|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 1, 2018 11:27:47 GMT -6
🌟From Attorney Al Hodges🌟 On Feb 23, 2018 at 10:06am ChuckWheat said: Hello Mr Hodges, I hope this note finds you well. Thank you for helping us find deeper meaning in the word "imminent"...and I hope you understand that us "insistent few" aren't doing so with the intent to antagonize you, although I can understand why you may feel that way. Since we are on the topic of understanding though I think it's time to share some things directly, even if it is one way conversation when I wish it were more mutual. I think you've made it clear that you believe we have money collected and coming to us, that you and other white hatters have fought to end certain injustices, and that you feel the battle (and the accompanying mop-up operations) are nearing conclusion. Perhaps this is your own perspective, perhaps you have some data feed that tells you how the battle is progressing and how close milestones are to being achieved. You also clearly believe that releasing information into the public realm is something that could be injurious to a successful conclusion of this fight. What ever the reasons for your stated beliefs, and the fact is that you are strongly convicted in them...it's clear in some limited way you want to communicate those beliefs to us. But I also have to believe that you must know by now just how frustrating it is on this side of the e-fence to keep seeing updates that, as far as our ignorant perspectives permit us to see, there's a major disconnect between your stated beliefs and our reality. No progress can be independently verified, no results matching specific things you tell us can be directly discerned, no payment has arrived (or even preparations for us to receive the allegedly large payments)...how do you expect us to not ask you for more, after all these years of reading your updates and bold statements of "winning" and us providing unconditional support for your efforts? ________________________________________ Assuming you believe everything you're telling us (I do, BTW), do you find it unreasonable for us to seek understanding about whether we are truly on the path to payment? Personally, I'm not looking for every detail of white hat planning...and if I were on your planning team I'm sure I'd agree there's aspects of your work that shouldn't be released, even on a private internet message board full of "friendlies". But I'm sure there's things you could tell us that would help us understand the reality of our situation far better...ways you can help us see things much more like you do. Examples of what I'd hope to see, using the latest update as an example: - Is this information based on some very recent change, or is it a restatement of previously stated belief? - Is it possible to share confirmation of your perspective through other credible public sources used to help you form your beliefs? - How confident are you that the latest update will take place (using a percentage or appropriate word choice), given we've been "imminent" before, without conclusion? None of this would reveal your sources and methods (so to speak), or endanger any ongoing white hat operation...but it would make a huge difference to those of us you are communicating updates to understand and reasonably set expectations upon. I hope you understand this respectful request is (at least) my way of telling you we want to believe you...and provide feedback to help you understand the distance between your beliefs and our realities. In that spirit I ask for some kind of direct response, if just this once. With Respects, C-Dub There have also been a number of follow-ups. I will respond to the three area of concern, although I sincerely doubt it will be received as providing the desired ‘illumination:’ 1. Source - The information is based on personal oral representations from those involved. 2. Public confirmation - No. 3. Confidence - 99% or better I apologize to all here if my previous attempts at more illumination have been [in your words] “virtual paper lunch bags full of pet waste product burning on our front porches...” Please be advised that I have no present intent on troubling you further. Regards, A.Clifton Hodges (CSBN 046803) HODGES AND ASSOCIATES, PLC P. O. Box 12070 Reno, Nevada 89510 TEL: (818) 625-6222 E-Mail: al@hodgesandassociates.com And, just so that the record is clear, I have expended every resource I once had in pursuit of accomplishing "justice" for myself and all here. Trust the inherent truth of the following words: “I am way beyond frustrated, I am embarrassed to find myself in these circumstances, and I am weary of trying to push this rock uphill - alone. __________ |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 1, 2018 12:00:30 GMT -6
Thank you for your response, Mr Hodges. This journey has taken a great deal out of all of us, perhaps none more than yourself after reading your response. It is not my intention to add to your burdens, although I realize I probably have...in that light I take back my frustrated comment about the pet waste, it was out of line and I and ask your forgiveness for me allowing my frustration to boil over. Your answers do provide some clarification, although perhaps your constraints come into play in going any further and thus there's nothing more you can say about it. Regardless, I do appreciate your response. You may or may not have seen it, and you've never asked for it, but when payment comes I'll be in contact to help defray some of the costs you've incurred in getting this done on behalf of all shareholders...and I challenge all other shareholders to chip in as well as a "non-quid-pro-quo" expression of gratitude for your work. You're not alone. I'll ask nothing more of you going forward, nor will I allow my frustrations to run unchecked toward your efforts again. With Respects, C-Dub |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 1, 2018 15:51:24 GMT -6
Based on Mr Hodges' response I am standing down on any further observations about his efforts, and will let events play out as they will. Thank you for caring enough to want to make a difference for me...I hope in return you understand I've chosen my path because I care enough to want to make a difference for our fellow shareholders too. May we all win, and right soon. (tipping hat) C-Dub |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 3, 2018 15:09:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 3, 2018 15:10:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 6, 2018 18:52:51 GMT -6
My recent talk (last week), with one of my sources did confirm, hectic negotiations are on , for 'plea deal'. Please don't shoot the messenger. With best wishes. Conversation was about plea deals. |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 7, 2018 1:21:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by stockrocker on Mar 7, 2018 15:08:30 GMT -6
:)Anyone think we'll get paid now?  Jim/SR |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 7, 2018 20:54:46 GMT -6
March 07, 2018 U.S. Department of IN- Justice The status hearing previously scheduled for defendant(s) John M. Edwards, Brian Dvorak, Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney on March 19, 2018, 01:30 PM at LV Courtroom 6D, Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd South, Las Vegas, NV 89101 has been rescheduled by the court. VNS will continue to provide you with updated case scheduling and event information. A status hearing is scheduled before Judge Jennifer Dorsey for April 9, 2018, 10:00 AM at LV Courtroom 6D, Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd South, Las Vegas, NV 89101 for defendant(s) John M. Edwards, Brian Dvorak, Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney. The purpose of this hearing is to determine if there are issues that the Court needs to address and to schedule any necessary future court dates. A status hearing is scheduled before Judge Jennifer Dorsey for June 11, 2018, 01:30 PM at LV Courtroom 6D, Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd South, Las Vegas, NV 89101 for defendant(s) John M. Edwards, Brian Dvorak, Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney. The purpose of this hearing is to determine if there are issues that the Court needs to address and to schedule any necessary future court dates. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WHY ARE THERE 2 NEW STATUS HEARINGS ? April 9 and June 11?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The trial previously scheduled for defendant(s) John M. Edwards, Brian Dvorak, Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney on March 27, 2018, 09:00 AM at LV Courtroom 6D, Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd South, Las Vegas, NV 89101 has been rescheduled by the court. VNS will continue to provide you with updated case scheduling and event information. A trial is scheduled before Judge Jennifer Dorsey on June 19, 2018, 09:00 AM at LV Courtroom 6D, Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd South, Las Vegas, NV 89101 for the case which involves defendant(s) John M. Edwards, Brian Dvorak, Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney. |
|
|
|
Post by tonypro on Mar 9, 2018 11:12:02 GMT -6
Just here doing a flyby, and wanted to take
a moment and give thanks to each of you for
keeping this board alive. If it weren't for this
board, I truly wouldn't know where to go to
get any info. (Rumor or not)
So Again,
Thank you all, You are Much Appreciated.
Tony P.
|
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 9, 2018 14:38:16 GMT -6
Just here doing a flyby, and wanted to take a moment and give thanks to each of you for keeping this board alive. If it weren't for this board, I truly wouldn't know where to go to get any info. (Rumor or not) So Again, Thank you all, You are Much Appreciated. Tony P. Thanks Tony! That IS why I haven't stopped posting here. But if something happens to me... Go to the unofficial board... It's open. cmkxunofficial.proboards.com |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 9, 2018 14:38:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 9, 2018 16:15:16 GMT -6
From IHUB www.justice.gov/usao-nv/victim-witness-assistance/us-v-john-edwards-et-al-cmkm investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=139178538place_your_bets Friday, 03/09/18 03:41:31 PM Re: None 0 Post # of 349050 United States v. John Edwards et al (CMKM) Case number: 2:09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants John Edwards, Nickolaj Vissokovsky, Brian Dvorak, Ginger Gutierrez, and James Kinney Scheduled Court Hearing Status Hearing - October 23, 2018 Trial Date - October 29, 2018 (Nickolaj Vissokovsky will not get a court date until he makes his initial appearance in Nevada) U.S. District Court - Las Vegas, NV www.justice.gov/usao-nv/victim-witness-assistance/us-v-john-edwards-et-al-cmkmA false rumor has circulated that confuses the criminal prosecution in the District of Nevada (United States v. John Edwards, et al., 2:09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ) with a civil suit out of the Central District of California that has now been dismissed (David Anderson, et al., v. Christopher Cox, et al., 8:10 –CV-00031-JVS-MLG). There are many variations of this rumor. However, in short, the Anderson civil case is not related to the Edwards criminal case. In Anderson, the plaintiffs allege that the SEC and other agencies of the U.S. Government conducted a sting operation against “illegitimate brokers, dealers, market makers, hedge funds, and other persons and entities that had engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock.” Anderson Rev. First Amended Complaint, p. 17, para. 48. Essentially, the Anderson case involved allegations against an entire industry. In contrast, the superseding criminal indictment in the Edwards case charges a more clearly defined group of defendants: insiders at one company (CMKM) and people who enabled them. Additionally, in the course of investigating and litigating the Edwards criminal case, government personnel in the District of Nevada have not encountered any evidence indicating that a government agency conducted a sting operation against naked short sellers of CMKM stock. Government personnel in the District of Nevada have also not come across any evidence of any settlement fund (much less any settlement fund with trillions of dollars) potentially available to pay possible claims of CMKM shareholders. The criminal investigation in the District of Nevada resulting in the United States v. John Edwards, et al., indictment involved no sting operation. We hope this statement clarifies the differences between United States v. John Edwards, et al., with the facts alleged in David Anderson, et al., v. Christopher Cox, et al. The public is reminded that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Thank you. Court Documents Second Superseding Indictment Link to PDF On March 24, 2010, the grand jury returned a sealed Second Superseding Indictment which added the following defendants: Jeffrey Turino, Nickolaj Vissokovsky and Jeffrey Mitchell. In addition, several new charges were added, alleging that certain defendants engaged in a conspiracy to conduct an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, a conspiracy to sell unregistered securities and to commit securities fraud and a conspiracy to commit money laundering. On May 6, 2010, the Second Superseding Indictment was unsealed. Superseding Indictment Link to PDF The superseding indictment in United States v. Edwards, et al., alleges as follows: the defendants combined and conspired to perpetrate a fraud involving the issuance and sale of CMKM stock over a period of several years. Hundreds of billions of shares of CMKM stock were sold to thousands of investors during that span. Investors in CMKM are invited (but not required) to complete the following questionnaire. The questionnaire solicits information pertaining to this case for purposes of enabling prosecutors to confer with and receive information and opinions from victims of the CMKM scheme. Please note that while the completed questionnaires will not be publicly accessible, relevant information may be disclosed to the court and/or defense counsel in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and other laws. |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 9, 2018 19:59:20 GMT -6
My few days started the 7th....and you might be absolutely correct. But also remember that john edwards was supposedly trying to negotiate a plea deal recently...and if that happens then all court dates will probably go out the window. Only time will tell...and what happened to the April 9 hearing that was just scheduled a couple days ago? best to all roberto Why would the court address “rumors”? What do they care what shareholders think? I thought I had read that rumor part before and after looking...found the same info in the April 2014 doj update: April 14, 2014 U.S. Department of Justice District of Nevada 333 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 5000 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 388-6218 Fax: (702) 388-6418 Re: United States v. Defendant(s) , Urban Casavant , Melissa Spooner , Jeffrey Mitchell , Jeffrey Turino , Nickolaj Vissokovsky , James Kinney , Ginger Gutierrez , Brian Dvorak , Helen Bagley , John Edwards Case Number 2004R01639 and Court Docket Number 09-CR-00132 Dear Shareholder: The enclosed information is provided by the United States Department of Justice Victim Notification System (VNS). As a victim witness professional with the United States Attorney's Office, my role is to assist you with information and services during the prosecution of this case. I am contacting you because you were identified by law enforcement as a victim during the investigation of the above criminal case. Charges have been filed against defendant(s) Urban Casavant , John Edwards , Helen Bagley , Brian Dvorak , Ginger Gutierrez , James Kinney , Jeffrey Turino , Nickolaj Vissokovsky , Melissa Spooner , Jeffrey Mitchell . The lead prosecutor for this case is Timothy Vasquez. The main charge is categorized as Securities Fraud. I have added your name to the Victim Notification System. My office also has a website setup to keep victims notified of the case. Please go to the following website for additional information regarding restitution and other victim rights: www.justice.gov/usao/nv/programs_caseupdate_cmkm.htmlAny new or updated information will be posted on the above website. A false rumor has circulated that confuses the criminal prosecution in the District of Nevada (United States v. John Edwards, et al., 2:09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ) with a civil suit out of the Central District of California that has now been dismissed (David Anderson, et al., v. Christopher Cox, et al., 8:10-CV-00031-JVS-MLG). There are many variations of this rumor. However, in short, the Anderson civil case is not related to the Edwards criminal case. In Anderson, the plaintiffs allege that the SEC and other agencies of the U.S. Government conducted a sting operation against "illegitimate brokers, dealers, market makers, hedge funds, and other persons and entities that had engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. Stock." Essentially, the Anderson case involved allegations against an entire industry. In contrast, the superseding criminal indictment in the Edwards case charges a more clearly defined group of defendants: insiders at one company (CMKM) and people who enabled them. Additionally, in the course of investigating and litigating the Edwards criminal case, government personnel in the District of Nevada have not encountered any evidence indicating that a government agency conducted a sting operation against naked short sellers of CMKM stock. Government personnel in the District of Nevada have also not come across any evidence of any settlement fund (much less any settlement fund with trillions of dollars) potentially available to pay possible claims of CMKM shareholders. The criminal investigation in the District of Nevada resulting in the United States v. John Edwards, et al., indictment involved no sting operation. We hope this statement clarifies the differences between United States v. John Edwards, et al., with the facts alleged in David Anderson, et al., v. Christopher Cox, et al. Read more: millionaires.proboards.com/thread/49088/doj-updates#ixzz59ILDtvym🌟🌟🌟 I guess they want to make sure their official records show the distinction between the two court cases and that the DOJ didn't find any evidence of the sting operation or settlement monies stated in the Bivens. As we have previously stated there can only be one official story for the records and this DOJ case is the chosen one. Best to all roberto 🌟 |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 10, 2018 21:37:23 GMT -6
Oops...thought I posted this. I pray you all pay it forward. Nothing more to say, good luck and remember what it’s like to be poor. I’m DONE posting, believe what you like. We are on the cusp of FINALLY being paid. Over and OUT. Amen. God be with you all. Flyingj 🍀🙏🍀🙏🍀🙏🍀🙏🍀🙏 PS : I stand by, WE GET PAID-Fake Edwards pleas after a day or week of payment. |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 12, 2018 10:11:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 12, 2018 18:25:32 GMT -6
I just sent an email to Debra Waite, the coordinator for the Victim Witness Program at the US Attorney's office in Las Vegas, requesting clarification as to the 2 trial dates (June 19 vs Oct 29). Received this email from Ms. Waite this AM: "Thank you for notifying me, there must have been a miscommunication in the new dates. I will get the website changed to the correct dates." The date has been changed: www.justice.gov/usao-nv/victim-witness-assistance/us-v-john-edwards-et-al-cmkm |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 14, 2018 19:28:15 GMT -6
🌟🌟🌟 from Attorney Hodges 🌟🌟🌟 To all of you who have had the time and the gumption to post such kind words of support, a very heartfelt thank you. You can't begin to know what it means to me. A special acknowledgment to Parker and TG - you each evidence the character I expect to surface in fellow travelers - BRAVO! |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 18, 2018 9:57:10 GMT -6
What most shareholders are unaware is that the diamonds that came from the core sampling were as large as 19 carats9(vast amount of diamonds of this size). Diamonds were not the only thing found on the mineral claims in Forte la Corne on our 1.9 Million acres. There was also vast amounts of sweet crude oil in the south and in the north, so much so that the top five larges Oil companies in the USA were in negotiations with (those who over took the company at the Party at Las Vegas on that table napkin from Urban Casavant)a viable contract with cmkx at that time. But greed came into the picture in the negotiations, but thats another story all together. There was also Tobernite which the Chinese also wanted for their Nuclear Power Plants on our mineral claims. Tramp knew this as well. The intrinsic value of our mineral claims is astounding. In 2006 Mr. Maheu transferred all our mineral claims including our shares/Certificate of CMKM Diamonds Inc into New Corp which will be revealed when we receive Notification. There are many detractors that will bash and argue to the contrary. When Notification is in hand, much will be learned who was for and against the shareholders through this saga. Harv Those that hold PCBM, there is no settlement funds coming your way. ONLY CMKM Diamond Inc Bona Fide Certificate Holders will. |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 18, 2018 14:25:26 GMT -6
To provide the other side... Oh man, completely false information AGAIN from Harv. When will he ever stop blowing false information to shareholders who desperatly need true information from the powers that be. First of all, there is no oil in the FALC area and if there was, it belongs to the Sask. government until an oil lease auction is held where all interested parties can submit a secret bid to acquire the oil leases. To date, there has never been an oil lease auction in the FALC area. So, to say that CMKX has oil is completely false. And as far as having hugh diamonds, that was just a story that UC pumped to sell shares to he stole from the company. It was a great story and everyone fell for it. But, until proven, those large diamonds do not exist. Just check with Shore Gold and see how many large diamonds they discoved, several but not a lot. The FALC area turned out to be a small diamond/large volume area. And next, to say that Mahue transfered our shares into New Corp would be theft on a large scale. You cannot just go and take shares from one company and give them to another company without breaking the law. Just another piece of false info from Harv... also, 1.9 million acres of claims, CMKX never had that many acres and they are all gone now anyways. Harv does not know what is going on with CMKX but his ego keeps getting into the way of his judgement. Maybe you don't know quite as much as you imply by your cutting remarks. Shore Gold would not admit to anything. Urban was not the only one to see those diamonds. Plus... we know that Tyler only got a shell company. |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 18, 2018 18:23:16 GMT -6
I was trying to work on "the Petro Yuan topic for March 26, 2018".... in a typed up post at March 18th, 2018 at 2:00am.... and there is so many things to type that this post would of been as long as a novel to where no one would of read. So I asked a friend if he would help by allowing me to talk and he record... in saving me hours and hours from typing up a very long post. So on 3/18/18 at 5:08am ( before I was able to head to sleep )... I went into Pal Talk extremely exhausted and tried to explain the basic understandings of the avenues I was specifically looking at with the March 28, 2018 Petro Yuan launch... and the main simple avenues that I saw that no one was looking at... and how this last major platform could finally be the take down of the fiat system with the many cause and effect reactions that can lead to the derivatives and all else finally coming to it's end.
Anyway again, if I was not so exhausted.... I might of been able to hit the many basic points more clear and structured... but I do repeat myself many times in my tired talk so I think anyone will be able to see the main points I was trying to convey and to the relations of what is need to be done in bringing this fiat global central banking system to it's final end.... with these basic extra understandings that I am not seeing any said financial expert else really catching it in this light of possibility of how this whole thing could finally all come down in the fiat system with what is said in this video. All in my basic and sleepy opinion when this recording was done, lol. Duc DUC explains Petro-Yuan implications March 26 2018
Published on Mar 18, 2018 |
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Mar 28, 2018 19:13:11 GMT -6
DOJ signed off on .23 which is a court decision. That is to be paid in fiat but only a very short time before asset back currency comes in and the Trust/s payout. Thats what I was told today. Its rumor until it happens so take it for what its worth.  |
|
