|
|
Post by Twist Capper on May 2, 2007 15:05:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by thumper5 on May 2, 2007 17:31:34 GMT -6
I could only get 71 pages of the 84. What happened to the rest?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by smeagol8 on May 2, 2007 18:52:55 GMT -6
I usually don't like to 'nit-pick' at things people write, because people are idiots and don't proof-read their writings. But, as this is a legal document, and was written by competent lawyers, I feel okay about pointing out a couple of things that are 'odd'.
.
First, they (whoever is writing the document), make a point to repeatedly say that Urban spent much of his life as a prison guard. Apparently the point of that is to establish that Urban has no significant money of his own, and therefore any significant money in his possession must be from CMKX. In a forum such as Raging Bull, this might be appropriate, but in a legal document it is not. It is the equivalent of saying " His last name is Rockefeller, therefore he is rich". In court, you have to prove where the money in question came from. You can't just say, "He's poor, therefore any money he has was stolen from us." The only other reason to mention his life as a prison guard would be to say,"You can't send this man to prison, as he would be killed by other prisoners immediately." Which would be a strange sediment to express toward someone you are accusing of robbing you blind. And this is a civil suit, no possibility of jail time.
.
The other strange thing is saying that Urban didn't deny the rumours of $1.47 a share, and encouraged them. There have been hundreds of rumours, from "It's a scam", to $1.47 all the way up to $20.00 a share. Not one was denied. Not one came from a 'reputable' source. And not one was encouraged by Urban or anyone who could have been 'in the know'. Why mention THAT ONE figure? And in any case, the whole subject cannot be more than a rumour, and has NO place in a legal document.
.
Just makes me go , hmmmm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twist Capper on May 2, 2007 19:28:07 GMT -6
smeagol8
Another shareholder and I both were wondering about the
general lack of "legalese" that most documents of this type
contain. This was purposely written, for whatever reason,
so that the layman could understand what was being said.
TC
|
|
|
|
Post by only2percent on May 3, 2007 7:19:09 GMT -6
Exactly! The game is on ... smeagol8 Another shareholder and I both were wondering about the general lack of "legalese" that most documents of this type contain. This was purposely written, for whatever reason, so that the layman could understand what was being said. TC |
|
