Revocation Date ? REVOKED CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 11/13/13 ??

[imSINGLEruRICH]

portrush
Administrator
yesterday at 11:14am seagull and **RUNNINGRICH** like this.
Post by portrush on yesterday at 11:14am

What do you make of this? We were revoked on 10/28/05. Check Edgar below...and the date. Why the change? Can anyone shed some light?

yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/default.aspx?cik=1092299

Dec 11, 2014 11:35:17 GMT -5 @distilery said:

Received ( Period )
REVOKED CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 11/13/13
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 10/24/05 (10/20/05)
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 08/10/05 (07/29/05)
8-K/A CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 08/02/05 (07/11/05)
8-K/A CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 08/02/05 (07/22/05)
8-K/A CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 08/01/05 (07/22/05)
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 07/29/05 (07/22/05)
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 07/15/05 (07/11/05)
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 07/14/05 (07/13/05)
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 05/18/05 (05/13/05)
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 04/12/05 (04/11/05)
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 04/06/05 (03/24/04)
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. 03/14/05 (02/05/04)
3 CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.(MAHEU ROBERT A) 03/08/05 (01/31/05)
15-12G/A CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.(CASAVANT MINING KIMBERLITE INTERNATIONAL) 02/17/05
15-12G CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.(CASAVANT MINING KIMBERLITE INTERNATIONAL) 07/22/03
NT 10-Q CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.(CASAVANT MINING KIMBERLITE INTERNATIONAL) 05/16/03 (03/31/03)
S-8 CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.(CASAVANT MINING KIMBERLITE INTERNATIONAL) 05/02/03
8-K CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.(CASAVANT MINING KIMBERLITE INTERNATIONAL) 04/25/03 (12/31/02)
NTN 10Q CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.(CYBERMARK INTERNATIONAL CORP) 03/31/03 (12/31/02) "link above..

Good find and good question?
I could guess this time between 05 and 2013 could have been used to clear up a multi trillion share mess? My best guess.

ChuckWheat
DIAMOND JEDI MASTER
Post by ChuckWheat on yesterday at 11:31am

The company was so bad it had to be revoked twice? lol

In seriousness I have no idea...we keep getting mysteries, but never any meaningful answers.

When did Mr Kirkpatrick change our name again?

C-Dub





portrush
Administrator
2 hours ago TazGhost, ines and 1 more like this.

I don't know what it implies. I don't even really know why I stumbled on it. I was just cleaning out some old links I had bookmarked and saw this one, then noted the difference in date. I have the documentation for revocation as having taken place on 10/28/05, so this jumped off the page. In the least, it does seem to suggest something is "active" with this stock, if only behind the scenes and without explanation.

It's kind of like the CMKM Diamonds "merger" that is listed as having taken place in 2006, before Urban turned the company over to the Tyler crew. Never understood this much, either.

www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Filings.asp?AN=0001193125-08-144243&Find=CMKM+Diamonds&Page=1&List=Docs&Show=Each

pr

[mygirlwantsarock]

The NHHI name change was mid August 2013

D Dan

[imSINGLEruRICH]

dyemenz
DIAMOND JEDI
Post by dyemenz on 9 hours ago

well....it still states in big red letters Revoked. Let's see what they're doing? I have no idea. Grrrr Monday worse day to try & check things out. lol

FWIW, CMKM/NHHI is a private company.




seagull
Mini Mod
Hmmm... If a private company can have no more than 500 shareholders, what doe that say about the 40k other shareholders??
Is that why Frizzell told us it was none of our business??
Is that why we have no BOD?
Is that why Frizzell didn't even share info with the old BOD when they requested it? And why there has been no need for one since.


www.sec.gov/answers/gopriv.htm






oldepro
DIAMOND JEDI
Post by oldepro on 8 hours ago

So this is all a death watch?? We get paid when there are only 500 left? I think I need some iced tea.




vngntn2
DIAMOND JEDI
The SEC initiated the action for public.
This supports the "separate" company theory. When moved to TX( and maybe this was part of the strategy); that reorganization retained the shareholder base privately. I have been a shareholder of several private companies over 500, but none were public first.
One interesting possiblity on the strategy: Few States allow 800bb A/S but TX does.




seagull
Mini Mod
Post by seagull on 8 hours ago

?? how? Just revoking us?

That doesn't fit with their policy of > 500 shareholders




vngntn2
DIAMOND JEDI
I believe you will find that it is a "one-way" street in this case.
Another possibility is the "Bonafide" classification is ONE( not 50k ) beneficiary in a trust. A cert is the fraction of that one beneficiary.

[imSINGLEruRICH]

oldepro
DIAMOND JEDI
Post by oldepro on 8 hours ago

So this is all a death watch?? We get paid when there are only 500 left? I think I need some iced tea.

144r
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
That's been my problem with anything coming from way of TX crew ... too many plot holes to make a legit story.

[imSINGLEruRICH]

portrush
Administrator
yesterday at 11:14am seagull and **RUNNINGRICH** like this.
Post by portrush on yesterday at 11:14am

What do you make of this? We were revoked on 10/28/05. Check Edgar below...and the date. Why the change? Can anyone shed some light?

yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/default.aspx?cik=1092299

18 hours ago vngntn2 said:
I emailed SK and ask how this was possible. The answer was the Company did not do it & they don't know who did.
Sarbanes Oxley specifically held a CEO responsible for company activity. In this case we were private at the time.
WHO would have the authority to do this. There has to be two separate entities. If I were SK this would worry me.




portrush
Administrator
7 minutes ago
The fact that SK says the company didn't do it, nor knows who did worries me. On the other hand, it seems to suggest (at least on the face) that there really is more going on behind the scenes and he either doesn't know, or cannot say. Either/or is believable to me.

Thanks for checking it out. You didn't happen to ask about United Holdings did you? That pesky merger notice from years back?
pr

[Deleted]

Lol....How can they revoke a private company 8 years after it went private! It is now NHHI anyway.
Apparently, there was only about $200 worth of Amazon revenue last month. Does anyone really believe there are 40,000 shareholders?
I am not sold on this allegation at all. My point is that there are much fewer than 40,000 true shareholders!