|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:04:45 GMT -5
Be right back with it...fw
Common sense on attorney
« Thread started on: Today at 09:53am » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: attorney
1. what do they get out of their work
a. money b. money c. money
2. Is he pro- bono(in it for the cause)?
a. no b. no c. no
Some people use humor when communicating. others are psuedo -intellectuals who can be even more condescending.
The point here is the purpose of this attorney is in question, as it should be. Just because you have more stars next to your name doesn't make you right on this one.
Juan is on the mark and when all of our stocks are tied and were scratching are heads and wallets. Being right will not matter.
I get a bad vibe from this attorney gimmick. I put more faith in UC's attorney's because this is what they do. UC needs to be able to run his course without
more interference than is already present.
bhuddason: I think, you will see by this new poll I just started. That the big majority here on this board. Will agree that we do not want this new lawyer IMO. I have never seen in my life time. A class action get much for the people who filed it. Just the lawyers get rich from something like this. The people would get maybe a penny or so on the dollar. Plus I just see no need of one. A mining operation as I have said many times. Takes a long long time. I myself will just wait it out.
more...
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:05:51 GMT -5
Just an opinion about the attorney
« Thread started on: Apr 3rd, 2005, 3:24pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen alot of threads about this one attorney. Alot of wise crack statements with out thought or merit. Let us all step back and take a look at a few facts and sumise a few things before we further our statements in error.
We have an O/S of 703 billion shares. Which means it is likely that we have a few share holders that are holding quite a large number of shares. i would exspect some of them to hire an attorney to prtect their private interests. By law they have a right to and in my opinion stupid if they didn't.
Now with this one piece of information we can pretty much be guaranteed that the SEC attornies and CMKX attornies will not be the only two entities with attornies present.
Now we can do some speculation of the NNS, if there is one, which some have alluded to being as high as the O/S, then you can bet your behind that the shorts will have attornies there as well. ( They do this by shorting some shares into an account to show themselves as long share holders and come in disguise as shareholders. you can bet what their aggenda would be though.) Now we also would have another batch of true longs holding these naked shares that would come as the others shown in earlier paragraph.
OK now seeing that we are definately not going to go to a hearing with just the SEC attornies, it doesnt make any sence to be so opposed to a group who might want to be also present. I think alot of people need to take their eyes away from the microscope they have been using on this issue.
These are just my thoughts and opinions.
Warren: The main thing that I am looking at. Is that the SEC will have to inform CMKX's attorneys exactly who will be allowed to present evidence at the court hearing. Not just anyone can jump up and say something. I feel our lawyers will not allow anyone to say anything, one way or the other, unless it has been agreed on in advance. That way they will not get blind sided by some off the wall remarks that are totally not true. About this new lawyer thing. I do not see where he has the qualification in this area. He says that himself. I'll stick with who we have. They are far more knowledgeable than any share holder or lawyer. That includes the SEC IMO. But as I said before. If UC gives the ok for this new lawyer. I will go along with it. I am in full support of the company.
Hey Warren.......READ the brief of the agenda for the scheduled hearing on April 25. THAT"S what is going to be the point of business for that day. If Urban or any other witness mentions NSS and whatever it means to them and the company --- without being objected to ----that'll just be about all that will be said. The hearing isn't going to focus on the NSS because it has been mentioned. The Frizzle Schizzle lawyers aren't going to rub their hands and say here we go. They're also not going to put NSS or any other question before the court. They can't. This hearing is NOT about the CMKX stockholders and the NSS problem. If you can, look back into my history and read the post that is about the 2000 Presidential court battle and Larry Klayman. He tried the same thing these jokers are saying that they're basically going to do the day of the hearing. But that's not what they're really there for. They're there as part of the groundwork,visibility, and the perceived connection to the CMKX problem..... for the purpose of that old back-sided class-action. It's all part of the game. Go ahead and sign on . For somebody who prides themselves in doing their D&D.....You sure haven't done one bit of D&D on the Schizzle Frizzle maneuver. It's as old as the words Class and Action and Ambulance Chasing. You've been had, my friend.
more...
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:06:30 GMT -5
juanphordimoni
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 30
Re: Just an opinion about the attorney
« Reply #3 on: Apr 3rd, 2005, 8:35pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And warren.......thought and merit have everything to do whith what I post. I am a stranded castaway on a family island FULL of attorneys. My in-laws are attorneys. My relatives are attorneys. One of my brother-in-laws in Delaware won an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. I get free advise. I know pretty much what I'm talking about. Class action is the deal......Attorney Jim Jamail received over $!billion in attorney's fees for the Texaco/Pennzoil suit. He set the mark 10plus years ago for attorney's fees. Everybody has been trying to catch him ever since. Your interests don't really mean squat.........as far as the Frizzell Maneuver is concerned.
more..
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:08:13 GMT -5
liquidator Global Moderator member is offline visit our website www.smartpickstocks.comGender: Posts: 1065 Re: Just an opinion about the attorney That's my main concern, a class action suit disguised as representation for the shareholders best interest. juanphordimoni New Member member is offline Posts: 30 Re: Just an opinion about the attorney « Reply #5 on: Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:51pm » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- on Apr 3rd, 2005, 8:35pm, juanphordimoni wrote:And warren.......thought and merit have everything to do whith what I post. I am a stranded castaway on a family island FULL of attorneys. My in-laws are attorneys. My relatives are attorneys. One of my brother-in-laws in Delaware won an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. I get free advise. I know pretty much what I'm talking about. Class action is the deal......Attorney Jim Jamail received over $!billion in attorney's fees for the Texaco/Pennzoil suit. He set the mark 10plus years ago for attorney's fees. Everybody has been trying to catch him ever since. Your interests don't really mean squat.........as far as the Frizzell Maneuver is concerned. One more thing before I quit forever............To illustrate how double-speak, or whatever you want to call it is used to present a point.......and then if someone calls you on it and tries to "bash" you for writing it...... you can deny you ever said at by reading verbatum what you wrote (This is used by attorneys all the time......and quite a lot by George Burns) Here goes: My above statement about Joe Jamail illustrates how much money an attorney can get from a class-action lawsuit. Isn't that what it says? No, it is not. By the way it is crafted in the paragraph.......you couldn't be blamed for thinking that Joe Jamail earned those fees in a class-action lawsuit. Read the sentence. It doesn't mention that the award was from a class-action lawsuit involding Texaco and Pennzoil. It could have been a paternity suit.......you don't really know. Only I do. What I'm saying......is that you're out of your league.......And Mr. Frizzell has just penalized you and perhaps 400 other CMKX shareholders $25!! (from what I hear on pal-talk). more... |
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:08:37 GMT -5
"One more thing before I quit forever............ To illustrate how double-speak, or whatever you want to call it is used to present a point.......and then if someone calls you on it and tries to "bash" you for writing it...... you can deny you ever said at by reading verbatim ("verbatum " made a spelling correction here, hope you don't mind) what you wrote."....... "Attorney Jim Jamail received over $!billion in attorney's fees for the Texaco/Pennzoil suit." Houston lawyer Joseph Jamail, is said to have pocketed $ 400 million for his win in the Texaco-Pennzoil case. Public record? caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=or&vol=S47561&invol=1www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp62dSpring1999p285.htmlist.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101b&L=aejmc&F=&S=&P=15437Larry Klayman www.judicialwatch.org/www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Larry+Klayman&btnG=Google+Search"For those of you who are concerned about an attorney "protecting the CMKX shareholders' interests".........and perhaps Pi##### off the honorable federal judge babe.......let me relate a true story that took place on national television in November of 2000. To make a very long story short.....the Presidential election was being thrown into the courts. As I recall, one of the first stops was to a district, federal, kangaroo, whatever.....court in Florida. The presiding judge was a Republican appointee. After the court was called to order, a POS (my opinion) attorney named Larry Klayman approached the bench. The judge, with a southern drawl almost as pronounced as mine, asked him what he wanted. Larry said that he represented Judicial Watch and was at the proceedings representing voters of some persuasion (whatever......it doesn't really matter). The judge asked Larry if he had any official business relationship with either side. Larry said no (or words to that effect) he was representing Judicial Watch and was there to observe blah blah blah.......The judge told Larry that he had no business with the court in the election matter and to (more or less) get the he## out of my court. Now Larry, at the time (I don't know what his leanings are at present), was a Neo-Conservative Gore, Clinton, et al., hater. The Judge was a rather radical Republican himself. The hearing on April 25 has a specific purpose. There are 2 sides that are to be present to argue, present, yell, cry, or whatever. The Fuzzy Law Dude's Washington attorney has absolutely NO official business with the court in this matter. There is NO reason to represent the interests of the CMKX shareholders in this particular matter. Go ahead. Pi## off the bodacious federal judge. Make Urban look bad. Inept. Possibly not trusted by his stockholders. The Fuzzy Law Dude won't be able to just take his seat and observe incognito.......His intentions have already been splattered over the internet. He'll have the neon flashing arrow on his head pointing to his butt. What a bunch of ill-advised lemmings........and at $25 a head.........IMHO....LSMFT....KPRCTV.....AARP. " more... |
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:09:18 GMT -5
Frizzell must be stopped
« Thread started on: Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:31pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends......it makes NO difference who(m) Frizzell et al brings a class-action against. That's not his point. The point is a class-action suit that brings him mega-bucks. I've never said or heard WHO he plans to sue. Once more it doesn't matter. I'll guarantee you that this "Washington Securities Attorney" was in the picture long before it was announced that there would be one involved. I bet you Mr. Frizzell's statements in the past have this covered both ways. It's how it's done. Mr. Martin could have traveled to Washington with Mr. Frizzell and observed the hearing, come back and reported his legal opinion of the legal proceedings. No $25 carnival hawk job. The whole deal was to get people's signatures on that little old legal paper that has circulated around. The $25 is a joke. Not only will he get 400 or so signatures that will allow him to be first in, etc., etc.,....he's getting $10,000 plus. And he'll get 70 to 90% of the class-action settlement. If you didn't realize it......if you want to get technical about how he can charge for his time and when his time started in this matter (when it's all over and he's adding up his total fees......) ...........he's on the clock as I write this. That isn't my opinion.....that's a fact. (That pro-Urban, stockholder, only gonna sue the mm's has sucked you in, hasn't it........)
more...
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:09:36 GMT -5
ToddCT
Executive Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 989
Re: Frizzell must be stopped
« Reply #1 on: Today at 08:16am » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree class actions (aka, coupon settlements) never work for the "class" supposedly being protected.
T
more....
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:10:05 GMT -5
Sterling is being Chizzled by Frizzle
« Thread started on: Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:31am » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if my friend Sterling (I've been one of your staunchest supporters through my many different "names" for the last 2 years) knows how business is carried on in a court of law. The business that is on the docket for that particular day (what has been filed with the court) is what the business will be . To illustrate.........Let's say you have to go to court to sue your ex-wife for not paying child support. After court is in session, you whisper to your attorney that you've decided that you want full custody of your children. It doesn't matter if you've already brought "pleadings" about this matter to submit to the judge. He ain't gonna accept it. Your wife's attorney is gonna object and be royally sustained. You can't do this. The April 25 Federal Court hearing is going to include ONLY what is on the court calendar for Urban, CMKX, whatever was in the Federal Court filings. Martin and Frizzell know this. They can't bring in a separate pleading on behalf of the shareholders on naked shorting or whatever.........They're using their appearance on April 25 and that "contract" that was so carefully crafted......as a way to back in to a very possible class-action lawsuit. Mark my words. They'll report back in detail about the court proceedings........Frizzell is gonna be on pal-talk to answer all of your questions........what a great guy. Mr. Sterling.........You and the $25 supporters of this "intervention" on your behalf are gonna feel so USED. Martin and Frizzell are "first in" on any class-action lawsuit. That's what they've already tried to gain interest in months ago......You want to know the real truth? They're already in. And I've got my mouse clicker warmed up for submitting my online grievance to the State Bar of Texas........when I am proved right. FYI.....If only a certain amount of people sign on to the class-action.....and these saints will control that aspect.....why this little honey of a deal can be played out right near their hometown of Tyler........In Texas. The new Class-Action legislation for 2005 that Bush just signed.......is no problem.......you only have to keep the number of plaintiffs that sign on (I ain't talkin' about the "contract" for the hearing) within a certain number range.......no problemo. Then...... we can do this in Federal court in say..................Houston, Texas. It's so much more convenient than Washington. Maybe if enough people complain about what's happening here, these guys will tell everyone that I'm full of it and class- action was never their intent. Lawyers always have a way out of situations that make it look like they never intended to do what they really intended to do. As Charles Barkley said......"I could be wrong.....but I'm probably not".
more...
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:10:28 GMT -5
Watch it, Mr. Martin Frizzel Schizzel
« Thread started on: Apr 1st, 2005, 2:54pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks to me that the whole Martin-Frizzel Schizzel ain't nuthin' but a back-door future class-action lawsuit by one (or two attorneys) who more or less failed to gain support for a class-action lawsuit involving CMKX a few months back. Even Dr. Diamond ain't too happy about this thinly-veiled charade. Let me tell you one thing, Mr. Martin and Mr. Frizzel Schizzel Esquire.......Your two-bit contract with its legal-eze is NOT going to speak for ME. Your solicitation for money from ME to represent ME--whether I agree with it or not--in a legal issue that you have been trying to get involved in-- is going to see BOTH of you in front of your local Grievance Board of the State Bar of Texas quicker than you can say "Ambulance Chaser". If you aren't aware of the recent policy of the Grievance Board in the State of Texas, let me tell you something from a personal experience. My ex-wife hired an attorney. I had paid the same attorney for a consultation about the same matter a year earlier. I told the attorney not to appear in court. He laughed and did anyway. I filed a grievance. He laughed. His attorney wife was on the local board in Montgomery County. What he didn't know is that once a grievance is filed, the attorney HAS to appear before the Grievance Board. No review to see if the grievance has merit. That is decided at the "trial" before the local board. The attorney's name, case title, and date of his appearance before the board is published in the monthly Texas Bar Journal. Long story short. Laughter actually turned to tears at the hearing. I got wifey and TWO associates removed from the board and replaced for the hearing. What I'm saying, Martin and Swizzle.........You go ahead and do what I think you're gonna try to do......and tie-up everybody's shares----especially my shares-----and you're gonna have a crying date in a local attorney's conference room (with video camera(State Bar's), lawyers that I guarantee you will not know,,,,,,and me. You might listen to the end of Dr. D's latest MP-3. You two are the unpopular stars. Grievance will be the least of your troubles with me. An attorney with offices in the Marathon Oil Building on San Felipe St. in Houston, who has been known to successfully sue other attorneys............will be standing by. If you think I'm Jokin', you must be tokin'............IMHO....LSMFT.....KPRCTV.....AARP!!!
more...
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:12:01 GMT -5
ToddCT
Executive Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 989
Re: Watch it, Mr. Martin Frizzel Schizzel
« Reply #1 on: Apr 1st, 2005, 4:26pm » <br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
what do those acronmys mean?
AARP - the socialist group for the old ripping off the young I do know.........
T
juanphordimoni
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 30
Re: Watch it, Mr. Martin Frizzel Schizzel
« Reply #2 on: Apr 1st, 2005, 4:49pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ToddCT.....by your post, I suppose that you are a relatively young Nazi (Juan said goose-steppingly....). Since I laugh in the face of non-spellers, I poke fun with my own acronyms.......Of course, IMHO means I Milk Holsteins Occasionally; LSMFT means (and if you're over 45, this is easy...) Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco.... or Loose Straps Mean Falling Ti##ies(from my days as a long-haired intellectual....); KPRCTV is the NBC affilliate in Houston, Texas; and AARP means "give us $6/month, and we'll enhance the rest of your retirement by selling you every insurance policy and commission-loaded investment known to man."
more...
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:12:29 GMT -5
bhuddason
New Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 36
Re: Watch it, Mr. Martin Frizzel Schizzel
« Reply #3 on: Apr 1st, 2005, 6:46pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than having a cool moneker I think juanito has a point. The Clintons are attorneys. Which pretty much explains the whole attorney tip. I did not send Hold'em, Hump em, & Leave em squat. When lawyers get involved a good shit takes way to long and there is entirely too much paperwork.
GIve em hell juanito
ps Todd is not a nazi he just has a sense of humor
robzilla
more...
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:13:55 GMT -5
Bart
Executive Member
member is online
Posts: 2002
Re: Watch it, Mr. Martin Frizzel Schizzel
« Reply #4 on: Apr 1st, 2005, 6:48pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan: We do not need this kind of stuff on this board. Save it for the RB board.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ToddCT.....by your post, I suppose that you are a relatively young Nazi (Juan said goose-steppingly....).
We also do not need this:
When lawyers get involved a good xxxx takes way to long and there is entirely too much paperwork.
GIve em hell juanito
bhuddason
New Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 36
Re: Watch it, Mr. Martin Frizzel Schizzel
« Reply #5 on: Apr 1st, 2005, 7:06pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bart,
Thanks for reeling me in i got carried away. thanks for not hitting me on the Clinton jab. I will behave in the future.
a quieter more pc
robzilla
more...
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:14:24 GMT -5
juanphordimoni
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 30
Re: Watch it, Mr. Martin Frizzel Schizzel
« Reply #6 on: Apr 1st, 2005, 7:17pm » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nazi is a joke. That's what us liberals call conservatives. Socialist............might have been a joke. Probably was. I assume there is plenty of room for that kind of talk, though, nicht wahr? I agree. Keep that #####out of here. Them ##### Socialist-haters started it. (Do you have a sense of humor, Bart? Probably not of you're upset about this exchange. By the way.....I ain't no liberal......and I ain't no conservative (notice how they aren't capitalized.....) I'm independently funny. Lighten up. I was here when this all started.......TEXANTIBUSH........Remember......I'm a Texan and pro-shaving......I happen to know GW, GHW.......... They're alright with me. TEXANTIBUSH was to get that good first impression by folks who like to jump to conclusions......FYI.....this type of banter is a POSITIVE for this board that languishes sometimes for days with out-dated posts. Maybe I'm too pro-Urban. Probably so.
more...
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:15:13 GMT -5
From John Martin about this new Lawyer
« Thread started on: Apr 1st, 2005, 10:09am » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the people who are interested in what is going on with the lawyer thing and may want to support it. Here is a statement from Mr John Martin. FWIW. I myself still at this time think this is not the way to go. But I could be totally wrong.
Now that I have said that. If UC wants to really make some points with the SEC judge. UC should say to the judge. That the Frizzell Law Firm was brought on board to protect CMKX share holders. That the share holders are of the utmost importance to the company. Then ask the judge to let him speak on behalf of the 50,000 share holders (or ever howmany of us there really are. Just a thought.
Now if I find out that the company is going to back this with 100% of their support. I will be more than happy to send in my $25. But I must know for sure that the company is 100% behind this. I will not except any thing less than a PR on this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 2005, 08:10 AM EST
From John Martin... the Texas shareholder that hired Frizzell Law firm;
To all fellow shareholders,
I have been reading these boards for the past two days and have been amazed at the number of people against someone standing up for us in the SEC hearing. I would like to address a few items of concern.
In no way is this intervention designed to attack our company. I have been long this stock for over a year. I have read a lot of your posts for that time period and respect many of you. Those of you who have spoken against it, I feel, think it is going to harm your interests and I totally understand your position. This action is merely a way of trying to make sure that the SEC keeps us in mind when they make a decision. Please consider that if indeed the SEC is threatened by a huge naked short, they are going to move swiftly to take us out, and they can, based solely on the filing issues. The company can say, "what about the 70k shareholders your honor?" "Well CMKX, you should have thought about that before you messed up your filings." Then what?
My intention here is not to try to make you change your mind, but to only explain why I have hired Bill Frizzell. No, Bill is not a Securities Lawyer, but he is an incredible trial attorney, and, take it or leave it, an honest one. I know there are other honest attorneys out there, but I don't personally know any like I do Bill. I can also tell you that Bill is one of the most kind individuals I know. I have never known him to cheat anyone. He works hard for the money he makes, and that's probably why he is not incredibly wealthy. Bill is not looking to make a lot of money here. He knew when he started this that there would probably not be more than 1000-1500 investors jump on board. Bill is excited about helping me, as well as others, by trying to protect our interest. Bill is in Washington interviewing attorneys today to take up the slack where he is less knowledgeable. He intends on being totally prepared to make our interests known.
What is my interest? Please compare them to your own. That CMKX continue to exist, and to have time to make the filings right, and to have the opportunity to show the world that they have the goods. That's it! I want to make my money off of the stock I own, not off of some class action lawsuit that makes us less than our investment.
Some have said why would I come into this at the last hour? Because it is the last hour! I have sat in front of my computer for a year hanging on to every prominent poster's words, hoping and praying that they were right. I listened to all the pumpers make predictions only to be let down like the rest of you. I was in a trance waiting for the day for our illustrious management to pull this through. Granted, they still might, and they are illustrious! But they are dealing with the most powerful force on earth, “WALLSTREET”
It has been very disappointing to see the response out there due to the fact that it will take a large shareholder base to have any effect on the decision by the Judge. She must see that we are a force to be reckoned with, otherwise it may end in vain. Sure, if we are made to go private, I think UC will do the right thing and keep us around, and we probably will one day make money, but IMHO I do not think this was the plan. I honestly feel the company has a problem that SHOULD be easily overcome, IF the SEC was not threatened by the problems that were caused by allowing a possible huge naked short problem to exist.
Two more things then I will stop. First, I personally believe the Green Baron feels that this action is of the greatest importance to shareholders, or he would have never supported the idea in the first place. I, along with Bill, explained all that we were going to try and accomplish to Ed. I asked him to please help. When I was done talking, he understood, and agreed that representation was indeed a good idea. I paid him nothing, I promised him nothing. The Green Baron did what they did, because they believe in this company like we all do. Thank you Ed, you did the right thing!!
Secondly, I am not a “big time” shareholder. I have an average number of shares. I do not have a lot of money. But, what I do have a lot of, is heart. I will fight to the end to protect my investment, because it is all that I have for the most part materialistically speaking. I am very wealthy when it comes to family. Four children, and an adoring wife who has put up with me for a year living this dream that you all have been living with me. We longs have got to pull together on this. We need to be represented at this hearing. There is NO agenda here other than standing up and telling the SEC we are watching, and we want to be dealt with fairly. If not, we are going to be a force like you have never dealt with before.
If you disagree I understand and will do my best with the shareholders that have, and will join me. I hold no hard feelings towards anyone because I understand you don't know me, and you really have no reason to trust anyone. I promise that if you will find a little trust, that Bill will work as hard as he possibly can to do his best, and I will be right beside him every step of the way.
Thank you for your time.
Please call me today if you wish. I will be helping again today at the law firm answering phones. All of you who have called so far, thank you for calling and asking the questions that you have. Thank you for placing trust in the effort so far.
John Martin
903-595-1921
jmartin@cmkxownersgroup.com
MORE....
|
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 4, 2005 21:16:09 GMT -5
Ga2ry
New Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 20
Re: From John Martin about this new Lawyer
« Reply #1 on: Apr 2nd, 2005, 11:02am » <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way I read the Lawyers agreement is:
He has a substantial clients that basically doesn't believe the SEC is acting to protect the shareholder.
"If you get my drift"
Without Frizzell going we are just lambs waiting for the outcome. The 25.00 is just to help with expenses.
I have read he is a very good criminal Lawyer that isn't versed in the stock market but like most excellent lawyers they have a nose to smell a rat pretty quickly.
They just want to make sure that the shareholders are represented in there best interest and want to make sure "I personally think" that the proceeding is not part of a bigger plan.
So basically I am in with the $25.00
So the decision is yours. Am I right or wrong
more...
|
|
