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.
they have Edwards, its now whether he Appeals the UK SOS order to extradite
scaffold.lol, I would rather see them sit in a prison cell
thanks for the laff...cute story!
turn them in?
what better way to make fast money, as opposed to creating a viable company.
CMKM diamonds is/was the poster child for dilution.
LOL! he is a piece of work. did you ever see the demo online of the S-xgen, and the keyboard fell off during said demo?
wish I could find it
pinocchio, this could be WHY..unfortunately, Appeals
High Court
A requested person may appeal within 14 days to the High Court if:
the district judge sends the case to the Secretary of State and
the Secretary of State orders his extradition.
A requesting state may appeal within 14 days to the High Court against the discharge of the requested person by:
the judge at the extradition hearing or
the Secretary of State (after the case has been sent to him by the District Judge).
The Supreme Court
A decision of the High Court in an extradition case may be appealed against in the Supreme Court by either a requested person (or if a person is discharged by the High Court, by a requesting state) provided that leave to appeal has been granted.
An appeal to the Supreme Court can only be made on a point of law of general public importance and where it is agreed by the High Court that the point is one which should be considered by the Supreme Court. Section 114 of the 2003 Act sets out the details and time limits for such an appeal.
actually, they went through all those steps. unless I misunderstood your post.
actually, pinocchio, she stated she could not give me any details of the case, had you read the email. Too bad Canada doesn't have the same laws.
Export extradition to category 2 territories
Part 2 of the Extradition Act, in conjunction with any applicable extradition instrument, regulates export extradition from the United Kingdom to category 2 territories. These are states outside the European Union. At present there are almost 100 states designated as category 2 territories.
Upon receipt of a an extradition request from a category 2 territory the Secretary of State for the Home Department, acting on the advice of the Home Offices Judicial Co-operation Unit, must decide whether or not to certify the extradition request.
Requirements for certification are similar but not identical to those imposed for category 1 territories. Having certified the request, documents are sent from the Home Office to City of Westminster Magistrates Court.
The CPS acts as the representative of the requesting state in category 2 cases (as for category 1 territories), and all proceedings are heard at City of Westminster Magistrates Court.
On receipt of papers a district judge at this court decides whether or not to issue an arrest warrant for the wanted person. The judge must have reasonable grounds to believe that the offence is an extraditable offence, which is defined in sections 137 and 138 of the Act and is similar to the provisions for category 1 territories. A second requirement in accordance with section 71 of the Act is, in simple terms, that depending on the state concerned, the judge must also have reasonable grounds for believing that evidence or information contained in the request would in an analogous domestic case justify the issue of a warrant for the persons arrest.
If the judge issues a warrant, the person may be arrested by a constable who does not need to have the warrant with him at the time of arrest. After arrest the person is brought to City of Westminster Magistrates Court as soon as practicable.
At the first court hearing the district judge informs the person about the content of the extradition request; explains to the person that he may consent to his extradition; fixes a date for the start of the extradition hearing, within 2 months from the date of the first appearance; and decides whether to bail the person or remand him in custody till the extradition hearing.
As with category 1 territories, provisional arrest is also possible with requests from category 2 territories, in accordance with sections 73 and 74 of the Act.
At the extradition hearing the judge must decide a number of issues: whether the documentation sent to the court by the Secretary of State complies with the Act; whether the individual arrested is the person named on the warrant; whether the offence detailed in the request is an extradition offence; be satisfied that the person has been given the necessary documentation including copies of the request and the Secretary of States certificate; whether any of the bars to extradition apply; and, whether the extradition would be compatible with the person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Additionally, and for certain states only, section 84 of the Act requires the judge to decide if there is sufficient evidence which would make a case requiring an answer by the person if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him. Section 84 does not apply for a number of states that have been designated by the Secretary of State, including the following: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Macedonia FYR, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States of America.
If the district judge is satisfied on all the above issues at the extradition hearing, the judge must send the case to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State must then consider a number of issues including the following: the possible imposition of the death penalty, in which case extradition cannot be ordered; the rule of specialty, which prohibits a person being dealt with in the requesting state for matters other than those referenced in the extradition request; and whether or not the person was in the UK following extradition from another state, in which case that states permission must be obtained before extraditing to a third state. If these factors do not prevent extradition, the Secretary of State must order extradition within 2 months of the appropriate day, defined in section 102 and in most cases the day on which the district judge referred his decision to the Secretary of State.
The Extradition Act gives both the wanted person and the requesting state a right of appeal against the decision of the district judge, or the Secretary of State. Appeals are to the High Court with timeframes set out in the Act. It is also possible to appeal to the Supreme Court but as with category 1 territories this is only possible if the High Court certifies that the appeal involves a point of law of general public importance, and either the High Court or the Supreme Court gives leave for the appeal to be made.
Similar provisions apply as for category 1 territories if the wanted person is either charged with, or serving a sentence in respect of, a domestic offence.
Is Albert Reda still around?
Welcome Back!!!!!!!!!!!
jim...I believe thats what he expressed.
I will take over your NG shares.
I think you nailed all or most! funny!
I know :(
well factoring in the following, he is deserving of a few bloopers
considering JEFF was pretty much a moot point and considering
the information that has flowed in since 2004....he can't know everything.
Q: How far back in time were you updated on company operations ?
A: Roughly 2007
__q: Who brought you up-to-date ?
__a: Jim Lowden and a few other shareholder are from those claims ?
Q: When did you first take your position ?
A: 2010
interesting, thanks..and did you see this from Mr Kirkpatrick?.....
To All CMKM Shareholders:
On the webinar last night, I inadvertently stirred up unnecessary controversy about the JEFF matter. My answer to a question about Jeffries selling/clear shares of CMKX outside of normal clearing procedures was misleading and incomplete. I am researching this matter closely, and will publish an update fully explaining the facts about Jeffries' dealings in the next few days.
After speaking to many sources today, it is clear to me that most do not understand the facts - including me. I am sorry for creating unnecessary confusion or controversy about this matter. I will get all the facts and present them on the website for your study and understanding. Thank you to those who attended last night's webinar!
Steve Kirkpatrick
well see there, told ya I never followed em..thanks
no clue, never followed them, but I know you did. do they still trade?
lol..wasn't that nice of him, hes so special...:)
do you have a problem with Janice? she's exposed many a scam, including CMKM, Pearl Asia Mining and many others.
oh dang I missed CYRD on that list......yes!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL! whoopeeeeeeee
courtesy of bigbadjohn....he tends to slack off at times
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2012/34-66980.pdf
John Edwards Crown Financial Holdings on the list
appropos!
what did that have to do with my post?
naw jimmy...its the slow moving system
LOL GB
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!
lol, you remember too?
more news to make you yawn...new judge in the case.....176 Filed & Entered: 05/10/2012
Reassign Judge Minute Order
Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Robert C. Jones, as to John M. Edwards, Urban Casavant, Helen Bagley, Brian Dvorak, Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney, Jeffrey Turino, Nickolaj Vissokovsky, Melissa Spooner, Jeffrey Mitchell on 5/10/2012 by Deputy Clerk: Eileen Sterba. IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to Judge Miranda M. Du for all further proceedings. Judge Roger L. Hunt no longer assigned to case. All further documents must bear the correct case number 2:09-CR-0132 MMD-RJJ. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
yes, even tho I never owned pcbm, I do remember her corps thru Turino, like Mountain Passages
no, she's Turinos girlfriend
actually vissokovsky is one that they have not caught up with.
hope so!
they deal with it...don't believe they are removeable. she is getting to shed hers. hope she is getting this perk, cuz shes cooperating
Melissa Spooner-174 Filed & Entered: 05/02/2012
Motion to Modify Conditions of Release
Docket Text: MOTION to Modify Conditions of Release Motion To Remove Electronic Monitoring Device by Melissa Spooner. Release decision entered by Judge Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. Motion ripe 5/2/2012. (Yampolsky, Mace)
175 Filed & Entered: 05/09/2012
Non-Opposition
Docket Text: NON-OPPOSITION to [174] MOTION to Modify Conditions of Release Motion To Remove Electronic Monitoring Device ; filed by USA as to Melissa Spooner. (Chu, Michael)
lol...:)
its asking a question.