|
|
Post by Duc N Altum on May 30, 2014 22:06:22 GMT -5
DUC, Here are a few more Goodies By: jay_adobe 22 Mar 2005, 01:38 PM EST Msg. 860362 of 965241 Jump to msg. # smart, we're not going for a tender offer. We are going for an equity settlement. Tax free settlement. Watch and see how it's done. Won't be long now By: jay_adobe 22 Mar 2005, 01:42 PM EST Msg. 860374 of 965242 Jump to msg. # al, today's vol has great significance, but what is most important is today's VWAP volume and price. Today is the last day to legitimize the short. After today, it's over. We are approaching the volume necessary to end it today. Don't sell. Hold. Urban is about to richly reward us all. By: jay_adobe 22 Mar 2005, 02:27 PM EST Msg. 860500 of 965243 Jump to msg. # MR, do some research buddy in the intricate laws of the SEC. DTCC got caught. Deal had to be made to keep this from either going public or forcing a short squeeze (which would have crippled the market on this single stock alone). Verbage in the insurance agreements for DTCC allow an equity settlement if something like this occurs. The short was in excess of 400b. Now it is next to zero. The short has been legitimized. Check with any of your broker friends concerning the VWAP program and you will see that the shares are being bought at a much higher price (above 50 cents) but showing up to us as .0001 and .0002, and we are allowed to buy at that price too. It is very intricate, but necessary for this to work. There are trillions at stake here. Do some research I believe the DTCC got caught as I said on the first page of this thread, in my belief when adding all together..... and Jay says it here. There is so much in this post that could go off in so many different topics it is really unbelievable! But the wording of the " intricate laws of the SEC".... and the next sentence is..." DTCC got caught." And as I was saying on the first page of this thread, the DTCC's vault of shares from all companies should have the authorized share amount and once CMKM's authorized shares reached its last one to be sold...... the DTCC allowed all of these TRILLIONS of shares to be sold with out them putting a stop on preventing such. And since the DTCC gets paid on every buy and sale of every stock in the market.... they got paid on all of these shares beyond the authorized and when using the 7.2 trillion naked short example..... that means that the DTCC allowed 6.4 Trillion shares to be sold beyond what was allowed to be sold.... and therefore the DTCC made a profit on all of these naked shorted shares with the 6.4 Trillion example and the rest. And part of the leverage was the fact that they were caught. And as your second post says ( and all 3 of these posts are dated March 22, 2005 ) that "Today is the last day to legitimize the short. After today, it's over. We are approaching the volume necessary to end it today. Don't sell. Hold. Urban is about to richly reward us all." So after March 23rd, they were done which means they were caught and trapped even before revocation went into play to start the cert pull. As we have seen in that Jay post in post #6 where he says " $1.2 trillion of FED money was misplaced last September," and that post's date was April 4th, 2006. So obviously that $1.2 trillion that went missing from the FED was misplaced last September 2005. September 2005 we were not in revocation yet and that might of had people in wonder of why would $1.2 trillion be paid before the cert pull started? Well if March 23rd, 2005 was the lock in of the short being caught so to speak.... it would then make sense that behind the scenes in September 2005 the DTCC went to it's twin brother the Federal Reserve and said... Print up $1.2 trillion because we just got caught and your twin brother needs you on this one. And of course the Feb 15th, 2006 Financial news wire went out about the "multi-state taskforce who is investigating the DTCC.... and then 2 weeks later... March 2006.... "$2 trillion was ordered." Jay-"Verbage in the insurance agreements for DTCC allow an equity settlement if something like this occurs." So it only makes sense in my mind with a comparison of sort which makes self sense to me.... I believe that the insider court case will serve 2 purposes. 1) the insiders will look like they were the reason why this name CMKM did not work out.... and nothing said about those who shorted us because they paid for their justice with covering to the valuation of what they said they had to pay. And they will feel it forever when this reform kicks in as the derivative rules were completed and done in the 4th quarter of 2013 and the Volcker Rule was voted on it's completion in the last month of the 4th quarter of 2013..... to which the Volcker rule will go into effect where the big banks will finally have to abide by the Volcker rule by April 1, 2014 and the smaller banks will have to abide by the Volcker Rule I believe in July 2014. The big banks are what matter not the little ones so April 1st is what is import for the Volcker rule. But anyway, as these rules have gone into play, these bad guys will most likely not be allowed to ever get this financial system out of control ever again to any alarming point. And also there was a shareholder last week or so who said they spoke to the SEC and there was no proof that a naked short had taken place. These lines in Jay's post kind of come to life with what this shareholder saying about the SEC said no naked short or what ever----> Jay- " The short has been legitimized. Check with any of your broker friends concerning the VWAP program and you will see that the shares are being bought at a much higher price (above 50 cents) but showing up to us as .0001 and .0002, and we are allowed to buy at that price too. It is very intricate, but necessary for this to work. There are trillions at stake here. Do some research."
That above there.... says it all. And the "trillion at stake here can mean 2 thinks I believe. Trillions of shares and trillions of dollars as well. Now take notice to number again of what Jay Adobe said or used to say many times in the past...." $0.54 cents a share." Here in this post he says 50 cents a share but who cares... catch this point. -----> When using the 7.2 trillion naked shorted share example...... Now remember Jay Adobe's total number collected of a monetary value of what he said we were owed .....$3.2 trillion was said to collected by March 2006. So if there are 7.2 trillion shares and we use Jay's said .50 cents a share...... what is 50 cents of 7.2 trillion shares? It is $ 3.6 trillion dollars..... and is very close to the $3.2 trillion that Jay said was for us. Maybe that extra $ 400 billion is for the Team and their great work behind the scenes. And the last thought comes about with Bill Frizzell's announcement back in late 2006 or early 2007 about the bulk certificate situation. Bill said, " we have been made aware of a bulk cert situation and when we uncover all of these shares.... they will then be deleted. So what was this bulk cert situation. Well if we were naked shorted 7.2 trillion shares but the cert pull only ended at 633 billion real bona fide shares then what happened to the other 6,5 trillion shares or ( 6,567,000,000,000 shares)? What comes to mind in thought was the Jefferies letter of the 111 billion shares that they used or claimed that this was a fat finger situation/ accident. Well how many other brokerage firms had these same fat finger situations and who is to say that if the Task Force wasn't a filtering process and all of these brokerages probably had hundreds of billions of shares and they were probably hoping that when the naked short payout button was pushed.... that they probably hoped to be paid back on their short covering and or also make a profit too. But as Bill Frizzell said ...... "when we find or uncover these shares.... they will then be deleted." ( something close to what he said. ) So if my theory is correct on what this bulk cert situation was..... before they were deleted.... does anyone think when BOB MAHEU SAID IN THE NOV 4, 2005 pr..... " Working as a united front will allow us to extract all available sources of value for distribution," ............... so with that said.... does anyone think that Bob Maheu would allow these brokerages to get off and not pay $0.50 cents a share for these shares too? And after they are paid for, does anyone wonder where that money would go? "Shareholder piggy bank," anybody? The point of bring up this point of thought is that many as I have tried to figure out how in the world with shares I paid .0001 for.... how in the world could that create the $ 6 number or anything in the dollar range? Well if all of these extra trillions of shares were created and they were not real bona fide shareholders like us..... this thought comes to mind that when all of these trillions of shares are being paid for most likely and then being deleted..... it makes sense that when Bob Maheu said that he was going to " extract all available sources of value for distribution" this thought seems to fit as an added possibility to explain the said dollars per share. Anyway thanks silver! |
|
|
|
Post by Duc N Altum on May 30, 2014 22:09:25 GMT -5
silverbulletgirl
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
Posts: 4,840
Duc and the next day he posted
By: jay_adobe
23 Mar 2005, 08:52 AM EST
Msg. 862199 of 862679
Jump to msg. #
Today, many will try to get you to doubt your investment, thus try to get you to sell. Hold and await the news from the company. This is big. Very, very big. I'm off the board for a while. Hold.
- - - - -
By: jay_adobe
23 Mar 2005, 08:57 AM EST
Msg. 862216 of 862674
Jump to msg. #
Oh, one more thing before I leave. Someone asked me yesterday what the VWAP for Monday was. It was .297. I'm out.
- - - - -
By: _nathanial
23 Mar 2005, 09:24 AM EST
Msg. 862296 of 862655
Jump to msg. #
Jay...where do we get the VWAP from....is there a site or is it top secret?
- - - - -
By: jay_adobe
23 Mar 2005, 09:25 AM EST
Msg. 862301 of 862654
(This msg. is a reply to 862296 by _nathanial.)
Jump to msg. #
Nat, won't reveal my source. But your broker knows and it's above Level II. Must have a trading platform. That's all I can say about that buddy. sorry.
- - - - -
By: i_use_to_work_here
23 Mar 2005, 10:04 AM EST
Msg. 862418 of 862670
Jump to msg. #
30 mins: 1.7 bill at .0001 and no .0002's Odd.
- - - - -
By: jay_adobe
23 Mar 2005, 10:08 AM EST
Msg. 862438 of 862668
(This msg. is a reply to 862418 by i_use_to_work_here.)
Jump to msg. #
Calculated and deliberate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duc N Altum on May 30, 2014 22:11:15 GMT -5
silverbulletgirl
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
Posts: 4,840
and the next
By: jay_adobe
24 Mar 2005, 02:48 PM EST
Msg. 865400 of 867026
Jump to msg. # ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKX&read=865400
After all the NSS are legitimized, which appears to be happening at an accelerated pace, the next logical step is settlement, in which all our divi shares (which are shorted too) will go away, leaving us with our CMKX shares. Logically, the following step would be to tender us to take the company private, thus allowing subjugation by the SEC, but only after we all are richly rewarded. I do not like to think that we would allow the SEC to subjugate us, but for the obvious face-saving which is necessary to keep the SEC's appearance clean, I believe we will have to undergo it. If revoked, we will have already transferred assets to another company to open on another board through some type of transaction, probably similar to a roll-up IPO or a reverse merger. IBM's signature is all over this latest PR, and I firmly have faith in what is transpiring with the company. I think a settlement is on the way very soon. I think the administrative hearing will be void of our presence. I think it all will be completed before then. Recommend reading PHXGOLD's post earlier today for an insight where IBM is taking us. IMO. This was a good PR. You just have to look for the nuggets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duc N Altum on May 30, 2014 22:12:59 GMT -5
silverbulletgirl
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
Posts: 4,840
and here is phxgold's post Jay said to read
By: mjmilam
24 Mar 2005, 03:31 PM EST
Msg. 182115 of 182128
Jump to msg. #
Carquest said read this post from phxgold:
good stuff from phxgold
24 Mar 2005, 11:40 AM EST
Msg. 181862 of 182025
Jump to msg. #
Good morning! this is an interresting turn of events!
make your self fully reporting again to allow the sec to make you a non reporting pink? sounds crazy except it forces the sec to address securities issues in a public forum. oh btw a non reporting company can become reporting thru a backdoor registration by merging w/ a blank check company. all they need is an 8k and current financials. oh almost forgot this is the stocklein law groups fortay.
oh yeah anthony demint creaqted 15 blank check companies this year. for those who dont know anthony demint is maheu's business partner and theyre representation is the stocklein law group.
|
|
|
|
Post by skoondog on Jun 2, 2014 6:20:16 GMT -5
Around we go, for how long now?
Skoondog
|
|
|
|
Post by skoondog on Jun 2, 2014 6:27:34 GMT -5
Around we go, for how long now?
Skoondog
|
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Jun 2, 2014 7:23:19 GMT -5
silverbulletgirl DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Posts: 4,840 and here is phxgold's post Jay said to read By: mjmilam 24 Mar 2005, 03:31 PM EST Msg. 182115 of 182128 Jump to msg. # Carquest said read this post from phxgold: good stuff from phxgold 24 Mar 2005, 11:40 AM EST Msg. 181862 of 182025 Jump to msg. # Good morning! this is an interresting turn of events! make your self fully reporting again to allow the sec to make you a non reporting pink? sounds crazy except it forces the sec to address securities issues in a public forum. oh btw a non reporting company can become reporting thru a backdoor registration by merging w/ a blank check company. all they need is an 8k and current financials. oh almost forgot this is the stocklein law groups fortay. oh yeah anthony demint creaqted 15 blank check companies this year. for those who dont know anthony demint is maheu's business partner and theyre representation is the stocklein law group. Home > Nevada Lawyer > Las Vegas Lawyer > Anthony DeMint > More Info Mr. Anthony N. DeMint, More Information LAWPOINTS™ 19/100 Basic InfoContactMap & DirectionAppsMore InfoBadges Mr. Anthony N. DeMint, More Information All lawyers at the address of 3753 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Las Vegas NVAnthony N. DeMint General Practice 3753 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Las Vegas, NV 89169, Clark County |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 4, 2014 6:46:38 GMT -5
JRSwails
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
One thing for sure ines, you can count on Sir Ducky for a library of info from jay_adobe and many others.
I agree. I really felt jay was shoot'n straight from the hips. I still think he was in the know.
I'll end up hating myself for saying this, but I think jay was right on... but the overall timing was way off.
FWIW and nothing more.
p.s.... Thanks Sir Ducky for all you tireless hours of cumulating all of jay_adobe's pertinent posts.
vngntn2
DIAMOND MINER
**
YEP: All things taken together that cannot be verified -YET-make sense are the classic definition of: 'Un-conventional Communication'
latteplease
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
Duc, way out of the park~! Excellent recap.
And the deleted posts of Jay Adobe from Raging Bull and Christian Traders postings from the likes of Noahltl etc, was not the public story the Team wanted left on the internet. It all makes perfect sense.
Ines, it took longer than they probably expected and that makes sense, because so many things had to align, globally, legislatively, logistically with the claims and like Al said, "this is a war." Al and Dennis admittedly sought to take out the FED and frankly, I think the FED is on life support as I type this. The recent Belgium buy was a frantic and desperate move. They are running out of steam... I believe that we have won. IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 13, 2015 9:27:27 GMT -5
And WE are not the only ones........
#2125826
BlackDeath 2 minutes ago
NJ RICO Case Over 'Naked' Short Sales
Mary Pat Gallagher, New Jersey Law Journal
March 11, 2015
Samuel Alito Jr.Samuel Alito Jr. File photo by Kevin Allen
A multimillion-dollar racketeering case over alleged illegal “naked” short sales of stock is about to start moving forward in New Jersey state court almost three years after it was filed.
On March 9, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito denied a request to stay a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which had remanded the suit back to Morris County Superior Court based on a lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The defendants, which include Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Knight Capital Americas, UBS Securities and E-Trade Capital Markets, had applied for a stay pending decision on a petition for certiorari they plan to file.
The plaintiffs in Manning v. Merrill Lynch are shareholders in the Escala Group, a New York-based international network of companies specializing in collectibles such as stamps, according to court documents.
One of them, Greg Manning, of Boonton, New Jersey, claimed he owned 2.1 million shares at the relevant time, with lesser amounts held by the other plaintiffs, a Swedish individual and companies in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg, according to court documents.
Plaintiffs allege in court documents that the defendants engaged in a massive manipulation of the market for the company’s common stock over a four-day period in May 2006 and again from Dec. 1, 2006, through Jan. 9, 2007, trading a combined 182 million Escala shares.
“Defendants substantially injured plaintiffs while at the same time reaping enormous profits by knowingly and intentionally creating, loaning and selling unauthorized fictitious and counterfeit shares of Escala stock, through various unlawful schemes and devices and by engaging in the unlawful practice of naked short sales,” the complaint says.
Short sales are sales of securities that the seller does not own but has borrowed in the expectation that when the short seller later acquires the stock for delivery to the buyer, the price will have fallen, with the short seller profiting from the drop.
In naked short sales, which are not inherently illegal, the seller has not borrowed the stock or assured that it will be available later to deliver to the buyer within a required timeframe.
Merrill Lynch and the other defendants conducted short sales of Escala stock without having reasonable grounds to believe the securities could be borrowed and become available for delivery, the complaint alleges.
The complaint claims the defendants increased the pool of tradable Escala shares by “electronically manufacturing fictitious and unauthorized phantom shares” and using non-registered shares to dilute the fixed percentage owned by the plaintiffs to cause their shares to decline in value. They then allegedly sold or loaned the fictitious shares, “reaping significant monies in unlawful profits and fees” and covered up the scheme.
The 10-count complaint, filed in state court in May 2012, alleged violation of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on predicate acts of New Jersey securities fraud and theft and state common-law claims, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment and interference with economic advantage.
The defendants removed it to federal court in Newark in July 2012, asserting federal question jurisdiction on the grounds that the crux of the action was the violation of the federal regulatory scheme regarding short sales.
In particular, they relied on Regulation SHO, adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005 to address problems with failure to deliver, including “potentially abusive ‘naked’ short-selling.” New Jersey has no analogous provision.
In December 2012, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hammer of the District of New Jersey agreed with the plaintiffs that the case should be remanded because it consisted of state law claims that could be decided “without addressing the embedded federal issues.”
U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District of New Jersey, however, rejected Hammer’s recommendation and denied a remand in March 2013.
The Third Circuit granted an interlocutory appeal and reversed Nov. 10, 2014, finding that the issue of whether naked short-selling violates New Jersey law need not be answered by reference to Regulation SHO.
“Because the success of plaintiffs’ state-law causes of action does not ‘necessarily’ depend upon the contents of federal law, this case does not ‘arise under’ the laws of the United States,” wrote Judge D. Brooks Smith, joined by Judges Thomas Vanaskie and Dolores Sloviter. “The presence of an exclusive jurisdiction provision governing Regulation SHO does not change the analysis, as such provisions cannot independently generate jurisdiction.”
On Jan. 15, the Third Circuit denied rehearing en banc and refused a stay pending decision on the defendants’ anticipated petition for certiorari.
Subsequently, the case was sent back to the district court, which on Feb. 19 transmitted it to Morris County.
On Feb. 24, the stay application was submitted to Alito, who handles such filings within the Third Circuit.
The defendants argued that their planned certiorari petition raised important issues, noting that Section 27 of the Exchange Act grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction of actions to enforce duties created by federal securities laws.
They pointed out that the circuits had split on whether the section provides an independent basis for jurisdiction, with the Second and Third circuits saying it did not while the Fifth and Ninth held that it did.
Allowing the litigation to go forward in New Jersey state court would cause irreparable harm to them and every other participant in the national securities market if the New Jersey court rules before the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the conflict on jurisdiction, the defendants contended.
“The result would be inconsistent enforcement of securities regulations, as state courts begin to interpret issues that are supposed to be exclusively federal under Section 27,” the defendants argued in court papers, adding that would be “a regulatory nightmare.”
In addition, the defendants said they would be denied their rights to a federal forum and the federal law’s prohibition on discovery in securities cases until heightened pleading standards have been met.
Alito denied the application without explanation.
John Schepisi and Gregory Dexter of Schepisi & McLaughlin in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, who along with Neal Flaster of Florham Park, New Jersey, represent Manning, said they expect the defendants will move to dismiss in state court.
The case involves practices that are common in the industry, and the defendants are “so desperate to defend this proceeding because it will change the way they function,” Schepisi said.
The plaintiffs prefer to be in state court because they expect a quicker resolution there than in federal court, he said.
The plaintiffs are claiming damages of about $50 million, which could be trebled under RICO.
Merrill Lynch lawyer Andrew Frackman of O’Melveny & Myers referred a request for comment to Bank of America Merrill Lynch in-house counsel Brendan Dowd, who in turn referred the request to the company press office, which declined to comment.
Rebecca Brazzano of Thompson Hine in New York, representing National Financial Services, and Andrew Clubok of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., representing UBS, also declined to comment.
Other defense counsel did not return calls seeking comment.
The defendants have argued in motion papers that the plaintiffs are to blame for the stock drop, referring to a police raid on Escala’s offices in Spain during an investigation into a pyramid scheme and SEC charges against Manning that ended with an order requiring him to pay nearly $670,000 in fines and barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Mar 13, 2015 9:41:07 GMT -5
Read the bottom line.. That is the bottom line to this story..
|
|
