|
|
Post by sunbeam777 on Jul 21, 2011 23:26:33 GMT -5
jacbert: Appeal court.... Hodges requests 30 more days www.411-room.com/AppealCourt/AppealExtentionRequest72111.pdfkonga_66: "since within just the past hours, I have learned that there is a substantial and serious likelihood that sustained and comprehensive official efforts to settle and conclude this matter are now underway," luv this |
|
|
|
Post by tracer25 on Jul 21, 2011 23:27:49 GMT -5
"Accordingly, the information described above, gathered by or through me, or presented to me by persons within the scope of protected, professional privilege, and work product confidentiality, my resulting conclusions, taken to their logical and legal conclusion, strongly indicate and make it much more likely than not, that the instant appeal will soon become moot." Sounds good to me  |
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Jul 22, 2011 0:02:02 GMT -5
It does sound good. Everyone should time and read it a few times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Jul 22, 2011 0:54:04 GMT -5
"There is now pending an expected imminent settlement of this case."
"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct."
A. Clifton Hodges
|
|
|
|
Post by Warren_Pease on Jul 22, 2011 0:57:13 GMT -5
Whether or not Hodges wins his request for an extension, the case should be settled within thirty days from now. After all, Al swore this to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurknomore on Jul 22, 2011 4:05:35 GMT -5
(I've omitted the non-interesting stuff to save space)
2. Facts showing the existence and nature of the requested extension of time to file opening brief.
This is an appeal from an Order of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division (Selna, J.), granting Defendants' FRCP 12(b) Motion to Dismiss (Minute Order dated June 6, 2010) and dismissing Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with prejudice, by Order ofDismissal dated December 29, 2010.
The present Bivens action arises out of the sale of stock from CMKM Diamonds, Inc. ("CMKM"), to Plaintiffs, the corporation's subsequent implementation of its resolution to self-liquidate, and the involvement of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in that process. Plaintiffs brought this action against a number of former and present SEC Chairpersons and Commissioners, who refuse to authorize release of the compensation funds under their custody and/or control, which monies result and accrue directly from a clandestine government "sting" operation.
Plaintiffs have asserted claims for declaratory judgment and deprivation of their Fifth Amendment Rights under the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. While this cause was filed as a probable class action, no putative class has yet been certified given the early and unexpected dismissal of Plaintiffs' case by the court below.
In the present appeal, Appellants contend, that: (i) the shareholders of the winding-up CMKM corporation have a constitutionally protected property interest; and (ii) a meritorious and compensable claim for relief was properly plead and stated by Plaintiffs in their Complaint.
Appellants' opening brief was originally due to be filed by July 11, 2011. Appellants previously obtained from this Court, orally by telephone and received from the Clerk, upon a showing of good cause, a fourteen (14) day extension of the time to file Appellants' opening brief, pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2., to July 25, 2011.
In this current motion before the Court, Appellants now request an additional time extension of thirty (30) days to file its opening brief, for a number of important, material and relevant reasons, including, without limitation:
(i) Appellants' substantial need;
(ii) The likely event that the instant appeal will soon become moot;
(iii) The judicial economy and administrative convenience of the Court,
(iv) To avoid the considerable, continuing expense and hardship to both Appellants and Appellees in continuing to prosecute and defend this appeal pending the expected, imminent resolution of the underlying claims, thereby rendering this appeal moot; and
(v) The prior joinder in this Motion by the Appellees/Government by stipulation and consent hereto.
In support of the above, Appellants attach to this Motion the Affidavit of counsel, A. Clifton Hodges, Esq., incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
3. Notification to counsel for other parties.
By telephone conference on July 20, 2011, counsel for Appellees- Defendants (AUSA, John Nordin) has agreed to join in and otherwise stipulate to this Motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants, with the consent and stipulation of Appellees, respectfully ask this Court to enter an Order granting Appellants Motion For a thirty (30) day extension of time to file its opening brief and for such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: July 21, 2011. Respectfully submitted,
HODGES & ASSOCIATES
/s/ A. Clifton Hodges
A. Clifton Hodges
Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants,
David Anderson, Lt. Col, et al.,
AFFIDAVIT OF A. CLIFTON HODGES
I, A. CLIFTON HODGES, do hereby state and declare:
1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of California. I am the principal in the law firm of Hodges and Associates, counsel of record for Plaintiffs-Appellants David Anderson, Lt. Col, et al., Case No. 11-55169. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances respecting the matters herein addressed by me; and have personal knowledge of the same, unless otherwise indicated in this Affidavit.
2. I submit this Affidavit in support of Plaintiffs' -Appellants' Motion For Extension of Time To File Opening Brief, of even date herewith, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Appellants' opening brief is currently due on or before July 25, 2011, pursuant to having received a (14) day extension of the time to file its opening brief, pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2. In its concurrent motion to this Court, Appellants ask for an additional time extension of thirty (30) days to file its opening brief.
4. Upon information and belief, after careful inquiry and upon such further investigation as I have, in my opinion, deemed necessary and appropriate, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances available to me, I have concluded as follows:
(i) Appellants have good cause and substantial need for this thirty (30) day extension of time, since within just the past hours, I have learned that there is a substantial and serious likelihood that sustained and comprehensive official efforts to settle and conclude this matter are now underway, and the substantive elements thereof would provide to Appellants-Plaintiffs the compensation and relief requested in their Complaint. Given the very recent and unanticipated appearance to me of this information, it would be impossible for Appellants to have exercised a more timely due diligence by moving this Court for an extension of time seven (7) days before July 25, 2011, as contemplated by 9th Cir. R. 31- 2.2(b ). Likewise, this request for an extension of time to file a brief is an application for procedural relief, and is not therefore a matter contemplated by 9th Cir. R. 27-3 (and Circuit Advisory Committee Note to 27-3(3).
(ii) Accordingly, the information described above, gathered by or through me, or presented to me by persons within the scope of protected, professional privilege, and work product confidentiality, my resulting conclusions, taken to their logical and legal conclusion, strongly indicate and make it much more likely than not, that the instant appeal will soon become moot.
(iii) Continuing this case for thirty (30) days, and extending Appellants' deadline to file its opening brief accordingly, would be well within the parameters of the stated rules of this Court, and an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion inherent in deciding procedural matters such as this.
(iv) Appellants' motion would likewise serve to lessen the unnecessary, yet considerable expense and hardship attendant to all parties if required to continue this appeal even though there is now pending an expected, imminent settlement of this case; and
(v) Appellant and Appellee are both in accord and have stipulated and agreed to join in this motion, thereby asking the Court to agree with the litigants and treat this matter as consensual, routine and appropriate. By telephone conference late in the afternoon of July 20, 2011, counsel for Appellees-Defendants (AUSA, John Nordin, Esq.) have agreed to join in and otherwise stipulate to Appellants' Motion.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 21st day of July, 2011, at Pasadena, California,
/s/ A. Clifton Hodges
A. Chfton Hodges
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2011 6:29:26 GMT -5
Awesome! |
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Jul 22, 2011 6:35:37 GMT -5
About NAAUSA
The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys (NAAUSA) is the voice of Assistant United States Attorneys in the Department of Justice and Congress helping safeguard justice and promoting the interests of AUSAs.
NAAUSA was founded in 1993 to protect, promote, foster and advance the mission of AUSAs and their responsibilities in promoting and preserving the Constitution of the United States, encouraging loyalty and dedication among AUSAs in support of the Department of Justice, and encouraging the just enforcement of laws of the United States.
NAAUSA is the “bar association” for the more than 5,400 AUSAs throughout the country and the U.S. territories.
The association’s membership includes AUSAs who are acknowledged experts on immigration, terrorism, cyber crimes, social security, health care fraud, gang and narcotics prosecutions, bankruptcy litigation, asset forfeiture and collection of debts owed to the United States.
NAAUSA’s nineteen-member Board of Directors is comprised of criminal and civil AUSAs from large and small offices around the country. NAAUSA delegates in each of the 93 United States Attorney’s Offices provide the Board with information from the field and disseminate information on NAAUSA activities. AUSAs are represented in Washington, on an on-going basis, by NAAUSA’s Executive Director and Counsel/Washington Representative through their contact with the Department of Justice and Congress.
|
|
|
|
Post by lewis12 on Jul 22, 2011 6:59:32 GMT -5
That's a helluva swing for the fence there ol Al. Am I right that it's 30 day extension for July 25? and not 30 from the 11th?
|
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Jul 22, 2011 7:24:36 GMT -5
I have a strong opinion / theory but no one's gonna like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Jul 22, 2011 7:51:34 GMT -5
I have a strong opinion / theory but no one's gonna like it. Let's just say I don't believe anything will come of this. Funny how so many believed the "Dinar RV must come first" story and then are ready to jump to a "Deal's in the works" story at a moments notice. |
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Jul 22, 2011 7:53:23 GMT -5
I have a strong opinion / theory but no one's gonna like it. Let's just say I don't believe anything will come of this. Funny how so many believed the "Dinar RV must come first" story and then are ready to jump to a "Deal's in the works" story at a moments notice. ty bikinipro..... tramp Re: A Question For Al (or the board) « Reply #33 Yesterday at 6:27pm » everything has been in place...QUIETLY..when the rv happens...WE GET PAID...bottom line.. now freaking relax.... |
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Jul 22, 2011 7:54:33 GMT -5
After the 30 days are over then what? A new story?
|
|
|
|
Post by raidermike99 on Jul 22, 2011 8:15:26 GMT -5
He should have spell checked it. They mispelled United States
|
|
