|
Post by portrush on Oct 7, 2009 22:14:07 GMT -5
andi66 Global Moderator
Re: Computershare Trust Corp - Saskatchewan « Reply #3 Today at 8:22pm »
portrush,
The link you are posting are names of individuals that have a vested interest/percentage in those corporations... when a red star appears on the link, means that the company is no longer trading, or not on that exchange any longer. When a red star appears on an individual, means they no longer hold that position.
What I posted on MY link were names of clients that Computershare Trust Corp - Saskatchewan has. Two different things.
Furthermore, Northern Star Resources changed names to Explor Resources... and it DOES have a President.
« Last Edit: Today at 8:23pm by sandi66 »
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 7, 2009 23:05:58 GMT -5
Posted by: Pedro2004 Date: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:52:33 PM In reply to: janice shell who wrote msg# 279768 Post # of 279824 Copy of Urban's Arrest Warrant investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=42291848Posted by: jarta Date: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:48:33 PM In reply to: janice shell who wrote msg# 279778 Post # of 279824 Janice, "That's very nice to see!" Yes, it is. And it indicates by the check mark in the warrant box that a warrant would be/was issued. But Pedro's wrong again. It's not a copy of a warrant (just as the check mark in the indictment box doesn't make it a copy of an indictment). ... eom
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 7, 2009 23:21:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 7, 2009 23:27:46 GMT -5
By: lilburrito0 07 Oct 2009, 09:04 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 875985 of 876096 Jump to msg. # BTW, Ivory -- I'm sending your post to the DOJ (Tim) because he's goning to find out which Casavant you are!
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 7, 2009 23:40:42 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 07 Oct 2009, 09:47 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876055 of 876096 (Reply to 876048 by reality.bytes)
Jump to msg. # lilburrito, thank you VERY MUCH for bringing that new DD to light.
something doesn't add up.
an arrest warrant that's SIX MONTHS old and they still don't have the guy in custody? waht's wrong with that picture?!!! LOL
you've made your point. the government is clearly NOT going after URBAN. no government agency issues an arrest warrant on someone and then lets that person walk for over half a year, especially when they know exactly where he is.
Posted by: jarta Date: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:48:33 PM In reply to: janice shell who wrote msg# 279778 Post # of 279824
Janice, "That's very nice to see!"
Yes, it is. And it indicates by the check mark in the warrant box that a warrant would be/was issued.
But Pedro's wrong again. It's not a copy of a warrant (just as the check mark in the indictment box doesn't make it a copy of an indictment). ... eom
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 7, 2009 23:47:15 GMT -5
By: mquietstorm3 07 Oct 2009, 11:44 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876094 of 876097 DEAL or NO DEAL!
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 7, 2009 23:54:39 GMT -5
IceCrush Mod Squad Re: Dvorak enters not guilty plea « Reply #53 Today at 12:36am » They cross the ocean to England and catch their man but they can't cross the border to catch Urban. Come oooonnnnn! They have his email address...even I can track that! Something else is at play here. I'm waiting it out. Me Too !! ....when the end arrives (if ever)... we will be either boarding the cruise ship of choice OR going down with the ship... my bags are packed and waiting !! RoughCut DIAMOND JEDI Re: Dvorak enters not guilty plea « Reply #56 Today at 9:21pm » Exactly ice! I'll wait with you. This one and a small handfull of others which just don't sound right is what keeps me positive. I also believe "something else is at play here". I know I'm way in left field with this one but it wouldn't surprise me to find that 2 of the 3 alphabet insiders (alleged) in the beginning of CMKX were Mark Faulk and Brian Dvorak. For sure, all IMO. Oh yea. Whoever you are, where are those d**n samples results! Its been over 3 months. Enough is enough.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 8:05:56 GMT -5
ty seagull
By: snifferpup I like reality....................Heck it only took 4 hours to get over 28,000 hits to The Stand from over 60 different locations around the world.........................................................And as Bob pointed out several years back, "they never considered the consequences of their actions, one of which includes the reality that a running commentary on their criminality has been recorded and is captured for the record and for posterity: and they can't do anything about it"
And the reality there...............Mr Maheu wasn't talking about anyone on the DOJ list right now~
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 8:08:51 GMT -5
The only name I recognize is Gutierrez ...... same as Ginger Gutierrez What, where or how did these names show up as connected to CMKX?? ShowMeTheMoney Mod Squad Re: Other Gossip,etc.10/5/09-> « Reply #46 Today at 6:46am » Anyone know who these people are, and their relationship to CMKX?2:09-CR-205 OMAR REYES-GUTIERREZ - WARRANT 2:09-CR-219 FEDERICO LOPEZ-GOMEZ - WARRANT 2:09-CR-220 ROBERTO RODRIGUES-CRUZ - WARRANT 2:09-CR-221 SERGIO YANEZ-JIMENEZ - WARRANT 2:09-CR-222 ANTHONY SWANSON - WARRANT 2:09-CR-223 RONALD DAIN HARRIS - WARRANT 2:09-CR-224 CHARLES LUCIOUS - WARRANT 2:09-CR-225 VALARIE ELAINE BOSTON - SUMMONS JOHN RICHARD BOSTON, JR. - SUMMONS FERMINM ARTINEDLOPEZ FRANCISCO ALBERTO DIAZ-ESPANA MANUEL HERNANDEZ-MORENO MELINA K.WITHERS TAVARES CLAYBORN CARLOS DANIEL PONCE-MIRANDA
|
|
|
Post by sweettime on Oct 8, 2009 9:12:07 GMT -5
Question: Why on Earth would it take the DOJ 4 months to arrest Kinney, Guiterez, Dvorak and Bagley?
Arrest warrants were in May right? and Actual arrests were in Sept?
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 9:40:13 GMT -5
ty pennypauly.. ty evenup
from tramp.... Re: Questionnaire Monday Oct 19th « Reply #7 Today at 4:53am »
the questionaire is for the Unshareholders, not for those with certs, this is all about the unregistered shares and the criminal case..
now, if you don't have a cert then by all means, fill out the questionaire, because this is for who you bought your shares from, what broker and why you couldn't get a cert..
the doj explained, black and white, in a pdf file, this is a complex case and will take at least a year.
those who called relayed back the doj said this is a complex case and will take at least a year.
they also said, black and white, that the trial won't be for at least a year..
THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE CRIMINAL CASE..UNREGISTERED SHARES..
if you have a cert, as what was told to me by one from the inside, relayed to me...
THOSE WITH CERTS ARE GOLDEN.
what IF, they need a extra 2 weeks before the rest of the indictments are unsealed and arrests made before this questionaire becomes public?
think outside the box.
|
|
|
Post by eastcoastswing on Oct 8, 2009 10:09:44 GMT -5
So a year+ for the people without certs but for the people with certs we might get paid a lot sooner?
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 10:21:13 GMT -5
By: mquietstorm3 08 Oct 2009, 11:10 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 876189 of 876192
Jump to msg. # If you were the DOJ or SEC, would you invest a lot of your time on a company that has been reported to have no value and then deem it as "A COMPLEX CASE"? The operative word here "COMPLEX"! Complex does not run in the same arena with no value unless it became "PERPLEXED" and what you thought was became was not?
"POCKET YOU IN MIGHT NOT BE THE POCKET YOU IN "
|
|
|
Post by Display Name on Oct 8, 2009 10:41:19 GMT -5
ty pennypauly.. ty evenup from tramp.... as what was told to me by one from the inside, relayed to me...
whatever tramp you zagnut
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 10:42:08 GMT -5
Posted by: jarta Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6:38:52 AM In reply to: janice shell who wrote msg# 279821 Post # of 279851 Janet, ... "No. The motions for a protective order would be on the docket." If you look at the docket histories Pedro posted there are a few missing document numbers. But, right now, you can't tell if the missing document numbers refer to minor bookkeeping documents, like the AO 257 defendant information sheet for the superseding indictment Pedro referred to as a copy of an arrest warrant, and they will be filled in when they are posted to the docket in a week or so or something more important. If you want to see a copy of an actual arrest warrant, look at Document 34 in the full docket posted by Pedro in post 279778. You will find the one served on Kinney in Las Vegas on September 16. The original warrant was Document 20 which is now missing from the list of documents. So, right now, I can't tell you what all the missing document numbers mean. But, the missing document numbers do not necessarily mean that there are unsealed indictments against other people. You just can't tell yet, but it is very, very unlikely there are more sealed indictments. BTW, Casavant and Edwards were initially indicted back on March 25, 2009. The grand jury ordered warrants to be issued then. And, BTW, the order unsealing the indictments was not entered until yesterday (October 7). That means Faulk's PR and the newspaper article appeared prior to the case actually being unsealed. Bye-bye, Faulk. ... eom Posted by: Aristo Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:19:16 AM In reply to: jarta who wrote msg# 279829 Post # of 279851 Are you saying that Faulk was let go because he pre-announced the indictments before they were unsealed? but DOJ said the same thing: The defendants are charged in a Superseding Indictment, which was returned by the Federal Grand Jury in Las Vegas on May 27, 2009, but remained sealed until Thursday, September 17, 2009 www.usdoj.gov/usao/nv/press/september2009/cmkm09212009.htm I don't really understand what they mean in the docket by case being unsealed on 10/07/09.
|
|