|
Post by 2018 on Apr 14, 2011 17:07:02 GMT -5
The "package" here delivered is quite something... lol.
Lets start with these 3 ... whatever they are called:
#1 "A recent confidential conversation"- ( confidential is my favorite kind, buddy, friend, guy at the kiosk...)
#2 "has also lead us to believe" - ( So this is walking away from I or me.. but going into "us", better few of us .. then pinning it on one.. and believe is a always a good one..I belive in ufo's, sue me if you want. )
#3 " it could be possible" - ( now another murky maybe, or maybe not.. who could tell? , its a double murky one.. could should.. would.. to possible, impossible.. etc.)
now whatever one writes after this... are they really in any way liable at all in any way... as presenting anything factual? no.Not personaly really because its "us" from who? its confidential conversation.. is it black or is it white? we dont know.. we are lead to believe.. its possible its white.. but then its possible it could be black... this was all protective armour.. so far.. the gloves, the eyeshades, the hush hush... we heard but we were not told.. we are kind of maybe under impression.. that maybe possibly.. not for shore.. dont quote me on it... dont quote me, dont quote us, dont quote "him" the confidential source either.. ;D And now.. for the main meal:
"that those promoting certain legal activity could end up finding themselves without the opportunity to enjoy future benefits, or enjoy them for long." lets break it down: "that those"- who are those? "promoting certain legal activity"- is this a secret also? are we talking about Patrick bryne? somebody else.. "could"- falls under could should would.. "end up finding themselves without the opportunity to enjoy future benefits, or enjoy them for long." - And this is the best part.. the end of the wheiled threat.. with lots of could should would, led to believe, feeling, believing, that probably.. maybe.. but not for sure.. not saying this way or that way... etc etc.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ but why would somebody use so many could would maybe , us but not me, possibly, not for sure.. under impression that maybe.. or maybe not.. etc? why? Because it would be completely illegal and baseless for a lawyer to make such threats.... and its very questionable if this has anything to do with anybody in authority within cmkx or with law degree at all....this is in regards the overture here that that it may be coming from hodges.. which i completely doubt.. and he surely would not put that out himself.. I find that as well mind insulting to post such stuff.. and off course legaly 200% baseless.
|
|
pixie
Dr. Of Diamonds
Posts: 180
|
Post by pixie on Apr 14, 2011 17:18:14 GMT -5
INES... gotta love this girl!!!!! LOL.... ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by KeepItReal on Apr 14, 2011 17:28:17 GMT -5
Well well well, what kind of post is that from Port? This will only push more towards Wolf. They are going to stop the imminent payments to those who are seeking truth?
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Apr 14, 2011 17:38:17 GMT -5
INES... gotta love this girl!!!!! LOL.... ;D ;D ;D You know it ended up being long.. but really at the bottom of it all we are talking about shareholders rights.. Off course nobody in legal proffesion would dare.. say things like.. i will strip you of your legal rights as a shareholder, or when you get paid... i will take your money away from you.... Now does it sound ridiculous? yes because it is. but that is exactly... what they are trying to massage here with: "without the opportunity to enjoy future benefits, or enjoy them for long" I can not believe somebody could actualy write stuff like that.. No wonder they used so many: under impression.. believe,. could, possibly, maybe.. etc.. yea. good one.
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Apr 14, 2011 17:46:32 GMT -5
Well well well, what kind of post is that from Port? This will only push more towards Wolf. They are going to stop the imminent payments to those who are seeking truth? Right.. Dear judge i am looking for release of these funds representing here.. these 5 plaintifs.. and similarly situated shareholders.. all 50 k of them... but please exclude.. few that pissed me off.. I will give you a list: lets begin with alan treffery and salty.. because they pissed me off when they quit as plaintifs.. and then i have few more on that list because they want to hire their own lawyer, other then me.. to also look into existence of these funds.. that i am also looking into. yes your honor.. yes those funds were collected for all legal shareholders of cmkx that own certs...true statement.. The judge responds: But now you are telling me you have brought a list here.. of few shareholders that are legal shareholders.. of cmkx.. but for one reason or another they pissed you off.. and you would like to see them not paid.. or you would like to take their money away once they get paid? On what legal grounds exactly are you basing your request mr...? ;D
|
|
|
Post by KeepItReal on Apr 14, 2011 18:05:57 GMT -5
lol, it reminds me the soup nazi in Seinfeld "No packet for you"
|
|
|
Post by cheechman on Apr 14, 2011 19:12:01 GMT -5
Re: Other gossip,etc 4/11/11--> « Reply #108 Today at 7:10pm »
Today at 6:52pm, seagull wrote: By: icecrush This is my take on it, and why I back the Millionaires position on it 101%.
I don't know Wolfbela, don't know his real name, don't know if the lawyer he's chosen is a friend or family or a really great guy he found on line. I don't know those things, Wolf talked to him, I didn't and because I don't know, I won't trust money to support an action that is full of the unknowns.
I strongly support Al, and want him to have the opportunity to finalize this. IMHO he's done a great job, and no one is paying him what he's worth imho. I believes he cares. I believes he has the information. I know he was there with Maheu. I know he was with us during the cert pull as our asset lawyer. If anyone know's what assets were collected in that room with Maheu, then Al would be that man. I support everything he's done and respect him.
Another point I'm concerned with: Wolf filed once before in 2010. See his comments below. He was denied, due to the Biven's being in play, (his words based on what the court said). I want to know what has changed, that would allow shareholders to sign up under another legal agreement. If the first filing was thrown out because we were under the Biven's, then that must mean, imho, that those that may enter into another legal agreement may not be under the Biven's! So, if the Biven's pays out, those that have signed up under another legal agreement may not be included. To put out a statement of concern for the well being of the shareholders is not a threat, it is an cautionary warning. If it's not appreciated, well then so be it.
Each is intitled to make their own choice, but I make mine based on respect for Al, the Millionaires board position of being pro-cmkm/Al, not knowing who Wolf is (being on the boards a long time doesn't mean anything) and the legal case that went before. Making a choice in anger or frustration is not the time to make that choice.
Think about it
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders,
I just wanted you to know I got notification my motion was denied by the judge. Not because of legal process, but because the judge indicated my request for subpoenas was tied into the Bivens action.
I have included a .pdf of the ruling..
Jerry ..WolfBela
Attachment: httpsecf.pamd.uscourts.govcgibinshowtemp.plfile818 (55.7 KB)
Ya Okay ,it was always said go get your own LAWYER BEFORE but now it is not a good IDEA.This is in no way against Al's efforts,he has done great things for us all.But we need to see some of the goods,it is time to end the ring around the Rosie.And as if they would pay out the shareholders BUT hold back the ones that HIRED another LAWYER, ya for sure that should be entered into the BS OF BS /RUMORS LINES.
flyingj Report to Mod - Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Apr 14, 2011 21:01:30 GMT -5
lol, it reminds me the soup nazi in Seinfeld "No packet for you"
|
|
|
Post by wolfbela on Apr 14, 2011 21:04:14 GMT -5
I asked Attorney Fryar previously about being left out in the cold with an action.. Since the Bivens isn't filed as a class action suit, YET, it is not a binding group action as a final legal process.
If it was listed as a group class action and Hodges lost, as the Bivens has so far, we would be finished. We would be done. We would have been notified by mail that we had no further legal recourse in this matter, meaning CMKX.
So this other speculation is just that.. speculation..
See the importance of having our OWN attorney!!!! To protect OURSELVES!!!!
JWB
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Apr 14, 2011 21:16:34 GMT -5
Absolutely Wolf! And, The "It's all scripted" is played out!
|
|
|
Post by wolfbela on Apr 14, 2011 21:28:56 GMT -5
Another thing these "experts" are overlooking is that our "action" with Mr. Fryar is not a lawsuit. It is a discovery action that is allowed by the State of TX. We seek depositions and documentation to support our claims. The laws of TX allow us to do this pre-lawsuit to establish an actual need to conduct a lawsuit.
So these people going on about jeopardizing our standing in any settlement don't understand this at all.
The only current legal undertaking jeopardizing your claims to assets is if the Bivens goes class action. Then you have problems..
J WB
|
|
|
Post by sunbeam777 on Apr 14, 2011 21:54:04 GMT -5
|
|
triple
Diamond Hunter
Posts: 30
|
Post by triple on Apr 15, 2011 3:03:08 GMT -5
triple_14: Wolfbela is contacted by Attorney Fryar and is told, after viewing Hodges email he received the other day that his services won't be needed. Congratulates shareholders and says goodby. You don't think? Nah! ARGH! Do you? ARGH ! just to clarify: i did post this on paltalk together with the link where it came from. only short messages can be posted at once in paltalk. It was only mentioned to discuss and it was immediately stated that this was a best case "what if " scenario! unfortunately that part was left out the copy and paste and made to look like a rumor coming from me.IT WAS NOT !
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Apr 15, 2011 3:59:30 GMT -5
That's cool Triple, no worries!
|
|
|
Post by z06mike on Apr 15, 2011 6:23:27 GMT -5
Another thing these "experts" are overlooking is that our "action" with Mr. Fryar is not a lawsuit. It is a discovery action that is allowed by the State of TX. We seek depositions and documentation to support our claims. The laws of TX allow us to do this pre-lawsuit to establish an actual need to conduct a lawsuit. So these people going on about jeopardizing our standing in any settlement don't understand this at all. The only current legal undertaking jeopardizing your claims to assets is if the Bivens goes class action. Then you have problems.. J WB 202 option on 4, ready, BREAK!
|
|