|
Post by Ed Jagacki on Aug 18, 2010 9:36:21 GMT -5
Goodolboy:
I agree. Whether or not one is in possession of certs, they STILL bought a security in good faith... and if they got ripped off, then they are victims
|
|
|
Post by scorpion51949 on Aug 18, 2010 11:36:24 GMT -5
I hate to be to the point on this but the reality is that AH IS REPRESENTING THE REAL SHARES AND THAT WHO EVER GOT SHORTED NEEDS TO SUE THEIR BROKER FOR FRAUD. This is a harsh statement, but the responsibility on this doesn't fall on the Cert holders in this matter and that the 3'87 trillion belongs to the shareholders .. the ones with certs. This is the only way it can be dealt with, because the non certed shares cannot be traded once we get back to trading. The proof is in the certs ... love the candy too .. lol
|
|
|
Post by bkscott on Aug 18, 2010 11:50:25 GMT -5
SWAG - Scientific Wild Azz Guess
BKscott
|
|
|
Post by Ed Jagacki on Aug 18, 2010 12:00:51 GMT -5
scorp: I absolutely disagree with your assessment.
I believe that the appropriate portion would have to be put aside for ALL shares, which MIGHT even relate to some of the work that Tyler has been doing (e.g. Trimbath).
Come to think of it, didn't Hodges initial post to shareholders mention that all shareholders, whether certed or not are to be paid?
Ed
|
|
|
Post by cmkxerlong on Aug 18, 2010 12:18:37 GMT -5
ed, let me make this analog. MORTGAGE: --------------- MORTGAGE NOTE: if someone fraudulently sold you a house and made up a mortgage note, does that mean that you own the house? ANSWER: no TITLE: if your name was registered with the title company, does that mean that you are the owner to the house regardless of what the note say? ANSWER: Yes. the title is all that matters to ownership no matter what the note or other documents may say. STOCK: -------------- BROKER STATEMENT: Does a broker statement necessarily mean that you legally own the stock? ANSWER: No, because the broker, hedge fund, etc... could have sold you counterfeited/naked shorted stock. CERT: Does owning a cert in that company mean that you legally own the stock? ANSWER: Yes. Only if the TA did not counterfeit it. ----------- Mortgage Note ~= Broker statement Title ~= Certificate --------------- Conclusion: All of the $3.87 Trillion are property of CMKX and belongs to the real owners CMKX, or the certed folks. People that got fake shares of CMKX were defrauded and needs to get an attorney to go after the people that sold them those shares for fraud/damages. But they are not entitled to the property of CMKX. scorp: I absolutely disagree with your assessment. I believe that the appropriate portion would have to be put aside for ALL shares, which MIGHT even relate to some of the work that Tyler has been doing (e.g. Trimbath). Come to think of it, didn't Hodges initial post to shareholders mention that all shareholders, whether certed or not are to be paid? Ed
|
|
|
Post by vpd on Aug 18, 2010 12:22:13 GMT -5
Wasn't it Al Hodges who encouraged the unshareholder movement? I might be wrong on this. If so I apoligize. IMO
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Aug 18, 2010 12:24:21 GMT -5
ed, let me make this analog. [/quote] Could you put it in digital for those not quite as old as Ed? ;D
|
|
|
Post by cmkxerlong on Aug 18, 2010 12:24:28 GMT -5
vpd, if Al encouraged it, there are not legal bases b/c that money was already collected by Maheu for CMKX.
Also, if that was what Al is doing, it would dilute the PPS that you are going to get and has no legal bases. IMO
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Aug 18, 2010 12:25:08 GMT -5
Wasn't it Al Hodges who encouraged the unshareholder movement? I might be wrong on this. If so I apoligize. IMO Correct.
|
|
|
Post by timonesock on Aug 18, 2010 12:34:26 GMT -5
Why would a there be 3.87tril if they werent paying for the shorted shares?
IMO I think everyone who bought this stock weather certed or not are part of the 3.87 because if it wasnt for the short there would be no 3.87
Timmay
|
|
|
Post by Ed Jagacki on Aug 18, 2010 12:37:58 GMT -5
ed, let me make this analog. Could you put it in digital for those not quite as old as Ed? ;D[/quote] That was just plain mean... ;D
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Aug 18, 2010 12:41:06 GMT -5
Could you put it in digital for those not quite as old as Ed? ;D That was just plain mean... ;D [/quote] But, it was funny!
|
|
|
Post by Ed Jagacki on Aug 18, 2010 12:41:15 GMT -5
Why would a there be 3.87tril if they werent paying for the shorted shares? IMO I think everyone who bought this stock weather certed or not are part of the 3.87 because if it wasnt for the short there would be no 3.87 Timmay Tim, In a world where fairness and goodness determines the bottom line, there you would be correct. In our world, it's far less ceretain. I hope it works out as you say, many more will benefit that way. Ed
|
|
|
Post by thematrix on Aug 18, 2010 15:21:10 GMT -5
Are you serious with this thread? LOL
|
|
|
Post by Ed Jagacki on Aug 18, 2010 17:31:01 GMT -5
I;m sorry, matrix. Tell us how to change our posts in order to receive your approval ;D
|
|