Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 9, 2010 10:07:27 GMT -5
Below are some of the summary excerpts from Al's latest response. The main difference I see is more detail and Al tying the actual defendants by name to what they did. Now the question is can Al prove it?
Defendants Glassman, Atkins, and Campos, had an order placed on CMKM preventing any public disclosure of anticipated mergers or other development information.
The sales of the majority (2.25 Trillion Phantom shares) were at all such times know to Defendants Cox, Glassman, Atkins, Campos and Nazareth.
Defendants Glassman, Atkins, And Campose in concert with the DOJ, combine with Robert Maheu an others facilitated a “sting operation,” using CMKM Diamonds with knowledge or consent of its shareholders.
Defendants Glassman, Atkins and Campos in conjunction with the DOJ and Homeland Security believe short sellers were utilizing their activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment of taxes, and to support foreign terrorist operations.
Defendants encouraged the company to “pump the stock
Consented to, facilitated and supported numerous other acts and deceptions consistent with effecting the “sting operation.”
Defendants facilitated the “sting operation” with CMKM shareholders knowledge knowing in would drive CMKM out of business.
Defendants authorized and consented to the sale of mineral claims to Chinese corporations, funds placed in a trust to be disbursed at liquidation.
Once money was collected (Defendants named) assumed disbursement control of the funds. SEC had the right to determine when the release of the moneys to the shareholders would occur. Because it was required to fulfill the “sting operation” goals. Robert Maheu agreed that these Defendants should control the distribution time for the funds after they determined the “sting operation” goals had been fulfilled. Robert Maheu further agree that no CMKM liquidation assets would be distributed without the consent of the Defendant Commissioners.
Said moneys collected for the benefit of shareholders have been placed in a trust, or are otherwise held in a trust, by the DTCC………pursuant to a Trust Agreement on behalf of the shareholders.
By operation of Federal Law, the then acting Chairpersons and Commissioners of the SEC (name Defendants herein) held and hold the sole, final and absolute discretion to determine when moneys collected pursuant to the scheme set forth above would and could be released for distribution, and must do so pursuant to their mandate under the law to protect the shareholders.
Pursuant to the terms of the agreements entered into, all moneys were to have been released within one year of the time the company was originally de-listed, in October of 2005. It has now been almost five years, and the Defendants, and each of them, have failed and refused to release these funds to the shareholders.
These repeated actions of withholding distribution of said moneys, without compensation, and without due process of law, amount to a taking of the property of the individual Plaintiffs and all similarly situation.
Davesaint