Ruling, Frizzle, NSS and other stuff.
I'm beat here, but the Kool Aid drip is still kicking in at least until tomorrow when something entirely different will come up and change the whole picture again. lol
I commented on the ruling earlier. Janice's post actually summed the ruling up nicely. All I wanted to add was that Judge Murray mentioned the 400 shareholders which Frizzle stated in his motion that he represents. The higher that number goes, the more influence can be placed by shareholders in this trial. She would have to see the protection of so many is paramount here. Her ruling today shows this to be true.
Next....here's a copy of a post I made over on proboards which in light of the last 31 hours of events has made me do a 180 on Atty Frizzle's motion:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TBone and JJ,
Respectfully, It's not what you guys are saying anymore, which is basically "let the T/A and or attornies figure it out on their own.
It's way beyond that guys. If you read my posts on IHUB over the last few weeks, and especially as recent as 30 hours ago regarding Frizzle you would have found the strongest voice echo'ing your feelings. I was also shouting from the porch roof different issues on litigation management and the posts regarding the applicable law in this case which were unique to the boards.
Here's where I'm coming from when I say there needs to be an independent accounting done by shareholders under the coordination of counsel:
NSS is illegal. Many suspect CMKX has a large naked short position but it would be hard to prove. I respectfully suggest that the T/A's numbers may not be accurate as to the actual float. If the MM's have naked shorted CMKX bigtime, then it is very possible the numbers being sent to the T/A via the DTC, brokers and MM's may not be accurate. If the DTC, brokers and MM's have played a part in this by turning a blind eye or aided in naked shorting my belief is the numbers from the T/A may also be skewed to cover up the extent of the problem. This skewing stems from bogus numbers or transactions which may be reported back to the T/A by the DTC, brokers and MM's.
How to determine the actual float is for counsel to expand this share verification process for all shareholders. Then match this number with what the T/A has. The difference could be profound in itself further confirming the NSS problem.
It is to counsel's benefit to keep this momentum going by coming up with a solid share verification campaign like they have started.
I know 550 have sent $25.00 but lets be realistic, if there are 50,000-60,000 of us all they would have to do is reduce the sign in cost to $1 or 2$ per shareholder.
Before you get on me about the low entry, remember $2 x 60000 = $120,000 which is more than enough money for any defense costs. Way more. Is this fair to the 550 that have already signed up?
Let me put it this way, at a much reduced lowered cost like I suggest:
1) More than enough money will be available for defense.
2) The actual float can be confirmed. It would take less than 1 week in which we would know if the float exceeds the number the T/A has on the books with likely many more shareholders to still be accounted for. Many would sign up for $1 or $2 in a heartbeat.
3) At this much reduced lower cost, Atty Frizzle could make the decision of refunding those who have sent $25 in the difference, especially if a flood of money comes in AND he now has rock solid evidence of NSS.
No one was more skeptical of this effort yesterday before 4pm than I was. But in business, sports or life you have to adapt to change quickly or you'll be on the outside looking in no matter what your endeavor.
The events of the last 2 days were watershed moments of change. The information regarding the 550 shareholders comprising 80 billion shares already is the fuel that has sparked me to look at this differently like I've outlined above.
We need a sparkplug among the shareholders to share this thread with counsel so they can respond accordingly to let us know how to best proceed. I suggest Kevin because he obviously has a close relationship in some way with Frizzle.
Game on guys. We can do this. : )
Bo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The main reasons I am fine with Frizzle being on-board now are twofold.
First, Atty Stocklein is still lead defense counsel with respect to this action. Any cross examination that Atty Frizzle or his co-counsel will be doing will most likely be in direct consultation and recommendation from Stocklein. That sits well with me. In my experience a well coordinated (but not arrogant or pushy) effort by 2 or more defense teams is always a plus to have.
Next, see my proboards post above. The NSS issue can be confirmed by Atty Frizzle lowering his entry cost ($1 or $2) so to entice the vast majority of shareholders to participate and confirm their holdings to him. Through a verification process, they can then calculate the float in comparison to the T/A's numbers.
So in light of this new information, I'm sorry I grizzled at Frizzle. My posts which drizzled on Frizzle have fizzled in the shadow of yesterday's and today's events. The NSS can be confirmed by a party which can present this information himself, or pass it to Atty Stocklein to present if it is Atty Stocklein who will only be allowed to speak beyond cross-examination.
Just think, we'll have tons more to discuss after tomorrow's pre-hearing conference.
In my experience, a pre-hearing conference or pre-trial conference is set by the judge to determine if there is any way this matter can be worked out without having to go to a hearing or trial. I would think that would be the case here. Further Atty Frizzle will likely be questioned on issues regarding his involvement. If the Judge was unaware of the large shareholder base (50,000-60,000) tomorrow would be a good day for Atty Frizzle to mention that although his number states 400 in his motion, there are 50 to 60 thousand shareholders who are also affected by what happens at the hearing.
The case I just posted regarding e-Smart Technologies awhile ago shows a precedent for what may occur here. As I said before, CMKX must report by 4-17-05 to maintain the integrity of their argument. It would also play right into the hands of my second desired outcome which I posted earlier today.
My 2 desired outcomes have not changed at all. It's just we suddenly have an opportunity that wasn't there before yesterday afternoon.
Nite all,
Bo
