|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:31:52 GMT -5
From yesterday 3-18
By: goodolboy27 17 Mar 2007, 05:28 PM EDT Msg. 507340 of 507504 Jump to msg. # mt.men, question for you...
Don't you find it interesting that Frizzell's suits will not address any of those involved in the naked short selling of CMKM? The derivative suits pertain to the pump and dump side, but not the NSS. Don't get me wrong here, I believe one exists and Frizzell has made it clear that an NSS exists, but it appears that he, personally, is not going to pursue that issue.
Any thoughts?
By: mt.men 17 Mar 2007, 05:37 PM EDT Msg. 507342 of 507504 (This msg. is a reply to 507340 by goodolboy27.) Jump to msg. # goodolboy27 Did you read jarta's post yesterday about all the Govt. agencies that he knows are involved in OUR company? Doj, Fbi ,6 Atty general's ETC. He states I know for a fact that these people are involved in OUR ongoing investigation. Would Frizzell being prudent by not overstepping his boundaries? I know it doesn't answer your question directly but I have faith in Jarta and all the agencies could be making the process a long one for us. Yes we have a Short which I am confident about too.
By: goodolboy27 17 Mar 2007, 05:46 PM EDT Msg. 507347 of 507504 (This msg. is a reply to 507342 by mt.men.) Jump to msg. # mt.men, although I had not seen jarta's post, I was aware of the different agencies investigating this. As for Frizzell not overstepping his boundaries... what was that term thrown around before? Was it compartments or something like that? I don't want to start sounding like ivory, but it sure does make you go hmmmmm!
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:32:17 GMT -5
From yesterday 3-18
golden1101 Administrator
Just got my CIM cert . . . Something interesting« Thread Started on Today at 1:20pm »
I ordered ALL of my certs from Ameritrade and will be closing that account out . . . All of my certs came regular first class mail. CIM however came registered mail and required a signature.
They all were mailed out by Ameritrade, but only the CIM required a signature. Still waiting on my 20 milion QBID though.
Just thought I would share golden
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:32:43 GMT -5
From yesterday 3-18
victorious DIAMOND DIGGER
Urban
Some are here argueing by UNSUBSTANTIATED FACTS that UC is guilty of a crime. At this point we have little facts. Nonetheless you are entitled to your opinion by the 1st Amendment of US Bill of Rights (I think). Thank God for that, our forefathers and mothers. Freedom of speech allows us to converse freely on what ever topic. If you are offended by what you hear or see turn away, turn it off. Get it. Freedom of speech DOES NOT permit you to slander anyone. As for UC being guilty. UC is guilty if being smart enough to acquire mineral leases for 1.5 million acres in one of the world riches mining areas. FACT. Yes UC is guilty. Guilty of having the brains and determination to accomplish this. When I asked Ron Casavant how UC accomplished this, that's exactly what he said and I believe he's right.
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:33:14 GMT -5
From yesterday 3-18
and now....here's one from tramp
diamondsand gold2_1: hearing the payout of 0.5 dollar/share started on saturday march 17 from a goldman sachs account...
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:33:45 GMT -5
By: baloney_cleaver 18 Mar 2007, 11:51 PM EDT Msg. 508090 of 508100 Jump to msg. # Bad news! Deli gets a subpoena from Leslie Hakala at the SEC. Looks like the SEC investigation into CMKX is alive and well!!! LOL - - - - -
By: currentplay1 18 Mar 2007, 11:56 PM EDT Msg. 508095 of 508098 (This msg. is a reply to 508090 by baloney_cleaver.) Jump to msg. # baloney do not bring CMKX into this... Its Deli's problem. He was served thats it... Common sense tells you what he was doing was pretty shaky... Not surprised about him getting served... People in Paltalk need to wake up with regards to this guy... Giving out his phone number on the boards while hinting at glorious returns was criminal IMO
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:34:00 GMT -5
St1ck DIAMOND DIGGER
Deli on Paltalk - Supeoned « Thread Started on Today at 11:12pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deli just admited that he was supeoned by the SEC to an LA court (Leslie Hakala no less), suspects they're looking for more dirt. He sounds up beat and not worried. He'll give more info when he can talk about it.
NOTE: This is *not* a rumor. I heard him say it on Paltalk.
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:35:44 GMT -5
By: TonyToX 19 Mar 2007, 08:04 AM EDT Msg. 508125 of 508129 (This msg. is a reply to 508113 by homeyclausecalif.) Jump to msg. # homeyclausecalif, if they were to somehow "cancel" those shares sold by edwards and then the ones authorized by GLENN i believe you would find that just about everyone on these boards would no longer own shares in cmkx or hold the rights to the share dividends issued back in 2004.
if edwards or any of the other bad guys are still holding shares of cmkx then i believe they could possibly cancel those shares, but the ones that were sold can't be cancelled. you and i and everyone else now own them.
our shares may have been illegally sold into the market, but what do you do if you were the SEC, for example, to correct this situation? do you simply cancel all trades and give everyone back their money? maybe.
and the same dilemma applies to the naked shorted shares. a lot of us on this board probably own a bunch of those shares as well. what do they do with those shares? maybe the SEC will "simply" rule that all improper trades are to receive their money back and they figure the problem has been fixed?
By: goodolboy27 19 Mar 2007, 06:56 AM EDT Msg. 508118 of 508130 (This msg. is a reply to 508114 by homeyclausecalif.) Jump to msg. # homey, good letter, but I have one question... what if you own shares that originally came from those JE dumped illegally? Wouldn't you be asking for your own shares to be revoked?
By: h24ever 19 Mar 2007, 08:25 AM EDT Msg. 508129 of 508129 (This msg. is a reply to 508125 by TonyToX.) Jump to msg. # homey/tony, great post this morning. good questions, heres my thiught, if we do have illegall shares, them wouldn't the "rico law" apply 1-3 dollars ps :>))
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:36:12 GMT -5
By: benderdondat 19 Mar 2007, 07:35 AM EDT Msg. 508122 of 508129 Jump to msg. # Shame on you, mona, for encouraging people like mano, wodan and now cautious. Get aside and think what they are doing. Don't you get it? Or are you too obsessed with your new found power as the owner of the room?
(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long)
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:36:39 GMT -5
By: chrisl_666 19 Mar 2007, 08:19 AM EDT Msg. 508126 of 508130 (This msg. is a reply to 508125 by TonyToX.) Jump to msg. # Tony you statement about the SEC might just cancel the shares out and refund your money is a strong possibility. But if the SEC were to do this ultimately the SEC could have a bigger problem on their hands.
For instance since this corruption happened under the SEC'S watch and all they do is refund your money the company could file a suit against the SEC. See the corruption ultimately caused the demise for the company to move forward and the SEC was aware of it.
IMO shareholders still are the pawns in this chess match but without the pawns this game would of been over years ago.
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:37:49 GMT -5
luci Mini Mod
from Saturday...
ming DIAMOND DIGGER
hearing quite the opposite : solution just around the corner now...acca could be right this one time...!
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:38:07 GMT -5
By: goodolboy27 19 Mar 2007, 09:03 AM EDT Msg. 508136 of 508139 (This msg. is a reply to 508119 by homeyclausecalif.) Jump to msg. # homey, I found the answer to the question. phxgold posted it:
this federal mandate requires a fed call on physical overissuances. to the T/A with a 60 day buy in. Insurance rocks. "mandatory buy in of any actual physical over issuance that such transfer agent caused" in compliance with Rule 17Ad-10 section (g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
interesting stuff!
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:38:31 GMT -5
By: gusjarvis 19 Mar 2007, 12:13 PM EDT Msg. 508235 of 508239 Jump to msg. # it is time to watch the news not the boards the news is showing you how close we are, this is about much more than cmkx. When bud said some should flee the country, lets see who, haliburton has moved now, lets see how and what companies follow.
Why hasn't promised court cases that would crush them happened, when they get delayed it means negotiations are happening imo. You will see how they turned out on the news imo and already have.
By: gusjarvis 19 Mar 2007, 12:08 PM EDT Msg. 508232 of 508241 Jump to msg. # for you that don't get it cmkx is not holding anything up, it certainly isn't john edwards old news that was taken care of in 2004, it is world politics now since the chit is about to hit the fan. This is a very true old post, etrade did not just fly certs across the country, they paid something for them
By: jay_adobe 05 Feb 2006, 09:13 PM EST Msg. 113703 of 113713 (This msg. is a reply to 113653 by tramp1950.) Jump to msg. # tramp, You are correct that a right, but not a patent (it's tangible), knowledge, conviction, shareholder beliefs, privileges, and many other examples would constitute an intangible asset. But how could one make those intangibles tangibles? Something to ponder: Could the "intangible asset" be a naked shorted share? One cannot touch it, taste it, see it, smell it, or hear it. It is intangible. And prior to Mr. Maheu bringing out his big stick, the naked shorted shares were just fabrications, counterfeits, non existent shares, air shares, or "markers". But they didn't really exist - theoretically and practically, that is. After Mr. Maheu brought out his big stick, those intangibles turned into a "tangible" asset, which is what we have in the trust today. Once legitimized, or fixed, or paid for, or whatever one wants to call it - the NSS goes away and one is left with a tangible asset. That is why I said 203.5 was the critical number. The PR came out after 203.5 was reached, which made our "intangible" "tangible". Of course, this is IMO.
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:38:56 GMT -5
thanks 144R
Re: WATCH TODAY FOR MINING PRS!! « Reply #12 on Today at 2:31pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1:28 PM) BullDawg: Kool Said the Company(s) Buying CMKM must first send out a PR to their shareholders prior to Kevin sending us a PR.
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:39:20 GMT -5
goforbroke DIAMOND DIGGER *
Re: Cautious is gone - Another guru bites the dust « Reply #3 on Today at 3:42pm »
Cautious was in paltalk about 9:30 p.m. Saturday night. He said it might take 2 - 3 days longer than the 10 days. He seemed very optimistic about things.
FWIW
gfb
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Mar 19, 2007 16:39:43 GMT -5
yetihunter Mod Squad *****
Re: Opinion: UNDERCOVER GUY says.... « Reply #14 on Today at 3:33pm » if some company buys cmkm, i don't think we'll have a choice of how much we get. we'd get whatever the price of the sale was set at.
if there is a penalty paid by the bad guys for NSS, i think that will be levied by a judge and that will be set as well i would assume.
now, if there was a forced cover, then we'd have the choice on when we wanted to sell obviously.
but i'm with lucy. others can hold out for whatever they want, but at .10, i'd be set (and my family would be set) for life. it's taken long enough already. LOL
Tuscansun DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD *****
Re: Opinion: UNDERCOVER GUY says.... « Reply #15 on Today at 3:37pm »
You folks are going to be very happy then...............
|
|