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.
LOL don't know about the "FREE EDUCATION" it doesn't include University like it does in Australia. You're better off going there.
We know otherwise and when the time is right...
Everyone here will be astonished with the evidence!
I never said January 2011 but during the year 2011.
There is a Disk out there with all the evidence, and that we can promise you! It would be wise to deal :)
Even if you double 800Billion thats 1.6 Trillion
What about 400 Billion shares to make up the 2 Trillion shares ?
Its simple math :)
We have a problem face it!
Always follow the money and lets face it... the CMKX management has failed to locate any of it!
We all know this started out when John Martin, Kevin West and Bill Frizzell started the owner's group.
I personally know Bill is on our side and has not sold out.
The goal was to prove that there was NSS shares in the market!
Thousands of shareholders sent $25 to be represented by an attorney and to cover costs in collecting all the faxes and recording the information.
We were asked indirectly to request Stock Certificates and many Brokers were not willing to cooperate and refused delivery of our stock certificate explaining that there were delays, that you would only be able to request them at 9,999shares/ Cert and lied straight to the public.
When Leslie Hakula questioned Helen Bagley with regard to how many shares were outstanding in CMKX, she answered over 2 trillion.
Who would know better then someone like Helen who I personally communicated with in the past.
We know there is a huge NSS on our hands and it is time to deal with this issue!!!
As we all know the SEC warned CMKX against asking shareholders to request Certs because they would be charged with market manipulation
yet we all figured out what they wanted us to do to prove beyond a doubt we have NSS.
Fact is that currently the value of this company exists mainly in the NSS!!!
Who is Kevin West another FBI? What is the management doing all this time ?
Why have they let our assets fall through their fingers ? We know the entourage claims had value!!! Uranium is more valuable then gold!
We put our hard earned money in this investment because we understood there was an injustice in the marketplace taking place.
We believed in our leaders, our government, our systems, our regulations and our laws, yet the people who are supposed to carry out and enforce these laws don't do their jobs, they are corrupt!
The USA will go to hell unless they stop this corruption!!!!!!!!!!
Looks like all the snow we use to get in Canada is moving across the border or should I say staying there.
We don't mind it thou.
My GOD what is happening to those poor plants!!! LOL
Thats some serrious storm.
Get your hands on something to keep you warm dear :)
Then I must be IBM ! LOL
I doubt you are Janice LOL
She has a bit more spunk, a higher IQ and a PHD!
How about I make you a bet instead......if by 2011 CMKX isn't worth at least $1000 / 1 Million shares I buy your 1 Million shares at that price but if you lose you sell me 10 Million of your shares for $1000 ???????????????
How lucky do you feel??? LOL
What makes you think it was not intentional. LOL
But that would be wrong.
The Chin are buying up all the resources... nothing new...
then will end up selling them back to us at a profit...
Potash to feed them while they continue on world domination
No need for a war EY. LOL
And I'll make a side bet on that! fung_dert will never wake up.
There is more to CMKX so hold your horses ...
the facts will speak for themselves by 2011
Don't bet on something when you don't have all the facts.
There is much more to cmkx and you will be saying OMG...
soon
Its not a surprise. LOL
The US econmy is only going to get worse and the rest of the world is soon to follow. Buy GOLD! Currency is soon to be in trouble!
Leave Maheu alone he did a lot more then you can imagine for CMKX.
I'll leave you with this fact to think about:
"Why is no one able to locate UC?" perhaps that will shed some light about what Maheu did...
Trust me you do not have all the access you need!
You are only seeing bits of the truth.
Thank your response Janice :)
Leave him alone... you have no idea what he did for CMKX!
Here is tip:
If you accept a cheque from cmkx and its fake... even if the money appears to be in your account in 7 days and the bank claims it cleared they are lying!
It actually takes a bank up to three month, to fully process it.
The bank will come back and remove any money you have in your other accounts to collect if already spent it!
Thats a fact!
Thank you!
Yes the SCAM started a long long time ago and it involved night!
Please don't make statements like there is no NSS because you are misinformed!
Do you have access to all the datum????????????????????
NO!
Do you have access to all the Certs that were requested???????????
NO!
Anyone else please stop spreading false facts!!!
What we have is similar to this video:
They didn't do a good job as they stated in their own words they were understaffed, underfunded, and had very little authority.
Janice didn't you say in your own words that they were only able to suspend CMKX for 10 days and then they could not do Jack if CMKX continued trading????????????
Not only that they admitted in the open that they had a computer glitch and were unable to detect the billions of shares trading daily as the counter was off the scale!!! So in fact they had no idea that we were being robbed.
So to sum things up they had out of date computers, out of date software, even if they tried they were understaffed because they were underfunded, and even if they cought someone they could not prevent anything for longer then 10 consecutive days. How great is that ???
Now if the SEC was an organization that was truly ment to protect investors they would have the following:
computers that actually work and monitor stocks as an example revenue canada has a special system in place to let them know if someone has crossed the border/ boarded a plane/ used their credit card outside the country and its fully automated so they have more time to deal with improving their systems.
If the SEC hired some real programmers to automate a lot of their tasks it would free up their staff...if their computer found a pink sheet is worth as much money as significant stock on NASDAQ and with very high daily trading then they could to concentrate their resources on monitoring these types of stocks.
With the age of computers we now have the ability to view actual atoms thanks to the research that was done by IBM using STM microscopes and isotopes and the ability to actually move a single atom around.
Computers are only going to get smaller and faster!
Why is the SEC not taking advantage of technology to track repeat offenders and which stocks they are involved in ???
Why is the SEC not using CMKX as a primary example to state their case to congress that they need funding to improve their monitoring abilities and to request more authority to free up the court systems.
CMKX is a prime example where you have thousands of individuals who have lost millions in dollars and how the system is failing protecting the public because lets face it ! Its just out of date!!!
Janice smell da coffee! Its time to face reality!!!
I do love horses but no fetish sorry do dissapoint.
Have great weekend I'm off..........
Very true stocks are a different kind of animal and perhaps if everyone played fair we wouldn't be where we are right now.
Its ok no one is perfect. LOL
I don't get it Bashers claim CMKX is a dead horse yet they keep coming back for some horse ass kicking!!! ha ha ha
Look like they love to be kicked in da asssssssssssssssss! No?
Thanks Jimmy we know it is no longer if NSS has taken place since we have sufficient evidence to prove that fact beyond any doubt.
Although the only thing that we can't conclude is just how great the NSS is!!! Its is very difficult to get the exact numbers as some of the datums is still being collected but I'm certain what have is going to surprise a lot of people!!!
Timing is everything!
There are many individuals who duplicate NSS information we have gathered so this is going to go public no matter what any powerful organizations think they can do to discourage us from presenting our facts! (Get ready 2011)
Yes you are correct assuming someone doesn't have status in more then one country. Also the Canadian SEC and US Sec are more the willing to work together to resolve any issues as per:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/07/business/sec-sets-canada-pact.html?pagewanted=1
I will say this Janice tries to keep it real on here even if not all her facts are always straight. lol
Keep up the good work!
Gorgeous Blue eyes you have on that dog.
It is very possible there are many bashers on here using different IDs trying to prove a point that they knew it all along that CMKX was a SCAM, that the SEC had no clue and that NO NSS that took place. Either they're getting a lot of money for doing this or they have multiple personalities. LOL
I never claimed to be a lawyer or a judge, but it is not what you know but who you know that matters!!!
U have no idea the people our group knows who will make people like u sht when u hear cmkx.
All we're going to say...
NSS 2011!!! ;)
We can promise you it will get dirty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't want to opose a group like us.
Not everyone likes to lose thousands in $ and
it was a mistake to screw with the wrong people!
I would not assume that the judge will dismiss this case just yet.
We have a right to be heard especially with all the corruption that took place to allow thousands to be defrauded!
If you actually spend a few minutes to format what is included in the below it should shed some light on what transpired.
This corruption went all the way to the TOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46249290
Oh look! lol
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526MOLLY M. WHITE, Cal Bar No. 171448 E-mail: whitem@sec.gov PARIS A. WYNN, Cal. Bar No. 224428 E-mail: wynnp@sec.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission Rosalind R. Tyson, Regional Director Michele Wein Layne, Associate Regional Director John M. McCoy III, Regional Trial Counsel 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90036 Telephone: (323) 965-3998 Facsimile: (323) 965-3908 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. MARCO GLISSON, Defendants. Case No. 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S RESPONSES TO MARCO GLISSON’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN REFERENCE TO SEC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 22 11234567891011121314151617181920212223242526Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) submits the following responses to Defendant Marco Glisson’s (“Glisson”) Evidentiary Objections in Reference to SEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Objections”), which Glisson filed on January 12, 2010. To afford the Commission the opportunity to respond in its reply papers that it filed on December 4, 2009, Glisson should have filed his Objections at the time he filed his opposition papers. Moreover, in view of the volume of Glisson’s admissions, sworn testimony and documents that the Commission cites in support of its claims under Section 5 of the ’33 Act and Section 15 of the ’34 Act, Glisson’s objections are insufficient to avoid summary judgment. Nevertheless, to the extent that the Court considers Glisson’s untimely objections, the Commission responds as follows: SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 1. Exhibit 40: summary of wire transfers 1. No authentication or certification by preparer. 1. The objection is not well-taken. The authenticity of Exhibit 40 (a bank record reflecting Glisson’s wire transfer activity) is demonstrated by Exhibit 38 to the Declaration of Paris Wynn (“Wynn Decl.”), which is a transmittal letter from the Director of Internal Audit at Blackhawk Community Credit Union that accompanied the document and identifies the document as a bank record produced to the Commission in response to a subpoena. In an abundance of caution, the Commission submits herewith the Declaration of Robert Carmichael (“Carmichael Decl.”), who was the Director of Internal Audit during the relevant time period, which authenticates Exhibit 40. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 22 21234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 2. Exhibit 40 2. No foundation (no personal knowledge by declarant Paris Wynn, Esq.); hearsay; speculation; no original or copies of underlying documents Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) No.’s 602, 802, 901, 1002. 2. The Wynn Decl. lays the foundation for Exhibit 38, which authenticates Exhibit 40. Additionally, the authenticity of Exhibit 40 is established by the Carmichael Decl. Glisson’s hearsay objection to Exhibit 40 is unfounded. As set forth in the Carmichael Decl., Exhibit 40 is a data compilation based on business records and thus qualifies for the hearsay exception set forth in FRE 803(6). See, e.g., U-Haul v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., 576 F.3d 1040, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2009) (Court affirmed district court’s decision to admit computer generated summaries of account transactions pursuant to the business record exemption set forth in FRE 803(6). 3. Exhibit 40 3. No FRE 1007 exception. 3. Exhibit 40 is properly authenticated and constitutes a business record that is qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant FRE 803(6). As demonstrated immediately below, Glisson also identified the transactions reflected in Exhibit 40 as wire transfers that he made and/or received in connection with his purchases and sales of unregistered CMKM stock. 4. Exhibit 40 4. The content of Exhibit 40 was not proved by deposition testimony of Glisson. See Transcript (SEC Exhibit 5), pages 24-35 including foundational objections at (i) page 19, lines 19-24 (exhibit not what it purports to be), (ii) page 28, line 7 (compound, vague and ambiguous) and (iii) otherwise throughout the line of4. This objection is baseless. Numerous times during his September 8, 2009 deposition, Glisson unambiguously identified the transactions reflected in Exhibit 40 as wire transfers that he made and/or received in connection with his purchases and sales of CMKM stock. Q. Okay, I’ll just use CMKM when I’m talking about the stock. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 3 of 22 31234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response questioning. Glisson testifies he does not recognize document, does not recognize account numbers but does recall several of the individual 553 transactions (“some of”) reflected in the 8 page document. Now, if you look at the first page of Exhibit 16 [Exhibit 40 to the Wynn Dec.], on the “In” column, are some of these wire transfers monies that were paid to you in exchange for CMKM shares? MR. BRETZ: Objection. Compound. THE WITNESS: The “In” column? BY MR. WYNN: Q. Yes. A. They are funds that were put into the account – one of these three accounts. Q. Were the funds put into one of the three accounts in order to pay you for CMKM shares? A. They were purchasing those shares. Q. From you? A. Yes. . . . Q. Go to page 2. Are the incoming wire transfers on page 2 of Exhibit 16 from people who were purchasing CMKM shares from you? MR. BRETZ: Just a moment please. Same objection [compound]. Compound. Also vague and ambiguous. THE WITNESS: Yes.” See Wynn Decl., Ex. 5 (Glisson Depo.), pp. 27:4-28:8. As the deposition continues, Glisson testifies that substantially all the incoming wire transfers on all 8 pages of Exhibit 40 are transfers into his and/or his wife’s accounts resulting from his CMKM stock sales. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 4 of 22 41234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response See Wynn Decl. Ex. 5 (Glisson Depo.), pp. 28:9-31:15. Similarly, Glisson testified that that substantially all of the outgoing wire transfers on all 8 pages of Exhibit 40 are transfers into his and/or his wife’s accounts resulting from his CMKM stock purchases. See Wynn Decl. Ex. 5 (Glisson Depo.), pp. 27:21-28:8; 29:9-24; 30:12-16; 31:5-9; 31:17-25. At the deposition, Glisson’s lawyer did not object that the Exhibit is not what it purports to be. See Wynn Decl. Ex. 5 (Glisson Depo.) p. 19. The only objection to this line of questioning was that the questions were compound, apparently because the Commission asked Glisson about more than one transaction at a time. That objection was not well-taken. 5. Exhibits 2 through 4 (documents from other CMKM Diamonds cases before the Court) 5. Not relevant; prejudicial/ confusing. FRE 402, 403. 5. The Court should overrule Glisson’s objections to Exhibits 2-4 as they are without merit. •Exhibit 2 is the June 23, 2009 order in the related case SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Case No. 2:08-00437-LRH-RJJ. The Commission submitted this Order as evidence relevant to CMKM’s deregistration, as well as the circumstances surrounding Glisson’s decision to began selling unregistered CMKM stock in December 2005. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 5 of 22 51234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response •Exhibit 3 is the Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction Against Urban Casavant in SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, et al., Case No. 2:08 CV 00437-LRH-RJJ. The Commission submitted this Order as evidence relevant to CMKM’s deregistration, as well as the circumstances surrounding Glisson’s decision to began selling unregistered CMKM stock in December 2005. •Exhibit 4 is the Investigative Testimony of Marco Glisson, which was taken on August 20, 2007. The testimony is relevant because it is the prior sworn testimony of Glisson. Glisson made numerous admissions that are relevant and highly probative of all of the elements of the Commission’s claims. Exhibits 2-4 impose no unfair prejudice. Any prejudice is outweighed by the probative value of these exhibits. 6. Exhibit 41 (Exhibit 5 to Glisson August 2007 Investigative Testimony) – SEC Order 6. No foundation/ certification. FRE 602, 802, 901, 1002. No FRE 1007 exception. See transcript of (SEC Exhibit 4) page 70:15-16 Q. Have you ever seen this document before today? A. No. Q. Does it refresh your recollection as to when CMKM Diamonds registration was revoked? A. No, . . . 6. Glisson’s objection that Exhibit 41, which is the Commission’s October 25, 2005 Order revoking CMKM’s registration, should be excluded due to inadequate authentication, is without merit. Exhibit 41, which was submitted by the Commission in support of is motion for summary judgment, is more than “sufficient to support a finding” that it is the actual revocation Order issued by the Commission. See FRE 901(a). Glisson’s hearsay objection to Exhibit 41 is unfounded. In accordance with FRE 803(8), Exhibit 41 is not excluded by the hearsay rule as it constitutes a public report. See, e.g., Taylor v. Erna, 2009 WL 2146675, pp. 7-8 (D. Mass. 2009) (“The hearsay rule exception for public records or reports provides that the findings by a public agency made pursuant to an investigation authorized by law are not excluded by the hearsay rule unless the sources of the informationCase 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 6 of 22 61234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness”), citing Lubanski v. Coleco Indus., Inc., 929 F.2d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 1991). Further, the Order itself is foundation to Glisson’s admission that he knew that CMKM’s registration had been revoked. Finally, and irrespective of the misleading excerpt of Glisson’s testimony, during his testimony Glisson repeatedly admitted that he was aware that CMKM had been deregistered by the Commission before he began to engage in the business of purchasing and selling CMKM stock. See, e.g., Wynn Decl. Ex. 4 (Glisson Test.) pp. 63:12-65:5; 68:20-70:6; 72:22-73:1. 7. Exhibit 42 (Exhibit 56 to Glisson September 2009 Depo.) SEC internal/ external e-mail (re Glisson/ cim shares) 7. No foundation/ certification; relevancy FRE 402, 602, 802, 901, 1002; No FRE 1007 exception. See transcript, page 84-85. 7. Glisson’s objection that Exhibit 42 (a May 4, 2008 instant message exchange where Glisson solicits a sale of CIM stock) should be excluded because it is not authenticated should be overruled. Glisson admitted (1) entering the Paltalk chat room (see Wynn Decl. Ex. 4 (Glisson Test.) pp. 5:26-6:8; 85:23-88:19); (2) using the screen-name of “Delidog” (see Wynn Decl. Ex. 4 (Glisson Test.) pp 5:26-6:8; 181:22-182:19); and (3) soliciting sales of CMKM stock (see Wynn Decl. Ex. 4 (Glisson Test.) pp. 85:23-88:19. The evidence is “sufficient to support a finding” that Exhibit 42 is an excerpt of a chat room exchange between Glisson and a potential buyer of CIM stock. During his deposition on September 8, 2009, Glisson also admitted that his screen name was “Delidog1,” that the phone number reflected in the exhibit is his cell phone number, and that in May of 2008, he was offering to sell CIM shares. See Wynn Decl., Ex. 5 (Glisson Depo.) pp. 84:20-86:20. Exhibit 42 is offered as foundation to that testimony. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 7 of 22 71234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response Finally, Glisson’s statement in Exhibit 42 that he was willing to sell CIM stock constitutes an admission, which, pursuant to FRE 801(d)(2), constitutes an admission by a party-opponent that is not hearsay. 8. Exhibit 43 (Exhibit 4 to Glisson August 2007 Investigative Transcript) numerous documents provided by Glisson 8. No foundation (no personal knowledge by declarant Paris Wynn, Esq. and no foundational or other testimony by Glisson; hearsay, no exception FRE 602, 901. 8. Glisson’s objection that Exhibit 43 should be excluded due to lack of proper authentication should be overruled. Indeed, FRE 901(a) requires only evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims.” Here, the documents at issue are letters of instruction that Glisson sent to First Global Transfer in connection with his purchases and sales of CMKM stock. As Glisson admitted during his August 20, 2007 sworn testimony, these documents were produced in-person by Glisson to the Commission on August 20, 2007. See Wynn Decl., Ex. 4. (Glisson Test. 8/20/07 pp. 21:12-25:4.) Documents produced by a party during discovery are deemed authentic when offered the opposing party. See Maljack Prods. v. Goodtimes, 81 F.3d, 881, 889, fn. 12 (9th Cir. 1996) (Court denied defendant’s objection to trial court’s consideration of documents that attorney failed to authenticate where defendant had produced such documents to opposing party and had not challenged the authenticity of documents); see also, Hussein v. University & Community College of Nevada, 20007 WL 4592225, pp. 1-2 (D. Nev. Dec. 8, 2007) (“To authenticate a document through production during discovery, the Ninth Circuit requires: 1) the producer of the document be identified; and 2) the party producing the document admit its production.); Snyder v. Whitaker Corp., 839 F.2d 1085, 1089 (5th Cir. 1988) Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 8 of 22 81234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response (Court overruled defendant’s objection that notes had not be properly authenticated where defendant had produced notes and not challenged their authenticity); Glisson’s hearsay objection is also unfounded. The letters of instruction are admissible pursuant to FRE 803(6), because they are records of a regularly conducted activity - e.g., his instructions to First Global to cancel and re-issue CMKM stock certificates in connection with his purchases and sales of CMKM stock. The letters are also party admissions. In his August 20, 2007 testimony, Glisson testified at length that he created and then mailed the letters of instruction to First Global in connection with his purchases and sales of CMKM securities. See Wynn Decl., Ex. 4. (Glisson Test. 8/20/07 pp. 176:3-178:2.) To be sure, although the testimony referenced addresses Exhibit 44, as opposed to Exhibit 43, both exhibits are letters of instruction from Glisson to First Global. 9. Exhibit 46 (1-19-07 email) 9. No foundation (no personal knowledge by declarant Paris Wynn, Esq., no testimony from Glisson or otherwise); hearsay FRE 602, 802, 901. 9. Glisson’s objection that Exhibit 46 (a January 19, 2007 email from Glisson) should be excluded due to lack of proper authentication should be rejected. The sender’s email address is delidoghouse@hotmail.com, which Glisson testified under oath was his email address: Q Could you identify all of the e-mail addresses you've used since January 2004? A Same one. Only one. Q What e-mail address is that? A Delidoghouse@hotmail.com Q Does anyone other than you use that e-mail account? A Not that I know of. Q Is it password protected? A No. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 9 of 22 91234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response Q Do you need to log on to get onto your e-mail? A Yes. Q Do you need a password? A Yeah, I guess you do. I guess it is password protected then. See Wynn Decl., Ex. 4 (Glisson Testimony), pp. 33:2-16. Pursuant to FRE 801(d)(2), Exhibit 46 is an admission by a party-opponent, so it is not hearsay. 10. Exhibit 47 (Exhibit 46 to Glisson September 2009 Depo) 11-20-06 newspaper article. 10. Hearsay, no exception; prejudicial/confusing FRE 403, 802. 10. Glisson’s hearsay objection is unfounded. The article was not offered for the truth of any matter asserted. Rather, the article was offered as evidence that Glisson ceased using his own accounts for CMKM transactions and began using the account of Tidarat Tungswongsathong instead due to the article’s publication. See Wynn Decl., Ex. 5. (Glisson Depo.) pp. 44:1-46:7. Finally, the document’s probative value outweighs any potential unfair prejudice to Glisson. 11. Exhibit 48 (Exhibit 48 to Glisson September 2009 Depo) Bank of America account statement 11. No foundation (no personal knowledge of declarant Paris Wynn, Esq. or testimony from Glisson); hearsay, no exception FRE 602, 802, 901. 11. This objection should be overruled. Exhibit 48 (a bank statement from Thidarat Tungwongsathong’s account) was produced by Bank of America to the Commission on August 31, 2007 and was accompanied by a declaration from a Bank of America custodian of records (see Wynn Dec. Ex. 6) that certifies the authenticity of the bank records and lays a sufficient foundation for the business records exception to the hearsay rule. 12. Exhibit 64 (Exhibit 9 to Glisson August 2007 Investigative Testimony) – letter from Terry Nelson to Gregory Kipfer 12. No foundation (no personal knowledge by declarant Paris Wynn, Esq., no testimony by writer or recipient, no foundational testimony by Glisson other than he had seen the letter at some point in time; hearsay; no exception. 12. To the extent that Glisson is objecting that Exhibit 64 has not been authenticated, this objection is without merit because Glisson produced the document to the Commission during discovery and thus the document is deemed authentic. See Maljack Prods. v. Goodtimes, 81 F.3d, 881, 889, n.12 (9th Cir. 1996) (Court overruled defendant’s objection to trial court’s consideration of documents that attorney Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 10 of 22 101234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response Q: Have you see that document before? A. Yes. Not relevant to instant federal action under federal law; prejudicial/ confusing FRE 602, 802, 901 failed to authenticate where defendant produced such documents to opposing party and had not challenged the authenticity of documents); see also, Snyder v. Whitaker Corp., 839 F.2d 1085, 1089 (5th Cir. 1988) (Court overruled defendant’s objection that notes had not been properly authenticated where defendant had produced notes and not challenged their authenticity). Additionally, Glisson is “cc’d” on the document and admitted that he had seen the document, which is “sufficient to support a finding” that Exhibit 64 is, in fact, a letter from his former attorney to the Wisconsin Department of Corporations. See FRE 901(a). To the extent that Glisson is arguing that Exhibit 64 constitutes inadmissible hearsay, FRE 801(d)(2)(D) provides that admissions by a party’s agent do not constitute hearsay. Exhibit 64 is a letter authored by Glisson’s former attorney, Terry Nelson. Both Glisson (see Wynn Decl. Ex. 4 (Glisson Test.), pp. 24:18-23; 43:22-44:11)) and Terry Nelson (see Declaration of Terry Nelson, ¶ 3) have admitted that Nelson acted as Glisson’s attorney. The document contains numerous admissions regarding Glisson’s unlawful transactions in CMKM stock and thus does not constitute hearsay. U.S. v. Freeman, 519 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1974) (Ninth Circuit noted that “Unequivocal admissions by an attorney, clearly acting within the scope of his authority...may be received into evidence, even if they are hearsay, under the admissions exception to the hearsay rule.”); U.S. v. Ojala, 544 F.2d 940, 945-946 (8th. Cir. 1976) (Eighth Circuit affirmed district court’s admission of attorney’s statement into evidence as party admission.) Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 11 of 22 111234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 13. Exhibit 66: Edgar Print Out titled “Company Folder” 13. No proper foundation (no personal knowledge re substance) no certification of public records by government agency; hearsay, no exceptions no request for judicial notice, no availability. FRE 201, 602, 802, 901, 1002 13. The authentication objection is unfounded. At paragraph 67 of his declaration, Paris Wynn authenticates and lays a foundation for Exhibit 66. He states that “Exhibit 66 is a true and correct copy of the SEC Edgar printout of SEC Filings by CMKM, which [he] obtained by accessing the Commission’s Edgar webpage on October 7, 2009.” In accordance with FRE 901(a), this is sufficient to authenticate Exhibit 66. The hearsay objection is unfounded as the Edgar report falls under the hearsay exception for “market reports,” set forth in FRE 803(17). 14. SEC Statement of Fact (“SF”) No. 4 (57:20-25) 14. Q: Mr. Glisson, did you utilize the account reflected in Exhibit 49 [Thidirat’s Bank of America bank accounts(s)] in order to conduct purchases and sales of CMMK stock? Objection: Vague and ambiguous. A. Yes. Also see clarifying/ explanation that follows on pages 58-59 14. The Court should overrule Glisson’s objection that the question was vague and ambiguous. The objection is not well taken, and the question is clear. To be sure, there are two accounts reflected in Exhibit 49, and Glisson admits to using both of them to conduct transactions in CMKM stock. See Wynn Decl. Ex. 5 (Glisson Depo.), pp. 65:1-15. Contrary to Glisson’s reference to supposed “clarifying/explanation that follows on pages 58-59,” those pages of Glisson’s deposition transcript contain no such “explanation” and simply reinforce the point that Glisson purchased and sold CMKM stock using Thidarat Tungswongsathong’s Bank of America account. Even if the Court does not allow into evidence the testimony at page 57:20-25 of Glisson’s September 8, 2009 deposition testimony, the Commission cites abundant additional evidence supporting SUF No. 4. Glisson repeatedly admitted that he “repeatedly bought and sold deregistered CMKM stock.” Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 12 of 22 121234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 15. SEC SF No. 4 (110:15-22) 15. Q. Are all the checks and money orders set forth in those exhibits associated with sales by you and/ or Mrs. - - - and/ or your wife of CMKM stock? Objection: Compound. A. Yes. Also, see above indicated objection(s) to SEC Exhibit 40 cited in support of SF No.’s 4. 15. The Court should overrule the objection. The question is not compound; it simply asks whether the universe of all checks and money orders were associated with sales by Glisson and his wife. Even if the Court does not allow into evidence the testimony at page 110:15-22 of Glisson’s September 8, 2009 deposition, the Commission cites abundant additional evidence supporting SUF No. 4. Glisson repeatedly admitted that he “repeatedly bought and sold deregistered CMKM stock.” 16. SEC SF No. 7 16. See foregoing objection to SEC Exhibit 41 16. As noted above, Glisson’s objection to Exhibit 41, which he incorporates by reference here, is without merit and should be overruled. 17. SEC SF No. 8 See foregoing objection to SEC Exhibit 66. 17. As noted above, Glisson’s objection to Exhibit 66, which he incorporates by reference here, is without merit and should be overruled. 18. SEC SF No. 10 (68:20-24, 63:22-64:10) 18. Q: Mr. Glisson, just to be clear at some point in time you became aware that CMKM securities had been delisted is that correct? Objection: No foundation. Vague and ambiguous. Assumes facts not in evidence A. Yes. Q: At some point in time did you become aware that CMKM’s registration with the SEC had been revoked? Objection: No foundation. Assumes facts not in evidence. Vague and ambiguous as to time. 18. The Court should overrule Glisson’s objection. The question is not vague, and Glisson admits that “I know that they got revoked being delisted back in November of ’05 maybe. Yeah, November ’05. November 12, ’05.” This admission is foundational. Glisson’s objection here is mystifying as he repeatedly and plainly admits under oath that he began selling CMKM securities after CMKM’s registration with the Commission had been revoked: Q: Mr. Glisson, at some point after CMKM’s registration had been revoked, you began to purchase and sell CMKM securities. Is that correct. Objection: Same objections. A: Yes. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 13 of 22 131234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response A: I knew they went to a SEC hearing but I wasn’t sure exactly the outcome of that. I know that they got revoked being delisted back in November of ’05 maybe. Yeah, November ’05. November 12, ’05. Further objection: Move to strike by way of asserting the same objection that I made before. Q: How did you learn the registration was revoked? Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence. Vague and ambiguous as to revoked, revoked under the 33 Act, revoked under the 34 Act, no foundation. (Wynn Decl. Ex. 5 (Glisson Test.), pp. 72:22-73:1.) Moreover, Glisson’s knowledge that CMKM’s registration was revoked is not relevant to a determination of liability under Section 5 of the Securities Act. Swensen v. Engelstad, 626 F.2d 421, 424 (5th Cir. 1980) (“The Securities Act of 1933 imposed strict liability on offerors and sellers of unregistered securities.”) It is, however, relevant to the issue of a permanent injunction. 19. SEC SF No. 10 (72:22-73:9; 80:1-6) 19. Q: Mr. Glisson, at some point after CMKM’s registration had been revoked, you began to purchase and sell CMKM securities. Is that correct? Objection: Same objection (no foundation; vague and ambiguous). A: Yes. Q: Would it be accurate to say that between December 2005 and at least until March of 2006 you made repeated purchases and sales of CMKM stock? Objection: same objection. Vague and ambiguous. 19. The Court should overrule Glisson’s objection. The question is not vague and ambiguous. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 14 of 22 141234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 20. SEC SF No. 14 (26:14-19) 20. Q: Now, is it correct that from approximately December of ’05 until approximately April of ’07, you purchased and sold CMKM securities? Objection: Compound. A: Yes, I purchased and sold CMKX shares [CMKM is the name of the Company and CMKX is the ticker symbol]. 20. The Court should overrule Glisson’s objection because the question is not compound. Glisson admits that he purchased and sold (i.e., transacted business in) CMKM shares from December of ’05 until approximately April of ’07. 21. SEC SF No. 20 177:24-178:16 21. Q: Exhibit 35, the documents that make up Exhibit 35, were generated in connection with your purchases and/or sales of CMKM securities. Is that correct? A: Yes. Objection: Same objection. Move to strike by way of interposing the objections. It’s overbroad. There’s just too many pages here to [for] him to examine each one of these transactions . . . A: All these letters of instruction of First Global Stock Transfer could be [emphasis added] innumerous of certs that came back. As I’m looking through here, there’s a lot of certs that were not sold. They were free. I have given them away. So I don’t want to say [emphasis added] that these were all bought and sold, no. These are all letters of instruction that were sent to the transfer agency to have certs reissued. 21. Glisson’s objection is unfounded and based upon selective and incomplete excerpts from his testimony. Exhibit 35 reflects hundreds of instances where First Global Transfer cancelled and reissued CMKM stock certificates in connection with Glisson’s purchases and sales of CMKM stock. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 15 of 22 151234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 22. SEC SF No. 46: See 14 above re 53:24- 54:19 and 57:20-25 87:2-20 90:4-91:21 See 15 above re 110:15-22. Q: Exhibit 57 is going to be a copy of a Bank of America statement for period January 12, ’07, through February 8, ’07. Mr. Glisson, if you look at the third page of this document, under the money market account, there are some deposits and other additions listed and they continue on to the fourth page, and they total $421,853.61. Do you see that? . . . To your knowledge were there deposits and additions in connection with sales of CMKM stock? Objection: Compound. Overbroad. A: Yes. Q: Mr. Glisson, are the checks - - the cancelled checks under Exhibit 59, were they tendered to Thidarat in connection with sales of CMKM and/or CIM shares? . . . Objection: Compound. A: Yes. 22. Glisson’s objections are unfounded and based upon selective and incomplete excerpts from his deposition testimony. On numerous occasions during his deposition (which are explicitly identified by the Commission in the evidence it submitted in support of SUF 46), Glisson admits to using Thidarat Tungswongsathong’s accounts to consummate purchases and sales of CMKM stock. 23. SEC SF No. 48: See 14 above re 57:20-25 59:1-6 23. Q: So what about the divorce made you use Thidarat’s accounts? Objection: Vague and ambiguous. A: I just felt it was the best thing to do at the time. 23. The Court should overrule this objection because it is unfounded. The question is neither vague nor ambiguous. The objection also leaves out key portions of Glisson’s testimony. When shown transactions reflected on Thidarat Tungwongsathong’s bank statements, Glisson repeatedly confirmed that such transactions occurred in connection with his purchases and sales of CMKM stock. Glisson also explained why he began using Ms. Tungwongsathong’s accounts and ceased using his own accounts. See SUF 48, and the evidence cited by the Commission in support thereof. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 16 of 22 161234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 24. SEC SF No. 53: See No.’s 2-4 above re SEC Exhibit 40 27:22-28:22 24. Q: If you look at the “Out” column on the first page of this document [Exhibit 16], are some of the outgoing wire transfers from you to people whom you purchased CMKM stock from? Objections: Compound. A: Yes. Q: Go to page 2. Are the incoming wire transfers on page 2 of Exhibit 16 from people who were purchasing CMKM shares from you? Objection: Same objection. Compound. Also vague and ambiguous A: Yes. Q: On the “Out” column on the second page, are some of those entries wire transfers from you to people you were purchasing CMKM stock from? Objection: Same objection. A: Yes. Q: Turn to the third page of the document. Are the incoming wire transfers on page 3 of Exhibit 16, wire transfers to you from people purchasing CMKM shares? Objection: Same objection. A: There were wires coming into this account. Not exactly to me - - [emphasis added] 24. The Court should overrule Glisson’s objections that the questions are compound. A question is not compound simply because it asks about more than one transaction. As previously indicated, Glisson repeatedly testified that the wire transfers reflected on Exhibit 40 to the Wynn Dec. [Exhibit 16 to Glisson Testimony] were transfers into and out of his account as a result of his trades in CMKM shares. Glisson’s “vague and unambiguous” objections are similarly deficient. Additionally, Glisson testified under oath that he purchased large quantities of CMKM stock from Stephen Brewer and purchased more CMKM stock for resale from Brewer than from anyone else. See Wynn Decl. Ex. 4 (Glisson Test.), pp. 153:15-158:16; 160:10-161:17; Wynn Decl. Ex. 5 (Glisson Depo.), pp. 31:5-25. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 17 of 22 171234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 25. SEC SF No. 79 (297:15-198:14) 25. Q: Isn’t it true that you resumed your purchases and sales of CMKM securities sometimes in September of ’06? Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence. A: There’s a possibility, yes. 25. This objection is unfounded and should be overruled. In sworn testimony, Glisson admitted that he ceased his sales of CMKM stock in May 2006 and resumed his sales sometime in September 2006. See SUF 78-79, and the sworn testimony cited by the Commission in support thereof. 26. SEC SF 82: 26:14-19 57:20-25 65:1-15 Q: Now, is it correct that form approximately December of ’05 until approximately April of ’07, you purchased and sold CMKM securities? Objection: Compound. A: Yes, I purchased and sold CMKX shares [CMKM is the name of the Company and CMKX is the ticker symbol] See No. 14 above. Q: - - just so the record is clear, you did use the Bank of America accounts reflected in Exhibit 49 to conduct CMKM business; is that right: Objection: Vague and ambiguous, “using”. A: I didn’t conduct CMKM business as you stated. I purchased and sold stock of CMKX. Q: Using the two Bank of America accounts reflected in Exhibit 49 - - Objection: Same objection [vague and ambiguous]. Q: Is that right? A: Yes. 26. This objection is non-sensical, garbled and should be rejected. The Commission has cited to sworn testimony from Glisson, as well as hundreds of documents, that demonstrate that Glisson executed hundreds of transactions in CMKM stock between December 2005 and April 2007. See SUF 82, and the sworn testimony and documents cited by the Commission in support of SUF 82. Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 18 of 22 181234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 87:16-29 110:8-111:1 Q: To your knowledge, were those deposits and additions in connection with sales of CMKM stock? Objection: Compound. Overbroad. A: Yes. See No. 15 above. See No.’s 1-4 above re SEC Exhibit 40 27. SEC SF No. 86 (27:4-31:25) 27. See No. 24 above 27. As noted above, Glisson’s objection to Exhibit 40, which he incorporates by reference here, is without merit and should be overruled. 28. SEC/ Hakala Declaration Para. 3: During this call, Mr. Nelson told me that Mr. Glisson had stopped buying and selling the deregistered securities of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. in private transaction as of May 15, 2006. On that call, Mr Nelson also said that Mr. Glisson had no future plans to engage in any such private transactions involving CMKM Diamonds, Inc. 28. Objection: Hearsay (no exception per Rule). Also vague and ambiguous as to “deregistered securities” and “private transactions.” FRE 801 Same objection. Also see, Declaration of Terry Nelson, Esq. submitted in Support of Glisson’s Opposition to the SEC’s motion. 28. The hearsay objection to ¶ 3 of the Hakala Declaration is not well taken. In accordance with FRE 810(d)(2)(D), the statements by Mr. Nelson are party admissions (which are recounted in ¶ 3 of the Hakala declaration), are not hearsay. See, e.g., United States v. Ojala, 544 F.2d 940 (8th Cir. 1976) Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 19 of 22 191234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC Evidence Glisson’s Objection SEC’s Response 29. SEC/ Chattoo Declaration Para 2: In conjunction with my duties as a paralegal, I was asked to calculate prejudgment interest on $4,200,000.00 for the period December 31, 2005 through October 31, 2009. 29. Objection: No foundation/ relevancy for amount or period of time. 29. This is not a proper evidentiary objection. The Commission calculated prejudgment interest from December 31, 2005, because this is when Glisson’s misconduct began. Glisson admitted that he started purchasing and selling CMKM shares in December of 2005, after CMKM’s stock had been deregistered. See SF No. 10. The purpose of prejudgment interest is to deprive a wrongdoer of the benefit of his misconduct. Prejudgment interest should therefore be calculated from the beginning of the misconduct. DATED: January 27, 2010 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paris A. Wynn Molly M. White Paris A. Wynn Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 20 of 22 201234567891011121314151617181920212223242526PROOF OF SERVICE I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is: [X] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036-3648 Telephone No. (323) 965-3998; Facsimile No. (323) 965-3394. On January 27, 2010, I caused to be served the document entitled SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S RESPONSES TO MARCO GLISSON’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN REFERENCE TO SEC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT on the parties whose service of process forms have been filed in this action and others, addressed as stated on the attached service list: [X] OFFICE MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I placed for collection and mailing today following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. [ ] PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service. Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid. [ ] EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a facility regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postage paid. [ ] HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to the office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list. [ ] FEDERAL EXPRESS: By placing in sealed envelope(s) designated by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, which I deposited in a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express or delivered to a Federal Express courier, at Los Angeles, California. [X] ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail to the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list. [ ] FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. [X] (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am a member of the State Bar of California and an attorney permitted to appear before this Court and that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: January 27, 2010 /s/ Paris A. Wynn Paris A. Wynn Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 21 of 22 211234567891011121314151617181920212223242526SEC v. MARCO GLISSON United States District Court - District of Nevada Case No. 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF (LA-3028) SERVICE LIST Marco Glisson (served by U.S. mail Orly) 3823 Tamiami Trail East, #567 Naples, FL 34112 In Pro Per Robert H. Bretz, Esq. (served by electronic and U.S. mail) 578 Washington Boulevard, Suite 843 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Email: rhbretzpc@aol.com Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 01/27/10 Page 22 of 22
and
in case you missed this one...
THE DOCUMENTS START HERE:
(2): Fax Transmittal of the Letter of Service for the attention of Michael C. Cottrell, B.A., M.S.:
HODGES and ASSOCIATES
A Professional Law Corporation
4 East Holly Street
Suite 202
Pasadena
CA 91103
Tel: (626) 564-9797
Fax: (626) 564-9111
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
DATE: January 27, 2010: CASE NAME: Anderson, et al., vs Cox, et al.
NUMBER OF PAGES: 3 [INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET]
Please deliver to:
NAME: Michael Cottrell
FAX NUMBER: (814) 453 4453
From: A CLIFTON HODGES
Re:/Message:
Attached please find a copy of our January 27 2010 letter to David M. Becker, Esq., General Counsel for the SEC regarding the above-referenced matter
(3): Letter of Service from the Plaintiffs’ lawyers, Hodges and Associates, to David M. Becker, Esq., General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Headquarters, Office of the General Counsel, 100 F Street, NE, Washington DC 20549, dated 27th January 2010:
HODGES and ASSOCIATES
A Professional Law Corporation
4 East Holly Street
Suite 202
Pasadena
CA 91103
Tel: (626) 564-9797
Fax: (626) 564-9111
A.Clifton Hodges
James S. Kostas
Donald W. Ricketts*
*Of Counsel
January 27, 2010
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
(202) 772-9260
David M. Becker, Esq.
General Counsel
Securities and Exchange Commission
SEC Headquarters
Office of the General Counsel
100 F. Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549
Re: David Anderson, Lt. Col., et al., vs. Christopher Cox, et al.,
USDC Case No. SACV 10-0031-JVS (MLGx)
Dear Mr Becker:
As I am advised, you are aware that I represent seven of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.’s larger shareholders. I have previously provided a copy of our Bivens based class action lawsuit to Kathleen A. Cody, Esq., which was filed in the United States Central District Court of California on January 8, 2010. We are seeking release of funds that have been previously collected for the benefit of CMKM shareholders, or in the alternative for damages in the amount of 3.87 Trillion Dollars, according to proof. A confirmed copy of the USDC Case No. SACV 10-0031-JVS (MLGx) complaint and duly issued summons is attached.
Our complaint names as individual defendants each of the SEC Commissioners who have served since June 1, 2006, as follows: Christopher Cox, Mary L. Schapiro, Cynthia A. Glassman, Paul S. Atkins, Roel C. Campos, Annette L. Nazareth, Troy A. Pareded, Luis A. Aguilar, Elisse B. Walter, and Kathleen L. Casey. I am writing to inquire whether your office is in a position to accept service on behalf of each of the named commissioners; in the event that you are in fact going to represent each of the named commissioners in this litigation, and are willing to execute a waiver of service pursuant to FRCP Rule 4(d), I would appreciate early advice of this fact. If you will accept service on behalf of these named defendants and have them execute a waiver, I will prepare the same and submit them to your office forthwith.
In the event that you are unable to accept service for these defendants, I would appreciate your early advice to that effect. Please respond to this correspondence no later than February 5, 2010. Should I not hear from you by that date, I will serve the individually named defendants personally. Thank you in advance for your courtesy and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
HODGES AND ASSOCIATES
[Signed]
A.CLIFTON HODGES
ACH/gm
Enclosures
Cc: Kathleen A Cody, Esq.
Clients.
BCC: Michael Cottrell
(4): For your convenience, the full text of the complaint Case Number CV10-00031 JVS (MLGx) filed on behalf of CMKM/CMKX Plaintiffs on 8th January 2010 which we posted here on 9th January 2010, but which we are reproducing again here so that all the documents are in one place:
THE SUMMONS CIVIL COVER SHEET DISPLAYS:
'MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $3.87 TRILLION'
A. CLIFTON HODGES, State Bar No. 046803
HODGES AND ASSOCIATES
4 East Holly Street
Suite 202
Pasadena
CA 91103
Tel: (626) 564-9797
Fax: (626) 564-9111
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID ANDERSON, LT. COL.; NELSON L. REYNOLDS, LT. COL.; SHEILA MORRIS; PATRICK CLUNEY; ROBERT HOLLENEGG; ALLAN TREFFRY; and REECE HAMILTON, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.:
CHRISTOPHER COX, an individual; MARY L. SCHAPIRO, an individual; CYNTHIA A. GLASSMAN,
an individual; PAUL S. ATKINS, an individual; ROEL C. CAMPOS, an individual; ANNETTE L. NAZARETH, an individual; TROY A. PAREDES, an individual; LUIS A. AGUILAR, an individual; ELISSE B. WALTER, an individual; KATHLEEN L. CASEY, an individual;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No.: CV10-00031-JVS (MLGx)
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
AND FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
COME NOW Plaintiffs DAVID ANDERSON, LT. COL.; NELSON L. REYNOLDS, LT. COL.; SHEILA MORRIS; PATRICK CLUNEY; ROBERT HOLLENEGG; ALLAN TREFFRY; and REECE HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, who, for causes of action herein allege:
INTRODUCTION:
1. This action for declaratory judgment and for damages for violations of the Plaintiffs’ civil rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the F.B.I., 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, arises out of actions and failures to act occurring over the period from January 1, 2006 to date by Defendants CHRISTOPHER COX, an individual; MARY L. SCHAPIRO, an individual; CYNTHIA A. GLASSMAN, an individual; PAUL S. ATKINS, an individual; ROEL C. CAMPOS, an individual; ANNETTE L. NAZARETH, an individual; TROY A. PAREDES, an individual; LUIS A. AGUILAR, an individual; ELISSE B. WALTER, an individual; KATHLEEN L. CASEY, an individual; and other government agents whose names are not now known to the Plaintiffs.
2. These Defendants, acting in the course and scope of their employment by the United States of America as duly authorized Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a federal agency, through their acts and omissions knowingly, consciously, wrongly, without compensation and without due process of law have effected a taking of property from each of the named Plaintiffs and all who are similarly situated.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE:
3. This action for declaratory relief and damages is predicated on the provisions of the Constitution and Statutes of the United States, the legal and equitable jurisdiction of this Court, the principles of common law, and this Court’s concurrent and pendant jurisdiction.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims under Article III of the United States Constitution and the Fifth Amendment thereto. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ property rights under the foregoing citations and, in addition, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1331 and the case law precedent of Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the F.B.I., 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
5. Venue is proper in this Court under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1391(e)(1)/(2). Defendants are all past or current Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission and therefore agents of the United States Government, and a substantial part of the property, and the acts related to such property subject to Plaintiffs’ claims, occurred or was situated in this Central District of California at all times relevant.
THE PARTIES:
6. Plaintiff DAVID ANDERSON, LT. COL., U.S. Air Force pilot, resides in the State of Missouri, owns more than 280,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
7. Plaintiff NELSON L. REYNOLDS, LT. COL., U.S. Air Force pilot, resides in the State of Texas, owns more than 15,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
8. Plaintiff SHEILA MORRIS, a company owner/CEO resides in the State of North Carolina, owns
more than 400,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
9. Plaintiff PATRICK CLUNEY, a retired professional athlete resides in the State of Florida, owns more than 680,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
10. Plaintiff ROBERT HOLLENEGG resides in the State of North Carolina, owns more than 85,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
11. Plaintiff ALLAN TREFFRY, a licensed State of California Attorney, resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, owns more than One Billion shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
12. Plaintiff REECE HAMILTON, a business owner/partner resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, owns more than One Billion shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
13. Defendants CHRISTOPHER COX, Chairman 2005-2009, MARY L. SCHAPIRO, Chairman 2009-2010, CYNTHIA A. GLASSMAN Commissioner 2002-2006, PAUL S. ATKINS, Commissioner 2002-2008, ROEL C. CAMPOS, Commissioner 2002-2007, ANNETTE L. NAZARETH, Commissioner 2005-2008, TROY A. PAREDES, Commissioner 2008-2010, LUIS A. AGUILAR Commissioner 2008-2010, ELISSE B. WALTER Commissioner 2008-2010 and KATHLEEN L. CASEY, Commissioner 2008-2010: are and, at all referenced times mentioned herein were, acting as individuals and as Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, an agency of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and acting within the course and scope of their employment. These Defendants are the real parties in interest in the claims set forth herein.
14. Other employees and servants of the Securities and Exchange Commission are also liable for damages under the causes of action set out in this Complaint. However, the names of these employees and servants are not now known to Plaintiffs, who thereby names them herein as DOES 1 through 10. When the names of these employees and servants become known, Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint to add the names of these DOE Defendants.
FACTUAL CONTENTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION:
15. In November and December, 2002, CYBER MARK INTERNATIONAL INC., a public company domiciled in Nevada, reverse-merged with Casavant Mineral Claims, which then held mineral claims to more than 600,000 acres within Saskatchewan, Canada, increased authorized capital from 500,000,000 to 10,000,000,000 common shares, cancelled all preferred shares, and changed its name to CASAVANT MINING KIMBERLITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (CMKI); as of February 3, 2003, 7,241,653,404 shares were issued and outstanding.
16. During the succeeding months CMKI declared a 2 for 1 stock split and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission: Form 15 exemption claim, July, 2003; Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation changing its name to CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. (CMKM), February 5, 2004; Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation raising its authorized capital to 500,000,000,000 common shares @ $0.001 par value, March 1, 2004; Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation correcting the par value of common shares as of December 26, 2002 to $0.0001 par value, July 13, 2004; Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation raising its authorized capital to 800,000,000,000 common shares @ $0.0001 par value, July 13, 2004.
17. During the summer and fall of 2004: New York Attorney Roger Glenn was retained by the company; the number of acres upon which CMKM held claims increased to over 1.2 Million acres; claims development activity was pursued by the company; and a shareholders appreciation party was planned to be celebrated in Las Vegas, Nevada to thank the shareholders, to give them an opportunity to meet company personnel, and to announce an agreed upon merger with another public company, U.S. CANADIAN MINERALS INC. On the eve of the party celebration, the Securities and Exchange Commission placed an order on CMKM preventing any public disclosure of anticipated mergers or other development information.
18. In early 2005, CMKM announced the addition of Robert A. Maheu to the Board of Directors who shortly thereafter became the co-chairman of the Board; CMKM announced a new “corporate strategy plan to dramatically and comprehensively transform” the company for generation of consistent, long-term growth and profitability for the shareholders; CMKM filed an amended Form 15 on February 17, 2005 reinstating the company to a public reporting status; and on March 3, 2005 was notified by the Securities and Exchange Commission of a temporary suspension of trading of the company’s stock (Pink Sheets-CMKX) based upon, inter alia, concerns over the “adequacy” of publicly available information.
19. On March 16, 2005 the Securities and Exchange Commission instituted a public administrative proceeding pursuant to Section 12 (j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against CMKM to determine whether the company was required to file periodic reports under Section 12(g) and whether CMKM failed to comply with Section 13(a), and rules there-under, by failing to so file. CMKM responded on April 11, 2005 admitting that CMKM had a duty to file public reports and alleging various grounds of mistake, malpractice and other affirmative defenses to the factual allegations.
20. From March 17, 2005 through April 29, 2005 CMKM traded publicly in the US under the trading symbol “CMKX,” a total of 551,756,751,833 shares, an average share volume of more than 17 billion shares per day, reaching a maximum on April 21, 2005 of 94,654,588,201 shares. These figures do not include foreign trades nor trades made on an ex-clearing basis such as those disclosed by Jefferies & Company , Inc. on May 6, 2005: between March 25, 2004 and September 21, 2004 Jefferies traded 111,780,681,204 shares of CMKX stock on an ex-clearing basis.
21. On May 10, 2005 the Section 12 (j) administrative proceeding was conducted in a United States Central District of California courtroom; the Administrative Law Judge, Honorable Brenda P. Murray entered her decision on July 12, 2005 finding the facts to be as alleged by the Securities and Exchange Commission. CMKM then filed a Petition for Review which was granted, and a briefing schedule set.
22. On October 20, 2005: Robert A. Maheu resigned as a member and co-chairman of the CMKM Board of Directors; Urban Casavant agreed to remain as the sole officer and Director of CMKM until the affairs of CMKM were wound up to ensure all shares and other assets of CMKM were properly distributed to its stockholders; CMKM entered into an agreement with Entourage Mining Ltd. pursuant to which CMKM assigned its 50% interest in United Carina Resources Corp. to Entourage for 15,000,000 shares of stock, sold its 36% interest in Nevada Minerals, Inc. claims to Entourage for 5,000,000 shares of stock, and made a joint agreement with 101047025 Saskatchewan Inc. and Entourage whereby certain claims were transferred and CMKM became entitled to receive 30,000,000 shares of stock; CMKM’s other agreements with United Carina Resources Corp. and Nevada Minerals Inc. were terminated.
23. On October 21, 2005 CMKM approved formation of a Task Force consisting of Robert A.
Maheu, Donald J. Stoecklein and Bill Frizzell for the purpose of assisting CMKM and Mr. Maheu, as “designated Trustee, to conduct an orderly and verifiable pro rata liquidating distribution of any Entourage Mining Ltd. shares…and any other available assets of CMKM;” the SEC Petition for Review was withdrawn by CMKM on October 21, 2005 and a Securities and Exchange Commission Order de-registering CMKM subsequently was formally entered on October 28, 2005. CMKM had 703,518,875,000 shares of common stock issued and outstanding on that date.
24. On November 4, 2005 CMKM established a web site (CMKMTaskForce.com) for the purpose, inter alia, of advising all shareholders to request physical share certificates evidencing their ownership interest in CMKM as one means of establishing that they were bona fide shareholders of the company. The company intended at that time to wind up its affairs and distribute the 50 million shares of Entourage Mining Ltd. stock and any other assets, including previously unpaid dividends, to the bona fide shareholders. The web site set forth procedures to be followed and established a means of registering all bona fide shareholder certificates prior to December 31, 2005; certificates evidencing 43,309,298,585, shares had been registered at that time.
25. A frequently asked question (FAQ) page was added to the web site on the evening of November 4, 2005 and in response to a question about the degree of naked shorting of CMKM stock, the Task Force indicated that “Credible information indicates the number of naked short shares is potentially as high as 2 Trillion shares”.
26. The Task Force issued a press release on January 19, 2006 discussing a reduction in total shares of Entourage Mining Ltd. stock to be distributed to CMKM shareholders from 50 Million shares to 45 Million shares as a result of a reduction in mining claims involved.
The Task Force also discussed issues involving difficulties obtaining physical share certificates being experienced by shareholders; accordingly the deadline date for registration of shares was extended to March 15, 2006.
The Task Force was provided a new “cert list” by First Global Stock Transfer showing certs issued “and active” on January 13, 2006; ADP Services also provided information to the Task Force. This data reflected a sample of 25,021 certificates representing 350,000,000,000 plus shares of stock and a total of more than 67,000 additional certificates to be counted.
27. On March 16, 2006 the Task Force issued a public release that “…we received a visit in our office [in Tyler, Texas] by an E-Trade rep today. This rep personally hand delivered copies of approximately 4000” certificates. Further information regarding on-going discussions with the DTCC and other brokerage houses was also provided.
28. The Task Force provided additional information on March 20, 2006, extending the time for registration of certificates to May 15, 2006, advising the shareholders that Urban Casavant and his immediate family would not participate in the share distribution, and advising that a printed notice to stock holders would be published in at least one nationally circulated United States newspaper.
29. On May 25, 2006 the Task Force received a second batch of 1,200 share certificates from AmeriTrade, having received some 1,000 share certificates a week earlier. AmeriTrade’s cover letter indicated that several hundred more certificates would be delivered within “the next few days.” The deadline for registering certificates of May 15, 2006 had not been extended, although the Task Force continued to advise shareholders that they should obtain their certificates and that the Task Force would honor any bona fide shareholder at the time of asset distribution. By late Fall, 2006, the Task Force had received and counted copies of certificates from more than 39,000 shareholders, evidencing more than 635 Billion shares.
30. Kevin West was hired pursuant to a written agreement by CMKM during the summer of 2006
to assist in winding up the affairs of the company and, more specifically, coordinating the share certificate pull. After serving nearly a year as Interim CEO, Kevin West was appointed Chairman of the Board on March 29, 2007 after which Urban Casavant stepped down as sole director, president, secretary and treasurer of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Mr. West soon thereafter appointed Bill Frizzell as CMKM General Counsel and provided instructions for the filing of a number of lawsuits to attempt to recover moneys and other assets which had been wrongfully taken from the company.
31. During the period of June 1, 2004 through October 28, 2005 a total of 2.25 Trillion “phantom” shares of CMKM Diamonds Inc, was sold into the public market through legitimate brokers, illegitimate brokers and dealers, market makers, hedge funds, ex-clearing transactions and private transactions. The sales of the majority of such shares were at all times known to the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Defendants herein.
32. At some date prior to June 1, 2004 the Securities and Exchange Commission in concert with the Department of Justice of the United States, together combined with Robert A. Maheu and others to utilize CMKM Diamonds, Inc. for the purpose of trapping a number of widely disbursed entities and persons who were believed to be engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice, with assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, believed and developed evidence that said short sellers were utilizing their activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment of taxes, and to support foreign terrorist operations. To fulfill the plan to criminally trap such wrongdoers, the Securities and Exchange Commission, with assistance from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security:
(a) Assisted in and approved the retention of Roger Glenn, an ex-SEC trial attorney and drafter of Sarbanes-Oxley, to join CMKM Diamonds Inc. for the purpose of verifying claims value, increasing authorized shares of stock to 800,000,000,000, and supervising from the inside of the company;
(b) Encouraged the company to expand its promotional activities, assisted in the set up of the “racing activities” of the company, and underwrote a substantial portion of the cost of such activities;
(c) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the sale of certain company claims to several foreign corporations;
(d) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the conferences between Robert A. Maheu and his associates on the one hand, and the wrongdoing short sellers on the other, all for the purpose of settling the potential liability of said wrongdoers with consent of the U. S. Government and a representation of no criminal prosecution for such illegal sales;
(e) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the declaration of dividends payable by the company to each common shareholder of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.
(f) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the distribution of shares of CIM, a private company owned by Urban Casavant, as a stock dividend, including consent and approval of distribution of said shares to holders of more than 1.4 Trillion shares of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. common stock.
33. During the period from November, 2004 through April, 2005, CMKM Diamonds, Inc. negotiated the sale of some of its Saskatchewan, Canada, mineral claims to three Chinese domiciled corporations with the advice and consent, inter alia, of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Proceeds from the consummation of such sales were placed into a frozen trust for disbursal at a later time.
34. During the period from March, 2004 through August, 2006, on behalf of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Robert A. Maheu, with assistance from others, negotiated a settlement with the illegitimate brokers, dealers, market makers, hedge funds, and other persons and entities that had engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company. In exchange for a U. S. Government promise of no prosecution for such sales, the wrongdoers each promised to pay negotiated amounts to a frozen trust for disbursal at a later time.
35. Plaintiffs herein are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that other moneys have been collected for the benefit of the shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. from the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, from the United States Government, and from the sale of additional assets including consent to enter into joint venture agreements with other companies holding mineral claims in Saskatchewan, Canada. Plaintiffs herein are further informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that said moneys, collected for the benefit of shareholders have also been placed in a trust or are otherwise now held in trust by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation and the United States Treasury.
36. Plaintiffs herein are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all times mentioned, the Securities and Exchange Commission reserved unto itself the sole and absolute discretion to determine when moneys collected pursuant to the scheme set forth above would and could be released for distribution.
37. Demand for release of said moneys has been repeatedly presented to the Securities and Exchange Commission without result. Agents and employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice have represented repeatedly that the release of moneys for distribution was imminent, and/or would occur within several weeks, and/or would occur within less than a month. Each of said representations have been made knowing them
to be false, and at the specific direction of the named Defendants. These actions of withholding distribution of said moneys, without compensation and without due process of law, amount to a taking of the property of the individual Plaintiffs and of all similarly situated.
38. At all times mentioned herein, the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for the Constitutional and other rights of all Plaintiffs, or with the intention and knowledge that they were violating Plaintiffs’ Constitutional or other rights or to cause them other injuries, losses and damage.
39. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct, each of the named Plaintiffs and all of those similarly situated, have been denied their Constitutional rights, including, but not limited to, their Fifth Amendment right to be secure in their property, free from taking without just compensation and without due process of law, and have suffered injuries and property loss in excess of Three Trillion Dollars.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS:
40. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and in the public interest.
41. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of persons who were and are bona fide shareholders in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., a public company directly supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
42. Plaintiffs are members of said class, have a claim typical of the claims of all members of said class, and will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the members of said class.
43. The members of said class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
44. All of the class members are wholly identifiable from documents known to be in the possession of Defendants and of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
45. The claims of the members of said class present common issues of fact and law which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class.
46. The defenses available to defendants to the claims of the members of the class present common issues of fact and law which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class.
47. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants.
48. Adjudications with respect to individual members of said class would, as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede the right and/or ability to protect their interest.
49. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to said class thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
50. Unless ordered by this court, Defendants will continue their illegal and wrongful conduct, and repeated actions by individual class members will be required to obtain relief; and thereby the remedies available at law are inadequate.
51. For all of the above reasons, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims alleged herein.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS):
52. Plaintiffs incorporate as though fully set forth herein, all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 39 above.
53. Plaintiffs allege that an actual controversy exists in this jurisdiction, in that it is the Plaintiffs’ contention that:
(a) The Defendants are, or in the past were, Commissioners of the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, an agency of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. At all relevant times herein, said Defendants were acting as individuals and in their official capacity as agents of the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
(b) On and after January 1, 2006, the Defendants, acting alone and acting in concert with each other, and acting without just cause, did consciously, knowingly, intentionally and wrongfully cause certain acts and omissions to proceed in such manner as to hinder, delay, and ultimately prevent the distribution of moneys held for the benefit of Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated, said moneys being payable to each said person on a per share basis.
(c) The Defendants, and each of them, acted in their individual and their official capacities with deliberate or reckless disregard for the Constitutional and other rights of Plaintiffs and all similarly situated or with malicious intent and with the knowledge that their acts and omissions violated and denied the Constitutional and other rights of Plaintiffs and all similarly situated, or that their acts would cause said Plaintiffs and all similarly situated other injuries.
(d) The Defendants, and each of them, did unlawfully and wrongfully cause certain acts and omissions to proceed in such manner as to hinder, delay, and ultimately prevent the distribution of moneys held for the benefit of Plaintiffs and all similarly situated, even though the Defendants knew that said persons had a vested interest and Constitutional right to receive said moneys in a timely, unfettered and unconstrained manner.
(e) The Defendants, and each of them, knew that Plaintiffs and all similarly situated had a vested interest and Constitutional right to receive said moneys in a timely, unfettered and unconstrained manner when they committed the acts and omissions set forth above, causing each said person to be deprived of property without just compensation and without due process of law.
54. The Defendants, and each of them, contend to the contrary. Therefore, it is necessary and proper for this Court at this time to determine and declare the validity of the contentions of the parties as set forth above.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(FOR VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS COX, SHAPIRO, GLASSMAN, ATKINS, CAMPOS, NAZARETH, PAREDES,AGUILAR, WALTER, and CASEY):
55. Plaintiffs incorporate as though fully set forth herein all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 51, above.
56. Defendants, by committing the above-mentioned acts and omissions, violated and denied the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights, and those of all similarly situated, including, but not limited to, their Fifth Amendment right to be secure in their property, free from taking without just compensation and without due process of law.
57. Defendants, and each of them, acted and failed to act with the intent to deny the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and of all those similarly situated, or with the intentional or callous disregard or deliberate indifference to those rights. The above described acts of the Defendants, all charged with securities law enforcement as Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and of all those similarly situated, were not intended to be exempt from liability.
58. As a result of the Defendants’ acts, Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated have suffered injuries and property loss in excess of 3.87 Trillion Dollars in an exact amount to be determined at the time of Trial. Because Defendants’ actions were intentional or done with callous disregard or deliberate indifference to the Constitutional and other rights of all Plaintiffs, this Court should award punitive damages against each individually named Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:
1. For a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C., Sections 2201 and 2202, which determines and declares the validity of the contentions of the parties set forth in Paragraphs 52 to 54, above;
2. For a judgment for compensatory, general and special damages in the amounts prayed for in the Second Cause of action set forth above;
3. For a judgment for punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and to make examples of these Defendants, and to deter these Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct;
4. For an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs of suit incurred herein; and:
5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: January 10, 2010.
HODGES AND ASSOCIATE
By: [Signed]
A. CLIFTON HODGES
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
• EDITOR'S NOTE:
This document should be read in conjunction with our reports dated 7th and 9th January 2010.
These can be accessed instantly by pressing ARCHIVE.
LIST OF U.S. STATUTES, SECURITIES REGULATIONS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF WHICH THE CRIMINALISTS, ASSOCIATES AND ALL THE MAIN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REMAIN IN BREACH:
LEGAL TUTORIAL: The Steps of Common Fraud:
Step 1: Fraud in the Inducement: “… is intended to and which does cause one to execute an instrument, or make an agreement… The misrepresentation involved does not mislead one as the paper he signs but rather misleads as to the true facts of a situation, and the false impression it causes is a basis of a decision to sign or render a judgment”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
Step 2: Fraud in Fact by Deceit (Obfuscation and Denial) and Theft:
• “ACTUAL FRAUD. Deceit. Concealing something or making a false representation with an evil intent [scanter] when it causes injury to another…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
• “THE TORT OF FRAUDULENT DECEIT… The elements of actionable deceit are: A false representation of a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity, or recklessly, or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth, and with intent to induce reliance thereon, on which plaintiff justifiably relies on his injury…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Deceit’.
Step 3: Theft by Deception and Fraudulent Conveyance:
THEFT BY DECEPTION:
• “FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT… The hiding or suppression of a material fact or circumstance which the party is legally or morally bound to disclose…”.
• “The test of whether failure to disclose material facts constitutes fraud is the existence of a duty, legal or equitable, arising from the relation of the parties: failure to disclose a material fact with intent to mislead or defraud under such circumstances being equivalent to an actual ‘fraudulent concealment’…”.
• To suspend running of limitations, it means the employment of artifice, planned to prevent inquiry or escape investigation and mislead or hinder acquirement of information disclosing a right of action, and acts relied on must be of an affirmative character and fraudulent…”.
Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., 'Black’s Law Dictionary’, Revised 4th Edition, St Paul: West Publishing Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent Concealment’.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE:
• “FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE… A conveyance or transfer of property, the object of which is to defraud a creditor, or hinder or delay him, or to put such property beyond his reach…”.
• “Conveyance made with intent to avoid some duty or debt due by or incumbent or person (entity) making transfer…”.
Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., ‘Black’s Law Dictionary', Revised 4th Edition, St Paul: West Publishing Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent Conveyance’.
U.S. SECURITIES REGULATIONS OF WHICH INSTITUTIONS
HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE IN BREACH [SEE REPORTS]:
• NASD Rule 3120, et al.
• NASD Rule 2330, et al
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3040
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and IM-2110-1
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and SEC Rule 15c3-1
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3110
• SEC Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and Procedural Rule 8210
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 2330 and IM-2330
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and IM-2110-5
• NASD Systems and Programme Rules 6950 through 6957
• 97-13 Bank Secrecy Act, Recordkeeping Rule for funds transfers and transmittals of funds, et al.
U.S. LAWS ROUTINELY BREACHED BY THE CRIMINAL OPERATIVES AND INSTITUTIONS:
• Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act
• Anti-Drug Abuse Act
• Applicable international money laundering restrictions
• Bank Secrecy Act
• Crimes, General Provisions, Accessory After the Fact [Title 18, USC]
• Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act
• Economic Espionage Act
• Hobbs Act
• Imparting or Conveying False Information [Title 18, USC]
• Maloney Act
• Misprision of Felony [Title 18, USC] (1)
• Money-Laundering Control Act
• Money-Laundering Suppression Act
• Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
• Perpetration of repeated egregious felonies by State and Federal public employees and their Departments and agencies, which are co-responsible with the said employees for ONGOING illegal and criminal actions, to sustain fraudulent operations and crimes in order to cover up criminalist activities and High Crimes and Misdemeanours by present and former holders of high office under the United States
• Provisions pertaining to private business transactions being protected under both private and criminal penalties [H.R. 3723]
• Provisions prohibiting the bribing of foreign officials [F.I.S.A.]
• Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [R.I.C.O.]
• Securities Act 1933
• Securities Act 1934
• Terrorism Prevention Act
• Treason legislation, especially in time of war.
• BEWARE OF MALICIOUS IMITATIONS: It has come to our notice that certain websites have been in the habit of copying reports from this site, attributing the reports to the Editor of this service, but at the same time AMENDING AND INSERTING TEXT NOT WRITTEN BY THE EDITOR.
• This is a very old, malevolent US counterintelligence DIRTY TRICK.
Therefore, you should be advised that the GENUINE ORIGINAL REPORT is, by obvious definition, accessible ONLY FROM THIS WEBSITE. If you come across an article elsewhere that is attributed to the Editor of this service, you should refer to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE and you should bear in mind that the illegally duplicated article may contain text that was NOT written by the Editor of this service, but which was inserted for malicious purposes by counterintelligence.
Likewise, although we haven't yet had time to elaborate this issue, we have taken drastic steps around the world to close off the malicious piracy of our books. One technique used by several disreputable sites (in the United States, the Netherlands and Switzerland) is to copy our title(s) and (a) to display an image of the front cover WITHOUT THE ISBN DATA at the top of the cover; and (b) to DELETE THE COPYRIGHT PAGE. In so doing, the criminal pirates proclaimed that they knew perfectly well that they were/are engaged in theft and can be prosecuted for stealing copyright.
• Please be advised that the Editor of International Currency Review and associated intelligence services cannot enter into email correspondence related to this or to any of the earlier reports.
We are a private intelligence publishing house and have no connections to any outside parties including intelligence agencies. The word ‘intelligence’ on this website and in all our marketing material is used for marketing/sales purposes only and has no other connotations whatsoever: see ‘About Us’ on the red panels under the Notes on the Editor, Christopher Story FRSA, who has been solely and exclusively engaged as an investigative journalist, Editor, Author and private financial and current affairs Publisher since 1963 and is not and never has been an agent for a foreign power, suggestions to the contrary being actionable for libel in the English Court.
Huge News! CMKM/CMKX PLAINTIFFS TO APPEAR ON NBC-DATELINE is 100% confirmed by a close friend of my who is a part of it!!!
It will hold off airing until the judge deal with the SEC.
Oh ya
Hold on Guys. It will get interesting. lol
Has anyone heard any updates on this as it is way past 10 days?
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/cmkmopinion062309.htm
Fung speechless???????? Somehow I highly doubt it. LOL
Neither was your post.
What does the UFO have to do with CMKX ? bunch of huwee
Hang tight too...
Asteroid Toutatis is coming your way...on December 12, 2012
http://ddig.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/asteroid-toutatis-approaches-earth-on-december-12-2012/
The asteroid that will come very close in 2029 will be on Friday the 13th of April. nicknamed "Apophis", which is the Egyptian god of evil and destruction.
LOL but I'm sure its just like the UFO theory eyyy
Thats an eye opener for all of us on here.
What you said is possible. Wow you can in fact own shares of CMKX prior to UC!
So Edwards was the mastermind from the very beginning!!!
He managed to defraud banks, TA's, everyone.
No wonder the FBI was involved!
You wouldn't stand a chance... lol