|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:17:37 GMT -5
PJ King of Diamonds Re: ALL PALTALK UPDATES HERE.. « Reply #813 Today at 9:56pm »
(4:26 PM) mahastock1_1: I spoke to Dennis today very briefly. He was busy. He told me wait for an update from Al. So I took it that we may get something soon from Al. FYI.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:18:36 GMT -5
mgl Mod Squad Re: The Weekly Buzz 01/24 « Reply #19 Yesterday at 3:48pm »
lt.kk Senior Diamond Miner Re: Any word on Cottrell.......... « Reply #25 Today at 2:30pm »
Anyone that thinks that there are not operations going on in back of the public eye is definitely residing on Oz. Just what is it that is hard to understand about the complex operation of moving large sums of money. People make their living doing it. Lt.KK
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:21:05 GMT -5
ty bikinipro......
swordfish168 I have been saving this for the right time. « Thread Started Today at 5:48pm »
Hi, I do not post much anymore as I am all posted out
all we do is complain and whine - the boards have turned us all into fanatics. I just want my life back.
even though I do not post much I have been saving a message I had from AH on July 17 2010.
he did not reveal anything of special significance but it gives me peace of mind.
I will share it with you and maybe it will have the same effect.
I asked him about some rumors and why things were going the way they did. I really did not expect him to answer me as he must get hundreds of e-mails just like mine every day.
his response is below
Hello Mike- I read your message. The only I'll make at the moment is, don't believe everything you're told or read; keep the faith - you will not be disappointed. Regards, Al Hodges
read it a few times and it will tell you a few things - he cares and is a thoughtful person - theres alot going on and he cannot reveal it - he knows there is alot of BS out there and to ignore it - does it make you think there is a plan and a guaranteed positive outcome - it does for me.
every time you lose faith or cry fowl read it like I do
now back into stealth mode.
best, mike
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:22:05 GMT -5
lt.kk Senior Diamond Miner Re: gossip 1/27/11 « Reply #22 Today at 5:52am »
Folks...There are people making things up alright, but not the people that matter...don't lose faith and those that have my question is very simple. Why do you come here? Lt.KK
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:23:31 GMT -5
dicek18 Junior Miner Re: gossip 1/27/11 « Reply #23 Today at 6:06am »
You posted this: Chucky is not leaving because of the badgering or the non believers...he is leaving because his job here is done. He did a real good job. Lt.KK
Chucky called PR to clear up any misconceptions why he left the boards.
You should be apologizing for your gross exaggeration about Chucky's departure.
Yet you take no responsibility for what you posted, and you blame others instead.
Interesting.
portrush Administrator Re: gossip 1/27/11 « Reply #26 Today at 7:48am »
Good grief, Dicek...you're trying to make something out of nothing.
What I said was that LtKk's comments were a figure of speech, not literal. Chucky doesn't/didn't make his living by being on the boards. Why do people make this stuff up?
He has shared all he could in the manner that he could share it. He held hands and re-explained things ad-nauseum to people asking the same questions over and over. So in that sense, yeah...his job was done. It's "work-like" dealing with people who incessantly ask the same thing and can't accept what they hear. In that sense, my opinion is LtKk was spot on with his comment.
I didn't say Chucky called me to clear anything up. I said I spoke with Chucky. Please don't try to twist comments to make a point or suggest something different. Yes, we spoke of why he deleted his account on Millionaires and no I didn't ask him to come back. I understand why he did completely...and frankly, there are days when I seriously consider joining him.
Thanks for slowing down and reading this carefully. There is no nefarious, covert, special circumstance, secret reason why Chucky left.
pr
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:24:31 GMT -5
lt.kk Senior Diamond Miner Re: gossip 1/27/11 « Reply #24 Today at 6:23am »
Chucky's info, folks for those who want to know, comes from a group of very well informed people. He was not making his posts up out of thin air. The comments above are made by someone that does not know any of these people...I do and Chucky did not leave for any other reason than his job is done so there was no reason to stay. Believe whoever you want to folks, it is truly your choice. I am driven by one thing and that is to keep you positive and as informed as I can. I will not falter due to negative, uninformed people that want to bring you down. We will win this thing and our sticking together is very important. There are those out there that are here for one purpose and that is to make us weak and to not be able to make important decisions that are coming very soon. There are those that want what we have..please remember that. Lt.KK
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:25:35 GMT -5
tramp Administrator Re: gossip 1/27/11 « Reply #60 Yesterday at 6:28pm »
UCROCKS: (6:26 PM) cmkxer: This is todays latest , Al is finishing Cotrells as he is FULLY funded/paid paperwork and packets have to go out tonight by COURT order.Al has verbal confirmation of this and will only refile if he does not get written confirmation that packets are going out today.This is from two people/sources that talk to AL
UCROCKS: (6:26 PM) cmkxer: The packets NOW have 10 cents a share in them and the 70cents you will have paperwork to get the rest.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:27:57 GMT -5
tramp Administrator Re: gossip 1/27/11 « Reply #60 Yesterday at 6:28pm » UCROCKS: (6:26 PM) cmkxer: This is todays latest , Al is finishing Cotrells as he is FULLY funded/paid paperwork and packets have to go out tonight by COURT order.Al has verbal confirmation of this and will only refile if he does not get written confirmation that packets are going out today.This is from two people/sources that talk to AL UCROCKS: (6:26 PM) cmkxer: The packets NOW have 10 cents a share in them and the 70cents you will have paperwork to get the rest. minuteman Junior Miner Re: gossip 1/27/11 « Reply #61 Yesterday at 6:42pm » What? I don't understand this. The Treasury check that Al said was in this packet, made out to me, now only has 10 cents a share? How can they change a Treasury check that has been sitting at a distribution hub for the past four weeks? Or, was he saying they have 10 cents AND 70 cents? ~Minuteman
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:29:28 GMT -5
Today at 6:45pm, tramp wrote:
snoopstock5 King of Diamonds Re: gossip 1/27/11 « Reply #72 Today at 8:19pm » Started? Maybe for the people that have millions and millions of shares. Certainly not the majority. Acca stated years ago that majority of shareholders did not own more than ONE MILLION SHARES. Sure so someone will set up a "trust" for $100,000. OK.
This whole entire saga is starting to get MAJOR swiss cheese in it. We are being lied to from EVERY CORNER.
snoopstock5 King of Diamonds Re: gossip 1/27/11 « Reply #69 Today at 8:12pm »
How can they change a Treasury check that has been sitting at a distribution hub for the past four weeks?
THEY CANNOT WHICH MEANS WE WERE LIED TO.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:34:16 GMT -5
gioprism DIAMOND DIGGER Re: The Buzz Chat 01/24 « Reply #315 Yesterday at 9:15pm »
A couple of points about this appeal of the Bivens dismissal, and whether it would be an "insurance policy" for SH.
First, if there is an appeal, remember it is just an appeal from an Order dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Even if AH appeals to the Ninth Circuit, briefing and arguments well make take a year. At that point, the case is just remanded to the District Court for discovery, trial, etc. It is likely the Government would immediately appeal again on the privilege issue already raised. In short, for Al to win this, and for any meaningful Order or Judgment to result that could be enforced, it would be a few years off, at best. And that is if AH wins--which is be no means a given.
More importantly, the Defendants in the case are the SEC Commissioners. By all accounts, even Al's, they no longer control or possess our monies, or have any power to disburse it. We have been told GI does. How does an Order/Judgment against the SEC Commissioners help us regarding GI? It does not. GI is not a party to the case, and cannot be added on appeal. No new evidence can be added on appeal. The record in the District Court is closed.
Finally, a point I have raised before. It is thus repetition, and meant to be. An attorney, as an Officer of the Court, has ethical obligations of candor to the Court. Judges take this very seriously. If there is a Supreme Court Order/Directive that pertains to our funds, it must be revealed to the Court. Indeed, it should have already been revealed to the District Court. BH, Chucky and Harv all said, as early as the beginning of November, that AH had obtained a SC Order/Directive requiring the release of funds to us, and separating our situation from WGS. However, in AH's recent update, he said that GI (meaning not him) petitioned the SC in camera, after Christmas, and obtained this ruling.
If the SC ruling existing in November, why was it not used before the District Court at the December 6th hearing as precedent--controlling, ironclad precedent, that (1) our Trust exists; (2) we must be paid on or before December 31, 2010 and (3) that this is dispositive--the SC ruled on it, so there need be no further argument or discussion.
Even if GI had our monies at that point, a District Court, in CA or anywhere, could and would enter an Order enforcing a SC ruling against GI or anyone else it applied to or contemplated. Period. That also applies now, meaning today.
If GI was the one that obtained the SC ruling after Christmas, all the better. There is no need to appeal the dismissed Bivens action. Why? We already have a ruling from the highest court in the land in our favor! Either apply to the District Court for an Order enforcing the SC ruling against GI (or anyone else that has our funds); or apply for an enforcement Order at the SC directly (not a contempt Order--an Order requiring them to disburse NOW or face jail).
In a sense then, an appeal of the Bivens case may even be frivolous because it is repetitive, unnecessary and seeks relief (an order to be paid) that the SC has allegedly already given us according to AH himself! No matter what, if there is an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the existence of this SC ruling in our favor must be disclosed to the Court (and it will, one way or another). Why in the world would it not be--it is an immediate win--DONE. If it is indeed true, as AH says, that it exists. I believe him. At this point, why not? Why in the world would he lie about something this important?
This is not rocket science. However, it is a matter of knowing the law and working in the federal courts and the Supreme Court for many years. But what is rocket science, is parsing, dissecting and ultimately understanding exactly what we do have--be it funds, SC rulings, China, WGS, the Dinar RV, etc. In a word, what is the truth?
IMHO
Lumiere702 DIAMOND DIGGER Re: The Buzz Chat 01/24 « Reply #316 Yesterday at 9:50pm »
Your points are well taken. However, the Bivens action seeks damages for the unconstitutional failure of the defendants to release the funds. It did not seek the release of the funds. The prayer for relief:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:
1. For a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C., Sections 2201 and 2202, which determines and declares the validity of the contentions of the parties set forth in Paragraphs 52 to 54, above;
2. For a judgment for compensatory, general and special damages in the amounts prayed for in the Second Cause of action set forth above;
3. For a judgment for punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and to make examples of these Defendants, and to deter these Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct;
4. For an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs of suit incurred herein; and:
5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
The SC order to release the funds is theoretically aimed at the trustee, presumably not a defendant in the Bivens action. It has little bearing on the Bivens action. The defendants, if found liable, will be called upon to pay damages resulting from their unconstitutional actions in years past. The fact that there is an order to release the funds now in no way affects the defendants’ liability for their actions. AH has every right to appeal and is justified to do so.
Could AH have used the SC order at some point? The case was at the pleading stage. The court ruled that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficiently to claim jurisdiction over the defendants(immunity) and that they had a property interest in the trust. I don’t see how the SC order to release the funds would change the district court’s position on either point. I’m open to contrary argument, but that is my opinion.
gitrichordietrying DIAMOND JEDI Re: The Buzz Chat 01/24 « Reply #319 Yesterday at 10:55pm » Lumiere702 ....in simple terms are you are saying that possibly the Bivens Action appeal might still be considered desirable for some leverage purposes...and it doesn't preclude some other actions in parallel against some other non-defendant (SC order) trustee like GI for example (or whomever is holding the funds)
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 9:38:19 GMT -5
gioprism DIAMOND DIGGER Re: The Buzz Chat 01/24 « Reply #321 Yesterday at 11:46pm »
Lum: Thanks for the post. If you read what I am saying, you should see that our differences in analysis are insubstantial; while you make some technical points, what I am saying is more practical. As I am fond of saying to new, first-year law students, "With all you learn here--the tools, the training, the "thinking-like-a-lawyer", please do not forget the most important thing there is--don't check your common sense at the courtroom door."
The claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act is just that--a claim for an adjudication, a declaration, not money. It would then be necessary to seek further relief that is necessary and proper under the subsequent sections of the Act.
The claim under the second cause of action is for damages--including $3.87 trillion (also the alleged amount of our trust). Apples & oranges.
Fine, if one is inclined to seek damages in lieu of receiving our trust which the SC has said is there (and after spending years in litigation, and a judgment that would in all likelihood be impossible to execute against individuals), then do so. Yes, the Bivens action could provide damages for withholding the trust monies, that is, if the action succeeds. But this is an alternative recovery. An indirect one, if you will. Why not seek the trust itself. Moreover, if our trust is available and has been ordered disbursed to us, what do you think this will do to a damage claim in the same amount (or other damages based on a previous non-receipt?) A rhetorical point.
Concomitantly, any judgment in the Bivens action will be years from now, as stated, and will come at a time far in the future after we have received our trust monies. Finally, if there is no trust, meaning we don't get paid soon under the SC ruling, then what would be Defendants be liable for not releasing to us? No trust, no liability...
Thus, if the SC has issued this Order, then the Court must have considered evidence (by a preponderance) that our trust exists; that we have a right to receive it forthwith; and that it is in an amount sum certain. Since these facts have already been adjudicated, and are not subject to appeal, is not that the quickest, cheapest and most efficient path to receiving our money? The question is rhetorical--of course.
The pleading stage of a case is precisely the time that facts and law supporting a cause of action should be presented to the Court. Of course it would change the District Court's inclination, and indeed obviate the need by Plaintiffs to prove just about everything else alleged in the Complaint. You know this, I am sure.
The road to payment of our trust monies lies in use of the SC Order. The only reason any attorney would not swiftly utilize that theory would be that such a SC ruling did not exist.
I'd be happy to discuss this further with you in a PM. I don't think it is appropriate (or wise) to continue discussing this kind of legal strategy involving our case on a public forum. Let's be smart about this.
Thanks for the good post, Lum. I appreciate your thoughts.
GP
IMHO
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 10:48:45 GMT -5
ty delusionalgrandeur.......
Re: ALL PALTALK UPDATES HERE.. « Result #1 Today at 7:00am » The Chinese are in charge of the distribution. If they wanted to be more efficient in doing so it will be better for us. I guess anything that is posted from now on will be viewed as bad. Some will be happy but I think it is best that I go the route of Chucky and just wait till this ends ( Soon). It is hard for me to stay positive here and personally I see no use for this board if every message is twisted toward someones negative attitude. I tried to make this a place of hope but it seems I am outnumbered by those that want this board to be a vehicle to complain and vent anger. Between you and I it is getting really dark and even creepy. To all that feel as I do, that we are blessed to be here, good luck with your new wealth and please try to think of others and help them with your windfall.
Lt.KK
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 10:49:58 GMT -5
ty Sunbeam777.....
tigerherb: (9:20 AM): Salty says that after talking to other plaintiffs that were texting Mr. Hodges last night, there appears to be an information blackout because Al would not respond to them.
Salty also said it was unusual for Hodges not to respond.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 11:01:46 GMT -5
ty sweetsp7 go2guy Al Filed.. Thread Started Today at 9:54am » 01/27/2011NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Plaintiffs David Anderson, Reece Hamilton, Robert Hollenegg, Sheila Morris, Nelson L Reynolds. Appeal of Order Dismissing Case 32 (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Attachments: # 1 Order of Dismissal, # 2 Service List)(Hodges, A) (Entered: 01/27/2011) convert.neevia.com/docs/2d597b5b-2e78-4cf7-b8d3-acbb8e54836f/1.pdf01/27/2011REPRESENTATION STATEMENT re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 33 . (Hodges, A) (Entered: 01/27/2011) convert.neevia.com/docs/af988a56-d6d1-44e8-81e3-dd1d55d662d0/2.pdf01/27/2011Civil Appeals Docketing Statement received from forwarded to 9th CCA. RE: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 33 (Attachments: # 1 Order of Dismissal, # 2 Service List)(Hodges, A) (Entered: 01/27/2011) convert.neevia.com/docs/a3566b74-a778-441e-9be7-ec1fb09dba8e/3.pdf ATL Dr. Of Diamonds Posts: 129 Re: Al Filed « Reply #1 Today at 10:09am » Salty & Allan dropped out?
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jan 28, 2011 11:19:58 GMT -5
Yesterday at 6:30pm, NobleForce2 wrote:
Ed, have you spoken with your source lately? You kinda stopped mentioning him, but it seems you are confident as ever.
Ed Jagacki God of Diamonds « Reply #25 Today at 9:27am »
Noble,
Yes, we spoke about a week ago, and my (our) confidence is still intact... even as we tire of waiting...
|
|