noahltl and phxgold great job balancing the show

[gusjarvis]

I was reading your back and forth with GB, great work out there. You have put together great DD and have very calmly answered all the questions and made what they have tried to make shady look very good. The bare bones of what we have here looks amazing, without all the manufactured innuendo of course.

[bullit]

What was the back and forth? With George Burns?

Seems like I miss all the good stuff!!

[peterg2000]

cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1128473533


Pete

[controldenied]

You might want to mention to Mr. Burns, what the RICO act is all about.

[gusjarvis]

I just mean in general really. Many of the things that I had guessed long ago have really been confirmed to me through their DD. And many of the negative slanted posts lately have been answered by their DD. This always looked to me that we were working with the SEC, well if this is a sting we were. The NASD has been investigating this for a year and a half so it is very apparent to me, but we may never find out everything, that we were part of a sting or at least the investigation and their DD helped confirm that in my mind. This theory trumps every negative post about Urban and CMKX you have read.

[bullit]

peterg2000 said:

cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1128473533


Pete

Thanks!

You're right! That was good

[mineralsrus]

controldenied said:

You might want to mention to Mr. Burns, what the RICO act is all about.

LOL...I remember bringing this subject (Rico) up to GB and others months ago and got floored for it.

[kidscollegefund]

mineralsrus said:

controldenied said:

You might want to mention to Mr. Burns, what the RICO act is all about.

LOL...I remember bringing this subject (Rico) up to GB and others months ago and got floored for it.

When you mentioned it way back when I look into it. Interesting little act. For those that don't know:

In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress' goal was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation's economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.

Throughout the 1970's, RICO's intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought.

In the 1980's, however, civil lawyers noticed section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil RICO claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees. The financial windfall available under RICO inspired the creativity of lawyers across the nation, and by the late 1980's, RICO was a (if not the most) commonly asserted claim in federal court. Everyone was trying to depict civil claims, such as common law fraud, product defect, and breach of contract as criminal wrongdoing, which would in turn enable the filing of a civil RICO action.

RICO's broad application was the result of Congress' inclusion of mail and wire fraud as two crimes upon which a RICO claim could be brought. Given the breadth of activities that had historically been criminally prosecuted under the mail and wire fraud statutes, it was not difficult for creative civil attorneys to depict practically any wrongdoing as mail or wire fraud.

During the 1990's, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.

The purpose of this website is to simplify this very complicated area of the law and to articulate and make more predictable the legal standards that govern such claims.
www.ricoact.com/

[kidscollegefund]

Needless to say GB is inaccurate in his statements.

(a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both, and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law -

any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962;


any -
(A) interest in;
(B) security of;
(C) claim against; or
(D) property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and


any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962. The court, in imposing sentence on such person shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to this section, that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by this section, a defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.

(b) Property subject to criminal forfeiture under this section includes -

real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and found in land; and

tangible and intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims and securities.


(c) All right, title, and interest in property described in subsection (a) vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section. Any such property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the United States, unless the transferee establishes in a hearing pursuant to subsection (1) that he is a bona fide purchaser for value of such property who at the time of purchase was reasonable without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section.

[golden1101]

gusjarvis said:

I was reading your back and forth with GB, great work out there. You have put together great DD and have very calmly answered all the questions and made what they have tried to make shady look very good. The bare bones of what we have here looks amazing, without all the manufactured innuendo of course.

Seriously . . .I completely agree that these two help infinity plus. lol

You two help me understand certain things that I may not have otherwise grasped . . . Whether you know it or not, your natural abilities to just "do what you do" keeps a lot of people centered.

Good Job to both of you!
golden ;D

[noahltl]

Thanks to all for the kudos. GB used to give answers. Now he just formulates questions designed to incite doubt and fear.

[gusjarvis]

noahltl, is it possible right now that certain individuals or entities have to sell their shares as a part of an agreement so they can't go long and make a profit. Do you think there has been a forced cover already in the form of a DTC cover, not a retail forced covering. Thanks

[noahltl]

gus, imo if there is forced cover going on, it has to be behind the scenes. On a NS of 2 trillion, and trades of a billion shares per day, it would take 2,000 trading days to cover. That's nearly 8 years. So I would have to go with some form of a SEC / DTCC brokered agreement with the principals.

[peterg2000]

noahltl said:

gus, imo if there is forced cover going on, it has to be behind the scenes. On a NS of 2 trillion, and trades of a billion shares per day, it would take 2,000 trading days to cover. That's nearly 8 years. So I would have to go with some form of a SEC / DTCC brokered agreement with the principals.

Well there is always the famed VWAP that presents a possibility !
Wish the plausibility of it was laid to rest ! Other than that it
could be the cover hasn't really started yet , which is why a
limite of 1.5 Billion seems to be in place ! All shorties have to
agree before it starts in a controlled way ! When the PPS starts
to climb to 5 then 10 billion as well as the PPS slowly get off
the ground , then we'll know for sure what is taking place !
But I agree that the volume will have to go through the roof
if a trillion + NSS exists !
Pete IMHO

[gusjarvis]

noahltl, I was thinking the dtc clearing their books of the retail short that was only around 590 billion at the time of the last dividend. There is a retail short and non-retail short in my opinion.

[senna]

I agree Noa and phxgold are really being professional and very measured in there actions against the untruths of the BS machine that is low on petro "I mean pedro" or just plain...poop.
senna

[tramp]

well, its funny, burns was nowhere to be found, when columbo had all the links, documents, and facts.. was pedro there that day, or did he dissappear too?

[otcsmart]

Phxgold true stability, even when the BASHERS tried their best to fool him and us, but failed, IMO!

[tbone]

noahltl said:

Thanks to all for the kudos. GB used to give answers. Now he just formulates questions designed to incite doubt and fear.

You guys were great and settled that topic with hands down. imo

I to you both.

[wwjdthrume]

Thanks guys. Wonderful DD.

IMO-Debi