|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 11:34:33 GMT -5
zanmia Administrator Morgan Stanley, Citi Lose Oil Analysts as Hedge Fu « Thread Started Today at 5:43am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley, Citi Lose Oil Analysts as Hedge Funds Hire www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFruso3mxvjU&refer=home tuscansun Junior Miner Re: Morgan Stanley, Citi Lose Oil Analysts as Hedg « Reply #1 Today at 9:26am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- oh my, if a person didn;t know better.. (Joe Public) you might think that citi was going to just meltdown into something else and just disappear........... isn't it a shame.. their brick and mortars are disappearing? wonder whats up? « Last Edit: Today at 9:27am by tuscansun » tramp2.proboards88.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=5320
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 11:40:34 GMT -5
iq Administrator Why is the price in this stock dropping ? « Thread Started Today at 10:55am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this another example of NSS ? They just announced a major positive broadcast at naturallyiowa.ir.stockpr.com/news/detail/181Costco is now buying their brand, they have a container that is 100% biodegradable for our milk. Do you know that there are at least five US senators still linked with CMKX ? (in a positive way) Do you own DD and you'll see just how significant CMKX is to the SEC and the role they are currently playing. CMKX To DA Moon « Last Edit: Today at 11:10am by iq » deepdatasearch.proboards33.com/index.cgi?board=blog&action=display&thread=1065
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 12:08:16 GMT -5
By: the_regulator 17 Jun 2008, 12:13 AM EDT Msg. 732937 of 733026 Jump to msg. # Casavant's Nominees Sell CMKM Stock Casavant also profited by issuing CMK stock to, among others, Gutierrez and Kinney. Gutierrez and Kinney sold the shares and returned the proceeds to Casavant, his family members, or entities he controlled. During the relevant period, Casavant relied heavily on Gutierrez. Gutierrez served as Casavant's secretary and personal assistant, and was involved in CMK's affairs from the outset. Gutierrez (1) acted as CMK's investor relations contact in 2003 (along with Kinney); (2) regularly delivered documents such as stock certificates, opinion letters, and shareholder lists to and from Bagley; (3) delivered documents to Edwards' office or met him at 1st Global's offices; (4) periodically drafted CMK's press releases for Casavant's review; (5) maintained the limited records that CMK kept; (6) compiled the list of shareholders to receive additional unrestricted stock as "dividends" in September 18 2004; (7) had signatory authority on many of Casavant's and CMK's bank accounts, wrote checks, and wired money on Casavant's behalf; and (8) oversaw CMK's promotional activities at the stock car races. From 2003 through 2005, Gutierrez sold almost 18 bilion shares of 22 unrestricted CMK stock in her own name. Dvorak prepared opinion letters allowing much of that stock to be purportedly unrestricted based on the premise that Gutierrez had provided services for the shares in 2001, but Gutierrez did not meet Casavant until 2002. Gutierrez generated about $3.1 milion from her sale of CMK shares. Although Gutierrez kept some of the money as compensation for the services she provided to Casavant and CMK, she gave Casavant approximately $ 1.1 milion. Kinney acted as Casavant's intermediary, running errands and arranging promotional opportunities. Kinney (along with Gutierrez) served as CMK's investor relations contact in 2003. From 2003 through 2005, Kinney sold about 61.4 bilion shares of purportedly unrestricted CMKM stock. Like Gutierrez, Kinney received many of these shares based on opinion letters from Dvorak saying that Kinney had provided services in 2001. Kinney actually met Casavant through Gutierrez in 2002. Kinney made more than $6.7 million from the sale of these CMK shares and transferred about $3.4 million of those funds back to Casavant. Gutierrez and Kinney also sold CMK stock through a private corporate shell, Part-Time Management, Inc., which Casavant had given them. In 2004, Part-Time Management sold approximately 9 bilion shares of unrestricted stock based largely on another apparently inaccurate Dvorak opinion letter. Part-Time Management made more than $1.9 milion from sellng these shares, of which about $ 1.2 million was returned to Casavant. By: mdnj_38 17 Jun 2008, 06:59 AM EDT Msg. 732949 of 733027 (This msg. is a reply to 732937 by the_regulator.) Jump to msg. # the_regulator" And yet some here would lay down in the street for this crook Casavant. By: nosurrendernc 17 Jun 2008, 09:55 AM EDT Msg. 732972 of 733034 (This msg. is a reply to 732937 by the_regulator.) Jump to msg. # wonder where Darryl Pryor is these dayz..... By: nosurrendernc 17 Jun 2008, 09:56 AM EDT Msg. 732973 of 733035 Jump to msg. # what heppened too El Camino/Jose?
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 12:11:12 GMT -5
By: johnnyic 16 Jun 2008, 11:58 PM EDT Msg. 732934 of 732957 Jump to msg. # Can we prove the scambusters club against cmkx are organized criminals, yes absoultly we can... ip's have been audited and patterns have been corrlated, this cubicale gang is careless, do they not know an audit has been in effect for years? Sox has created accountablity so many logs collected for years, daily crooks are under the microscope since we found out.....
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 12:17:00 GMT -5
By: whyme176 17 Jun 2008, 10:59 AM EDT Msg. 732984 of 733037 Jump to msg. # I see the bashers our waving the white Flag..
No one cares and know one listens and the ones that do charge to much.. lol...
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 12:20:33 GMT -5
By: wolvespride 16 Jun 2008, 10:15 PM EDT Msg. 732887 of 733040 Jump to msg. # Hey Bashers... tic toc, IT'S TIME! Are you ready?
By: diamondguru-one 17 Jun 2008, 11:16 AM EDT Msg. 733000 of 733040 (This msg. is a reply to 732887 by wolvespride.) Jump to msg. # wolvespride i hope we hear something this week....time to smash these crooks...
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 12:22:43 GMT -5
By: elvis-is-here 17 Jun 2008, 11:54 AM EDT Msg. 733007 of 733046 Jump to msg. # But what happens when someone buys shares in these ETFs and the seller is selling those shares short? Does the short seller deposit metal to back up the buyer’s purchase? No. The short seller just sells the shares short without depositing metal, perhaps borrowing other shares first, perhaps not. The buyer doesn’t know who he is buying from, he gets a confirmation of his purchase from his broker, pays for it and assumes, according the representations in the prospectus, that he is buying new shares issued by the sponsor who has deposited metal, or from an existing shareholder who has decided to liquidate his shares. It never occurs to the buyer that he is buying from a short seller who is not depositing metal. In essence, the short seller is circumventing what is promised in the prospectus. That party is short-circuiting and destroying the promise clearly laid out in the prospectus that real metal backs every share sold. Here’s the disturbing question - which buyers’ shares are left without silver backing when short sellers are involved in the transaction? Just the hapless and unsuspecting buyer who was unlucky enough to happen to have his purchase short sold, or do all SLV shareholders get shaved proportionately, like a silver coin clipped in olden times? Don’t look to the prospectus for answers, because you won’t find any. For those who were unaware of this and don’t understand how shares can be sold with no metal backing (or doubt my contention), there is hard proof. There is a short position list reported that proves short selling exists. Currently, the SLV shows a small published short position on the American Stock Exchange of around 250,000 shares, or the equivalent of 2.5 million ounces. On March 11, this reported short position hit almost 1 million shares, or nearly 10 million ounces. So, there can be no doubt that some short selling exists, which raises all sorts of disturbing questions. In my opinion, this aspect of the metal-only ETFs wasn‘t fully thought through before their introduction. Unfortunately, the problem may be worse than just this SLV short selling; maybe much worse. Around this past April 15 I began to notice a more pronounced delay of silver deliveries into the SLV. This was for much larger amounts of silver than I previously observed. In fact, the amount of short selling in SLV shares began to look extreme. Just a short word on short-selling. Please don’t confuse this discussion on the short selling of shares of the SLV (and GLD and IAU) with the short selling I continually discuss in COMEX silver futures. I know this can be a complicated topic, but it is important for you to understand it. In futures, there must be a short for every long. Therefore, the problem in silver futures is not the presence of shorts, but the documented concentrated nature of this short position, namely, an extremely large short position held by just a few traders. Less extreme concentrations in other commodities have always been considered manipulative by the CFTC in the past; just not now in silver (and gold), for some reason. Due to relaxations in the restrictions on short selling over the past decade by the SEC, the new phenomenon of naked short selling has exploded. Naked short selling in stocks doesn’t involve first borrowing the shares in which to sell short. The naked short seller just sells short without borrowing shares. The short seller then fails to deliver the shares to the buyer on settlement date. The punishment for what is essentially a delivery default? The SEC puts out a (long) list of stocks which have fails to deliver. That’s all it does, it makes a list. No fines, no forced buy backs, no identification of who is naked short selling, no staying after school for detention. And yes, SLV is on that list from time to time. To SLV owners, that should be disturbing. _____________________________________ for the entire article: news.silverseek.com/TedButler/1213640342.php
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 12:23:33 GMT -5
By: elvis-is-here 17 Jun 2008, 11:58 AM EDT Msg. 733008 of 733051 (This msg. is a reply to 733007 by elvis-is-here.) Jump to msg. # Due to relaxations in the restrictions on short selling over the past decade by the SEC, the new phenomenon of naked short selling has exploded. Naked short selling in stocks doesn’t involve first borrowing the shares in which to sell short. The naked short seller just sells short without borrowing shares. The short seller then fails to deliver the shares to the buyer on settlement date. The punishment for what is essentially a delivery default? The SEC puts out a (long) list of stocks which have fails to deliver. That’s all it does, it makes a list. No fines, no forced buy backs, no identification of who is naked short selling, no staying after school for detention. And yes, SLV is on that list from time to time. To SLV owners, that should be disturbing. One last kick in the teeth for SLV and silver investors. All investors who purchase SLV shares must pay in full for their shares (or borrow from their brokers at sky-high margin interest rates). Not only do the naked short sellers not have to deposit a dime for their short sales, nor deposit one ounce of real silver, they receive the full cash proceeds that the buyers put up and get to earn interest and deploy that cash until they buy back their short sales. Which may be never, as no one is pressuring them. This is a Wall Street scam and fleecing of the first order. While it is simple to prove that both short selling and naked short selling in the SLV exists, it is not easy to quantify the amount. I’m convinced much of the naked short selling is done on an unreported basis. My best current guess of the amount of cumulative short selling in SLV shares since April 15, is between 2.5 to 5 million shares. This represents an amount of silver of between 25 to 50 million ounces. Let me be clear. I believe that buyers have paid for and hold shares in SLV for more than 25 to 50 million ounces of silver than are deposited in the trust. Can I prove this? No. Do I make this statement loosely and without careful consideration? No. Could the amount of naked short sales of SLV be less than my estimate? Yes. Could the amount of naked short sales be more than my estimate? Yes. news.silverseek.com/TedButler/1213640342.php
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 12:26:36 GMT -5
By: nufced 17 Jun 2008, 12:48 PM EDT Msg. 733017 of 733062 (This msg. is a reply to 733012 by baloney_cleaver.) Jump to msg. # well..Kinney and Gutierrez, have not responded to the lawsuit..and UC hasn't filed an answer.
By: baloney_cleaver 17 Jun 2008, 12:50 PM EDT Msg. 733018 of 733064 (This msg. is a reply to 733017 by nufced.) Jump to msg. # nuf..
They are in deep chit! Keep in mind these three letters..IRS, and their Canadian counterpart! Situations you won't much hear about on the boards!
By: nufced 17 Jun 2008, 01:05 PM EDT Msg. 733024 of 733064 (This msg. is a reply to 733018 by baloney_cleaver.) Jump to msg. # But when?
By: nufced 17 Jun 2008, 01:05 PM EDT Msg. 733025 of 733070 (This msg. is a reply to 733019 by baloney_cleaver.) Jump to msg. # They do what he does, baloney. No show-He did it with Rutherford and all the others.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 17, 2008 12:32:47 GMT -5
By: the_regulator 17 Jun 2008, 01:08 PM EDT Msg. 733028 of 733066 Jump to msg. # Subsequent Events At all relevant times, CMK maintained virtually no corporate books or records, such as a general ledger, bank account records, or documents accurately reflecting related part transactions. Likewise, CMK implemented and maintained no discernable internal controls.
After receiving inquiries from the Commission, CMK acknowledged in February 2005 that its Form 15 was false, and that the company was therefore delinquent in filing periodic reports as required by Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 13a-l and 13a-13 thereunder. In March 2005, the Commission instituted proceedings to deregister the company's stock pursuant to Section 120) of the Exchange Act. The company opposed the Commission's action. In an evidentiary hearing in May 2005, the truth about much of CMK's activities became public. The administrative law judge concluded that deregistration was appropriate. The Commission issued its final order deregistering the company's stock in October 2005.
In March 2007, Casavant resigned all of his roles at CMK and appointed a shareholder to take his place. The company currently has no operations or assets of significant value.
By: david_stevens 17 Jun 2008, 01:09 PM EDT Msg. 733030 of 733066 (This msg. is a reply to 733028 by the_regulator.) Jump to msg. # regulator - u should call Bill Frizzell - great guy!!!!
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 17, 2008 12:36:33 GMT -5
Predicted Banks will have to RAISE 65 Billion?? I thought the Federal Reserve just handed it over to them ?? By: rosencrantz2010 17 Jun 2008, 01:15 PM EDT Msg. 733036 of 733068Jump to msg. # U.S. Stocks Retreat, Led by Financials; Regional Banks Tumble By Elizabeth Stanton June 17 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks fell for the first time in four days as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. predicted banks will have to raise $65 billion in new capital to cover losses and housing starts and industrial production trailed forecasts.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 17, 2008 12:43:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Jun 17, 2008 12:44:34 GMT -5
greenman1515 Viking Re: Oh Dear~~camrhon.proboards102.com « Reply #21 Today at 9:30am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exxxxxcuuuuse Meeeee!!! Nothing simple about me.... ;DThe only notoriety I've ever received is on this board. The other boards just read the "stuffs" and go on. Most don't even rate a comment. I have not ever understood how someone who has never caused any trouble and wants no trouble can be "spotlighted" so often. What have I ever done and why are so many interested in me? Ask chrisl and T if I don't look like the "girl next door".. ;DNow 20 years or so ago I was a "kick azz" sort of woman. Ya know the kind, right? Kick it first and then take the names.. :oBuuut I have matured and I am not the Old, white haired ( do not dye my hair either) kind of grandmother you must be thinking about..who needs attention.......I neither NEED attention nor do I desire it. ;D ;D True that gravity is winning in some areas but for the most part I look mighty fine for my age.. ;D So please just lay off me and leave me out of the conversations and I'll do the same for you all. Okay? I will admit that I do find both humor and sadness in some of the stuff that is posted but that's from all boards, not just from those who start rumors. You may want to also take a look at just how much attention that some of the "no rumor" boards always pay to the rumors. You may want to consider that I always try to give "both" sides of the conversations also. Thaaat's all folks............Nothing left for me to say...... give 'em 'ell girl...LOL... « Last Edit: Today at 9:31am by greenman1515 » cmkxdiamond.proboards66.com/index.cgi?board=general1&action=display&thread=57124&page=2
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 17, 2008 12:47:11 GMT -5
repost..... but interesting...By: elvis-is-here 17 Jun 2008, 01:32 PM EDT Msg. 733068 of 733072 Jump to msg. # by oldepro re Fort a la Corne Diamond Fields, Inc oldepro DIAMOND DIGGER We Don't Need No Stinkin Shares « Thread Started Today at 12:09pm » From the 14 C: EX-10.1 · Material Contracts To Whom It May Concern: For valuable consideration the sufficiency and amount of which is hereby acknowledged, Casavant Mining Kimberlite International Inc. (formerly Cyber Mark International Corp.), a Nevada corporation, hereby agrees to pay to Fort a la Corne Diamond Fields, Inc. and/or its assigns, a five percent (5%) Net Profit Interest Royalty or "NPI Royalty", based on the profit after allowing for costs directly related to production of the Mineral Claims identified in the CASAVANT CLAIMS PURCHASE AND EXPLORATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO FINDER'S ROYALTY WITH REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT ANNEXED which is dated November 25, 2002 and to which this Agreement has been duly annexed. Who is Fort a la Corne Diamond Fields Inc? Urban Casavaut ?? and Alan Moen. It is my belief they are also our "accredited investors". At least I think U c is, I think the other is Emerson Koch. Now the Gutkas also own a 3% ( I THINK) it's 3% net profit royalty. This agreement is pretty much ironclad, according to the filing. I believe it is still valid. If it is, and there is an "Oreo", U C never needed shares. Remember U C and Gutka were named in the Shore gold/Rick Walker dispute. Urban never needed ANY shares. Think about that for a minute. esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=s2DTh9zcLr%252bxS0E1mvBW6w%25 3d%253d www.secinfo.com/d123Y7.2d.c.htm Scroll all the way to the bottom. Under addendum millionaires.proboards86.com/inde....ay&thread=20503
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jun 17, 2008 12:48:06 GMT -5
By: aladin99 17 Jun 2008, 01:36 PM EDT Msg. 733069 of 733073 Jump to msg. # UC has determined to share what he got from the NSS with his faithful shareholders.......otherwise.......things never happened this way...
|
|