|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 29, 2009 13:26:59 GMT -5
ty..... luci
fcountry: Re: twitter message from Mark Faulk ... « Reply #13 Today at 12:54am » I personally believe that Mark Faulk will promote "himself" first....
I am quite sure that he will make mention the fact that he was CEO of CMKX Diamonds to use as one of his references...IE: authoritativeness.. (you like that word?...I had to use spell check on that one)....towards the subject.
Let's just see how much Mark "backs" us now that he is no longer "with us"....
Will he even mention our name...in what context?..(he really didn't have much GOOD to say about us as our CEO ...now did he?)....and just HOW MUCH will he want for it?
Just thinking ahead.... FC
particleswaves: Re: twitter message from Mark Faulk ... « Reply #15 Today at 9:53am » The self-serving make-up of the "panelists" will no doubt result in the same foregone conclusion as a pack of wolves and a lamb would reach on a vote concerning what's for dinner.
As for Faulk, as much he as appears to be in love with himself, he was a pioneer of sorts in the early stages of the short fight and one would hope his fire is still burning. His role in all this has been interesting to say the least and I would imagine he will have a lot more to say when (and if) he is unmuzzled.
moodswingtrader: can you say intereSTING?!
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 29, 2009 13:30:47 GMT -5
ty pj.... Richy Update « Thread Started Today at 1:17pm »
Earl is My Name: Rich update 9/29: Last week was important with lots of things happening. Great things happened over the weekend, and all the non-sense is now over.
Everything is finished and looks good. The contacts will be shocked if we don’t hear something by Friday. Surprised we didn’t hear something yesterday.
Richy Continued: Confident in settlements. Payments will be made for NSS
The people in charge don’t feel like we deserve what is about to be paid. The name CMKM Diamonds is popping up in many circles
dreamweaver_2: he feels very confident for us nothing to stop this thing from rolling they waited too long to make a settlement but they played around with us and are now in big trouble
dreamweaver_2: if anything else big happens they will be back in touch with us again
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 29, 2009 16:58:03 GMT -5
ty pj.... Richy Update « Thread Started Today at 1:17pm » Earl is My Name: Rich update 9/29: Last week was important with lots of things happening. Great things happened over the weekend, and all the non-sense is now over. Everything is finished and looks good. The contacts will be shocked if we don’t hear something by Friday. Surprised we didn’t hear something yesterday. Richy Continued: Confident in settlements. Payments will be made for NSS The people in charge don’t feel like we deserve what is about to be paid. The name CMKM Diamonds is popping up in many circles dreamweaver_2: he feels very confident for us nothing to stop this thing from rolling they waited too long to make a settlement but they played around with us and are now in big trouble dreamweaver_2: if anything else big happens they will be back in touch with us again ty binkinipro... ALSO... (2:23 PM) dreamweaver_2: mccurdydon1: HOT LINE for CMKM from SEC. 323-965-3874 (2:23 PM) TBeezley1: mccurdydon1: my update is there will be news coming out this week « Last Edit: Today at 4:11pm by bikinipro »
|
|
|
Post by squeezebox on Sept 29, 2009 21:12:10 GMT -5
casper 9-29-09 #2 Breathe deeply Friends, WE anticipate deliveries tomorrow. D.C. is in turmoil tonight as they have no funds. BRUSSELS wanted no gold standard and tried all day to break into our accounts. Gold Std. tonight or tomorrow night. Good guys win, bad guys lose.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 29, 2009 21:16:59 GMT -5
By: sportsman93306 29 Sep 2009, 01:53 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 873340 of 873459
Jump to msg. # GUS REF LAWSUIT. 2ND SET OF QUESTIONS.. In some countries an injured party can file Public Interest Litigation, in case the govt/federal agencies are not doing their job. You can also claim damages from thise fed/ govt agencies. Do we have similar laws in this country ? 1.Can we sue SEC? 2.Can we sue DTCC? 3. Is it true that DTCC is liable to pay certain amount as penalty for clearing NSS/ FTD?If yes, How much? Thanks
By: gusjarvis 29 Sep 2009, 05:25 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 873407 of 873459 (Reply to 873340 by sportsman93306) sport yes you can sue the sec, some are now
Howard Elisofan, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein LLP and a former SEC enforcement attorney, launched a legal action against the SEC on behalf of a victim, Phyllis Molchatsky, last December. He has since filed eight similar complaints. "We're arguing that the SEC was negligent on multiple occasions for many reasons over multiple years, and had they detected the fraud a long time ago, thousands of people would not have been so gravely injured," he said.
for the madoff scam, it is identical to our case and to eagletech's case. The fact is with eagletech they were granted the right to their own information, like they should have had to go to court to get that, it showed the massive fraud and work with wallstreet and crime families and money laundering, everything.
The fact is as in our case the sec had ALL THE INFORMATION. They had all the trading records and wire transfers, everything. But it took eagletech to get that info and to start action, not the sec who should have, as in our case. They had all the info cmkx was a fraud from 2003 at least on and we can prove it:
From August 2003 to April 2005, the average trading volume in CMKM was about 20xs more than it was the previous eight months.
A fax dated 5-26-03, from Lindsey S. McCarthy, staff attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission, to 1st Global Stock Transfer that mentions James Kinney, a defendant in the subsequent Civil Action No. 08- CV 0437 of 4-7-08, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, proves that the SEC was aware of James Kinney's suspicious activities pertaining to CMKM five years BEFORE filing said civil action against him.
I could go on the fax in 2004 to 1st global about the trading, the fact that just like eagletech the sec had all the records at this point and could have and had a duty to do something then.
our case is actually easier than howard's, much easier, we have the records the sec ok'd the fraud, then the criminals end up with next to nothing for time and stole tens of millions of dollars.
They also as in th eagletech case hid wallsteet's crimes, just like our case, easy to prove.
bottom line sport, we are moving forward very very quickly on this right now off boards, and a bit on. I don't know for sure what we can ask for in civil damages, that is a question I have for the fbi special agent we are sending our evidence to.
you will see a list of evidence and questions a shareholders group put together and not just asking for the answers but demanding them. The questions will be open to all in the future to ask, so all shareholders have a voice and can be heard.
The next action after our demands are not met, if they are not met, will be legal, and as you can see you can sue the sec and our case is a breeze!
cheers and you will get a proper update very very soon, and that is not soon in cmkx years either, so if there is any other questions you want on the list shoot.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 8:05:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 8:27:40 GMT -5
I hope Tyler reads this.....The weary shareholders are more than ready !!By: nascent_vindication 29 Sep 2009, 10:26 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 873462 of 873567 Tomorrow, Sept. 30th, is the last day of the U.S. Government's fiscal year. Thursday starts a whole new year. Good time for 'out with the old, in with the new'? Many things are in need of change such as: the Fed, the currency, banking laws, political structures, etc. I'm just wondering if Thursday will have any significance regarding change.........
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 8:35:45 GMT -5
Naw... "not reopens"... This store has been opened for years. I have purchased items ( hats, shirts, clocks, calendars bumper stickers, mugs etc. etc.) from this store every now and again. The last time I purchased was about this time last year. Ps..... last item I ordered was a shirt showing Urban behind bars... Joe wasn't too happy with that gift... <blush>By: aladin99 29 Sep 2009, 08:39 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 873447 of 873569 Jump to msg. # CMKX store reopens - www.cafepress.com/cmkxstore
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 8:44:14 GMT -5
By: oil.ipo 30 Sep 2009, 06:48 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 873530 of 873571 If a woman can post on YOUTUBE;
As referenced (and now pulled) on CNN this AM.
On YouTube about usurious interest rates of 30% charged against her credit card account (ranging from 12% to 30 %), mentioning BANK OF AMERICA (?), Federal laws, STATUTES OF FRAUD, The Federal Reserve, etc.,etc., and individuals of interest in her rant amassing 350,000+ hits before BANK OF AMERICA themselves (spokesperson) finally called her personally lowering the interest rate, and asking her to pull the Video. Then....
Why Not CMKX SHAREHOLDERS?
We have the GOODS!~
Use the vehicle that gets the message out, and other mediums will carry the message like CNN. Go beyond what is being exposed by the FEDS like Michael Moore is doing. GO MICHAEL!
Also, it is time to expose that information on YOUTUBE WHICH NO ONE WANTS EXPOSED! Where's GUS?
THE WAITING IS OVER! No more "next week, news is imminent."
AIMVHO2~
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 8:45:36 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 30 Sep 2009, 06:53 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 873533 of 873571
Jump to msg. # we know urban hasn't been arrested. okay, but do we know there is even an arrest warrant out for him? (is there one for edwards?)
has the RCMP in canada received an arrest warrant for urban?
does anyone have a friend in the RCMP that can find this out? i'd like to know if canada has received an arrest warrant for urban
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 8:48:15 GMT -5
By: oil.ipo 30 Sep 2009, 08:59 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 873566 of 873571 (Reply to 873530 by oil.ipo)
Jump to msg. # Waiting (by shareholders) is pointless as it stands today in order to make an impact on the media, and the Government. The "Legal Group" has enough public information to run with. In the summer of 2006 even supporters of ACCA were hearing from him in Roddy's room that the;
"amounts that they would be receiving might likely result in some shareholders needing some professional counseling in order to better deal with the impact on their lifestyle adjustment"- after receiving whatever they were going to receive.
( That does not sound like less than .54 ) b4, combined with any B/O offering...IMO
- Words are very similar to affect, so I am making it as a quote. Remember this is a few years out. So I am giving some cushion for his meaning in my phrasing, but it stands as a quotation. For those who believe in the message from this man, and there are many (for good reasons) he must have had a really good idea (if he were in - the - know) of the general range/concept of where the collections were at, to any subsequent shareholder payment. ACCA made mention often of DONALD STOECKLEIN , ROBERT MAHEU, URBAN CASAVANT, ROGER GLENN. Nothing stopped him from addressing the issues before the shareholders' concerns. He was the gateway to "our" information so it seemed. Now with reflection to any "Damage Payment"...- How long has that been finalized in its majority? Entirety? Where is it? When is it coming? How will it be masked? Why are the Legal Shareholders still waiting? Need they? I feel that those answers can be easily achieved NOW.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 8:50:02 GMT -5
By: johnnyic 30 Sep 2009, 09:40 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 873571 of 873571 A black op arrest team would have get urban in a sec, why not
UC still free
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 14:36:42 GMT -5
jfarn DIAMOND MINER Re: DOJ Update, 9/29 update pg 2 (2) involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law such that assignment to the same District Judge and/or Magistrate Judge may effect a substantial savings of judicial effort, because the same result should follow in both actions. Rather presumptuous by Ms. Molly/Ms. Leslie. You would think this should have worked the other way around. Burden of proof is notably lesser on civil actions. You would think for starters the SEC would have followed the lead of the criminal authorities if they were working together and then expanded their net to include complainants that the criminal authorities might have not have been able to indict because of burden of proof limitations. How could the SEC could suggest to the court that the criminal proceedings shall "involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law such that assignment to the same District Judge and/or Magistrate Judge may effect a substantial savings of judicial effort, because the same result should follow in both actions." I am at a loss regarding this suggestion considering the burden of proof disparity. Thoughts welcome. Al? Dennis?? other legal minds??? Burden of proof. The most important procedural difference between civil trials and criminal trials is the difference in the burden of proof. In civil trials where, for example, driver Smith claims that driver Jones was at fault in causing an accident and thus was responsible for Smith's damages, Smith must prove Jones's negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. This simply means that the jury must find Smith's evidence on the issue more convincing, even if only slightly so, than any evidence Jones offers. The scale must tip at least a bit in Smith's favor for Smith to prevail. In a criminal trial the situation is quite different: the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is obviously a very heavy burden of proof. To explain its meaning a standard jury instruction tells jurors that in order to find the defendant guilty they must be convinced by "proof of such convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it in the most important of his or her own affairs" (Devitt, Blackmar, and Wolff, p. 354). If, after hearing all the evidence, a jury has a reasonable doubt, then it must return a verdict of not guilty. The reasonable-doubt standard in criminal cases is constitutionally required, and it has long been viewed as a central safeguard against erroneous conviction and the resulting loss of the wrongly convicted defendant's liberty and good name. Because a defendant in a criminal trial has at stake interests of immense importance, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that due process demands that the margin of error in criminal cases be reduced in the defendant's favor by placing on the prosecution the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)). Implications of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The most obvious implication of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is that criminal cases are almost always close cases. The prosecution may have a strong case against a defendant, and yet, given the heavy burden of proof, it may still not be able to obtain a conviction from a jury. The jury may return a verdict of not guilty, even in a strong case, because the prosecution was not able to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A second implication of the heavy burden of proof placed on the prosecution by the Anglo-American system of criminal procedure has to do with the meaning of a not guilty verdict. News accounts sometimes report that a jury in a criminal case "found the defendant innocent," and this seems to imply that the jury was convinced that the defendant was innocent or that it perhaps found the defendant's evidence more likely to be true than the prosecution's evidence. But a jury that has been properly instructed on the burden of proof and the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt will often find the prosecution's evidence to be far stronger than the defendant's and yet feel compelled to acquit the defendant. Even if the defendant's explanation is rather implausible, it may leave the jury with a reasonable doubt and thus entitle the defendant to an acquittal. In short, the task of the defense in a criminal trial is not to convince the jury of the defendant's innocence, but rather to convince the jury that a reasonable doubt remains as to the defendant's guilt and that the defendant must thus be acquitted. Read more: law.jrank.org/pages/2204/Trial-Cr....l#ixzz0Say6c3W5john3339 DIAMOND MINER Re: DOJ Update, 9/29 update pg 2Interesting points JFarn! You must be a lawyer (and a durn good one at that). Imagine if you will, OJ simpson had both the civil and criminal cases heard at the same time, by the same judge and same jury. If the instructions to the jury were not crystal clear, OJ could have been found criminally guilty based on preponderance of the evidence, or found not liable based on reasonable doubt! With OUR case, the defendants might be able to show reasonable doubt, and get off the hook for the civil liabilities as well as the criminal aspects! And what of the differences in the defendant lists between the civil and criminal complaints? Wasn't Roger Glenn listed on the civil complaint and not the criminal complaint? (relying on memory here) If so, would this combining of the hearings put RG on the criminal complaint automatically? (or remove him from the civil?) It seems to me, this combining of the civil with the criminal complaints under the same judge opens a mega-can of worms for future appeals well into the next generation. To me, it calls into question the actual knowledge held by "Ms Molly/Ms Leslie" to be making decisions such as this. imo john atb DIAMOND JEDI MASTER Re: DOJ Update, 9/29 update pg 2 Jfarn, sounds like they have struck a plea bargain to me. There is no way, as you have stated that any attorney would agree to combine the two cases, unless there is a plea agreement. Look at her last statement, "the same result should follow in both actions". That's pretty bold to say that the we will get the same result in both actions, unless you already know the results. If I were indicted on two cases (criminal & civil) I would combine both of them to save on court costs and attorney fees alone, and as she stated, it's a savings on judicial effort. PLEA AGREEMENT!! I'll take Plea Agreement agreement for $1000.00 Alex. The Daily Double. 2 cases in 1.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 14:38:20 GMT -5
sweettime Dr. Of Diamonds Re: HELP please with John Edwards info 14. In connection with this action and any related judicial or 18 administrative proceeding or investigation commenced by the Commission or to 19 which the Commission is a party, Edwards (i) agrees to appear and be interviewed 20 by Commission staff at such times and places as the staff requests upon reasonable 21 notice; (ii) will accept service by mail or facsimile transmission of notices or 22 subpoenas issued by the Commission for documents or testimony at depositions, 23 hearings, or trials, or in connection with any related investigation by Commission 24 staff; (iii) appoints Edwards' attorney, Irving Einhorn, 1710 10t Street, Manhattan 25 Beach, CA 90266, as agent to receive service of such notices and subpoenas; 26 (iv) with respect to such notices and subpoenas, waives the territorial limits on 27 service contained in Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any 28 applicable local rules, provided that the party requesting the testimony reinburses 5 Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 39 Filed 05/16/2008 Page 5 of 13 1 Edwards' travel, lodging, and subsistence expenses at the then-prevailing u.s. 2 Government per diem rates; and (v) consents to personal jursisdiction over Edwards 3 in any United States District Court for purposes of enforcing any such subpoena.
IMO John Edwards will make a deal and avoid trial and agrees to testify against bagley and dvorak and kinney and guiterez
He has no choice IMO bc of the deal he made in the SEC lawsuit
Remember........Edwards agreed in the SEC Deal that he would be willing to testify against others
kind of hard to defend urself in a criminal case for which u already admitted guilt in the SEC and Tyler Civil Cases for
I know we don't know the details of the Eton and Tyler lawsuit but obviously Edwards admitted wrong doing or why would he have given up 2 properties
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 30, 2009 14:56:33 GMT -5
Thanks...: jboydwv hmmmm.....
By: bobhwang 30 Sep 2009, 05:52 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 39374 of 39374
Jump to msg. # options: bear sterns /lehman.. sec allowed the rape... cmkx well know b 4 all this..
SEC total garbage... 270 million on one trade...
|
|