Re: Bhollenegg 11/23
« Result #30 on Nov 27, 2010, 12:31pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 26, 2010, 9:25pm, taskforceviking wrote:I wish Mr. Hollenegg would share a more complete picture of the recent plaintiff update from Mr. Hodges... rather than just "cherry pick" the pumper lines...
What about Obama's arrest? Why didn't that happen?
What about the incident we were supposed to watch for in Indiana?
Why not include the crazy "World Report" lines from the update?
Who's on first... what's on second... and I don't know is on third...
Taskforceviking....I need to make this perfectly clear. I am a plaintiff in a lawsuit trying to get the funds released to the Shareholders. Attorney Hodges provides updates to the plaintiffs because of his attorney/client relationship. I am a shareholder and I thoroughly understand what the shareholders are experiencing. Frustration is what got me to where I am at today. I didn't make threats and talk about doing something, I actually did something.
I do not have Attorney Hodges's permission to share the information in his updates outside the legal team. What I do share are the pieces of information on the release of the funds, as long as , the information does not affect the progress made on releasing the funds. Any information not pertaining to the release of the funds or outdated information are ignored. It is difficult enough to keep the pertinent information from being distorted after I post the information.
Whether you were trusted by certain plaintiffs or not with the updates or their opinions, I do not understand why you post negative information, how they feel about Attorney Hodges, and accuse me of cherry picking the information from the updates. I know the plaintiffs you mentioned are just as frustrated with the delays, as is Attorney Hodges, but I also know they commented how brilliant Attorney Hodges is. You feel I am jerking you around? If you would like to do the updates, please do. If you want to do something that is constructive to releasing the funds and not destructive, then go after the ones who are not releasing the funds and not go after the ones trying to keep the shareholders informed and working to get the funds released to the Shareholders.
When some one helps me or tries to help me, I am appreciative that they are willing to help. It doesn't matter if they are successful or not successful, the fact that they cared makes me appreciative. When some one spends their money, doesn't charge me a dime, works very hard to get something done that will benefit me and many others, I am not going to say I will thank you only if I get something out of this. I certainly would not criticize them for helping me.
Thank you,
BHollenegg
***************************
Re: Bhollenegg 11/23
« Result #29 on Nov 27, 2010, 12:46pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 27, 2010, 11:34am, crajaraman wrote:Can someone ask Bob H why he mentioned trustee had our funds in his last update if the trustee did so from April 10 2010 ?
Ok, so the DOJ signed off on the funds..who else is there to sign off ?
cr
CR...I mentioned the trustees have the funds in response to Workaholic's post where he had questions about the funds. My response was copied and pinned without Workaholics message.
Thank you,
BHollenegg
******************************
Re: Bhollenegg 11/23
« Result #28 on Nov 27, 2010, 12:49pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 27, 2010, 11:54am, Xtreme Riches wrote:
Nov 27, 2010, 11:02am, BHollenegg wrote:
Dutch79...you were told in the April 27th Update by Attorney Hodges about the Trustees had the funds and that we were waiting for ER.
Excerpt...
"Fifth – By what date will we have Economic Receipt, you ask. We will have it when this initial battle phase comes to a successful conclusion. That will be in the very near future in my opinion; the current schedule based on advice I received this afternoon is that it should all be finished, with funds in the Trustee’s hands, by week’s end."
millionaires.proboards.com/index.....ay&thread=31500"The DOJ signing off on the CMKX Distribution" just happened. This tells me that they are through with their investigation or the DOJ does not require the funds to be held for investigation.
Yea but if memory serves, didn't Al update later than he was lied to implying that the Trustee never got the money?
That was the ER. The ER was to occur that weekend.
*****************************
Re: Bhollenegg 11/23
« Result #27 on Nov 28, 2010, 2:02am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 28, 2010, 12:42am, taskforceviking wrote:
Nov 27, 2010, 1:16pm, taskforceviking wrote:
Mr. Hollenegg,
Sorry to hit a nerve, but I think it is important for shareholders to better understand more of the "interesting" information that comes from the plaintiff updates.
I just wonder how someone could really write about the President of the United States getting arrested with a straight face.
Time Will Tell.
I love this stock... such drama... good to see jfarn back in the game...
By: jfarn
27 Nov 2010, 09:58 PM EST
Rating: Rate this post: Msg. 973111 of 973146
(Reply to 973108 by tuscan9)
Tuscan,
Bob gets cranky and overly defensive whenever there is any degree of push back on his version of reality or the truth. Cherry pick are generous terms for what he is doing right now.
TaskForceViking questions were spot on. These guys get angry when facts seem to get in the way.
Don Quixote and Sancho Panzo...five hundred years later
Chooch~
Taskforceviking...your agenda is obvious. I hope you enjoy the attention you seek for the lack of knowledge you are providing to discredit those who will prevail for the shareholders. You can bring all the negative posts you want from the other boards attacking me if it makes you feel good. There is no drama or 'hitting a nerve'....just a lack human decency and being civil on your part. If you do not believe we are not going to be paid, then tell us why and who is your source. Otherwise, why harass those who are actually doing something about getting the funds to the shareholders? Your negative posts will not affect the positive outcome.
Thank you,
BHollenegg
*************************
Re: Bhollenegg 11/23
« Result #26 on Nov 28, 2010, 2:17am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders...Please do not let the negative messages distract what will be a positive outcome.
All the best,
BHollenegg
**************************
Re: Bhollenegg 11/23
« Result #25 on Nov 28, 2010, 2:21am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 28, 2010, 2:14am, mchlgarrison wrote:You tell em Bob. Thank you for all you do and keeping us updated. It is appreciated more than you will ever know.
Mchlgarrison
Thank you Mchlgarrison...very much appreciated,
BHollenegg
**********************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #24 on Nov 29, 2010, 10:40am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3.87 Trillion in the account April 2010.
**********************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #23 on Nov 29, 2010, 10:44am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 10:42am, john3339 wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 10:40am, BHollenegg wrote:$3.87 Trillion in the account April 2010.
Good morning Robert!
I TRUST all is well with you!
john
Snowed in.
**********************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #22 on Nov 29, 2010, 10:46am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 10:44am, chucky wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 10:40am, BHollenegg wrote:$3.87 Trillion in the account April 2010.
Hello Robert,
Good to see you here.
Chucky
Hello Chucky....I have been doing some research...
*************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #21 on Nov 29, 2010, 11:05am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 10:53am, retflyr2 wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 10:40am, BHollenegg wrote:$3.87 Trillion in the account April 2010.
bhollenegg:
One of us is wrong, hope it is me, however my post relates to what Al Hodges stated to Mr Becker in his letter to Mr. Becker. Why today wait to state money of that amount was in the trust in April. If I pulled something out of you I should not have, I am sorry.
Retflyr2
If it goes to court, Attorney Hodges is asking in excess of $3.87 Trillion. What is in the account plus the excess covers stress, losses, legal costs ...
Thank you,
BHollenegg
***************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #20 on Nov 29, 2010, 11:37am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 11:19am, teetime2 wrote:Bob,
We need to try a round of golf in the snow....Would be a good excuse for a lost ball.....lol...
I have lost one or two in my rounds.....Haven't played in a while....
I hope we can have the funds to play in a short while...
May God bless you Bob and your family.....
Good to have you here this Monday morning....
Arctic Golf...sounds cool. The Slider Cup. Brrrrrrrrrr. Quiet Please.
*********************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #19 on Nov 29, 2010, 11:40am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 11:21am, smeagle wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 10:40am, BHollenegg wrote:$3.87 Trillion in the account April 2010.
So does that work out to $6.00 a share or something like that?
thanks.
Yes. I haven't been informed otherwise.
************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #18 on Nov 29, 2010, 11:44am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 11:27am, heat wrote:Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening Bob,
Just trying to be sure of the correct Greeting. Chucky has previously posted that AH told you about the SC Directive and actually you stated that you read it but had not seen it. Could you clarify? If not I understand. And Hey,,no throwing ice balls.
heat
There were two. One during the Va. trip. The latest one came from Chucky's source.
*************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #17 on Nov 29, 2010, 11:48am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 11:36am, nex wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 10:40am, BHollenegg wrote:$3.87 Trillion in the account April 2010.
CMKX money is likely just part of that huge sum of $3.87T
I am a realist who bought 90million shares for $23k and I just can't see it would worth $540million ...
I'm sorry , but I can assure you , without knowing any fact what surrounds this nigthmare CMKX saga, that will not happen... smaller amounts I could possibly imagine... much smaller indeed. imho
nex / long time holder of cmkx shares - non-basher
Nex, I understand how you feel. When I was told, I fell silent for about a minute.
************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #16 on Nov 29, 2010, 11:52am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 11:45am, sdtraderunner wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 10:46am, BHollenegg wrote:
Hello Chucky....I have been doing some research...
Bob, anything in that research that you can share with us!!??
Thanks your friend Sandra
No...just the initial stages of verifying rumors.
*************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #15 on Nov 29, 2010, 11:54am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 11:49am, portrush wrote:A minute? Who are you trying to kid? YOU silent for a whole minute?!
Okay, I passed out....there, you happy now?
**************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #14 on Nov 29, 2010, 1:06pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 12:10pm, [8~{ wrote:Rumors? We should be so close that there shouldn't even be any.
The conglomerate rumors.
***************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #13 on Nov 29, 2010, 1:30pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mgpaul...very close. The SC gave a date to pay during the Va trip. That date was for all the funds. The end of year date came from Chucky's source. When the government wanted to delay 30 days for the newly elected briefing. Attorney Hodges had it reduced by using the SC directive due to tax issues.
************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #12 on Nov 29, 2010, 1:35pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 1:22pm, blackwulf0 wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 1:06pm, BHollenegg wrote:
The conglomerate rumors.
Hi Mr. Hollenegg,
I can't say that I can remember the last time that you were so actively involved in a thread and making such definitive statements like "the 3.87T is in the trust."
All in all, it makes for a very encouraging boost for a bunch of people that are really feeling the doubts creep in, as the year draws to a close.
-Rick
Hello Rick...the $3.87 T amounts are in the transcript, the lawsuit, and Attorney Hodges Updates.
***************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #11 on Nov 29, 2010, 1:40pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 1:32pm, teman wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 1:06pm, BHollenegg wrote:
The conglomerate rumors.
Hi Bob, Do you know if we will be part of a conglomerate?
Thx
I questioned Attorney Hodges on the conglomerate...Al had no information at the time.
************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #10 on Nov 29, 2010, 1:55pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 1:41pm, floridagem wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 1:30pm, BHollenegg wrote:Mgpaul...very close. The SC gave a date to pay during the Va trip. That date was for all the funds. The end of year date came from Chucky's source. When the government wanted to delay 30 days for the newly elected briefing. Attorney Hodges had it reduced by using the SC directive due to tax issues.
Hi Bob,
So are the 10 days over with tomorrow?
Thanks
Walt
I calculated last Monday.
***********************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #9 on Nov 29, 2010, 2:00pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 1:44pm, mgpaul wrote:Bob not to put you on the spot and it will only be your opinion but do you think we will hear from Al shortly? Note I did not say the dreaded four letter word that starts with "s" and ends with "n".
Thanks
Anytime.
***********************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #8 on Nov 29, 2010, 2:14pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 1:45pm, oreodiamonds wrote:Bob,
You had stated that if the funds were not released that you would be coming to the states.
I have heard that Wyatt was encouraging people in the LA area to attend the court hearing on December 6th. My question to you, if we don't hear anything this week from Hodges will you be attending the court hearing on December 6th along with Hodges, Hamilton & Trefrey?
We are at the stage that I am taking what happens one day at a time. Attorney Hodges knows what to do. There is nothing more I can do that would warrant my physical presence. It is a bit more complicated now due to security.
************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #7 on Nov 29, 2010, 2:54pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 2:08pm, porthos wrote:Today at 1:19pm, jboydwv wrote:
ishmel .... if you were the paperboy and the paper was always full of lies how many times would you keep on delivering it??....if you kept delivering a paper that was always wrong would you expect your patrones to start throwing it back at you? Think I would tell the paper company..... I QUIT!
Today at 1:09pm, ishmel wrote:
I completely understand where your coming from. However, this "paper company" is telling me that as long as I'm a paying member I will receive upwards of over 100 million dollars.
With that said they can deliver the National Enquirer to my stoop and I would gladly accept it. Now, if it is all hype to get me to buy the paper, then I am going to be one disgruntled customer.
And just like every job; somebody has to do it. At least Bob keeps coming back no matter how many time the dogs chase him down.
cmkxunofficial.proboards.com/inde....lay&thread=7456 Jboydwv..there is a difference in providing updates and providing information on something that already happened. Updates are subject to change...as the name implies. You are stating every piece of information I provided was wrong. Please go back and read what was provided. You need to adhere to the standards you demand of those who are helping you. I stated many times the information I provided was current and correct/accurate at the time I posted the information.
Thank you,
BHollenegg
**********************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #6 on Nov 29, 2010, 3:09pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 2:46pm, chainsaw wrote:I am also left wondering about the Supreme Court Directive. Is there a record number or some artifact that annotates this Directive? Nothing comes out of the Courts without supporting documentation.
Porthos...I passed on all I know about the SC situation.
Chainsaw...I stated what I know. I do not have the expertise and all the details to make an assumption or conclusion on sensitive situations.
***********************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #5 on Nov 29, 2010, 3:13pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 3:08pm, groundfog wrote:Bhollenegg,
Do you feel the MTD hearing will have to occur before we receive an update from Mr. Hodges?
Thanks
No.
***********************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #4 on Nov 29, 2010, 3:16pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 3:12pm, porthos wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 3:09pm, BHollenegg wrote:
Porthos...I passed on all I know about the SC situation.
Chainsaw...I stated what I know. I do not have the expertise and all the details to make an assumption or conclusion on sensitive situations.
Thanks Bob, just checking really.
What was the purpose of bringing jboywv's message here?
**************************
Re: Not 3.87 in trust, its the alternative amount
« Result #3 on Nov 29, 2010, 3:44pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 3:32pm, bikinipro wrote:Hi Robert,
Glad you're snowed in today and on the board more than normal!
Here's my famous question.
Are we still waiting for the pre recorded public announcement before we can hear from Al?
I do not know.
***********************
Re: My Christmas Wish !!!
« Result #2 on Nov 29, 2010, 7:35pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29, 2010, 7:06pm, Vinny wrote:
Nov 29, 2010, 7:02pm, BHollenegg wrote:
You either believe or you don't. I caught a lot of grief (to put it mildly). I received the messages loud and clear. I cannot go on with providing updates under duress conditions.
Thank you All,
BHollenegg
Bob,
I hope this doesn't mean you will stop posting. If that's the case then I really feel that those who want to stop the flow of information win. Please don't let the naysayers get to you. Most of us appreciate you.
Stay with us Bob, please.
Vinny...there are times when you believe you are helping and doing the right thing to ease the situation we are dealing with while waiting for the release of the funds. I , under the advice and reaction from shareholders who I have a high respect for, have requested for me to cease posting as we are very close and my messages are making it more difficult for the shareholders. I sincerely apologize.
Thank you,
BHollenegg
*************************
Re: My Christmas Wish !!!
« Result #1 Yesterday at 10:54am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read some excellent messages the past 24 hours. I have acquired a totally new perspective on what is important, how much one can do, and what is at stake. The Shareholders have put their trust in me. I will continue to be here with the Shareholders until the conclusion as I have stated. I am only stepping back temporary due to a few situations which requires my immediate attention and support while being resolved . This has no bearing on the release of the funds. Thank you for your support and understanding.
All the best,
BHollenegg
**********************
millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=userrecentposts&user=bhollenegg