CMKM Diamonds Inc (fka CMKX)

[Pedro2004]

Fryer Report

nufced
Administrator
Joined: Aug 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,978
Re: Fryars Final Report.......Hodges EXPOSED???
« Reply #46 Yesterday at 9:34pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU WEINER....I will try and find a way.

here......

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80870588/Fryars-Final-Report-2


Read more: http://qbidtalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8734&page=3#ixzz1lqJZvsZw









Complaint filed with CA State Bar

January 24, 2012


Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299


Re: Al Clifton Hodges; California State Bar No. 46803; 4 East Holly Street, Suite
202, Pasadena, California 91103-2900; 9626-564-9797)



To Whom It May Concern:

This complaint addresses the unprofessional conduct of California licensed attorney Al Clifton Hodges. Mr. Hodges has engaged in a pattern of unethical conduct, including but not limited to the intentional and repeated evasion of subpoena service for a court ordered deposition brought by the undersigned (In re Vu Tran; Case Number: GC048503; Los Angeles Superior Court, Northeast District), as well as the misleading and false statements made as class counsel to putative class members in a federal action in California (David Anderson, et al v. Christopher Cox, et al; Federal Case Number :CV10-00031; Appeal No. 11-55169; U.S. District Court for Central District of California and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit).

I first became aware of Mr. Hodges in April of 2011. A group of over 200 shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (“CMKM”) retained my firm to investigate the factual basis of a federal action filed by Hodges in the Central District of California. The shareholders were excited over the allegations raised in the complaint, namely, that a trust fund exists for the benefit of CMKM shareholders containing millions or possibly trillions of dollars. The federal complaint sets forth no factual basis for how such a trust could exist. CMKM shareholders had contacted Mr. Hodges repeatedly regarding the veracity of his claims. Mr. Hodges refused to respond to their inquiries, and instead, consistently told CMKM shareholders that a settlement of the litigation was “rapidly approaching”.

Our firm understood that Hodges would not reveal the basis for his allegations, absent a court ordered deposition. Accordingly, we filed a petition in Harris County, Texas to require Hodges to appear at a pre-law suit deposition. A copy of our



Avniel J. Addler
January 24, 2012
Page 2 of 2


Petition and the exhibits relevant to this complaint are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Texas court ruled in our favor and issued letters rogatory to depose Hodges in his home state, California. Our firm paid the requisite filing fees in California and the clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a deposition subpoena. A copy of the order on the Texas Petition as well as the Letter Rogatory to California to depose Hodges is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

Since that time, Mr. Hodges has evaded service and refused to respond to any effort at communication by our office. There were a total of four (4) service attempts at Mr. Hodges’ registered office at 4 East Holly Street, Suite 202, Pasadena, California 91103 and five (5) service attempts at various residences in Glendale and Apple Valley. Copies of the subpoena service attempts, as well as the letters, emails and fax communications from our office to Mr. Hodges are attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

I am not a California attorney, nor a client of Mr. Hodges. However, at a minimum Hodges owes a fiduciary duty to putative class members in a federal class action. See, e.g., In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 801 (3rd Cir.1995) (holding that class attorneys owe a fiduciary duty to the entire class, once the class complaint is filed). This duty should require Hodges to communicate truthfully and honestly to putative class members, especially concerning settlement offers. See California State Rules of Professional Conduct 3-500 and 3-510 (general duty to communicate with clients and specific duty to communicate settlement offers). Moreover, Mr. Hodges’ evasive behavior regarding subpoena service is not in line with the high standards of professionalism required of attorneys in any state. I recommend disciplinary action.

Sincerely,


Avniel J. Adler, Esq.



Read more: http://qbidtalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8739#ixzz1lqJznGMu