will eventually be cancelled, so your certs are worthless. Tyler will recover all the assets, take back the entourage cert, and move on into the future with togi professionals and the new mark faulk save the world tv special to air shortly on star cable.
The good news you should be aware of is once tyler takes back their cert and get free of this MASSIVE FINANCIAL/ENERGY GLOBAL SCAM involving hundreds upon hundreds of seasoned professionals/financial king pins, mining giants, and 70,000 shareholders, they will be free to follow up on the doran project. I was reading the other day where Thorium is the NEW SAFE NON-PROLIFERATION NUCLEAR ENERGY SOURCE. Then I checked an SEC doc that mentioned "The Doran Uranium Property was determined to have widespread occurrences of elevated amounts of uranium and thorium in bedrock"
No wonder Entourage is so pizzed about that cert
that urbie, what was he thinking
By: aladin99
05 Sep 2008, 08:38 PM EDT
Msg. 761316 of 761349
(This msg. is a reply to 761313 by msdonnaharrison.)
Jump to msg. #
what a statement!!
~all CMKX certs will eventually be cancelled?~
Nuff is laughing at you....right now~
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:46:15 GMT -5
By: aladin99 05 Sep 2008, 08:40 PM EDT Msg. 761318 of 761350 Jump to msg. # BF/KW proved they know exactly who owns what....Therefore, BF proved NSS exists long time ago.... |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:48:18 GMT -5
By: oldno70
05 Sep 2008, 08:40 PM EDT
Msg. 761319 of 761350
Jump to msg. #
Oh,, and you can sue for treble damages under RICO
Look it up
By: my69z
05 Sep 2008, 08:51 PM EDT
Msg. 761325 of 761350
(This msg. is a reply to 761319 by oldno70.)
Jump to msg. #
Look up who approves RICO.....it's not Frizzell and it's not even necessary....and what "RICO" takes.
gettin caught up on ear candy
Then answer my Attorney General.....or "jurisdiction" question.
So why isn't our other CMKX case "RICO"...??
By: oldno70
05 Sep 2008, 08:55 PM EDT
Msg. 761329 of 761350
(This msg. is a reply to 761325 by my69z.)
Jump to msg. #
my69z_ I'm not saying anyones going for a rico,
The way bill is presenting his cases is a set up down
the road For a CIVIL RICO big difference.
Look it up. I put some of it out there.
By: my69z
05 Sep 2008, 08:56 PM EDT
Msg. 761331 of 761350
(This msg. is a reply to 761326 by oldno70.)
Jump to msg. #
What's up??....exactly what i said,,,when you answer my questions...legaly,,,then i'll answer this stupid personal crap
and again....13B left outta 171 is not a good start
By: oldno70
05 Sep 2008, 09:00 PM EDT
Msg. 761334 of 761350
(This msg. is a reply to 761331 by my69z.)
Jump to msg. #
my69z LOOK UP CIVIL RICO The RICO you are refering to
is to be presented by the attorny general...
Like I said big differnce.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:50:24 GMT -5
By: oldno70 05 Sep 2008, 08:37 PM EDT Msg. 761315 of 761348 (This msg. is a reply to 761307 by my69z.) Jump to msg. # Chris: Can a plaintiff bring a civil RICO claim against a defendant even if the defendant did not commit any crime? Every RICO claim must be based on a criminal violation or, as the statute states, an "act of racketeering." "Acts of racketeering" are all serious crimes and are listed in section 1961(1) of the RICO Act. A civil plaintiff must not only prove that the defendant engaged in acts if racketeering, but must also prove that these acts constituted a "pattern" and must prove all of the other elements of a civil RICO claim. The burden of proof that must be sustained by a civil plaintiff is, however, less onerous than the burden imposed upon criminal prosecutors. A civil plaintiff need only convince a jury by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant committed the acts of racketeering; whereas, a criminal prosecutor must establish the acts of racketeering beyond the reasonable doubt of the jury. The other difference between a civil and criminal RICO claim is the resulting penalties. If a plaintiff succeeds in establishing a civil RICO claim, he or she will be awarded monetary damages, in particular three times the actual damages established at trial plus the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. If a prosecutor establishes a criminal RICO claim, the defendant goes to jail. The greater burden of proof imposed upon a prosecutor arises from the fact that the end result of a successful criminal prosecution is the loss of the defendant's liberty, not just his money. www.ricoact.com/ricoact/faq.asp#remediesBy: my69z 05 Sep 2008, 08:47 PM EDT Msg. 761322 of 761350 (This msg. is a reply to 761315 by oldno70.) Jump to msg. # Oldno.....huh??,,,everything in your post is based on "commited"..." Every RICO claim must be based on a criminal violation or, as the statute states, an "act of racketeering." can Frizz approve a RICO charge on his own??,,,,,and can't the judge simply award Frizz what he's requesting Heck,,,he's askin for all those other trusts,,,id' think everyone would be jumpin for joy....isn't that where all the "money" is supposed to be hidden. There's nothing this judge can't do.....intrest,,damages,,ill-gotten,,,,everything By: oldno70 05 Sep 2008, 08:52 PM EDT Msg. 761326 of 761350 (This msg. is a reply to 761322 by my69z.) Jump to msg. # my69z And you blew tech's words out of proportion (the cool part seems to be Bill laying out RICO rather well for criminal down the road ) Whats up with that? |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:57:03 GMT -5
By: my69z 05 Sep 2008, 09:18 PM EDT Msg. 761340 of 761350 (This msg. is a reply to 761334 by oldno70.) Jump to msg. # And your refering to Civil because of Treble Damages??....3 times " damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages " Your saying Civil....with no criminal,,,,,,were arguing different same things then.. Your saying Frizz using this as the common tool to make'em settle??.....well,,,if "Glenn" is guilty.....he'd get included now " For attorneys to be liable under civil RICO it must be shown that the attorney participated in the operation or management of an enterprise. " And good for tha goose,,,good for tha gander.....why only go for a "treble" threat now on this amount of $$.....and not the Ewdards or Urban and others stuff?? As usual....... ?? By: oldno70 05 Sep 2008, 09:23 PM EDT Msg. 761341 of 761350 (This msg. is a reply to 761340 by my69z.) Jump to msg. # my69z, Yes it could One shot two kills "sort to speak" 1. The Civil RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964 expressly authorizes civil remedies, in addition to any criminal remedies that also exist to prosecute organized crime. www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/civil.rico.htm |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:57:35 GMT -5
By: my69z
05 Sep 2008, 09:35 PM EDT
Msg. 761346 of 761350
(This msg. is a reply to 761341 by oldno70.)
Jump to msg. #
Oldno...."3 times",,,but not on who they called the "masterminds" is my point....
good,,,but not as good as it seems.....and i'am also ,,,,maybe more focused on the "shares"
why not others as "Treble".....and disclosing how many shares we want canceled like todays suit
more stuff that don't add up.....
By: oldno70
05 Sep 2008, 09:44 PM EDT
Msg. 761350 of 761350
(This msg. is a reply to 761346 by my69z.)
Jump to msg. #
my69z_The way I look at is they either cut a deal or the
DD simply added up to no assets and would be a waste of
time and money.
Yep..This is one big cluster
all we could do is wait it out and hope for the best for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 5, 2008 20:59:07 GMT -5
By: my69z
05 Sep 2008, 09:40 PM EDT
Msg. 761348 of 761350
Jump to msg. #
Wow,,,bounced from the PB66 paltalk without even sayin a word.....LOL
it's so funny......you cant even get mad
|
|
