|
Post by Warren_Pease on May 28, 2010 15:10:36 GMT -5
before everyone starts with there "spins" lets wait and see what Al and Bob have to say. Are you not satisfied with timonesock's spin? I happen to think it's rather clever. Could you be thinking that Al and Bob can develop a better one? Or do they carry so much authority with you that even a less elegant spin from them will win your favor? As for me, evidence, verifiable unequivocal evidence, is all that matters anymore. The rest might just as well be fantasy. There is otherwise no way to distinguish the veracity of one story from another. Warren
|
|
|
Post by jeremiah007 on May 28, 2010 15:13:20 GMT -5
The SEC did not bring any claims against alleged naked short sellers. While the SEC has obtained judgments requiring substantial payments of disgorgement and civil penalties against several defendants, Plaintiffs never mention this action in the Complaint or otherwise suggest the funds at issue were obtained through the SEC’s lawsuit.
So they did collect some money. Some 'substantial' money. But because we didn't ask for it in the proper manner (Please?), we aren't getting it?
|
|
|
Post by mrabner on May 28, 2010 15:14:03 GMT -5
did you fall off the turnip truck or something, Al is the one that filed the suit, Bob is a plaintiff, they are not "spinning" anything, Al has the evidence, or should, so either way, this is going to go forward or it isn't, either way we are going to find out.
|
|
|
Post by moneypenny on May 28, 2010 15:14:16 GMT -5
very well put and my answer to that is Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by crazy777 on May 28, 2010 15:15:24 GMT -5
I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT WE'VE BEEN HAD AGAIN. THERE IS NO SPIN. WHAT WE ALWAYS THOUGHT -- THAT HODGES HAS NO REAL PROOF -- IS NOW FINALLY COMING TO BEAR.
IF THERE WAS SOME UNDERCOVER PAYMENT TO US, THEN HODGES WOULD HAVE MOVED TO DISMISS, NOT THE SEC. THAT WOULD HAVE AUTOMATICALLY ENDED THE SUIT SO LONG AS THE SEC DIDN'T HAVE ANY COUNTERCLAIMS.
IT IS OVER WITH THIS BIVENS LAWSUIT.
HODGES NEVER HAD REAL PROOF, AND SO MANY HERE JUST ACCEPTED HOLLENEGG'S "STUFF" WITHOUT GIVING HIS AND HODGES'S STORIES A REAL CHECK.
THIS IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. CAN'T SPIN THAT.
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on May 28, 2010 15:16:22 GMT -5
did you fall off the turnip truck or something, Al is the one that filed the suit, Bob is a plaintiff, they are not "spinning" anything, Al has the evidence, or should[/b][/size], so either way, this is going to go forward or it isn't, either way we are going to find out.[/quote] "Or should" indeed. There's the rub, ain't it rube? Warren
|
|
|
Post by jeremiah007 on May 28, 2010 15:16:41 GMT -5
The Complaint does not allege why the DTCC or the United States government would have put money in a trust for CMKM shareholders or why the DTCC or Treasury Department would hold assets from CMKM in trust.2 It is also not clear whether the Complaint is alleging that these funds are in the same trust as the alleged funds from naked short sellers. Without specifying what funds it is discussing, the Complaint continues by alleging that the SEC “reserved unto itself the sole and absolute discretion to determine when moneys collected pursuant to the scheme set forth above would and could be released for distribution.”
I could swear I read in our suit filing that we stated the monies were collected by the government in the 'sting' and that all the monies were the same or for the same reason. I am confused.
|
|
|
Post by mrabner on May 28, 2010 15:16:55 GMT -5
I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT WE'VE BEEN HAD AGAIN. THERE IS NO SPIN. WHAT WE ALWAYS THOUGHT -- THAT HODGES HAS NO REAL PROOF -- IS NOW FINALLY COMING TO BEAR. IF THERE WAS SOME UNDERCOVER PAYMENT TO US, THEN HODGES WOULD HAVE MOVED TO DISMISS, NOT THE SEC. THAT WOULD HAVE AUTOMATICALLY ENDED THE SUIT SO LONG AS THE SEC DIDN'T HAVE ANY COUNTERCLAIMS. IT IS OVER WITH THIS BIVENS LAWSUIT. HODGES NEVER HAD REAL PROOF, AND SO MANY HERE JUST ACCEPTED HOLLENEGG'S "STUFF" WITHOUT GIVING HIS AND HODGES'S STORIES A REAL CHECK. THIS IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. CAN'T SPIN THAT. and you have proof of that i take it?
|
|
|
Post by crazy777 on May 28, 2010 15:19:47 GMT -5
I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT WE'VE BEEN HAD AGAIN. THERE IS NO SPIN. WHAT WE ALWAYS THOUGHT -- THAT HODGES HAS NO REAL PROOF -- IS NOW FINALLY COMING TO BEAR. IF THERE WAS SOME UNDERCOVER PAYMENT TO US, THEN HODGES WOULD HAVE MOVED TO DISMISS, NOT THE SEC. THAT WOULD HAVE AUTOMATICALLY ENDED THE SUIT SO LONG AS THE SEC DIDN'T HAVE ANY COUNTERCLAIMS. IT IS OVER WITH THIS BIVENS LAWSUIT. HODGES NEVER HAD REAL PROOF, AND SO MANY HERE JUST ACCEPTED HOLLENEGG'S "STUFF" WITHOUT GIVING HIS AND HODGES'S STORIES A REAL CHECK. THIS IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. CAN'T SPIN THAT. and you have proof of that i take it? keep drinking your kool-aid mrabner, the truth is there staring at you in the face, just deal with it, it's reality, hodges and hollenegg relied on world reports and chris story, a bunch of mularkey, they never had any proof, reality is staring us in the face, we will not get any $$$ ever
|
|
|
Post by deltadon30228 on May 28, 2010 15:20:05 GMT -5
No worries, EVERYTHING is part of the plan, this is scripted when will you understand that?
Don, IMHO!
|
|
|
Post by yetihunter on May 28, 2010 15:20:31 GMT -5
is this really surprising?
nope.
the hodges suit, just like the motion for dismissal states, provides no facts/documents to back up the claims. it's all allegations, no facts. of course it's going to be dismissed unless hodges makes some proof public.
oh, but hodges knows someone who was "there."
whatever.
it's been "imminent" for forever. my guess, which is what i postered when this suit first hit the light of day, is that someone(s) in the gov is feeding hodges misinformation to make him and us look like fools. that way, the suit could be dismissed and the SEC can get away with whatever it is they're trying to get away with this time.
--yeti, outski again...g'night.
|
|
|
Post by mrabner on May 28, 2010 15:21:13 GMT -5
and you have proof of that eh. either way we will find out soon.
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on May 28, 2010 15:23:46 GMT -5
I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT WE'VE BEEN HAD AGAIN. THERE IS NO SPIN. WHAT WE ALWAYS THOUGHT -- THAT HODGES HAS NO REAL PROOF -- IS NOW FINALLY COMING TO BEAR. IF THERE WAS SOME UNDERCOVER PAYMENT TO US, THEN HODGES WOULD HAVE MOVED TO DISMISS, NOT THE SEC. THAT WOULD HAVE AUTOMATICALLY ENDED THE SUIT SO LONG AS THE SEC DIDN'T HAVE ANY COUNTERCLAIMS. IT IS OVER WITH THIS BIVENS LAWSUIT. HODGES NEVER HAD REAL PROOF, AND SO MANY HERE JUST ACCEPTED HOLLENEGG'S "STUFF" WITHOUT GIVING HIS AND HODGES'S STORIES A REAL CHECK. THIS IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. CAN'T SPIN THAT. and you have proof of that i take it? The burden, mrrabner, is on those making the claim. If I told you the moon was made of green cheese, you'd be under no obligation to prove otherwise. The burden is on me to prove the assertion. Yet you're right to suggest that crazy777 has stepped somewhat over the line. Crazy777 would be on more reasonable ground simply to assert that Hodges has failed to provide proof of his claim. There can be no argument about that. Unless you can show us the "proof," abner. Warren
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on May 28, 2010 15:24:04 GMT -5
and you have proof of that i take it? keep drinking your kool-aid mrabner, the truth is there staring at you in the face, just deal with it, it's reality, hodges and hollenegg relied on world reports and chris story, a bunch of mularkey, they never had any proof, reality is staring us in the face, we will not get any $$$ ever You somehow forget [IMO].
-3bid
|
|
|
Post by jeremiah007 on May 28, 2010 15:24:10 GMT -5
The Complaint also refers to statements that agents of the SEC supposedly made promising to release money to CMKM shareholders without providing the most basic facts about those statements such as the context in which they were made, who made them, and when they were made. Complaint ¶ 37. The Complaint also alleges that the Defendants directed their agents to make the statements without providing a single fact to support that contention.
This is basically calling us out to 'prove' it. I too would like to see some proof. We all would. i think it is that simple.
|
|