|
Post by squeezebox on Oct 13, 2010 10:33:05 GMT -5
Let me set you guys straight...Thanks Gus for the detailed explanation...Briwadd, why are you continually trying to discredit and disrupt the Ag effort? either be apart of it or not! I believe you are at this point (or at least were). Your motives are questionable at this point. I believe you are on our side so why post this crap? Has anyone even verified this was from Al?
As far as the AG movement, we were told by Al's office, that they didn't see any reason to stop what we are doing, that is what we are going on. We are in contact with Al's office about proceeding and they have NOT told us to stop, no matter what that email says.
Our efforts are not to demand answers or threaten them with action or anything like that. Our goal is to bring awareness to people that are supposed to be looking after the people who elected them. We know thousands of letters, emails and phone calls have been made, most to know avail. We feel, and have explained over and over, that this effort only works in mass. That is why it will be a "timed event" trying to reach as many as possible at the same time. We are also contemplating sending it to other agencies and/or depts. in mass to try and accomplish the same thing at the same time. We will let you know what decisions and offices will receive this besides the Ag's if/when that decision is made.
After this email, real or not, we will try and get an answer as to whether they still support this effort. If they don't, that doesn't mean we will stop. It means they don't support us but we are not here for their support. We will continue our efforts until we are satisfied that we have done our best to inform those who we think can help. Al has NOT been straight with us, whether by design or not, whether he was fed bad info or not, whether that email is real or not, we feel a need to help spread the word about the wrongs that have been done to all of us. Aren't we entitled to seek the truth ourselves? and ask for help from those who are here to protect us?
Keith
|
|
|
Post by ishmel on Oct 13, 2010 12:05:45 GMT -5
IMO I have no effing clue why some try to undermine the efforts of the Attorney General Action. The AG action isn't perfect, well news flash, nothing is.
Nothing in this vast world of ours is perfect, not the government, the legal system, schools, hospitals, churches nor husbands or wifes. Nothing! Only one being that ever walk on earth was perfect.
Shame on those that want to thwart the efforts of the people trying to benefit us all. You are no better than the bashers that thrive on negativity.
This is an honest effort to apply pressure. No doubt about it. They're are many opinions as what should and shouldn't be done to support this effort. None the less it is 100% better than complaining and begging for answers on this board.
If your not participating than Shut The Fcku Up and do something about it. If you're not going to create some sort of action of your own then find a nice porn site to entertain your self with as that's all your sitting at your computer for; entertainment.
Those of you who wish to be the sheep, and watch as this unfolds while doing nothing to help, can keep your comments to your selves as you are doing nothing but fighting against your own benefit.
Last, no one really knows where we are at in this saga. I have said many times before I want affirmative information that either we are close to resolution or we are going to court to fight this out so that I can make up my mind to write this off. And Hodges and team as well as Tyler have done an extravagant job of keeping us confused and wondering whats next for a long long time. It's time for our tax dollars to actually start working for us instead of others.
Support the AG Action or count sheep with the rest of the sleepers.
|
|
|
Post by wolfbela on Oct 13, 2010 12:10:02 GMT -5
Squeeze and Ish,
Right on..
JWB
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Oct 13, 2010 13:13:07 GMT -5
Mr. Hodges really has no basis for the filing in NY, as he is not a resident there. So the AG has no responsibility to respond to him. He should know that as an attorney. Now when NY state citizens file a complaint with the AG and the NY state securities commission, that will be a different story.. It certainly would be nice, at this point, for Mr Hodges to issue some clear, common sense statements, rather than such esoteric wordage that leaves many shareholders bewildered. But his ambiguity is not surprising. J WB Wow Jerry. An attorney with 40 years of practice filing a complaint with the NY AG, with no clue he has no basis since he's not a resident. I guess with his knowledge of law and experience he should have expected to be ignored...? A layperson filing a complaint will know far more about what will get the attention and active support of the AG, moreso than this attorney could...just because they're jilted or tired of waiting or more wronged than Mr Hodges (who coincidentally is also a shareholder who feels all this and more)? A private response sent to Briwadd was meant to bewilder all shareholders...? Then to slam Mr Hodges for "ambiguity" that's "not surprising"... Here's your reality check...the person who knows most about our situation, evidence gathered, and current condition isn't supporting this AG contact effort in any way. Attacking him for his position doesn't make your cause any more valid, nor does it invalidate the actions he's taken to a similar end either. Defending parts of things that you believe while dismissing elements that don't fit your beliefs doesn't lead a person to truth...it leads them away from it. You're invested in the AG contact effort, I get that...but I'm hoping you're wise enough to understand the implications of what Mr Hodges has shared with Briwadd...it is clear enough to understand, with meager effort applied to do so. C-Dub While I share your opinion, I disagree wholeheartedly with how you arrived to it. If Mr. Hodges actually knew more about our situation than any other, he wouldn't have filed a Bivens suit to begin with. But, given that he did it is the lack of evidence that will ultimately lead to it's failure. Additionally, Wolf was correct in his assessment. The NY AG had no responsibility to Mr. Hodges at all as he wasn't representing any particular individual or group from that state. But, I agree that Mr. Hodges time would be best spent trying to avoid sanctions and fines for him and his clients at this point, and not dwell on the AG issue. For his sake, I sincerely hope he has verifiable evidence to support the existence of a trust, but even that may not suffice unless he has a written contractual agreement to present as well.
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Oct 13, 2010 13:16:38 GMT -5
Squeeze and Ish, Right on.. JWB Not right on. Far from it. Briwadd did the appropriate thing and brought to the board information he thought important. Bashing his efforts is ignorant at best. All of you need to stop being so defensive.
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on Oct 13, 2010 13:21:15 GMT -5
Squeezebox, what a rather pathetic response. I carefully considered whether or not to post Al's response and after given it some thought, I decided I didn't really care what any of you thought! To imply that I fabricated this entire email as to derail the AG effort is absurd. To state that my motives are questionable because of the post is equally absurd.
Had Al's response been in favor of the AG effort, I am sure I would not have received the same criticism. Furthermore, the email was CC'd to Dennis. Why don't you call him and ask if he got the email rather than challenge my motives.
The email is what it is....Al's opinion on the effort. To say that information should not be made available to the shareholders makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
IMO Briwadd
|
|
|
Post by wolfbela on Oct 13, 2010 13:21:37 GMT -5
GOB,
I am not refering to briwadd email.. I am refering to the constant hammering of the AG action.. I know Bri is supporting our effort. He has his issues, which I too understand.
I think his email actually helped. Hodges doesn't care, and we don't care if Hodges cares.. so that is over..
What I am saluting in the posts is that people are standing up for the AG action and starting to see the light.. finally..
Nothing more..
J WB
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Oct 13, 2010 13:25:48 GMT -5
GOB, I am not refering to briwadd email.. I am refering to the constant hammering of the AG action.. I know Bri is supporting our effort. He has his issues, which I too understand. I think his email actually helped. Hodges doesn't care, and we don't care if Hodges cares.. so that is over..What I am saluting in the posts is that people are standing up for the AG action and starting to see the light.. finally.. Nothing more.. J WB Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Post by squeezebox on Oct 13, 2010 19:13:10 GMT -5
Squeeze and Ish, Right on.. JWB Not right on. Far from it. Briwadd did the appropriate thing and brought to the board information he thought important. Bashing his efforts is ignorant at best. All of you need to stop being so defensive. Yeah jackass! and him doing the same thing to us isn't? you are an idiot, lol
|
|
|
Post by squeezebox on Oct 13, 2010 19:44:20 GMT -5
wadd you misunderstood what I said, that's your problem. Take what Wolf said and hit the rocking chair for a nap. my efforts are focused elsewhere so wasting my time with you is just not something I care to do right now, if you don't like it then don't participate. If Al doesn't like it, then show us the money and quit listening to their bs!!!
|
|
|
Post by squeezebox on Oct 13, 2010 19:48:23 GMT -5
by the way, Mike's surgery went well. He has been texting me about sneaking in some beer.
|
|
|
Post by squeezebox on Oct 13, 2010 20:11:49 GMT -5
After rereading the original email from Wadell to Hodges, I realized that he is completely wrong about the AG efforts. What he wrote in no way reflects our strategic plan and noone from the AG formal steering committee discussed any type of inquiry with anyone outside the steering committee. His actions are completely independent of the AG efforts.
dictation taken from the hospital bed
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on Oct 13, 2010 20:36:22 GMT -5
wadd you misunderstood what I said, that's your problem. Take what Wolf said and hit the rocking chair for a nap. my efforts are focused elsewhere so wasting my time with you is just not something I care to do right now, if you don't like it then don't participate. If Al doesn't like it, then show us the money and quit listening to their bs!!! LOL... I find that post rather comical.. ;D Squeeze...stop crying and man up! I completely understood your post and I responded in kind, you simply had no intelligent rebuttal. You guys want to cross the Hodge Bridge when you come to it and I am simply saying that bridge doesn't exist, we may need to go around. Knowing that Hodges has no intentions of cooperating is a pretty good piece of information considering we are about to introduce his case to every Attorney General in America!! lol..don't ya think?? Saying my posts undermine the effort is ridiculous. I am helping you guys out and you don't even realize it!! Briwadd
|
|
|
Post by pootsa on Oct 13, 2010 22:16:05 GMT -5
The reason why New York AG Cuomo did not look into this is because they have to follow protocol. Investigations are classified by importance, and if the AG feels this would make a splash then the office will investigate, but because Hodges request was not including actual complaints of N.Y. residents and he only represents seven, then the office refused.They will open an investigation once numerous complaints are received by their office from N.Y. residents ONLY. Having an investigation means squat unless there is proof of the allegations and judging by Hodges response to Briwad he most likely will not help. I have filed my complaint and will file another complaint when you all are ready, but try not to take too long to get this done because it may be done before you even start and I do not mean payment either. Mr. Hodges really has no basis for the filing in NY, as he is not a resident there. So the AG has no responsibility to respond to him. He should know that as an attorney. Now when NY state citizens file a complaint with the AG and the NY state securities commission, that will be a different story.. It certainly would be nice, at this point, for Mr Hodges to issue some clear, common sense statements, rather than such esoteric wordage that leaves many shareholders bewildered. But his ambiguity is not surprising. Addendum:In rereading Hodges' letter to Cuomo.. he states he represents some NY residents.. I guess that is his standing for approaching NY AG. If he says on paper he represents these people, why are these shareholders in the dark. Shouldn't they be given the same accessible privileges as the plaintiffs. I don't know if that would be a good thing or not, but it seems Mr. Hodges represents any shareholders that are convenient for him at the moment, yet when these same shareholders want information, the request falls on deaf ears. Time for somebody to stand up and be accountable.. J WB
|
|
|
Post by wolfbela on Oct 14, 2010 0:25:07 GMT -5
Folks, I recommend that all start reading these statutes below.. from PA securities act of 1972.. the .pdf and from the Alabama securities act.. below..I am going to check every state that we have a coordinator for and review their securities acts.. We will find many similar statutes on the fraud, etc.. JWB From Alabama Section 8-6-17 Prohibited acts regarding offer, sale, or purchase of securities. (a) It is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly, to: (1) Employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) Make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading; or (3) Engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. (b) It is unlawful for any person who receives, directly or indirectly, any consideration from another person for advising the other person as to the value of securities or their purchase or sale, whether through the issuance of analyses or reports or otherwise, (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud the other person, (2) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the other person, (3) acting as principal for his own account, knowingly to sell any security to or purchase any security from a client, or acting as broker for a person other than such client, knowingly to effect any sale or purchase of any security for the account of such client, without disclosing to such client in writing before the completion of such transaction the capacity in which he is acting and obtaining the consent of the client to such transaction. The prohibitions of this subdivision shall not apply to any transaction with a customer of a dealer if such dealer is not acting as an investment adviser in relation to such transaction; or (4) to engage in dishonest or unethical practices as the commission may define by rule. (c) In the solicitation of advisory clients, it is unlawful for any person to make any untrue statement of a material fact, or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. (d) Except as may be permitted by rule or order of the commission, it is unlawful for any investment adviser to enter into, extend, or renew any investment advisory contract unless it provides in writing, (1) that the investment adviser shall not be compensated on the basis of a share of capital gains upon or capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of the client; (2) that no assignment of the contract may be made by adviser without the consent of the other party to the contract; and (3) that the investment adviser, if a partnership, shall notify the other party to the contract of any change in the membership of the partnership within a reasonable time after the change. (e) Subdivision (d)(1) does not prohibit an investment advisory contract which provides for compensation based upon the total value of a fund averaged over a definite period, or as of definite dates or taken as of a definite date. "Assignment," as used in subdivision (d)(2), includes any direct or indirect transfer or hypothecation of an investment advisory contract by the assignor or of a controlling block of the assignor's outstanding voting securities by a security holder of the assignor; but, if the investment adviser is a partnership, no assignment of an investment advisory contract is considered to result from the death or withdrawal of a minority of the members of the investment adviser having only a minority interest in the business of the investment adviser, or from the admission to the investment adviser of one or more members who, after admission, will be only a minority of the members and will have only a minority interest in the business. (f) It is unlawful for any investment adviser to take or have custody of any securities or funds of any client if, (1) the commission by rule prohibits custody; or (2) in the absence of rule, the investment adviser fails to notify the commission that he has or may have custody. (g) The commission may by rule or order adopt exemptions from subdivision (b)(3) and subdivisions (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) where such exemptions are consistent with the public interest and within the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of this act. (Acts 1959, No. 542, p. 1318, §1; Acts 1990, No. 90-527, p. 772, §1.) Attachments:
|
|