Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Art, I've never understood why Megas let Pino and gang off lightly in the other lawsuit. They created this mess. Since Megas decided to no longer pursue Thompson, I've assumed he thinks she's not guilty.
How do you know it's part of her settlement?
I think her involvement was thru a trust. For some reason, he decided not to pursue her.
Nope, he agreed to it.
The suit against her trust was dismissed WITH prejudice. That means Megas agreed never to sue her again. If she was so guilty as some here claim, why would he ever do that?
Thanks. /eom/
You could have another account where fake certs were deposited or altered documents w/ a tool like Photoshop. Not saying you personally did this but sending in trading records doesn't rule out these types of scenarios.
IMO better to let him show proof your stock is fake first then counter his evidence. Don't know why he keeps focusing on certs when NOBOs don't hold any.
The "without prejudice" part means they reserve the right to sue defendants over the same allegations in the future.
Electronic trading records don't really prove stock is real. The onus falls on Megas to prove your holdings are fake.
Not legally without a court order. Reread the emails posted. He wants it canceled not transferred.
He wants the stock canceled not transferred.
With the order, you can go after whoever you want and demand return of money or real stock. Some brokers may put up a fight while others don't.
Remember, the onus is on Megas to prove the stock is fake.
Sure, companies filing for BK protection often cancel stock on current investors. It's part of the BK court order.
They don't need to prove innocence. Under our legal system, a person is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove his allegations. The defendant then counter argues as to why he's not guilty of them.
If yours is ruled fake, you aren't a legitimate stockholder. Fake stock represents -0- ownership in a company. However, you can use that ruling to go after whoever you want.
No, those who contest jurisdiction and prevail would be dismissed from the case. There would be no further decision on them from this judge.
If some successfully win dismissal, it won't automatically apply to the rest. The judge could rule the same for them, but there's no guarantee. Each defendant has to put on his own defense.
No need to obtain a cert. After the judge issues an order of cancellation, the TA notifies the DTC or your broker. Shortly later, the shares are removed from your account.
If the lawyer gets a judgement it applies to all...
No, it doesn't. The attorney represents only his client(s).
The plaintiff or judge might make a similar offer/decision for the others, but there's no guarantee. It's possible those w/ legal representation get dropped leaving all the pro se'ers.
Before calling, recommend checking whether your direct contact w/ the plaintiff's instate attorneys can be used to help establish jurisdiction. According to the info someone posted the other day, threshold to establish is pretty low. If the answer is yes or you can't find out, get someone else to call or block caller ID and don't identity yourself.
Mr. Koch stated he does not think the house is up for sale
Which house?? Looks like 90 Innisbrook is....
http://centraltest.globalwolfweb.com/viewhome.asp?MLSArea=GLVAR&HOMEID=708871
http://www.rondah.cbvegas.com/default.cfm/Page=/ForSale/Cat=/ShowPropertyInfo/PropertyType=/Resident...
http://www.golfhomeslv.com/90innisbrook
It'll be up to YOU to go after the broker. Have fun.
Appears Megas wants to cancel stock held by all defendants unless they can prove it's real. Those whose stock is canceled can then go after whoever they want.
Electronic trading records don't prove stock is real. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove everyone's stock is fake.
That's the system specifically put in place so that companies could communicate directly w/ investors holding street-name stock.
From the NOBO (Non-Objecting Beneficial Owner) list which is generated by ADP from info provided by brokers.
To prevent future release of personal info to companies whose stock you own, tell your broker you want to be an OBO (Objecting Beneficial Owner).
Yeah, or maybe she took a look at the very long defendant list and made up another excuse. lol
Good question. /eom/
new judge listed: http://www.okbar.org/public/judges/06bios/dixon.htm
prev judge listed: http://www.okbar.org/public/judges/06bios/ricks.htm
What CUSIP is listed for your BCIT stock? Just curious if it's the new one.
jimmy, did someone spike your beer w/ kool-aid again?
Perhaps Urbie wasn't the brains, but signs show he was a willing participant.
Thanks. New name to me. /eom/
nuffy, do you know the name of the dead attorney who allegedly signed some of the opinion letters?
$558/703B = 0.00000000079374/sh divvy lol
Thank-you. West and Frizzle move up another couple notches.
Do you have stock in your account w/ the new CUSIP?
Why did Megas let Pino off so lightly and not pursue the other two?
Hey sniperflea, what kind of disclaimer did they want you to sign?
I don't know if it has to be prior to filing the complaint, but I doubt contacting attorneys for the purpose of legal representation counts. An attorney needs an OK license or permission to defend you in state court there. It's not easy finding a pool of OK-licensed attorneys living in other places.
The onus for proving jurisdiction falls on the plaintiff. As long as you personally don't communicate w/ their attorneys, inform them of in-state contacts, or file an answer w/ the court, they couldn't use this extra info to support their argument for jurisdiction.
This is just an opinion and not legal advice.
Sure, that makes 2.05 now. lol /eom/
The quote was part of Megas' email in the link you posted. I've been wondering what happened to those shares.
And again I pose the question... why isn't Jay Dewhurst in the list of shareholders?
I don't know. Lot's of possibilities: listed under a different name, listed as an OBO, holds certs, has no holdings, or was purposely not pursued. This one might be him: Worthless Securities Acct. ;o)
If the brokers who sold you shares based the transaction on shares supplied to the market from either Capital Growth or Darbie and co, then you should now have legitimate shares. However if your transaction was based on paper other than that sourced from the two brokers above then you have fake shares. A large number of these exist.
Okay, how many folks here have legit shares w/ the new CUSIP other than Art and dusty? Why are these two being sued for having fakes ones?
I don't know. Maybe it's because they want a district court judge assigned rather than a special judge. The latter type can only hear civil cases less than $10,000.
That's incorrect....
What is "Small Claims"?
A: An action for recovery of money based on breach of contract, for injuries, or to recover personal property may be brought in Small Claims Court if the plaintiff is willing to accept a recovery which does not exceed $6,000. The court clerk in your county can help you with Small Claims matters. Small Claims Court is not available for actions claiming libel or slander.
Must I choose Small Claims?
A: No. If you have a claim for $6,000 or less and want to use the regular civil docket, you are perfectly entitled to do so, however, the costs are higher and it will take more time before judgment is rendered. If you are sued in Small Claims, you may remove the case to the civil docket. You must file an application for removal with the court clerk and pay the required fee, and the case must be removed to the civil docket. The case will then proceed as a civil docket case.
http://www.okbar.org/public/brochures/sccbroc.htm