|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 10:10:14 GMT -5
smegadild DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #255 Today at 8:46am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob, if the DOJ signed off on this, then why would the opponents stand in the way to muck this up however they would muck it up and not understand they do so at their own peril? It isn't as though the opponents are not a known entity to the DOJ? Why would they want the full weight of the DOJ coming down on them when in the end let's be honest here, the opponents know they would be summarily spanked? Something isn't meshing here with the message your conveying. Not asking you to convey or assuage too me my concerns. It's supposed to be towards the end of the saga so we've been led to believe unless this is a prelude to conditioning us to an extension. I'm certain you've seen the heart-wrenching stories by a couple fellow shareholders in the past few days and it seems to be reaching a crescendo with so many. How much more can this shareholder base be wrung out? Again, not dumping on you by any means, this is all just tough to watch. I sense a bad moon a rising. Bob if you could give an opinion on something... The sale of the claims to the Chinese, why couldn't that money be disbursed to the rightful owners being the shareholders? I never quite got that? Today at 7:34am, bhollenegg wrote: millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=36152&page=13bhollenegg DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #272 Today at 9:46am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smegadild....Please understand, I cannot provide opinions because it will later be misconstrued as fact and from Attorney Hodges. Attorney Hodges is getting all funds released that are identified for the CMKX Shareholders. The plight of the shareholders is the driving force to get the release done as quickly as possible. My best to you Smegadild, BHollenegg
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 10:12:31 GMT -5
bhollenegg DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #258 Today at 8:48am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today at 8:34am, jbgood wrote: Hello Mike... I have not seen any information that confirms the first payment is for damages for "withholding the funds." Again, Attorney Hodges is not in charge of the release. Attorney Hodges is ensuring the release is made by using every legal means available. Thank you, BHollenegg millionaires.proboards.com/index.....d=36152&page=13
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 10:18:39 GMT -5
monte379 DIAMOND DIGGER Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #273 Today at 9:47am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good Morning Robert, and thanks for the posts. I appreciate everything you have done to try to relay what you can to us. I apologize if this question has already been asked, but can you clear up any thoughts on what happened last Monday. It seems as though we had ER and money was sent and packets were to go out, but the transfer was late and things were halted. If that was the case, why did things not resume the next day, or the next week? I think knowing funds were transferred and packets were about to head out 9 days ago, and there is no chatter on what is going on this week, it what is confusing. Thanks again, and please offer any thoughts. I know you have not heard from AH since the 23rd, so you may be as confused as us why things did not resume. millionaires.proboards.com/index.....d=36152&page=13
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 10:19:21 GMT -5
swmiller3 DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #278 Today at 10:09am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am confused about something. In BH's latest comments (which are now in the "Weekly Buzz") he says the following (I cut and pasted it so it is accurate)............. "Informing the opponents of what you are going to accomplish is fine, but informing the opponents how by providing information which will give the opponents strategic advantage is not the way to win. The final win is when the shareholders are in possession of all their CMKX Funds." ...............Now what I am confused about is why are we worrying about "opponents". My understanding is that the US Supreme Court issued a directive that CMKX was to be paid by the end of the year. What opponents are going to stand in the way of a SC directive? Who are our "opponents" at this time? The DOJ has signed off on this and the SC has ordered it to be done.....so who is standing against this even now, at this late date, that we have to be careful what we are saying? With a SC directive, we shouldn't have any opponents! So who are these opponents that we have to be careful about, that can overrule or blatantly challenge a SC directive here at this late date in the process? Sorry, but I am confused! Steve millionaires.proboards.com/index.....d=36152&page=13 richerob DIAMOND DIGGER Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #280 Today at 10:15am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not too mention this comment regarding the war is over: Again, as far as, whether we won the war or not. Work was being done to have the Shareholders funds released Thanksgiving week. Everyone was on board to get it down. It did not happen. It wasn't because some one was against the release. It is still being worked. There are no more battles...just the logistics. Imo, the war is over. Thank you, BHollenegg cmkxunofficial.proboards.com/inde....1&page=3#101827Richerob millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=36152&page=15
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 10:27:12 GMT -5
tbo452 DIAMOND MINER Re: IMO: Bounce Me!!! « Reply #11 Today at 12:40am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some may not agree with what was said, or how it was said, but there is one undeniable truth... We've had many gurus & contacts & sources & lawyers & knights in shining armor who were doing their best to save the shareholders. No matter how sincere & honest & trustworthy & loyal & helpful & friendly & courteous & kind they may have been, we come back to that one undeniable fact. Shareholders have not been paid. Shareholders still have nothing. But I'm sure THIS time will be different. GO CMKX And now a word from our sponsors... If you're taking anti-depressants, but you're still depressed, call your doctor and ask him to buy your CMKX shares...!! millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=36200 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 10:35:53 GMT -5
chucky DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: IMO: I have to say this .... « Reply #24 Today at 8:40am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today at 8:37am, tbone wrote: Today at 6:32am, harvscorvette wrote: tbone, Again, I don't make predictions, I have however shared what I've been told. And to Harv's credit, while I may not be in possession of said documents - I have been made aware of their existence. millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=36199&page=2
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 10:38:17 GMT -5
crackerjack DIAMOND JEDI Re: IMO: I have to say this .... « Reply #26 Today at 8:49am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chucky, according to the information you were told you made a PREDICTION that we would see payment by years end. So cut the BS and back peddeling it's so obvious. You were better as the chucky doll lol. No $ by years end- IMO- u are already sensing that so step up as a man and promise to give out your source( if wrong) to help release these so called funds. Or is It because they are your relatives and family always sticks together! Lmao glta who have suffered because of the lies! millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=36199&page=2chucky DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD chucky a.k.a chunky Re: IMO: I have to say this .... « Reply #27 Today at 8:53am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, actually I said we would be paid by end of year. I was told that and I shared that. Show me any post of mine where I said I was making a prediction. I have always stated that I believe what I've been told. Now you questioning me and my role as a man is downright funny as you seem to be the one who needs his hand held. And give you my source's identity? Are you seriously that naive? And calling me a liar will get you nowhere but just reinforce the fact you know not of what you speak. crackerjack DIAMOND JEDI Re: IMO: I have to say this .... « Reply #28 Today at 9:02am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Her hand NOT! Lol Back peddel if u must! If it makes it easier to look in the mirror go for it. If no $$ by years end why would you not out your source who is obviously a liar ( oh wait, it's family) Lmao, share your info just like the Monas, accas, drd, sterlings, whyatts, shielas, Mel, .... Of the past and you should be proud to be added to that list of upstanding citizens . Complete joke glta that have suffered from the lies chucky DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: IMO: I have to say this .... « Reply #31 Today at 9:14am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My advice to you is to man up and take responsibility for your own investment. You are hell bent on blaming me and everyone else for your inability to handle this investment like a man and it's becoming sadly obvious. Because your reasoning for outing my source (who is not a relative) makes no sense whatsoever, as does none of the points you are attempting to make, I am preempting this useless exchange with you before I start losing IQ points. Out, Chucky
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 10:47:12 GMT -5
poolplayer DIAMOND DIGGER Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #289 Today at 10:44am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seems like we have 2 more days to hope that something actually happens with this stock. I am hoping that those in the know are right, but if nothing happens in the next two days, it seems like all credibility of all that was supposed to happen in the last year will vanish. millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=36152&page=15
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 10:54:39 GMT -5
By: oil.ipo 29 Dec 2010, 09:59 AM EST Rating: Msg. 981856 of 981864 (Reply to 981653 by oil.ipo)
Jump to msg. # I do not want to hear about any appeal process NYE night come 5-9 PM EST filed on behalf of the Legal team, and how it will not affect the timing of any pending distribution process ,the New Year 2011. If filed all SOR/ SHAREHOLDERS OF RECORD can expect to be here into the Spring/ Summer 2011. I do not want to hear how this 'future' action was not anticipated, and how the process was an unfortunate outcome for this Holiday season with Mr. Hodges comments like "if i were a bettin man" just coming out of a highly charged court room.. Then reiterating in a future update substantiating such comments in a positive vein. (with all due respect to Mr. Hodges)
IOW- I want to see this notification as badly as the many of you all who are so anxious here minus a few bashers. The leaks are all so positive, and convenient for great news. It spells the incentive, which pays for it in advance, and bodes for this continual brainwashing /therapy / complacency programming. We have a few very good informants who do the same thing continually. They are the ones who are responsible for these 'positive'/leaks updates. The delays are expected/normalcy as they always have been. Not a good enough reason to pay the remaining few thousands who wait, or we would be paid- already.
Now, if I am wrong then we will be paid and I digress into my multi- million dollar lifestyle. But again, it's all about seeing it and then believing it now isn't it. One precedes the other. The money? Shine the light on transparency. I am hearing the rumblings actually the quake of a huge action forthcoming by year end if nothing comes. Trust me that is coming guys. Happy NY!~
AIMHO, Action = actually the true voiceS of these many remaining shareholders.
Oil
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Dec 29, 2010 11:31:52 GMT -5
Re: Al Hodges WHY? ?? « Reply #21 Today at 10:15am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today at 6:42am, e362 wrote: Bhollenegg, I respect your call for level headed thinking, but I think it is human nature to be at wits end at this point. When Christmas came and went without money in hand and AH didn't even give a reassuring message through one of the plaintiffs I think it turned up the we've been played emotion to the breaking point. His SC court directive for the end of this year is 2 business days away and if that passes it will be pretty cut and dry we have been lied to. The fact that he has not updated you in 5 days of which included the infamous Christmas prediction should be very alarming to you as you are a plaintiff in his suit. "Silent mode" as you called it from an atty to his plaintiff is unacceptable and unprofessional, silent mode from you to us is understandable should the situation require. As for "At what cost are the shareholders willing to take to make the strategic information public before receiving the funds?" Here is something I think all stuckholders could accept and benefit from that wouldn't risk a thing. Obviously AH or transfer online etc has the name and cert #'s of all the bonafides. Have transfer online set up a copy of the trust agreement on there site only accessable by entering the correct name and cert number for bonafides to view. They can remove any names they feel would jeopardize a person or this suits safety. Obviously the opposition is well aware of the trust so they would gather nothing new and it would calm alot of stuckholders fears that they have been played all along. GLTUA and thank you. E362...you brought up several good points. Attorney Hodges did provide the plaintiffs updates. He requested the plaintiffs not to post the update due to sensitive information which cannot be made public. A shareholder posted a copy of the update he received from a plaintiff. The individuals named in the update were called several times and harassed about Attorney Hodges. This happened before and compromised Attorney Hodges position. I can understand why Attorney Hodges is concerned about sharing sensitive information with the plaintiffsThe Trust idea sounds great and may be an acceptable way to review the information. I will check into this.Thank you, BHollenegg
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 14:11:35 GMT -5
swmiller3 DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #306 Today at 11:59am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today at 11:54am, bbildman wrote: Here is something Seagull posted from lumiere. Make note to read starting with the 5 paragraph. Lumiere shows how courts can do things outside of public observation and with files sealed. Lumiere is an attorney I believe, so the info provided is valid. Steve By: lumiere The issue of possible US Supreme Court involvement is once again a hot topic as we near the end of the year. IMO, there are two possible ways the court or individual justices might be involved. One is by issuing a formal opinion/order of the full court- they do not issue formal rulings using fewer that the full number of justices (except where a justice may recuse himself/herself for some reason). The other way would be some sort of informal “directive,” “suggestion,” or “recommendation” by one or more justices. Is the informal route possible? In a situation like this I don’t see why not. It would be highly irregular, but this is, after all, CMKX. So, we can’t rule that out. The more interesting question is whether it is possible for the US Supreme Court to have issued a formal ruling directing that the trust funds be released by the end of the year without the public being made aware of the ruling, or even of the lawsuit. If there is a way to do so, a formal opinion cannot be ruled out. It does not mean that one actually was issued, just that it cannot be ruled out. First, federal courts do not issue “advisory opinions.” There must be what’s called a “case or controversy.” A real plaintiff, a real defendant and a real dispute to be resolved. If there is one way to do it, there may be others. As Momike likes to say, play a little “what if.” Consider the following hypothetical: What if a shareholder, one of the many who are unknown to the broad shareholder base, filed a lawsuit against the trustee- someone whose name we don’t know, but is undoubtedly known to AH? The lawsuit is filed in compliance with the federal rules in an out-of-the-way federal court (think something like Wyoming, Tennessee etc.- no offense to residents of those states). You would have a case filed something like Linda Smith v. John Jones- no reference to CMKX or CMKM Diamonds. What if the trust is named the 1324235 trust, no reference to CMKX or CMKM Diamonds. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.2 (d) and (e) permit the filing of pleadings and other documents under seal. The only thing the public would see is a docket entry, Smith v Jones. What if the DOJ joined in the request that the case be heard under seal, citing national security as the reason? What if the case was decided by a motion for summary judgment under rule 56, decided on written submission only? No hearing open to the public. What if the judge and parties followed the procedure outlined in 15 USCode Chapter 1 §29 that permits a direct appeal to the US Supreme Court from the District Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court would have the case and could continue to handle the case under seal. It could issue its opinion without hearing oral argument. All under seal, only made available to the parties and counsel. Further distribution would be prohibited. What if the lawsuit was filed in May, after the funds were released to the trustee? The procedure outlined above could well have resulted in an opinion being handed down by the Supreme Court while AH was in Virginia. It could have happened that quickly. It appears to me that there is a theoretical way for the Supreme Court to have issued a formal opinion out of the eyes of the public. Did it happen? I have no idea. But, I do not believe that the possibility can be dismissed out of hand. All IMO, of course. millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=36152&page=16
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 14:12:31 GMT -5
taip99 DIAMOND DIGGER Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #307 Today at 12:02pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This should have been over already. If the excuse of a one business day ending before the funds were received is true. Given the two business days of last week, and the three days so far of this week. That's five days after the fact of moneys transferred. And as far as Al not talking as to help the opposition, he manipulates wording for a living ( the definition of an attorney). Unless of course his is restricted by a NDA, but then we don't know that either now do we? After all of these years of waiting, reading, and researching. I'm still hopeful, but I wish I had more real facts rather that questions. Steve poolplayer DIAMOND DIGGER Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #308 Today at 12:06pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree Steve, some of the excuses that have been given over this year are really lame, like the bank wasn't ready therefore 6 months later it still has not happened. I am having a hard time believing what we have been told, but I am trying to. Right now this is sounding just like the previous 6 years. I sure hope that is wrong. golden1101 DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #309 Today at 12:10pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought there was no longer an "enemy" standing in the way and that payment was now merely a matter of logistics? Now we cannot disclose anything because the enemy will know how we are going to accomplish our tactical agenda? millionaires.proboards.com/index.....d=36152&page=16
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 29, 2010 14:14:51 GMT -5
bbildman DIAMOND JEDI Re: The Buzz Chat 12/27 « Reply #310 Today at 12:21pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- swmiller3, point taken. However, if this CMKX directive was SO secret, how is it that Al Hodges (who reported to plaintiffs who then communicated it to us) was the one who "alerted" us regarding a Directive from the US Supreme Court, while he was in Virginia. Needless to say, all this is just talk because we still don't have funds or proof thereof -- but as is often the case, a ruling or directive can be made such that it is SEALED, which just mean the CONTENTS can't be made public. The Title of the Directive/Ruling/Case remains public, but SEALED. If in fact the people in charge of this US Supreme Court Directive wanted it Secret, do you think Al Hodges would have talked about it in public...or to his plaintiffs...all the while filing some brief/directive hidden in some venue in South Dakota?? Let's you and I be clever here, and instead of trying to create some off-the-wall reasoning (as CMKX shareholders are wont to do) as to why we can't find any directive, wouldn't it just be more sensible to make other reasonable assumptions about whether there really is a Directive that was issued by a US Supreme Court Justice?? (I continue to use "US Supreme Court" instead of the acronym "SC" because who knows or knew what "SC" stands for...for all we know SC stands for "Source Code") millionaires.proboards.com/index.....d=36152&page=16
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 30, 2010 11:25:48 GMT -5
By: jfarn 27 Dec 2010, 11:13 PM EST Rating: Msg. 981491 of 982627
Jump to msg. # CMKX longs,
Don't hold your breath re: any type of payment this week.
Al's court house prognostication came/went without any fanfare/update and his sources are IMO an absolute joke. He hasn't provided the plaintiffs with substantiated facts because he has none. He is a NESARA, White Knight, disciple that believes what he believes. He is a good man IMO but his strong allegiance to these theories is a bit of problem when it comes to reality.
I wish this wasn't the case but it is what it is.
See you all on Jan 2, when you all realize the king/mountain has no clothes.
Sorry,
jf
By: oil.ipo 28 Dec 2010, 05:19 AM EST Rating: Msg. 981514 of 982627 (Reply to 981491 by jfarn)
Jump to msg. # jfarn I won't, and I didn't place any huge hopes in seeing anything this week. The people who keep pumping the music have this week as many are still reveling for the very last day of 2010. Cannot blame them. If a Federal Payment exists it will go out the last day of this year.
Agreed, focus on something else because next year is as good as here. The odds are not looking very good.
IMO, Oil
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Dec 30, 2010 11:26:33 GMT -5
And now a little bit of oil............. By: oil.ipo 28 Dec 2010, 05:35 AM EST Rating: Msg. 981515 of 982627 (Reply to 981514 by oil.ipo) Jump to msg. # Apparently Overstock went the correct route. You need to hear a Judge say it ultimately. Not hear that it is coming by virtue of some secret santa. IMO, Oil
|
|