Owner
Post by Franko10 ™ on Apr 12, 2005 20:24:19 GMT -5
Today, after Judge Murray's ruling, some of my fellow Board Members began stating that Mr. Frizzell, i.e., CMKM Stockholders Group, lost in the ruling, did not win, were knocked out, whipped, downed for the count, etc. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. In fact, in a conversation with Mr. Frizzell this afternoon, he told me the CMKM Shareholders Group received a ruling as close as possible as to what he requested from the Court.
Some Historical Facts
Judge Murray is a Chief Administrative Law Judge. Judge Murray does not "work" FOR the SEC, she hears cases dealing with the SEC and many times, she rules against the SEC.
Mr. Frizzell filed a Motion asking the Court to allow him to have “limited participation” at the hearing in representing the CMKM Shareholder Group.
Mr. Frizzell, i.e., CMKM Stockholders Group was granted its request to have limited participate in the hearing.
The SEC filed an opposition with the Court to refuse the representation of CMKM Shareholders Group being at the hearing.
The SEC was refused its request to stop the CMKM Shareholders Group from being represented at the hearing.
Ms. Douglas filed an opposition with the Court to refuse the representation of CMKM Shareholders Group being at the hearing.
Ms. Douglas was refused her request to stop the CMKM Shareholders Group from being represented at the hearing.
Mr. Frizzell knows of no other shareholder group that has been granted representation at an SEC administrative hearing.
Mr. Frizzell sent a copy of his Motion to the Judge and the SEC. The SEC did not send a copy of its Opposition to Mr. Frizzell’s Motion [Note that is it a common courtesy for attorneys to send the opposing attorney all Motions and Oppositions to Motions to each other; what is it that the SEC does not want to become public that it sent to Judge Murray?]
The Motion
Let us see, did Mr. Frizzell get what he wanted or not for the CMKM Stockholders Group in the Motion to the Court. Below is what Mr. Frizzell wrote to the Court on Pg. 3 under the heading of Legal Authority [the italic are mine]. Note that in the Motion [see below], Mr. Frizzell readily admits that what he is requesting, i.e., "...a limited intervention by the shareholders...," is not "...commonly seen" and "...Rules of Practice 210...would give the Court legal authority to REFUSE the motion."
Therefore, going in, Mr. Frizzell knew the deck is stacked against him, thus, the Judge could easily have rejected Mr. Frizzell' motion; however, SHE DID NOT.
"Movat's attorney understands this request is not one commonly seen in an enforcement proceeding. The wording of Rules of Practice 210 and the annotations to the same would give the Court legal authority to refuse this motion. In light of the significant effect on the shareholder base and the cumulative losses to the effected parties, Movant would request that this Court us its equitable discretionary powers to allow a limited intervention by this shareholder group. Movant would respectfully ask this court to allow a brief on this issue of allowing this intervention. Movant is prepared to file such brief upon request of the Court.”<br>
The Story
Mr. Frizzell asked for "limited intervention" and that is exactly what he received. NOTE also that he said he was prepared to file a brief to the Court further explaining his position, however, Judge Murray did not see a need for Mr. Frizzell to further explain his position.
In addition, note the SEC and Ms. Douglas both requested the Court to rule against ANY participation by Mr. Frizzell's representation of the CMKM Stockholders Group; Judge Murray turned down said request from the SEC and Douglas and ruled that Mr. Frizzell would be granted exactly what he requested for the CMKM Shareholder Group, i.e., "limited participation."
The Wins
Therefore, what did Mr. Frizzell achieve in receiving "limited participation" for the CMKM Stockholders Group before and during the hearing, the following:
~ CMKM shareholders being admitted as a party to the hearing;
~ Frizzell may sit in on hearing and formulate questions to ask the Court at the right time;
~ Frizzell may sit in on telephone conference calls and formulate questions to ask the Court at the right time;
~ A united shareholders front can assist the company in its posturing with the SEC;
~ A possible opportunity to bring out the naked shorting situation at the hearing;
~ The possibility that being allowed to participate in the SEC hearing may bring pressure on parties who might otherwise not negotiate with CMKM;
~ Mr. Frizzell may cross-examine witnesses at the hearing;
~ Frizzell did not have to file an additional brief with the Court on behalf of the CMKM Shareholders Group;
~ Mr. Frizzell has achieved transparency as to what will be said at the hearing;
~ Mr. Frizzell will receive copies of ALL filings as per Judge Murray;
~ Mr. Frizzell will be allowed to file prehearing and posthearing pleadings;
Mr. Frizzell will be allowed to cross-examine witnesses at the public hearing;
MOREOVER, THE MAJOR ADVANTAGE TO ALL OF US STARVED FOR INFORMATION CMKM SHAREHOLDERS:
~ What Mr. Frizzell has achieved allows CMKM shareholders to now know what is going on in the SEC hearings (we otherwise would know nothing without this advantage).
Therefore, I submit that Mr. Frizzell has so far earned his pay, and, delivered on what he promised. I believe that continued support of Mr. Frizzell by CMKM shareholders will prove to be valuable.
Bottom line: ALL CMKM stockholders won today --even those who oppose the CMKM Stockholder Group.
CDLIC
Disclaimer
I am NOT an attorney. I have put as many pieces together as possible in an attempt to present a clear picture of what Judge Murray’s ruling means. If any fellow Board Members have questions regarding the above, please give Mr. Frizzell a call; by far he will be able to answer any questions better than I, for this is about all I know regarding this subject. Mr. Frizzell’s phone number is 903-595-1921.
Some Historical Facts
Judge Murray is a Chief Administrative Law Judge. Judge Murray does not "work" FOR the SEC, she hears cases dealing with the SEC and many times, she rules against the SEC.
Mr. Frizzell filed a Motion asking the Court to allow him to have “limited participation” at the hearing in representing the CMKM Shareholder Group.
Mr. Frizzell, i.e., CMKM Stockholders Group was granted its request to have limited participate in the hearing.
The SEC filed an opposition with the Court to refuse the representation of CMKM Shareholders Group being at the hearing.
The SEC was refused its request to stop the CMKM Shareholders Group from being represented at the hearing.
Ms. Douglas filed an opposition with the Court to refuse the representation of CMKM Shareholders Group being at the hearing.
Ms. Douglas was refused her request to stop the CMKM Shareholders Group from being represented at the hearing.
Mr. Frizzell knows of no other shareholder group that has been granted representation at an SEC administrative hearing.
Mr. Frizzell sent a copy of his Motion to the Judge and the SEC. The SEC did not send a copy of its Opposition to Mr. Frizzell’s Motion [Note that is it a common courtesy for attorneys to send the opposing attorney all Motions and Oppositions to Motions to each other; what is it that the SEC does not want to become public that it sent to Judge Murray?]
The Motion
Let us see, did Mr. Frizzell get what he wanted or not for the CMKM Stockholders Group in the Motion to the Court. Below is what Mr. Frizzell wrote to the Court on Pg. 3 under the heading of Legal Authority [the italic are mine]. Note that in the Motion [see below], Mr. Frizzell readily admits that what he is requesting, i.e., "...a limited intervention by the shareholders...," is not "...commonly seen" and "...Rules of Practice 210...would give the Court legal authority to REFUSE the motion."
Therefore, going in, Mr. Frizzell knew the deck is stacked against him, thus, the Judge could easily have rejected Mr. Frizzell' motion; however, SHE DID NOT.
"Movat's attorney understands this request is not one commonly seen in an enforcement proceeding. The wording of Rules of Practice 210 and the annotations to the same would give the Court legal authority to refuse this motion. In light of the significant effect on the shareholder base and the cumulative losses to the effected parties, Movant would request that this Court us its equitable discretionary powers to allow a limited intervention by this shareholder group. Movant would respectfully ask this court to allow a brief on this issue of allowing this intervention. Movant is prepared to file such brief upon request of the Court.”<br>
The Story
Mr. Frizzell asked for "limited intervention" and that is exactly what he received. NOTE also that he said he was prepared to file a brief to the Court further explaining his position, however, Judge Murray did not see a need for Mr. Frizzell to further explain his position.
In addition, note the SEC and Ms. Douglas both requested the Court to rule against ANY participation by Mr. Frizzell's representation of the CMKM Stockholders Group; Judge Murray turned down said request from the SEC and Douglas and ruled that Mr. Frizzell would be granted exactly what he requested for the CMKM Shareholder Group, i.e., "limited participation."
The Wins
Therefore, what did Mr. Frizzell achieve in receiving "limited participation" for the CMKM Stockholders Group before and during the hearing, the following:
~ CMKM shareholders being admitted as a party to the hearing;
~ Frizzell may sit in on hearing and formulate questions to ask the Court at the right time;
~ Frizzell may sit in on telephone conference calls and formulate questions to ask the Court at the right time;
~ A united shareholders front can assist the company in its posturing with the SEC;
~ A possible opportunity to bring out the naked shorting situation at the hearing;
~ The possibility that being allowed to participate in the SEC hearing may bring pressure on parties who might otherwise not negotiate with CMKM;
~ Mr. Frizzell may cross-examine witnesses at the hearing;
~ Frizzell did not have to file an additional brief with the Court on behalf of the CMKM Shareholders Group;
~ Mr. Frizzell has achieved transparency as to what will be said at the hearing;
~ Mr. Frizzell will receive copies of ALL filings as per Judge Murray;
~ Mr. Frizzell will be allowed to file prehearing and posthearing pleadings;
Mr. Frizzell will be allowed to cross-examine witnesses at the public hearing;
MOREOVER, THE MAJOR ADVANTAGE TO ALL OF US STARVED FOR INFORMATION CMKM SHAREHOLDERS:
~ What Mr. Frizzell has achieved allows CMKM shareholders to now know what is going on in the SEC hearings (we otherwise would know nothing without this advantage).
Therefore, I submit that Mr. Frizzell has so far earned his pay, and, delivered on what he promised. I believe that continued support of Mr. Frizzell by CMKM shareholders will prove to be valuable.
Bottom line: ALL CMKM stockholders won today --even those who oppose the CMKM Stockholder Group.
CDLIC
Disclaimer
I am NOT an attorney. I have put as many pieces together as possible in an attempt to present a clear picture of what Judge Murray’s ruling means. If any fellow Board Members have questions regarding the above, please give Mr. Frizzell a call; by far he will be able to answer any questions better than I, for this is about all I know regarding this subject. Mr. Frizzell’s phone number is 903-595-1921.
