Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2010 18:17:47 GMT -5
What do you lawyer types think of this, UR being too quiet. Guys? D4E
|
|
|
Post by ucaughtme on Sept 16, 2010 18:18:31 GMT -5
Your funny .. Of course this is real. That fact that you are backing him up is suspicious. How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by sake321 on Sept 16, 2010 18:22:35 GMT -5
Your funny .. Of course this is real. That fact that you are backing him up is suspicious. How do you know? like I said I meant no offense to the poster. I to have hardly posted on here but I've been following this board for a long time. I just thought this post would of came from someone else sry to start a firestorm did not mean to... O.o
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Sept 16, 2010 18:23:43 GMT -5
Not surprised to see the filing. Expected it all along.
Instead of "informed and believed," I hoped to see something like, "we have evidence." Seems weak to me, but then I'm no expert on these matters.
For those who know something more about legal proceedings in general and a Bivens action in particular, did Hodges make the necessary adjustments to his original claim? As I understand it, the judge asked Hodges to make clearer his reason for targeting these particular individuals and to show, more specifically, "evidence" of a "taking." Did he do that in a compelling way? For instance, is it good enough to say, "informed and believe?"
Anybody with enough experience to know whether we're still at risk for dismissal?
...Warren
|
|
|
Post by coachphilm on Sept 16, 2010 18:25:10 GMT -5
SO Bob H. is what I said Monday still bogus? Just checking.
Coach(philm)
|
|
|
Post by lurknomore on Sept 16, 2010 18:30:45 GMT -5
What am I missing here? Wasn't Al given the opportunity to amend the complaint so that he could add some shred of evidence? One reason for the motion for dismissal was it was all allegations and no evidence. Still no evidence. Doesn't that leave us open for dismissal? What I believe he did here was to name individuals as the SEC lawyer suggested. And to bring to light exactly what evidence he has. Now that these individuals in the SEC know what he has, they will expedite the release of the funds to avoid discovery. I believe that the judge may ask for some kind of hard evidence only if the SEC comes back with another motion to dismiss. In this way they still have a chance to deliver and cut a deal to skip scott free. If they don't by 30 days, it's trial baby and we wait another ten years. Then AH will have to show the beef. In the end we probably would benefit from a trial but for me, no way, I want this over.. just give us whats in the trust and call it a day. That much alone and I retire. IMO D4E Just how many chances does one get to amend a complaint? Infinite? Al was told to add some substantial evidence. Al did NOT. Motion to dismiss granted. Oh, and this is the same story as the first. The first had dates and allegations. All Al did was connect names to the dates. Anyone could find out which commissioner was serving on which dates. I don't feel so good...
|
|
|
Post by ucaughtme on Sept 16, 2010 18:31:18 GMT -5
That fact that you are backing him up is suspicious. How do you know? like I said I meant no offense to the poster. I to have hardly posted on here but I've been following this board for a long time. I just thought this post would of came from someone else sry to start a firestorm did not mean to... O.o My comment was directed at gjfrmfla, not you. The ely documents lack a stamp from the court as well as a signature. Also the case number appears to be typed in instead of stamped in, as it was on the first filing. Does not look like it was filed with the court. Maybe ely found this in Al's dumpster behind his office.
|
|
|
Post by hamrdown on Sept 16, 2010 18:31:27 GMT -5
Read the whole thing. One thing bothers me. It looks like the trust does not contain 3.87T. That number was a culmination of the two trusts and punitive damages combined. Now this makes sense. 6$ a share would be if the judge awards everything we are asking for, the trust, and damages. $.54 a share is what the trust contains. $2.00 is what AH thinks the judge will award in damages + the trust. D4E Diamonds, I am not following you. Where do you see that AH thinks the judge will award $2 per share? I read the amendment and he states that all involved have "suffered injuries and property loss in excess of 3.87 trillion dollars". I am not attacking you, just trying to figure out where you got your numbers. Thank you,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2010 18:39:08 GMT -5
Read the whole thing. One thing bothers me. It looks like the trust does not contain 3.87T. That number was a culmination of the two trusts and punitive damages combined. Now this makes sense. 6$ a share would be if the judge awards everything we are asking for, the trust, and damages. $.54 a share is what the trust contains. $2.00 is what AH thinks the judge will award in damages + the trust. D4E Diamonds, I am not following you. Where do you see that AH thinks the judge will award $2 per share? I read the amendment and he states that all involved have "suffered injuries and property loss in excess of 3.87 trillion dollars". I am not attacking you, just trying to figure out where you got your numbers. Thank you, I believe one of the plaintiffs said the AH told him we will get between .54 and 2.00. I'm going off that. As far as I know, AH never said 6.00, ever. D4E
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Sept 16, 2010 19:04:16 GMT -5
My favorite quote from today's Hodges Update: it is not particularly the SEC that has held things up.
Way to go, Al! You just tried your own case. On the same day you claim SEC officials have failed to release the money they took from us, you assert that "it is not particularly the SEC that has held things up."
Pathetic!
Can anyone tell I'm not pleased?
...Warren
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 16, 2010 19:12:25 GMT -5
What do you lawyer types think of this, UR being too quiet. Guys? D4E I'm thinking it isn't necessary to rub salt into the wounds.
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 16, 2010 19:27:20 GMT -5
My favorite quote from today's Hodges Update: it is not particularly the SEC that has held things up. Way to go, Al! You just tried your own case. On the same day you claim SEC officials have failed to release the money they took from us, you assert that "it is not particularly the SEC that has held things up." Pathetic! Can anyone tell I'm not pleased? ...Warren Pretty amazing.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 16, 2010 19:41:21 GMT -5
Well as usual..... I leave for a few hours and news comes out!!
All I can say is another day...... but not another dollar.
<sigh> Hopefully this chapter of the saga will end soon. Just as hopefully in the favor of the shareholders.... Personally I don't give a chit where and ROI comes from...... I just wish it would come.
Remember..... many pots boiling in many different kitchens.....
Hang in there !! SINGLE
|
|
|
Post by beavis on Sept 16, 2010 21:44:43 GMT -5
Well, delusionalgrandeur was right - good guess?
Also, this is dated the 14th, the same day Al told BH that the rumors were incorrect - no refile... unless he told him before that like a lot of the others...
Fluid situation? Well, again the shareholders take the hit. I for one wouldn't have said "NO WAY" unless it was 100% done deal... then again, I'm no lawyer.
IMO.
|
|
|
Post by davesaint on Sept 16, 2010 21:47:10 GMT -5
What is different in the new amended complaint compared to the first complaint? Did Al correct the parts the judge wanted him to correct?
Davesaint
|
|