A Closet

[fung_derf]

Allan Treffrey's version of his involvement....Reese responds

From: IBAFT (Rep: 0) Date: 01/04/2011 18:21
Forum: Cmkm Diamonds Inc - Msg #238 Thread #673134354 (Rec: 0)
One such sample of an email between myself and Reese


From: Reece Hamilton
To: Allan Treff
Sent: Fri, November 19, 2010 1:45:38 PM
Subject: Re: Alan Treffrey comments tonight (9 PM -12Mid)

Allan,

I am tired of your ramblings and look foreword to this being over. You are the only one with connections to the mob as I recall. Did you not represent some of them in the past. I truly believe that you suffer from Bi-polar disorder.I once again will say that Al seems to share more with Bob, Sheila and myself because we have always been supportive of him. Unlike you interjecting your limited legal advise and extreme paranoid opinions on who should be named in the lawsuit.I remind you that in July of 2009 you yourself told me that you lacked the knowledge or the skills to take this case on. I have tried to stay off the boards the past few weeks but I receive emails and phone calls on a daily basis of what you and your idiot friends (gr8hiker,fisty,Spudey,Don Mccurdy) are saying that Al is not following the wishes of Peter Mahue and that Al is gone off the reservation with his new spook friends.
I for one have asked Al to establish one of the Plaintiffs to be the spokesperson for us.He has always told me that he would not sensor any of us. So I believe if Al was displeased with any of us he would have put a stop to it. So I would have to conclude that he may not always be pleased with information being out to the shareholders however if he was so upset about it he would put it to a halt.
I have to wonder why you joined this lawsuit if you did not completely trust Al. It is apparent that you don't and that is why you continue to bash your fellow plaintiffs as well as Al. So I will pray that this all ends soon for all of us.Once again for the record I am not and never have been a employee of the Government. So please tell that Spudey to quit telling people that I was his FBI contact for the past five years. I will remind you that I do have a friend pretty high up in the FBI and as soon as we get paid I will be happy to fly him stateside to meet with you and your associates. So I would encourage all of us to take a pause here and let this all go. I for one am very hopeful of a triumphant outcome in the very near future.

Respectfully,

Reece
__________________________


Hello Reese,

Permit me to address some of your comments about my "ramblings."

As to my alleged mob connections: For appx. 3 years, I worked for the company eConnect as one of the company's legal counsel, a job I had taken in good faith. At the time of my employment, not only was I a shareholder, but after doing significant research on the technology, I strongly believed that it was a legitimate company and a top-notch tech with a great future and thus, I accepted the employment offer to be their in-house counsel. Because I had been a supportive shareholder before my employment, I had visited the facility in San Pedro on several occasions, I was introduced to management through a common acquaintance and shareholder and the fact I lived just a few miles from the office, I would imagine those reasons are partially why the job offer was made to me, in addition to my charm and good looks. Yes, elements of the mafia infiltrated on the financing side, apparently giving death-spiral financing that ultimately destroyed the company. Note, this financing happened before I got hired. Some say that the CEO was of a dubious character and one day may have to answer for his misdeeds. Of that claim I cannot comment. However, what you fail to acknowledge in your letter to me is that once I felt uncomfortable, I promptly quit. Most unfortunately, I do not possess a crystal ball and can see the hearts of everyone I deal with in advance. Sometimes it takes dealing with people for a while to really see who they are, be it working for them as an attorney or perhaps even sharing the role as plaintiff in a lawsuit.

By the way, doing what I believed was the right thing almost got me harmed or killed on multiple occasions. For example, very unpleasant people personally visited my house to threaten me and my family, telling me to shut up about the Wall Street corruption. I was set up to meet people I later discovered were very dangerous and likely not sent to sell me girl scout cookies. I also got multiple death threats by phone, the criminals hired literally dozens of people to attack my character on the internet, and my car was vandalized. Of course, the feds did their usual crackerjack job in addressing these threats by stating that after someone gets hurt, then I should call them. My tax dollars at work. So, those are the extent of my contacts to the mob, other than the fact I have been openly speaking out against them and their intense corruption of the federal government ever since. If you like, maybe you should pull up my name on a Google search and see the dozens of letters I wrote to the SEC about corruption, if you want to know where I stand.

Funny thing, you seem to be implying something nefarious about my character because of my "connections to the mob" when in reality, I did not even know the company I worked for was tied in any way to the mob when I took the job, and I quit once I even suspected it. So, I guess it be reasonable to say that your comments about my "mob connection" is important enough to mention because such "connections" make me somehow untrustworthy - is that fair to say? After all, it is my understanding that this morning, you called me a "GD liar" several times in the grapevine.. right? I would imagine that there is a correlation between me having unpleasant ties to the "mob" and me being of this untrustworthy character.. is that a fair assumption? Ok, I can live with that characterization. However, what does that say for Al that he knowingly represented Johnny Roselli, a person he knew to be in the mob, as his criminal attorney? How about the fact that our alleged underlying hero in CMKX, Robert Maheu, was deeply connected to the mob as he was a sort of go-between with mob and government? Wow Reese, how can you have knowingly taken your place in this lawsuit with people that you obviously believe are of such lowly character? What does that fact say for you?

By the way, in 2009, I did state to you that I did not have the resources, the facts and the evidence to take on this case, not that I lacked the legal knowledge and the skill. It is important distinction to get these insults right, especially when you have so many times told shareholders that I am not a competent attorney and I should not be trusted. You see, I have bit my lip for quite some time, and taken the lies and defamation from you on several occasions, as well as only gently trying to get you to stop your mind-screw of the shareholders on the boards. In the spirit of keeping peace, I have said nothing of most of it or taken a very gentle approach in my efforts to stop you, Sheila and Bob to stop this misinformation campaign. This type of reserved response on my part certainly sounds like a bi-polar type, now doesn't it? However, since you have been kind enough to open up to me and lay it all on the table, I only felt it decent if I returned the courtesy.

By the way, it is not just my "limited legal advice" that contends that more parties should be included in the lawsuit or that other causes of action might be well added. I am not the sole attorney involved in this stock, nor am I the sole attorney who has reviewed this case. Since you appear to have zero legal training, perhaps it is best for you not to interject opinions into matters that are above your pay grade and knowledge. As for why I was brought into this lawsuit, I would imagine that it because in addition to the fact most of the real shareholders deeply trust me and my presence here would be a soothing effect on them, I basically funded the lawsuit because unlike you who promised $25,000 and did not deliver, I promised $10,000 and delivered $10,000 (plus an additional $5,000 to cover costs that Al personally covered later).

As far as me and "my idiot friends" like Fisty, Gr8hiker, Spudey, and Don McCurdy, making the comments that Al is not following Maheu or that he is "off the reservation".. I would love to see such comments. I have NEVER once made such a statement. I have never ragged on Al or attacked his character and in fact, I have made it a point every time I post that I trust in the man, even if this nightmare of a CMKX scenario is very frustrating. However, in typical spook fashion, you are ignoring the facts of what I have said and made up your own scenario and made this into a personal issue, trying to place me on the defense. You and Bob are also trying to emphasize that I am attacking Al, which is as complete a mountain of bull manure, almost as much as your repeated false dates and events you guys give out that never-EVER happen. As you can tell, I have seen this routine before. I am aware that it is standard government intel (a contradiction in terms?) operating procedure, and the same in the spook world, that when someone nails you with facts and evidence and you want to avoid, avoid it by making the issue either a personal attack on their credibility or create a fact to discuss that does not really exist - a.k.a - focus shifting. An example of standard fed/spook operating procedure: Innocent query to Fed: Was JFK killed by more than just Oswald because all the evidence I have here proves otherwise? Fed thinking to himself: Uh oh, I do not have any answers to that damning evidence, because we were involved, so I had better draw the attention from the issue to inquirer. Fed response to inquiry: Oh that guy is mentally unstable, bi-polar, a GD liar, saw bigfoot, the yeti, the Lochness Monster, the chupacabra and he claims he was abducted by aliens. Like the defense attorney to the poor rape victim, attacking the woman as a whore and ignoring the evidence, know that in spite of your subterfuge, I can see you.

Of course when it comes to attacking the person and not addressing the issues, Acca has done it, you have done it, Sheila has done it, and even Bob is now doing it by repeatedly trying to put me on the defense and state that I have been attacking Al when NONE of the language I have written is an attack. You are trying to shift the focus to me instead of the real issues. Indeed, what is truly disconcerting is that we have feds/spooks here, lying to us on a regular basis, and we are still not paid. I want you to know, that your presence here, Bob's and Sheila's, with all of the fabricated dates and events, is the single biggest cause of the shareholders' discontent and doubts that we will ever be paid - without any doubt. However, irrespective of a spook agenda or not, it is shameful to malign people for just wanting the truth. I made the same mistake with Urban, albeit innocently, realized I was wrong, and I openly apologized for it. However, you are doing it now with knowledge aforethought and intent and for that, one day you will account for your actions and the tremendous harm it has done to innocent people. Maybe one day, when truth settles in your spirit, you will do the same thing with me - apologize- although I am not holding my breath.

I have heard of the several instances where you tried to undermine my credibility throughout this procedure. You told people I am not a competent lawyer, that I am bi-polar, that I am a GD liar, that I am "too combative," that Al does not trust me for every reason under the sun; yet, he somehow trusts you, Sheila and Bob, the three people who can not stop talking and exposing everything from his private conversations to his private emails to the plaintiffs, the ones who are acting in a totally UN-plaintiff manner and risking the success of this lawsuit. Of course, your campaign to attack my credibility is legally actionable, but again, in the spirit of peace and for the benefit of the shareholders, I have refrained from slapping you down with a lawsuit - although believe me Reese, I have truly been tempted. Again, such restraint and the ability to control one's disdain for being wrongfully defamed certainly sounds like an unstable bi-polar mind to me, doesn't it you Reese? By the way, is your diagnosis of my bi-polar condition one based upon your professional medical insights, or are you using the same professional expertise that you used to analyze my legal insights? That's quality Reese, real quality. Never forget, I can see you.

As far as you speaking openly on the boards, including sharing Al's private emails, giving dates and events that never happen and the like, and that Al is not opposed to you doing it, I guess your memory is conveniently faltering. Permit me to bring up one of the emails from Al's office that basically asked you to shut up, but you conveniently ignored it.

Here is my April 23, 2010 letter requesting all plaintiffs remain off of the board, Note Dennis Smith's response immediately follows:

Dear All,

I am writing this letter to share a perspective that perhaps some do not have, and to make one last effort to emphasize an important point. That point is the need for us, as plaintiffs in a lawsuit with thousands of people relying upon us, to cease speaking on public boards and to quit publicly giving specific facts regarding our case. As one of the only attorneys that is in this stock who, through circumstance, has made himself relatively accessible to the average shareholder, I have gotten voluminous communications over the years from those who are broke, marriage-stressed, in foreclosure, creditor-harassed, car being repossessed, overdrawn, bankruptcy candidates, physically ill who can not continue to afford insurance, juggling one bill to pay the other, defendants in lawsuits, near death and more, seeking my advice. Over the past several years, I have assisted dozens of CMKX'ers one way or another, so I have the confidence of of many people in this stock who readily and honestly confide in me. So why do I write you about these issues?

Forget that some of these people referenced above got into their economic straights - in part - because they listened to, and trusted dates and timelines that were promised from unverified sources. Some were told to run up the credit cards, others to refinance the house, others even told not to pay their tuition for the semester and put the money into CMKX, and the like. This trust was founded in unverified sources so in reality, I recognize that the greatest degree of fault for people putting themselves in a tough place financially, are the investors themselves. However, we as plaintiffs are not merely unverified, unconnected sources in a Paltalk room. We are people who literally have one-step connections to Robert Maheu himself, through Al. Almost every time we speak as plaintiffs, it is information ending up somehow attributed to Al, so it carries the highest levels of authority. That degree of credibility from Maheu - through Al - is weighty, if not the most significant basis for reliance that the majority of the shareholders have come across their entire time in this stock. Although there is not really much more to decide regarding further investing in CMKX (unless a person purchases shares from Deli), people still have significant financial decisions to make based upon current events surrounding CMKX and further, their mental and emotional stability is being brutally taxed by our seemingly endless head-fakes, misdirection, unkept promises, unfulfilled dates, false representations, roller coaster rides and more. Because the plaintiff(s) continue to give this false information to the shareholders - so often on the public boards - we are doing great injustices to the shareholder base, both in misleading them and potentially damaging the case itself. To be blunt, it is clearly an unwise legal strategy and it is blatantly an unfair and even cruel practice to the shareholders. It is a mental and emotional rape that has been perpetrated upon the shareholders, in one form or another, for nearly seven years and frankly, it is a practice that I can not believe continues to this day. I am ashamed to be a part of it, even if the guilt is mostly by association. In the eyes of many shareholders, we have been elevated to the level of "full of bullshit" - "untrustworthy" - "stupid idiots" - "we have an ulterior agenda" - "cruel" - "the new wannabe gurus" - "blatant liars" etc.. We are fast being viewed an enemy of this cause when in fact, we really should be viewed by all as trying to help. This shareholder discord is our own fault and for me, after numerous efforts to have it stopped so as to not be a part of causing this shareholder misery, I find myself with no choice in the matter beyond what I am writing to you now.

As you well know, I am merely a plaintiff in this case. I am not the attorney prosecuting the case and I have refrained from pushing whatever my ideas to prosecute the case upon Al for he is the attorney and I am the client. Further, it is clear that Al must have access to far more information than he is releasing to us, or we would not be here today. My extremely limited access to additional information is another reason why I refrain from adding more input into this case. Basically put, I do not have the facts and evidence to add much to Al's work - so I don't. You should all know that much like a doctor being the worst type of medical patient, a lawyer is usually the worst type of law client another lawyer can have because of the natural tendency of the client to act like a lawyer, not just as a client. It has been difficult to remain in the client role for me, especially since I do not have access to all the evidence involved. I have restrained my instincts and even my own logic and placed tremendous trust in Al.

So, I do acknowledge that I am not properly positioned to dictate the strategy in this case and I have so refrained to date. However, whether I push for certain case strategies or not, I do have the option to remain as a plaintiff or to quit being a plaintiff. I would not presume to do so at this time due to any strategies that Al has engaged to date, but I could definitely do so based upon other factors - like the plaintiff(s) continuing to put the shareholders through the living hell that is the roller coaster ride of every untrue story from "Al is speaking tonight" to "Al said we already have economic receipt" to "the packages are arriving tomorrow" and the like. I am not talking about people merely expressing general opinions in a private context, and qualifying statements as such. I am talking about the definitive statements - unqualified statements - the public statements - that cause shareholders the enduring suffering of the plaintiff-induced bi-polar syndrome we have been responsible for foisting upon them. Further, plaintiffs in a lawsuit should NEVER - and I mean NEVER be making any sort of detailed public statements about the substance of a case of which they are involved - period - especially in our case knowing who is listening on these boards. As plaintiffs in a case regarding CMKX, we should be ultra-cautious of public statements of fact since we all know that the public boards are replete with mafia, bank agents, government and every other form of enemy to our cause imaginable. As if any one of us would want the mafia to know in advance when and how shareholder packages with checks or debit cards worth several millions of dollars are scheduled to arrive, so as to give these evil men a heads up on the matter, and provide to them any greater advantage to harm us than they already have.

Going back to the shareholders I have helped over the years, the fact I am relatively accessible to them, have their trust and the fact they are openly truthful with me, I have gotten more than an earful of people so angry with us that one would think that we are the enemy of the shareholders and not the bankers or the government. Further, when I address the rumors and try to somewhat soften the misinformation and the firm dates that some plaintiff(s) have been publicly releasing, I then learn that behind the scenes, those same plaintiff(s) then try to discredit me as being "out of the loop and don't know what I am talking about" or "not intelligent enough to deal with this case" or "I am the party responsible for giving out all the information so Al has cut me off" and more. I have endured this nonsense for quite some time, and in addition to some other very telling incidents, it has led me to believe that there is much more to certain people in this lawsuit than is being told. But personally, I could care less if some persons are federal agents, private spooks, Elvis impersonators or the local dog catcher, or if my phone is being tapped and my own words are being used against me by other plaintiff(s), or even if all of this public disclosure amounts to acts of fulfillment of some deep desire to live life in the CMKX heroes spotlight. If we get paid in a reasonable time, I can endure a lot of nonsense, even a degree of deception and the personal attacks that come with this endeavor. However, there is one thing I will not be around to endeavor anymore and that is this brutal emotional and mental abuse of the shareholders caused by our irresponsible public comments. Again, it is not only deceptive, it is unkind and even cruel to people who have been living on the edge for years. People are really suffering and we as plaintiffs - instead of making their burden lighter - are greatly responsible for the severity of their anguish. I write this letter to you all because I want no part of it anymore.

I know you are saying, "so what if Allan steps out of this lawsuit, we don't need him." If you made that mental assessment of my comments, I want you to know that I completely agree with you - you do not really need me to be here at all. I already paid my $10,000 as a retainer fee and it is non-refundable to date, so perhaps my usefulness as a plaintiff is a thing of the past. I am at the stage that I do not care either way and further, the "show" can easily go on without me. However, to be fair to everyone and not just disappear without warning, I felt it right to state my position first. Big money coming or not, there is a time in which human dignity and compassion has a role of primary consideration and that time has come for me. I do not want to be a part of causing unnecessary grief to these people anymore, nor associated to it, when such conduct is not only contrary to our best interests as plaintiffs, but also nothing shy of a repeated exercise in cruelty.

In summary, other than rare circumstances (which this is not one of them and Al agrees) it is simply, unquestionably and absolutely a terrible practice for the plaintiffs to talk about the substance of this lawsuit - especially in a public forum full of our enemies looking for any advantage they can get from us. Secondly, it is unfair and even cruel to these shareholders to continually mislead them and keep them on a roller coaster ride straight to emotional and mental hell. Lastly, if I see the plaintiff(s) on the public boards tossing out firm dates again on "economic receipt," "Al talking to the shareholders," "packages arrival dates" or ANY other issue causing further ongoing shareholder headache, I am simply going to dismiss myself out of the case. This decision is not personal, it is every bit logical, good business, basic legal strategy and morally the proper thing to do.

I am sorry that this matter has come to the point of this letter; however, I have already tried several times to discourage the plaintiff rumormille in a softer and more amicable manner, all efforts failing miserably. If the shareholder(s)' public comments were somehow sanctioned by Al, or if he felt them to be a proper strategy, I would say nothing. Al has clearly told me that he agrees with me and does not want these discussions of particulars on the public boards. I hope that all plaintiffs can appreciate my position on this matter that the importance of discretion in these issues are multi-fold. I do expect to remain a part of this lawsuit, just as I expect these words to supersede all issues of emotion or ego, and appeal strictly to your logic such to have merit for all. If not, then there are no hard feelings but we will part as plaintiffs in this common cause. I genuinely hope that these words fall upon receptive ears.

Sincerely,

AFT

_________________________________

RESPONSE FROM DENNIS:
_________________________________
Hi Everyone,
Just want you to know we're in sync with Allan on this.
Regards,
Dennis

--- On Fri, 4/23/10, Dennis Smith wrote:

From: Dennis Smith
Subject: Re: One Last Plea
To: "Allan Treff"
Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 1:24 PM

Excellent letter Allan; hope it sinks in.
-d.
_______________________________________
Of course, this is just a couple of the multiple emails I received endorsing my position that you guys cease and desist on this matter. It is also in addition to the several conversations we all had, including one that you apologized to Al at lunch for revealing his private email and promising never to do it again, a promise that lasted a whole of 12 hours because you revealed his private conversations we had with him at that very lunch later that night on Paltalk. Al did try to put a stop to you three speaking on the boards and you all refused to comply. That is the sole reason I returned to the boards, because SOMEONE had to counteract the madness of you guys talking so much - madness that was nothing more than a cruel mind-screw by the feds and worse - if this lawsuit it truly real, perhaps the STUPIDEST thing a plaintiff could ever do. If we ever do go to trial (God forbid), then I assure you that you will be brought to testify - not that Al would use you - but to testify against our credibility.

As to why I wanted to join this lawsuit, I did it to help myself and other people. I did not do it to participate in a lie, in screwy fed mind games, to harm people and certainly, not to allow my fellow plaintiffs blow it for us by speaking out of school. Not only did I provide the bulk of the cash to fund it, but before I got into it, I specifically asked if I was being told everything. I was so told but it was clearly not correct. Had I been told that I was going to be used to buy time - time for our government to screw us over and over and over - I would not have signed up. You see, in spite of all the madness that you have accustomed yourself to in your role here, all the justifications you may have for being deceitful, callous, duplicitous, insensitive to the pain of thousands of people, it is not justified as it did not have to go down this way. The real reason we are not paid, the real reason that the deceptions go on and on, the real reason why there are still open book demands for real investigations into the JFK and RFK Assassinations, 9-11, Oklahoma City, Flight 800, The Vietnam war and more is that the government is replete with arrogant and proud people who cannot admit that they have ever done wrong or that something happened on their watch that they should have stopped. Had the government told the truth form the start, it would have ben painful, but then the real criminals could have been arrested (instead of dancing free with their loot), the money could have been recovered and the nightmare that this operation has put into the minds of simple and honest people would not have had to occur.

Even if this "sting" had to go down, and this lawsuit was somehow necessary, Al could have filed the it, we all stayed off of the boards, and Al gave an update every couple weeks. Instead, you and/or your bosses decided that it would be fun to take innocent people and run them through a ringer over and over and over until they are so damaged that no amount of money could ever make it right. This is a truth that you will have to live with and die with and nothing can change that fact.

As far as bringing your FBI contact to meet us one day, I remember you telling me that after he moved to London, you could not reach him anymore.. remember? You said that he was prohibited from speaking to you anymore in fear of losing his job, that he changed his email and number and moved to London. Hmmmm.. I guess what I am trying to say is no matter who you bring to some staged meeting you hope will change our mind that you are not a fed and/or spook, we ain't gonna buy it.

All of this bantering aside, I make the same offer to you that I did to Bob, the same proposition I proposed several times before. WE ALL STAY OFF OF THE BOARDS AND QUIT USING OTHER SHAREHOLDERS TO BRING INFO TO THE BOARDS. Let Al be the one to give plaintiff and shareholder updates, then there is no room for lies, misdirection, repeated mind screwing and in the end, we act like real plaintiffs in a real lawsuit should act. However, I will not stop going on the boards and counteracting the information that I perceive to be clearly false. As long as my name is associated to this lawsuit, as with any other cause in the public eye where my interests are at stake, I have a right to expect those I stand with to act in an appropriate manner. To date, that has NOT happened.

Forgive the avalanche of facts. I welcome your response, although it would be nice if your response dealt with real issues and not just attacked me personally or focused on words I never said..

Respectfully,

Allan