Nice to see some new (????) CMKX protagonists such as legaleagle, stalkandsnipe and MombaTrader. Problem is, they are saying much the same as others have said...maybe they are the others.
legaleagle,
You never did address the fact that the Commission said the CMKX people did not respond. That was released in black and white.
Further, I don't disagree with your "gag order" explanation. It just does not fit with any of the personalities involved. As a matter of fact, I would have expected (if it was self imposed) that it might have been at RG's suggestion. There is nothing to preclude house counsel or outside counsel from making some kind of ambiguous (as usual) statement showing confidence in their supposed "innocence", his assurances that they have done no wrong, that the truth will prevail and that the charges are without merit.
Even a second rate attorney would do that.
[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited November 10, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Wallace#1: Back to CMKX....
Nice to see some new (????) CMKX protagonists such as legaleagle, stalkandsnipe and MombaTrader. Problem is, they are saying much the same as others have said...maybe they are the others.
legaleagle,
You never did address the fact that the Commission said the CMKX people did not respond. That was released in black and white.
Further, I don't disagree with your "gag order" explanation. It just does not fit with any of the personalities involved. As a matter of fact, I would have expected (if it was self imposed) that it might have been at RG's suggestion. There is nothing to preclude house counsel or outside counsel from making some kind of ambiguous (as usual) statement showing confidence in their supposed "innocence", his assurances that they have done no wrong, that the truth will prevail and that the charges are without merit.
Even a second rate attorney would do that.
[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited November 10, 2004).]
Yes, it was addressed.
Legal counsel deals with legalities, not personalities.
posted
"Nice to see some new (????) CMKX protagonists such as legaleagle, stalkandsnipe and MombaTrader. Problem is, they are saying much the same as others have said...maybe they are the others."
Do you welcome all new posters here with insinuations? Speak clearly, and make accusations if you want a following. A protagonist is the lead actor in a play or cause. You seem to fit that bill better than anyone here. What exactly are you trying to say?
posted
Ahhhh! Now you do sound familiar. Dealing with personalities, huh?
As I said before, you did not appear to deal with the fact that the Commission's release specifically stated there was no response.
In addition you did not deal with the fact that RG made no statement whatsoever in defense of the CMKX people when such a statement is normal protocol.
PS: You wrote: "Legal counsel deals with legalities, not personalities."
Any legal counsel that does not deal with personalities as well as the legalities is worth table salt.
[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited November 10, 2004).]
posted
You guys need some relaxation. Legal, nice to hear from you, you seem to know what you are talking about. Personally, I still hold 27M of CMKX, and have a faint hope still glowing. Maybe we should all try to tone it down until actual news comes out. We are not doing any good speculating about things that are being kept from us. Ed Posts: 1772 | From: Oxford, PA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wallace#1: Ahhhh! Now you do sound familiar. Dealing with personalities, huh?
As I said before, you did not appear to deal with the fact that the Commission's release specifically stated there was no response.
In addition you did not deal with the fact that RG made no statement whatsoever in defense of the CMKX people when such a statement is normal protocol.
I came here to discuss the stock, not personalities. You began that. And I won't be drug onto your playground.
posted
Obviously you prefer to call questions about your CMKX comments a playground and do not want to answer them or cannot answer them.
One other thing which I am interested in since you appear to be taking a somewhat legal approach to the Commission's releases about the CMKX people.
Are you an attorney? What is your level of legal experience? What are your legal credentials?
Those are not "personality" or "playground" questions. Certainly, we are entitled to know the answers if you wish to be considered some kind of authority on legal matters.
posted
OK, enough persoanlities. I want a long strong faithful CMKX'er to explain clearly and in detail how they deduce CMKX is NSS. I also want them to explain UC, Melvin and DeSormeau being barred from trading, and UCAD halted/investigated is a good thing. I fully understand an investigation is not guilt, but I also understand it isn't a good thing. The faithful are still clinging to this being shorted, but I have begged for an explanation and only got, "popular belief" and "RG is gonna discuss that very topic with SEC" No proof, just more spinning. Come on, if you believe these things tell me why you believe them?
[This message has been edited by will (edited November 10, 2004).]
Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by will: OK, enough personalities. I want a long strong faithful CMKX'er to explain clearly and in detail how they deduce CMKX is NSS. I also want them to explain UC, Melvin and DeSormeau being barred from trading, and UCAD halted/investigated is a good thing. I fully understand an investigation is not guilt, but I also understand it isn't a good thing. The faithful are still clinging to this being shorted, but I have begged for an explanation and only got, "popular belief" and "RG is gonna discuss that very topic with SEC" No proof, just more spinning. Come on, if you believe these things tell me why you believe them?
[This message has been edited by will (edited November 10, 2004).]
Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went back through my posts and don't seem to find one where I was requesting to be considered any kind of authority. I don't practice law on the internet. And by the way, other than that comment, I made it very clear that I'm not playing.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't a legitimate question to ask if you have legal experience, and at what level? It appears to me you are taking a legal approach to this situation. It looks as if you are trying to give the impression to everyone that you are familar with and are experienced in law. You clearly gave me that impression. If you're a regular guy without any legal background and/or experience, and are looking at it from a legal aspect what is the harm of answering the question forthright and honestly? I thought I saw you write a month or so ago that you weren't familar with security law, but had checked with others in the legal community that were. I don't understand your mysterious position regarding what you are.
quote:Originally posted by legaleagle: I went back through my posts and don't seem to find one where I was requesting to be considered any kind of authority. I don't practice law on the internet. And by the way, other than that comment, I made it very clear that I'm not playing.
Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
get yourself a browser based spell checker like this one http://www.iespell.com/ it puts an option under the tools drop down to spell check before you submit. it is really handy when you remember to use it lol
quote:Originally posted by will: No, I'm not drunk or drinking, just can't spell.
Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll live with my shortcomings. for those that can't tolerate my shortcomings, oh well!
quote:Originally posted by penny-trader: get yourself a browser based spell checker like this one http://www.iespell.com/ it puts an option under the tools drop down to spell check before you submit. it is really handy when you remember to use it lol
Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I fully understand an investigation is not guilt, but I also understand it isn't a good thing."
It can be a very good thing to go through an analytical review by the SEC, and come out the other side without an enforcement action. It amounts to getting the blessing of the SEC,if you are investigated and cleared.
While it may cause a short term deflation of the price per share, the long term effect will be a new confindence by shareholders. I would dare to say that being cleared by the SEC is what this stock needs.
posted
excerpted from a Net-Lawyers' List Discussion
Fri, 27 Sep 1996 06:51 Best Waiver Signature!
For what its worth, I find the whole idea rather troubling. Many lawyers dish out legal advice over discussion groups, Compuserve forums and so forth. I have always found that to raise some troubling issues, including (a) what if the there is an unknown conflict (b) is the lawyer rendering advice in jurisdiction where the attorney is not licensed and not qualified to give an opinion (c) does the attorney have all the facts. Equally troubling is that the advice is usually dished out in a public forum, which is highly inappropriate. What if the adverse party is a member of the list or forum, and is lurking?
Quite frankly, whether the lawyer says s/he is giving legal advice or says its not legal advice does not change its character, any more than calling a penalty clause a liquidated damage clause changes its character. Indeed, the waiver itself suggests that the lawyer is afraid without it, it would be legal advice.
If a lawyer is unsure whether or not a public post could be construed as giving legal advice, the lawyer ought to refrain from posting it.
1)"This is what David said 'This day the Lord will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down and cut off your head." "David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and killed him and then cut off his head with the sword."
2)"Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he reap." "I have done no one on the allstocks board wrong."
RESPONSE:
1) Now I know where those insurgents in Iraq got the idea to do likewise with innocents.
2) Couldn't prove it by me!!! What a bunch of BS. How many did she suck in to buying CMKX? How many slurs and personal bashings did she post? How many accusations did she post? How many of her posts were misleading? And she has the nerve to say, "I have done no one on the Allstocks board wrong."? Talk about la la land!!!!
wallace in response to your statememt item# 1..... if you believe the BEHEADING of any innocent individual is something to compare to this carnival of trading pinksheets, then you now have stooped to levels below your good buddy JBCAKS. remarks about innocent slayings absolutely have no place on this board. you owe every family that has suffered these in human acts an apology........ you pompas bastad... RIVERCITY Posts: 58 | From: austin,tx. u.s.a. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
excerpted from a Net-Lawyers' List Discussion Fri, 27 Sep 1996 06:51
If a lawyer is unsure whether or not a public post could be construed as giving legal advice, the lawyer ought to refrain from posting it. **************************************
Again, this did not answer the question of your credentials. It does not answer the previous questions either.
If you are not an attorney your post is meaningless as it may apply to you. If you are an attorney, then as it says, "the lawyer ought to refrain from posting it". Since you did not refrain from posting, may I conclude that you are not an attorney?
posted
Conclude as you will. I can see from the posts that this thread is deteriorating again. Still jet-lagged. Good night to all. Taking some time off work for awhile, and may come back to post. It depends on the level of discussion.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Better check your facts. I was not the one who brought up the beheading subject. Basically, I was saying it was not appropriate for this thread to even bring that up. It did not make a whole lot of sense. Lighten up!!!
Its not Wallace who started all this religious Bull chit. Its those rats that have departed from this board and crawled back into thier hole at CT. MdeC
Its not Wallace who started all this religious Bull chit. Its those rats that have departed from this board and crawled back into thier hole at CT. MdeC
MY DIK excuse me i must have tweeked a loose nerve there. are you wallace's defender?
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
