I think KFL had a coming-to-Jesus moment back in 2015 when Hodges kept ducking questions about a Trust.
KFL exposed how Trusts work when it comes to accounting, holding, fiduciary responsibilities, and what beneficiaries are allowed to ask for.
Hodges lie about a trust was exposed and KFL made Hodges look foolish.
Answer by KFL :
No. However an undefined, esoteric term "...by attachment..." was proffered, purportedly to justify and allow an unknown/unidentified third-party to both commandeer and divert the funds purportedly for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM bona fide certificate holders. Further, no legal authority was introduced, such as a statute, regulation, treaty, or precedential case law, to allow for said "...attachment...."
A trust is administered and managed in accordance with the precise terms and conditions set forth by the Trustor. The Trustee administers and manages the Trust in accordance with these precise terms and conditions, holding a fiduciary responsibility to the Beneficiaries. Upon fulfillment of the conditions precedent delineated in the Trust, the Trustee will supervise the release of the Trust's assets (i.e., the funds purportedly designated for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM bona fide certificate holders).
All Trust Beneficiaries have standing to seek an accounting from the Trustee. It is via this right that one or more Beneficiaries can enforce the Trust's terms and hold the Trustee accountable. In the instance of the purported CMKM/CMKX Trust Beneficiaries, this appears to be difficult, as no notice of our purported Beneficiary status has been given. Such notice would include at a minimum, the name of the Trust and the identity(ies) of the designated Trustee(s). If you are interested, the following link provides an educational overview of the subject: www.baskinfleece.com/wp-content/themes/baskinfleecefl/media/holding_the_trustee_accountable.pdf
You asked a very logical, intelligent question, the answer to which I also attempted to have answered via both electronic and telephonic communication. The courtesy of a reply was not forthcoming from ACH, Esq.'s office.
In light of the foregoing, the following, logical, intelligent questions exist:
1. If a Trust for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM bona fide Certificates holders exists, why have we not received notice?
2. What are terms, and conditions precedent of the purported Trust?
3. What is the name and contact information for the Trustor(s)?
4. What is the name and contact information for the Trustee(s)?
Al Clifton Hodges, Esq. wrote above: "I am simply a stockholder-beneficiary as are each of you." Why has the Trustee(s) provided only ACH, Esq. with specific knowledge of the existence of the Trust for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM shareholders? On its face, this appears to be a prima facia case for breach of fiduciary duty by the Trustee(s), by selectively releasing Trust information to only one shareholder-beneficiary.
by KFL
It appears the Trustee(s) of the purported Trust for the benefit of all CMKX/CMKM shareholder-beneficiaries has/have bestowed special status to ACH, Esq., by disclosing information about the Trust's existence, its terms, and conditions precedent, to only him.
One of the board administrators recent wrote that all shareholders deserve to know the truth of this saga. The vehicle to learn said truth is to demand an Accounting of the Trust from the Trustee(s). This is a well established practice in Trust law and it is an individual right each and every Trust Beneficiary possess.
I would attempt to contact ACH, Esq. myself, but he long ago stopped responding to both my telephonic and electronic communications, in an attempt to discuss the substance of this and my several posts today. In fact, the private phone number I would dial to enable conversations with his Associate, Dennis Smith, was long ago disconnected.
We all deserve the truth, not just ACH, Esq. and I have identified the legal vehicle - exercising our individual right to demand an Accounting of the Trust from the Trustee.
by kfl
I never left the board, as I continued to read the cornucopia of divergent thoughts from the usual suspects, often shaking my head after reading unsubstantiated, emotional (and sometimes bizarre) claims, that have yet to come to fruition. I will take the high road, and not provide specificity regarding who the usual suspects are.
Nevertheless, presuming the repeated representations that a Trust for the benefit of CMKX/CMKM shareholder-beneficiaries are actually true, then it both logically and legally follows that a Trust document must exist. Accordingly, given the legal requirement that a trust document must exist, it logically and legally follows, that the identity of the Trustor, the Trustee, the Beneficiaries, as well as the applicable terms, and conditions precedent, are all recorded therein. Specifically, this means that both JRSwails and KFL, must be listed in the Trust document (of course, not by our screen names, but our legal names listed on our Certificates, and as recorded at Transfer Online).
Alas, I have no personal knowledge of the location of the purported Trust document; perhaps a CMKX/CMKM shareholder-beneficiary will come forward and advise of its location.
Remember, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I will leave you with two links describing a "Petition for Declaratory Judgement", which maybe, could be, perhaps might be a viable alternative legal route for CMKX/CMKM shareholder-beneficiaries to follow, provided, and only provided, if, and only if, a copy of the actual Trust document (that must exist if the Trust exists), actually exists.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
