Let's take a look at where we are and where we have been.

[John Winston Lennon O'Boogie]

Let's start with Al Hodges.. We are waiting for change.. Oldepro.. We are waiting for the mining reports.. Steve K... We are waiting for the Wells Fargo Case.. Mr Gates.. We are waiting for Edwards to tell his story.. Add what ever you may.. I may have missed something.. Now let's look at where we have been... Nowhere at all..

[swordfish168]

this is where the major problem in our situation lies

we do not know what we are looking for, therefore we will not know when we are there.

how do we really know for sure that any of the predictors are in the know - all cannot be right

Closure could be many years into the future or never !! It was well thought out - leading us to 10 years plus

How are we all going to feel, this year, when we get our yearly pep talk of eminent closure and it is does not pan out.

the masses are eventually going to give the same credibility to all in the future

unfortunately that how I see it at this time

Mike

[imSINGLEruRICH]

ines
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
6 hours ago

Nothing into nothing into nothing..

That's the tyler situation summary for me.
It might as well be for the whole cmkx ... so far.

But in regards Tyler texas management..
when I wanted to pay attention to them.. they gave us nothing..
they refused to give us anything.. and when it "appears" as they "want" our attention or "so they say it in our interest" I still don't see it, expect it, or envision it in any form.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Either they are mum on their financials and everything else.. because in some form.. there are still connected to the "plam" and "the team"...
so they have to stay alive.. and that is the only "good thing" they have done for the shareholders ever..

Or.. if that is not it..
they are just and always have been there because there is source of money,
so they had salaries.. and they had lawsuits, and there were properties that were sold..
they issued themselves billions of shares.. <<<<<<<<< Bill Frizzell... etc...
just milking the cow.. and it will be the same .. if the money ever comes in from the Big lawsuits.

One word.. or few.. what the heck ever.. <<<

Never ever.. did we get honesty from them.. never ever will we.
Actually.. Bill Frizzell skunked us from the beginning.. showed his face.. when he asked us to send him money and then took it, and then said he represents his client..

Skunked us.
And always will <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
He always had his own interest in mind, his friends, his circle, his pockets.. and always will.

Even if they are connected in some form or agreement with the team.. in playing this whole charade.. of keeping things off the radar.. I am quite sure.. there were quite egotistical and selfish in demanding everything for themselves.. and taking advantage of it.. even if it mean hurting the shareholders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Never ever .. will anybody ever see come good from Frizzell.
If they get the money, they will run the company to benefit themselves.. Frizzell first..
And he is still behind this new ceo.. and obviously gave himself BILLIONS OF SHARES..
for a reason..

NOTHING EVER GOOD will come from him to shareholders.
Not a penny. Don't expect it, will never see it, and if there are any pennies it will go in his pocket. ( maybe some to his friends.. shore.. got to have a buffer from the shareholders)

yea, that is my opinion.

You will sooner learn yourself how to make water into wine..
then you will ever see a penny come through Frizzells hands into shareholders.

Dream on.......
and keep singing tyler texas..
It does not matter what new face they put As a New Face on that company..
I know who is behind it.. and who has his fingers in everything.

So I have no comments for "the new ceo".
Its not necessary. Its not even important.

[imSINGLEruRICH]

For years many have talked about the CMKX shareholders receiving "Tender Offers".......... <sigh>


cfdtrk35
DIAMOND JEDI
***
Post by cfdtrk35 on Nov 8, 2014 at 7:00am

Knowledge is power : www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/minitend.htm







**RUNNINGRICH**
DIAMOND JEDI
Nov 8, 2014 at 12:43pm

Mini-Tender Offers:

Tips for Investors

Most investors welcome tender offers because they frequently provide a rare opportunity to sell securities at a premium above market price. But investors should know that not all tender offers are alike.

"Mini-tender" offers – tender offers for less than five percent of a company's stock – have been increasingly used to catch investors off guard. Many investors who hear about mini-tender offers surrender their securities without investigating the offer, assuming that the price offered includes the premium usually present in larger, traditional tender offers. But they later learn that they cannot withdraw from the offer and may end up selling their securities at below-market prices.

If you've been asked to tender your securities, find out first whether the offer is a mini-tender offer. And remember that mini-tender offers typically do not provide the same disclosure and procedural protections that larger, traditional tender offers provide. For example, when a bidder – the person or group of people behind the offer – makes a tender offer for more than five percent of the company's shares, all of the SEC's tender offer rules apply. These rules require bidders to:
•Disclose important information about themselves;
•Disclose the terms of the offer;
•File their offering documents with the SEC; and
•Provide the target company and any competing bidders with information about the tender offer.

The rules also give investors important protections, including the right to:
•Change their minds and withdraw from the transaction while the offer remains open;
•Have their shares accepted on a "pro rata" basis (if the offer is for less than all of the company's outstanding shares and investors tender too many shares); and
•Be treated equally by the bidder.

But none of the rules listed above applies to mini-tender offers.

Instead, the only rules that encompass mini-tender offers – Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and Regulation 14E – provide that bidders must:
•Not engage in fraud or deceptive practices;
•Hold open tender offers for minimum time periods; and
•Make prompt payment to investors after the offer closes.

Regulation 14E also requires the target company to state its position about the offer by recommending that investors accept or reject the offer. The company may also state that it remains neutral or takes no position. But because bidders in mini-tender offers don't have to notify the target, the target may not even know about the offer.

Investors need to scrutinize mini-tender offers carefully. Some bidders make mini-tender offers at below-market prices, hoping that they will catch investors off guard if the investors do not compare the offer price to the current market price. Others make mini-tender offers at a premium – betting that the market price will rise before the offer closes and then extending the offer until it does or improperly canceling if it doesn't.

With most mini-tender offers, investors typically feel pressured to tender their shares quickly without having solid information about the offer or the people behind it. And they've been shocked to learn that they generally cannot withdraw from mini-tender offers.

Here are the steps you should take if you are asked to sell your stock, bonds, limited partnership interests, or other securities through a mini-tender offer:


•Find out whether the offer is a mini-tender offer.
Most bidders won't use the term "mini-tender offer" to describe their offer to buy your shares. Instead, they may call it a "Solicitation to Purchase Shares of XYZ Corporation." Ask the bidder – or your broker – what percentage of the company the bidder seeks to purchase. If the answer is less than five percent, you're dealing with a mini-tender offer, and you should proceed with caution.


•Get a copy of the offering document.
And be sure to read the disclosure carefully. Do not make an investment decision until you see the disclosure about the offer.


•Determine whether the bidder has adequate financing.
Some bidders make mini-tender offers because they can do so at virtually no cost. These individuals often do not have the financing necessary to purchase the shares in the offer. Before you surrender your securities in a mini-tender offer, ask tough questions – and demand answers – about the bidder's ability to pay once the offer closes.


•Identify the current market price for your securities.
For stock, you can easily get price information in many newspapers, on-line, or from your broker or investment adviser. For bonds and limited partnerships, you may need to talk with your broker or investment adviser because these prices may be hard to find. For limited partnerships, contact the general partner to get a list of firms that buy and sell the limited partnership, or ask your broker or investment adviser.


•Find out the "final" tender offer price after all deductions are taken.
In some tender offers, you may get a lower price because deductions are taken from the tender offer price for dividend payments. Also, some bidders in mini-tender offers fail to disclose clearly that certain fees or expenses may also be deducted from the offer price.


•Ask when you'll be paid for the shares you tender.
Bidders in mini-tender offers sometimes fail to provide prompt payment, sometimes delaying for weeks or months. Before you tender your shares, be sure to find out when the bidder will pay you for your shares.


•Consult with your broker or other financial adviser.
Make sure you understand the terms of the tender offer before tendering your shares. Ask for any additional written information that may be available.


•If you want to sell your shares, determine where you can get your best price.
Check all your alternatives for selling your securities. For instance, compare how much you will receive if you sell through your broker versus the tender offer.


•Remember that once you agree to a mini-tender offer, you are probably locked in.
If the tender offer is for less than five percent of the company's stock, exercise extreme caution. Unlike other tender offers, you generally cannot change your mind after you have tendered your shares in a mini-tender offer, even if the offer hasn't yet closed. In addition, the bidder can extend the tender offer without giving you the right to withdraw your shares. And in the meantime, you've lost control over the securities you tendered.

If you've run into trouble with a mini-tender offer, act promptly. By law, you only have a limited time to take legal action.

Contact the SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy for help. You can send us your complaint using our online complaint form. Or you can reach us as follows:


U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
100 F Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20549-0213
Fax: [phone]

[imSINGLEruRICH]

drillbit
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
Dec 12, 2014 at 4:13pm brushmouth likes this.
Post by drillbit on Dec 12, 2014 at 4:13pm

All are chasing their respective "tails" trying to figure out CMKX.

Dear Al, no more sunshine Dec. 31st messages please. Let the fat lady sing a song of 'time to attack via recorded* dealings with IBM getting money from miscreants for a trust' or 'it's over'.

*you can bet your hat and arse that he would have recorded same

[imSINGLEruRICH]

Here I go again.... checking out/ noticing, what appears to me as "lil quirks".
If I am reading this correctly, it is said that Frizzell referred to us as.... "MY SHAREHOLDERS" ?? Not the first time I have noticed this exact phrase & I mentioned it before. I believe he also did the same in his SEC deposition??
Seems this poster below is one, of an extremely small group who is very smitten with Mr. Bill Frizzell. <go figure>


3 hours ago dyemenz said:
No matter what the condition of this company, it exists today because of Bill. We are able to sit here & swap words today, killing time, still waiting for promises made, because of Bill.

Bob Mahue was not in control of the transfer agent, Urban, Edwards, Turino & Marco were.

When we were speaking with associate type people, when the SEC starts an onslaught of depositions, we were told, Helen treated Turino like a son & very close which caused friction with Edwards. It was Edwards who loaned Helen the money to start being their "personal" transfer agent. Turino hired her son, Jeff Mitchell, to incorporate & do things for them as well.

She's helping them continue to dump shares while Maheu is a Director. She helps Marco & Urban get rid of billions of Urban's shares he illegally controls by misappropriation of stock, after it's decided to do a cert pull. We have shareholders trying to pull their certs from brokers, while Marco is selling shares & supplying Urban shares to be issued to shareholders. Shuffling them around & trying to hide it's Urban illegally doing this, while the Task Force, which Bob Maheu heads, is trying to identify shareholders.

Bob Mahue controlling the Transfer Agent? That's a joke. Bill Frizzell is the only one trying to stop the Insiders. When we tore apart that corrupt Master Shareholder List & Bill is telling them, my shareholders are making that information public on the boards. Here's Maheu sitting there, Edwards & Urban were at his home (with Williams) to solicit Bob.

Maheu stated what he did about Bill, because Bill was doing all the work for the cert pull out of his office, Stoecklein & Maheu were just kept informed. What's for them to do? The claims are gone, funds that belonged to the company are gone, while they're sitting there in the middle of it.

Bill was shaking their tree hard, to see what or whom would fall out. When they were trying to evade questions Bill was trying to get for shareholders because he wanted to sue everybody, Bill would leak things to shareholders in the updates. Like, Urban has been hiring criminal attorneys since 2004. Like the whole dang Task Force is going for SEC deposition. Like they won't answer our questions, like they won't tell Bill when a PR is coming out explaining to shareholders what's happened & Paltalk is raging with promises of great wealth & all the great stuff that's being done for shareholders, while they're losing everything at the same time. This is the Hallmark of uhh ohh's for Maheu & his attorney.






ines
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
so why then... is Mark Faulk in his interview letting Bob Maheu off the hook?

Why is Mark Faulk that held position of CEO in a company.. while Frizzell is the only attorney.. and imo running everything and making every decision really..

Why are they letting Bob Maheu of the hook?

After all that anger.. and complaining.. how he did not get advance notice of things.. how they already made decisions and had things under way.. and he was merely presented with near final or final results.. did they participate IN THAT SORRY EXCUSE..
THAT BOB MAHEU WAS JUST OLD AND USED BY URBAN CASAVANT?

You have to ask yourself same questions DY>

SEC had the same thing excuse.. when that court person was asking BM if he felt he was used for his name..
Tyler gang .. continues with the same premise.. which is..
that URBAN CASAVANT WAS SMARTER then the whole Global intelligence , Bob Maheu along with his not old lawyer Donald Stoecklein.

You can not have it both ways.. you can not claim.. that BM along with Stoecklein was hoodwinked.. old, clueless, and in the same time present events.. which show..
a lot of gapping holes..
that indeed .. whatever BM and Stoecklein along with Urban have set to do.. they did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I see is that .. Frizzell is really pissed off.. that when he thought he had it in..
he did not have it in at all,
he was merely an observant.. and hardly invited..
to be invited a night before.. for the morning after meeting in another city..
spells out.. you are not part of the team.. sure if you bend backwards you can make it.. but really we are not interested in having you here.

So.. I would assume that Frizzells ego is bruised..
but it has to be even worse.. that he was not allowed.. to strike back at all against Bob maheu or Stoecklein.

And therefore.. we had that soft.. interview with Mark faulk and BM.. touching lightly here and there on things.. and excluding many other things.
He was untouchable.

Official story line was to be followed..
BM was not involved with government.. he did nothing.. he was used..
and therefore.. Frizzell had no choice but to follow.. and not say one word.

Never really say or show.. how pissed off he was maybe at BM and Stoecklein..
he had to play along.

Not to say he liked it.. but he was put in his place.