Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 11:32:58 GMT -5
Norton: "Ralph, it sounds like you are in trouble!" Ralph: "Trouble? I don't even know what I'm talkin' about!!!" Ed Zachary! ;D Mike
|
|
|
Post by BHollenegg on Nov 19, 2013 12:45:44 GMT -5
I tried my luck with contacting the WellsFargo Trust Department this morning and was able to speak to a very nice lady in the "personal trust department" because the Corporate Trust department was still closed. I told the lady that I am a beneficiary of a corporate trust account that was scheduled and active for distribution in July and wanted to know what is the delay. The lady then asked me for the name of the trust account. I said, try CMKM or CMKM Diamonds Trust. The lady searched their systems and couldn't located the trust but she said because she only had access to Personal Trust accounts. I asked her, can you explain or brief me on the process on how I would be contacted or notified as a beneficiary? The lady then said, well, you will receive a "packet" with instructions and a request for information such as your certificate or social security card etc., The lady then said, the packet will give you options, for example, how would you like to receive your share of the trust, such as do you prefer cash, roll over to another trust account, and other options. The lady then said, all beneficiaries that are notified must respond to their packet instructions if it has been decided that the entire trust is distributed, before the trust is released because not everyone is entitled to the same distribution amounts or other beneficiaries may be entitiled to more compensation. The lady then said, if youre talking 50 thousand shareholders, then it will take time, but if you are talkin 8 or 10 people, then the process would obviously be quicker. The lady then asked me for my social security # because she said she might might be able to locate the trust fund but then she realized that she couldn't since it was a corporate account, The lady then provided me with WellsFargo Corporate Trust Dept # 1800-344-5128 M-F 8am-5pm central time. At the end of the conversation, the lady says, you must be happy and congratulations. That was it ya'll, so I will try to contact the corporate dept when I can as I am at work now but feel free to contact them as well. Thank you Sweetsp7 for taking the initiative in contacting Wells Fargo about the trust funds. Thank you for putting to rest about the bank providing help and information concerning the trust accounts. The bank manager said ''CMKX Trust''. CMKX may have been used because of the other company which has CMKM as its trading symbol. Thank you, BHollenegg
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 19, 2013 13:18:04 GMT -5
I tried my luck with contacting the WellsFargo Trust Department this morning and was able to speak to a very nice lady in the "personal trust department" because the Corporate Trust department was still closed. I told the lady that I am a beneficiary of a corporate trust account that was scheduled and active for distribution in July and wanted to know what is the delay. The lady then asked me for the name of the trust account. I said, try CMKM or CMKM Diamonds Trust. The lady searched their systems and couldn't located the trust but she said because she only had access to Personal Trust accounts. I asked her, can you explain or brief me on the process on how I would be contacted or notified as a beneficiary? The lady then said, well, you will receive a "packet" with instructions and a request for information such as your certificate or social security card etc., The lady then said, the packet will give you options, for example, how would you like to receive your share of the trust, such as do you prefer cash, roll over to another trust account, and other options. The lady then said, all beneficiaries that are notified must respond to their packet instructions if it has been decided that the entire trust is distributed, before the trust is released because not everyone is entitled to the same distribution amounts or other beneficiaries may be entitiled to more compensation. The lady then said, if youre talking 50 thousand shareholders, then it will take time, but if you are talkin 8 or 10 people, then the process would obviously be quicker. The lady then asked me for my social security # because she said she might might be able to locate the trust fund but then she realized that she couldn't since it was a corporate account, The lady then provided me with WellsFargo Corporate Trust Dept # 1800-344-5128 M-F 8am-5pm central time. At the end of the conversation, the lady says, you must be happy and congratulations. That was it ya'll, so I will try to contact the corporate dept when I can as I am at work now but feel free to contact them as well. Thank you Sweetsp7 for taking the initiative in contacting Wells Fargo about the trust funds. Thank you for putting to rest about the bank providing help and information concerning the trust accounts. The bank manager said ''CMKX Trust''. CMKX may have been used because of the other company which has CMKM as its trading symbol. Thank you, BHollenegg So maybe she should have tried CMKX instead of CMKM..?
|
|
|
Post by BHollenegg on Nov 19, 2013 13:37:59 GMT -5
Lying is not necessarily a sign that someone is morally bankrupt. It takes a smart person to assess the needs of others, conjure up a lie, and exploit their trust with the face of an altar boy. The problem with truth is it is often boring, uneventful, and not terribly noteworthy to the individual. The evidence chain in this situation is no more valid than one person telling another person there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The original statement of a WF $1.2T Trust slated for CMKX, whether true or not, has high potential to generate a powerful inference. In this case, the desired inference was for CMKXdom to believe he or she had seen evidence of a $1.2 Trillion Trust. Given the required confidentiality required of bank employees right down to the teller level, stating such, whether true or not, is an experiment. The second person to make the statement is the participant in the experiment. When the second person made the statement to Bob and company, that person literally agreed to be a participant in the experiment. “When agreeing to take part in an experiment, a person makes an implicit contract to “play the role” of the participant. Theoretically, this means that the participant will listen to the instructions and perform the tasks requested to the best of his or her ability and as truthfully as possible” (Christensen, Johnson, & Turner, 2011, p. 172). The difference between a legitimate experiment and the one we have encountered is, the participant is also an experimenter. From a participant effect standpoint, this so called CMKX shareholder should have been aware that the demand characteristics of the experiment included validation and accountability (Christensen et al., 2011). Briwadd made an objective assessment with a few very simple questions very similar to police investigations using deductive reasoning. Police: Mr. Smith, how well do you know Mr. Jones? Mr. Smith: I don’t know Mr. Jones Police: If you don’t know Mr. Jones, why did you have lunch with him on September 14th, 2012? Mr. Smith: I didn’t have lunch with Mr. Jones. Police: Here is a picture of you having lunch with Mr. Jones. Mr. Smith: I’ve never seen that picture before… Suddenly, when accountability invoked, the jig is up and cooperation deteriorates to the point of hostility. In this case, I have to give credit to the original experimenter, if there was one. If the experiment was to demonstrate the relationship between empty statements and CMKX shareholder gullibility, then the experiment met the four major types of research validity. It was a great success! Didn’t Al Hodges and ACCA make unvalidated statements? I promised myself I was not going to spend any more money to solve this puzzle and I have very little confidence in the Oldpro proposal, but Briwadd did well for us. Maybe one last gasp at solving this will yield something once and for all. AIMHO Mike What did Briwadd do well....calling the shareholder who provided the information for confirmation of the trust fund proved what???.. Briwadd reported the same information and post there will be no confirmation because there are three banks he would have to check. wow! So Why were there a select few posting yesterday they wanted to call me? You were kept informed of what I had and what I was doing. Z06Mike you are so keen to negatively analyse what I do.. What purpose does this have? Thank you, BHollenegg
|
|
|
Post by briwadd on Nov 19, 2013 14:03:54 GMT -5
Bob, you are clearly well intentioned, but your logic and reasoning is flawed on so many levels. For example, the trust (assuming it exists), is not located in the Wells Fargo branch in the city in which the 'contact' lives. It was observed on a computer screen by an executive of that bank. Therefore, I could walk into any Wells Fargo branch in America with a certificate and have the same amount of luck. I don't have to fly across America to any one particular branch... Do you get that?
And second, the banking executive did not give that information out to a shareholder.....he gave that information to a friend who happened to be a shareholder! Do you see the difference? It doesn't appear that you do.
Briwadd
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 14:55:38 GMT -5
Lying is not necessarily a sign that someone is morally bankrupt. It takes a smart person to assess the needs of others, conjure up a lie, and exploit their trust with the face of an altar boy. The problem with truth is it is often boring, uneventful, and not terribly noteworthy to the individual. The evidence chain in this situation is no more valid than one person telling another person there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The original statement of a WF $1.2T Trust slated for CMKX, whether true or not, has high potential to generate a powerful inference. In this case, the desired inference was for CMKXdom to believe he or she had seen evidence of a $1.2 Trillion Trust. Given the required confidentiality required of bank employees right down to the teller level, stating such, whether true or not, is an experiment. The second person to make the statement is the participant in the experiment. When the second person made the statement to Bob and company, that person literally agreed to be a participant in the experiment. “When agreeing to take part in an experiment, a person makes an implicit contract to “play the role” of the participant. Theoretically, this means that the participant will listen to the instructions and perform the tasks requested to the best of his or her ability and as truthfully as possible” (Christensen, Johnson, & Turner, 2011, p. 172). The difference between a legitimate experiment and the one we have encountered is, the participant is also an experimenter. From a participant effect standpoint, this so called CMKX shareholder should have been aware that the demand characteristics of the experiment included validation and accountability (Christensen et al., 2011). Briwadd made an objective assessment with a few very simple questions very similar to police investigations using deductive reasoning. Police: Mr. Smith, how well do you know Mr. Jones? Mr. Smith: I don’t know Mr. Jones Police: If you don’t know Mr. Jones, why did you have lunch with him on September 14th, 2012? Mr. Smith: I didn’t have lunch with Mr. Jones. Police: Here is a picture of you having lunch with Mr. Jones. Mr. Smith: I’ve never seen that picture before… Suddenly, when accountability invoked, the jig is up and cooperation deteriorates to the point of hostility. In this case, I have to give credit to the original experimenter, if there was one. If the experiment was to demonstrate the relationship between empty statements and CMKX shareholder gullibility, then the experiment met the four major types of research validity. It was a great success! Didn’t Al Hodges and ACCA make unvalidated statements? I promised myself I was not going to spend any more money to solve this puzzle and I have very little confidence in the Oldpro proposal, but Briwadd did well for us. Maybe one last gasp at solving this will yield something once and for all. AIMHO Mike What did Briwadd do well....calling the shareholder who provided the information for confirmation of the trust fund proved what???.. Briwadd reported the same information and post there will be no confirmation because there are three banks he would have to check. wow! So Why were there a select few posting yesterday they wanted to call me? You were kept informed of what I had and what I was doing. Z06Mike you are so keen to negatively analyse what I do.. What purpose does this have? Thank you, BHollenegg Bob, Again, you are accusing me of something for which you have no basis. I did not analyze you, nor did I say anything negative about you. Read what I wrote. I referred to the initiators of this situation who, as CMKX shareholders, knew full well the magnitude of the effects their statements would have, then back peddled when they were held to task, which you knew in advance of Briwadd calling. So, please, stop playing the victim, Bob. It does not suit you. There is no logical means to reach the end that you think is attainable. And you, on the other hand, are so keen to thank everyone, like Sweetsp7 (No disrespect to Sweetsp7. It could have been me or any of us.), if you perceive they are supporting you, personally. It does not matter if there are three branches or 50 branches. What Sweetsp7 posted is of no relevance in terms of your goal. Anyone, including yourself, could have made that call and received the same information. Branches generally do not deal with $1.2T trusts. Accounts at that level have one to three top-level managers with exclusive access. As far as Briwadd is concerned, he did the right thing. He called to determine the validity of the source you presented, which indicated they are an unwilling candidate. Anyone, myself included, would investigate before jumping on an airplane to nowhere. But, because Briwadd did not do what YOU wanted him to, you are condemning him. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Just because they do not agree with you does not mean they are attacking you, disrespecting you, or questioning your motives. In contrast, I do question the motives of someone that advances the idea that they have direct knowledge of a $1.2T trust to a group of 50,000 expectant shareholders. That, alone, is suspect. I wish you well, Bob. And, I respect your tenacity. However, the logic in this whole scenario is nothing more than circular recursion. Mike
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Nov 19, 2013 17:40:01 GMT -5
Some of the folks over on Granny's board believe the WF thingy is all about mucking up the WF suit and trading again and going after future collections from the insiders.
Anyone here think that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 20:43:24 GMT -5
Some of the folks over on Granny's board believe the WF thingy is all about mucking up the WF suit and trading again and going after future collections from the insiders. Anyone here think that? Um, let me think (1 millisecond) YES. Now let me open the car door to block the hail of fire, aka writing AIMHO. Mike
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Nov 19, 2013 20:49:28 GMT -5
I tried my luck with contacting the WellsFargo Trust Department this morning and was able to speak to a very nice lady in the "personal trust department" because the Corporate Trust department was still closed. I told the lady that I am a beneficiary of a corporate trust account that was scheduled and active for distribution in July and wanted to know what is the delay. The lady then asked me for the name of the trust account. I said, try CMKM or CMKM Diamonds Trust. The lady searched their systems and couldn't located the trust but she said because she only had access to Personal Trust accounts. I asked her, can you explain or brief me on the process on how I would be contacted or notified as a beneficiary? The lady then said, well, you will receive a "packet" with instructions and a request for information such as your certificate or social security card etc., The lady then said, the packet will give you options, for example, how would you like to receive your share of the trust, such as do you prefer cash, roll over to another trust account, and other options. The lady then said, all beneficiaries that are notified must respond to their packet instructions if it has been decided that the entire trust is distributed, before the trust is released because not everyone is entitled to the same distribution amounts or other beneficiaries may be entitiled to more compensation. The lady then said, if youre talking 50 thousand shareholders, then it will take time, but if you are talkin 8 or 10 people, then the process would obviously be quicker. The lady then asked me for my social security # because she said she might might be able to locate the trust fund but then she realized that she couldn't since it was a corporate account, The lady then provided me with WellsFargo Corporate Trust Dept # 1800-344-5128 M-F 8am-5pm central time. At the end of the conversation, the lady says, you must be happy and congratulations. That was it ya'll, so I will try to contact the corporate dept when I can as I am at work now but feel free to contact them as well. I see 'crajaraman' called this number and didn't quite get the same response. It's over on granny's board and I can't bring it over now, via phone. =^ .". ^=
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on Nov 19, 2013 23:31:57 GMT -5
Crajaraman called the same number
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 1:59:46 GMT -5
Crajaraman called the same number 1-800-DRU-IDIA... Funny, she didn't look Druish... Mike
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Nov 20, 2013 6:25:58 GMT -5
Cdub, Ain't that the truth...A year or so ago, my BFF and I did just that... an experiment. We each called a government entity (couple times ) with a question, that we already had an answer to. The differences, in the answers we received were truly amazing, and left us wondering how some, "workers", manage to keep their jobs, let alone get paid. We then called the Cable company and a phone company, Again already with our answers. Basically, the same results....... Everyone had a different "story". BUT By far the government entity won, hands down !!
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 20, 2013 6:45:17 GMT -5
crajaraman *Diamond* Posts: 689 My call to WF Corporate Trust Dept 17 hours ago citybear59 and goodolboy like this. Quote Select PostDeselect PostLink to PostMember Give GiftBack to Top. .Post by crajaraman on 17 hours agoI called this number listed 800-344-5128 I was first transferred to a different number 800-468-9716 which dealt with stocks.. The second number turned out to be only for those stocks for which WF was a transfer agent. I called the first number again and the agent informed me he saw nothing for cmkx, cmkm or cmkm diamonds on the system. He said he would try to find other banks dealing with this stock..I waited..He told me he is trying to find the transfer agent for cmkx... The only thing he knew was that cmkx was delisted.. That's it.. Read more: tfant53.proboards.com/thread/9103/call-wf-corporate-trust-dept#ixzz2lBYTm6pz
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Nov 20, 2013 6:47:27 GMT -5
drchicostat DIAMOND MINER Post by drchicostat on Nov 18, 2013 at 11:05pm
"however, the fact that he is not seeking attention, but running from it gives him more credibility than most,"
"an average CMKX shareholder that stumbled across a piece of information that he believes is true,"
"He maintains that a trust does sit in Wells Fargo designated for CMKX and this is per the banking executive."
"He will not provide his banking contacts name," Hmmmm. Perhaps he knows this will put the banking manager contact at the local branch in hot water.
Just on the surface this sounds like one of the better rumors we have had in a very long time. One can certainly understand why verification with bank executives would be very difficult, if not impossible. However, it seems like the average CMKX shareholder that has asked Bob to drop it really does believe this to be true and factual.
Some shareholder options are: 1. Call it another un-verified positive rumor. (Hey, that's an encouraging little ray of hope.)
2. Call it a total fabrication. (Hey, it's a "blank" LIE. Whoops, there goes my blood pressure again.)
3. Call it as a personal attack on yourself. (Hey, he couldn't verify this. So I'll take delight in "I- told- you -so" game.)
4. Wait. (Stay or go.)
I'm not going. Time to pay up.
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Nov 20, 2013 6:59:29 GMT -5
drchicostat DIAMOND MINER Post by drchicostat on Nov 18, 2013 at 11:05pm "however, the fact that he is not seeking attention, but running from it gives him more credibility than most,"
"an average CMKX shareholder that stumbled across a piece of information that he believes is true,"
"He maintains that a trust does sit in Wells Fargo designated for CMKX and this is per the banking executive."
"He will not provide his banking contacts name," Hmmmm. Perhaps he knows this will put the banking manager contact at the local branch in hot water.Just on the surface this sounds like one of the better rumors we have had in a very long time. One can certainly understand why verification with bank executives would be very difficult, if not impossible. However, it seems like the average CMKX shareholder that has asked Bob to drop it really does believe this to be true and factual. Some shareholder options are:1. Call it another un-verified positive rumor. (Hey, that's an encouraging little ray of hope.) 2. Call it a total fabrication. (Hey, it's a "blank" LIE. Whoops, there goes my blood pressure again.) 3. Call it as a personal attack on yourself. (Hey, he couldn't verify this. So I'll take delight in "I- told- you -so" game.) 4. Wait. (Stay or go.) I'm not going. Time to pay up. Again!!!!! Just like any other rumor there is no Proof.
|
|