Perspectives by oreodiamonds and winvestor 11/15/2010:
15 Nov 2010, 04:42 PM EST
Rating: Rate this post: Msg. 970571 of 970672
(Reply to 970569 by planter82)
Jump to msg. #
Planter – As I have posted in the past I agree partially with what this post says.
NSS damages …. I don’t agree with the date 12/31/2005 as being bonafide. i believe the date is the revocation date 10/28/2005 not 12/31/2005. You will need to prove ownership to get NSS payment. NSS are NOT transferable.
Sale of Chinese Claims – all shareholders share in this as no previous dividend declaration date has been declared.
Restrictive Rights RR – all shareholders share in this as an offer will have to made to all shareholders.
The interesting part will be to see who STILL qualifies to receive the NSS. There are a lot of legal questions here and may be what has delayed us. I have been extemely carefull not to many ANY changes to my certs.
So if you have Deli shares you will still receive proceeds from the Chinese sale of minerals & RR but not the NSS. I believe this may be part of the rumored 72 pages of legalese to spell out who qualifies and who does not.
If you question what I am saying about the NSS ask any lawyer if security rights are transferable where you have to prove you were damaged. Also look at the Taser settlement.
15 Nov 2010, 04:03 PM EST
Rating: Rate this post: Msg. 970569 of 970673
Jump to msg. #
Posts Created: 9
Comments Made: 37
Joined: Jul 16, 2010
Post #2836 from This Is It Were In at EquityGroups.
Greetings CMKX Family. As many of us are now aware of AH’s filing dated Nov. 5, 2010, there are those who view this as negative. However upon close examination of the filing, I am encouraged the more that this saga is coming to a close.
If one were to read the filing with a minimal understanding of the law they would soon realize how powerful and complete it is. To some this filing is good news and to others perhaps not good at all.
A few of my prior postings are concurrent with some of the information listed in the Nov. 5th filing. There were those who were adversely opposed to some of those posts and I am certain there will be others who oppose the current as well. This is America and we all have that right, but let us exercise that right with the utmost respect for each other. Profanity should not be the medium by which an opposing position is expressed. Vulgarities, profanity and personal attacks are often indicative of unstable and uncontrolled emotions, limited vocabulary, and the inability to express oneself intelligently.
I recall during the first court hearing that Al mentioned the first filing as “artful.” Al had no intentions at that time of being any more specific. Many were disillusioned and began to speak negatively regarding AH. Some launched personal attacks, heralding how incompetent Al was and how they themselves could have done a better job. Al knew what he was doing. What they couldn’t see was the brilliance of the man. Any attorney worth his salt would know not to charge recklessly into battle but would first test the waters so to speak to ascertain the feel and strength of the opposing counsel. Every move AH made was for the future. This is what most complainers didn’t understand.
The second filing which is specified as the First Revised Amended Complaint (FRAC), had more substance. It detailed just the basics but enough to set a precedent for the Nov. 5th filing. Even then there were more complaints and further attacks in regards to Al’s legal abilities. Some labeled Al a liar and accused him of being on the quote, “take.” I call those types of thoughts, stinking thinking! Al and his team have been fighting for us a very long time and they have been relentless in their efforts to move this case forward and deliver a successful conclusion in behalf of the legitimate shareholders.
The Nov. 5th filing is very interesting in it’s reading. It is not vague, but very specific and brings focus on the basis of the lawsuit. Al cites case law, not supposition. As a matter of fact, AH cites 27 specific cases in direct contrast to every element mentioned in our complaint. The 27 cases have already been decided by various courts among whom one is the 9th district court. This is absolutely brilliant. Al methodically established a type of net. He knew before hand that it was just a matter of time before the fish would be in position and he would close the net. Wow! What an attorney. On the take; I think not!
There were those who had the impression that Al would wait for the Nov. 22nd court date to ask the judge for another opportunity to re-file another amended complaint. This is not uncommon, but Al would not dream of doing such. Al is fully aware that the judge has sole discretion as to allow another amendment or not. Al was not willing to risk such a maneuver. He has worked too hard and long to place himself and the shareholders in such a vulnerable position. Al has been lied to several times. Every promise to release funds concluded in another lie.
A recent post stated that there were no outside influences affecting the release of funds. With a promise to release funds there really was no outside influences hampering the release. The individual (s) who made the promise simply decided to lie once more.
The Nov. 5th filing is a direct response to the opposing counsel’s motion to dismiss. With this filing Al positions himself to deliver the Coup De Grace. Bear in mind, the Nov. 5th filing is not the coup de grace but places Al in position to deliver such at the appropriate time.
Al mentions 3 different sets of monies which were placed in trusts. Between Nov of 2004 through April of 2005, the first set of monies were derived from the sale of Canadian mineral claims to three different Chinese corporations. This sale was done with the advice and consent of the defendants mentioned in the lawsuit and the monies were placed in a frozen trust for later distribution to bona fide shareholders. Please note that Nov. 2004 through April 2005 are very important dates of reference.
Between March of 2004 through August of 2006 the second set of monies were collected from wrong doers and placed in a frozen trust for later disbursal.
The third set of monies were collected from the DTCC, United States Government and the sale of additional assets derived from joint venture agreements with other corporations holding mineral claims in Saskatchewan Canada. These monies were placed in trust and are held by the DTCC.
These monies certainly appear real to me. Al could not make such assertions or mention these monies if they were mere allegations or suppositions. If that were the case the lawsuit would be nothing more than frivolous and could have easily been dismissed long ago.
The Nov. 5th filing identifies which bona fide shareholders would be considered as legitimate recipients in regards to asset distribution. Every bona fide shareholder who could produce a certificate of ownership evidencing their ownership occurred prior to Dec. 31, 2005 would be considered legitimate recipients of the monies being collected in behalf of bona fide shareholders. In the event a legitimate shareholder lost their certificate, they maintain the right to have it replaced. Please understand, this is not a new certificate. It is a replacement certificate which must and will bear evidence that the shareholder was in possession of this stock prior to the Dec. 31, 2005 date. Those who did not meet the extended deadline of May 15, 2006 to produce bona fide certificates are not excluded. As stated in the Nov. 5th filing verbatim, “the Task Force would honor any bona fide shareholder at the time of asset distribution.”
Yes, the Nov 5th filing does in fact state “any bona fide shareholder” but it must be understood that means any bona fide shareholder with evidence of ownership prior to Dec. 31, 2005.
Any bona fide shareholder who meets the criteria and qualifications established in the Nov 5, 2010 filing and is in compliance with the Dec. 31, 2005 date can in fact sell shares to any individual or corporation of choice. Yet it must be understood that these sales will not bear evidence that the new owner (s) was or were in possession of this stock prior to the Dec. 31, 2005 date. If recent shareholders cannot produce evidence of ownership in respect to the Dec. 31, 2005 date they do not qualify as legitimate recipients to receive CMKX asset distribution. If and when CMKX returns to trading, those certificates would be valid in respect to trading.
Please, take the time to read this filing carefully and understand that it details events, timelines, collected monies, placement of collected monies into trusts, shareholder eligibility etc.
I look forward to the conclusion of this saga and wish every legitimate shareholder the best. I’m glad I’m in. It’s Our Money!
I mean no offense and apologize for the length of this post. The attempt to comment on the entire filing is not necessary and certainly not desired. Everyone be blessed!
[11/14/2010 9:29:44 PM] mccurdydon: http://www.equitygroups.com/CMKX-discussion/This-Is-It–Were-In