gossip 8/25/11

[fireman]

Did AH actually file on 24th and if so is there a copy somewhere?

[swampdog]

The way I read this "Summary Affirmance" is that the Appellants have to prove they have a right to claim the funds. The SEC is saying that they have no more right than any other shareholder in this case.
A dirty trick in the way I see it, because the SEC knows that it would be difficult to get all the CMKX holders to agree (just the mass volume of shareholders prevents this) and that they will split the funds (notice the SEC says "if there are any") fairly and evenly. And because all the shareholders may not agree or until they do the SEC is allowed to keep the funds ("if there are any funds") to figure out what to do.
I think that means indefinitely.
Tough argument for Counselor Hodges to win.
Just my opinion,
Swamp

[swampdog]

Here is 8/23/11 Supplemental Motion

www.scribd.com/doc/63017768/11-55169-Documents-DOJ-exhibits-Hodges

Reaffirming a class action allegation against the SEC to "do their job" and in the best interests of all the shareholders to release the funds.

It looks like the SEC is saying "we are working on it, we are not ready yet. And we are not saying that there are any funds, but if there were we are working on it."
Again "just my non attorney opinion"
Swamp

[transversal]

This was posted by OILIPO yesterday or the day before. I don't think it's the filing.

[hunter3]

i think it is time for peter mahue to come forward and open the briefcase- start with o and work his way thru all the people who have been holding this up!!!jmo-i am sure that he and al were at the original meeting when everyone paid up to stay out of jail!! now sec or whomever---pay us now!!!!!!!!!!!


jmo
hunter3

[Deleted]

i want to express my thoughts in the matter that the courts have denied s.h.s. of cmkm their just due, funds set up by mr. mahue before his passing. i am not an attorney, nor due i possess to know the laws of our claims, but the court has mentioned that the s.h.s. of cmkm have no legal claims due to the fact there is no property involved in our claims. i would like to express myself,...in my thoughts that this statement of the court is not so. if we bought a home, and put up our own monies to buy this home, that is on property , and then recieve a valid deed to show ownership. is that not a legal transactoin of property and ownership? well in my mind if we s.h.s. bought into a claim that has substantial properties 1 million or more acres , and we paid in cash for this investment, and certs were recieved in lue of a deed, is it not the same ownership that bonified s.h.s. have to show ownership of that you would recieve when buying a home? we would recieve those shares, and certs in lue of a deed, as when purhcasing a home built on property, when buying a home on same property, that is in my mind property ownership. That in my mind is part and parcel of its assets from the land...twt

[faithandlogic]

Gus...I was on the phone as the funds were transfered, not on the phone when the DOJ signed off or when the Senators were involved. The important thing is it did happen.

Take care,
BHollenegg

I am glad that BHolleneqq is one of the plaintiff's..