|
Post by twobits10 on Aug 25, 2008 16:56:00 GMT -5
snifferpup....where did you find story's update?
at worldreport.org/news....there is no such update.
thanks 2bits
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 25, 2008 17:09:59 GMT -5
By: leowanta 25 Aug 2008, 01:37 PM EDT Msg. 756305 of 756316Jump to msg. # bonafides....you heard it here first.... since leowanta is "coming out"... you should know that leowanta exposed the corruption in the SEC about not regulating abusive naked shorting ....event driven... Bob Maheu is/was leowanta's mirror.....Bob Maheu carried out the SEC's orders to quietly correct cmkx so as to not have a panic sell-off in the market place.......we accomplished that thru Bob, and now the SEC is exposing it....Urban took the fall for the SEC, Urban did nothing wrong, he accentuated the problem to the point of outrageously blatent....that got everyone's attention in congress/presidency.....there was no denying nss was consuming investors money......so the stings began....evenso inside the SEC...many left, that is why is had to remain a secret. ok, now you know....."forget the past and look to the future" says Bob Maheu. By: pontiyak 25 Aug 2008, 03:22 PM EDT Msg. 756327 of 756374(This msg. is a reply to 756305 by leowanta.) Jump to msg. # leo... Gimme a frickin break !!!! although you may have helped the process of fighting NSS and the corruption that is the SEC..... I personally have been battling this plague since 1999, and joined forces with a very dedicated group who took the fight to higher levels starting in 2001 (PCBM) and then (CMKX). Our battle has been fought "collectively", and although we should all be proud of what we have acomplished so far, we are not quite there yet... so.......... put the cookie back on the plate ! Now who is this RB Leowanta?? or should I say who does he/she think he/she is?? .. lol lol. SPEAK UP LEO !!By: leowanta 25 Aug 2008, 03:29 PM EDT Msg. 756332 of 756374(This msg. is a reply to 756327 by pontiyak.) Jump to msg. # pontiyak.... ok, then if you started in 1999...why didn't it happen for you? is it because you are not "qualified"..... again, i tell you the truth i am certified-qualified to make it happen, and did so, starting with REG SHO, the SEC would confirm it, but they cannot, since i could sue them under the privacy act...having said that, since i now have gone public....the act may no longer apply. we'll see if they put out press about it...they might, dunno...
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 25, 2008 17:12:52 GMT -5
By: leowanta 25 Aug 2008, 03:42 PM EDT Msg. 756337 of 756379 (This msg. is a reply to 756332 by leowanta.) Jump to msg. # and i will add....many, many people were fighting the NSS
to include O'Quinn and Wes Christiansen....only to get dismissed in' court, cause a lawyer cannot sue a regulator....only a "certified-qualified" person can force a regulator to correct corruption...FACT, i should know, been doing it since 1988....and have paid a HUGE price in retaliation.......not something you walk into lightly....there is a price that was paid, for forcing the change.... regulators corrupt officials don't play fair....no holds barred in retaliation....that is why reagan gave me the code name Leo Wanta to protect me from retaliation....they found out anyway.
cost v. benefit.... again, the cost was long paid over 18 years...not everyone is willing to put all they own, all they have on the line for another.....i was in a no-win situation....lee iacoucca (SP) said it...you never, ever, put an employee in a no-win situation, cause they will come out fighting like a tiger and the company/regulator will lose....that's exactly what happened in 1988 (this tiger was crowned "qualified" by Ronald Reagan....(with the Lord in my back pocket....unbeknownced to me.)
so...folks, there are "few" "qualifieds" around, you bonifieds are fortunate, i was a fellow shareholder....you were in the right place at the right time....not to mention urban casavant had no clue he had such a shareholder in the outfield.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 25, 2008 17:20:55 GMT -5
By: elvis-is-here 25 Aug 2008, 04:24 PM EDT Msg. 756346 of 756380 Jump to msg. # Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct, (1989) reprinted in Tex. Govt Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. (Vernon Supp. 1995)(State Bar Rules art X [[section]]9))
I CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP
1.09 Conflict of Interest: Former Client
(a) Without prior consent, a lawyer who personally has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in a matter adverse to the former client:
(1) in which such other person questions the validity of the lawyer's services or work product for the former client;
(2) if the representation in reasonable probability will involve a violation of Rule 1.05; or
(3) if it is the same or a substantially related matter.
(b) Except to the extent authorized by Rule 1.10, when lawyers are or have become members of or associated with a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client if any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by paragraph (a).
(c) When the association of a lawyer with a firm has terminated, the lawyers who were then associated with that lawyer shall not knowingly represent a client if the lawyer whose association with that firm has terminated would be prohibited from doing so by paragraph (a)(l) or if the representation in reasonable probability will involve a violation of Rule 1.05.
By: my69z 25 Aug 2008, 04:38 PM EDT Msg. 756352 of 756380 (This msg. is a reply to 756346 by elvis-is-here.) Jump to msg. # What does this law have to do with CMKX's attornies ??...
|
|
|
Post by hundredtoone on Aug 25, 2008 17:23:01 GMT -5
Thanks Single for picking this up...sounds good to me...5 MILL from MY TRUST...a RELIEF PAYMENT...and I don't mind giving up a little future PROFIT for some PROFIT today...like WHIMPY and the hamburgers...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial) I like the 5M/ shareholder idea but I think it should be divvied up PRO RATA depending on share count...because those with MORE invested LONGER deserve more of the LOOT...IMO...that is the only fair way to divvy anything up IMO...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial) Darn PB29 getting more attention from RB... is that good or bad?? lol lolMessage For you 100-1.... From LeowantaBy: leowanta 25 Aug 2008, 02:55 PM EDT Msg. 756318 of 756366 Jump to msg. # by hundredtoone (pb29) I like the 5M/ shareholder idea but I think it should be divvied up PRO RATA depending on share count...because those with MORE invested LONGER deserve more of the LOOT...IMO...that is the only fair way to divvy anything up IMO...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial) 100-1....it's my understanding each bonafide shareholder has their own trust...all total the trusts are earning interest ...inside a big trust holding all bonafide trusts... 5M would be immediately released from your trust....the rest would be available to you anytime you wish...you simply request it (i said 5M as a "hold-over" cause you are going to get more damages and etgmf is going to morph into the congolmerate, more money...5M is just "hold over money, staying invested in the wealth fund which really could be the biggest wealth producer, and it's private, secure and a sure winner cause all bonifide shareholders will be participating in it's growth)...the down side, is the return on your trust is much less on future projects. so, you are completely in control of the asset...it's just held together in the mega trust cause it would help earn more interest...now, i don't know all the particulars, i am believing this is the way it is set up... anyways, thats the way i see it....as chair/ceo..i bring honesty/legitimacy with integrity to ensure nobody is breaking the law....the growth is every bonifide's responsibility as in creating wealth for the company....your ideas, your inventions....whatever, we are truly in the right spot at the right time, cause we have access to uranium...the sky is the limit since energy is moving toward nuclear power products..... that's the VISION i have for us. leowanta oops...the downside...100-1... is,the more you take out of your individual trust, then the less you receive off the profits of future projects....the big trust earning interest holding all the bonifide trusts should be spread evenily over the little trusts.... profit from projects should be according to the percentage your trust earns ...so the more in your trust, the more of the profit you get...it's shouldn't be pro rata...those who withdraw most of their trust should not be given the same amount as those who did not withdraw...anyway.....it's just a vision.....those details are not on the table as yet...it's truly up to the majority. leowanta
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 25, 2008 17:26:05 GMT -5
Uh OH.... Lou's back and he ain't happy !! By: lou60447 25 Aug 2008, 05:22 PM EDT Msg. 756359 of 756380Jump to msg. # Nothing changes: I don't get access to this board often, but when i do nothing ever seems to change. I sometimes am ashamed to admit I have any connection to some of the people on this board. I especially dislike those that cloak themselves in religion regarding CMKX. They are the biggest phonies on this board. The leowantas,, the ravenpeaches and the mquietstorms. religion has no place in this matter. it is purely a matter of money. Leowanta is a fruitcake. he reminds me of an old miserable batard who is bitter at the world. he has probably counted on money from this stock and refuses to accept any negative outcome. He is like Jack Lemon in the movie The Out of Towners who was constantly threatening to sue everybody. And I wish some people would stop using the phrase "when we get paid" as if it is a foregone conclusion. When it comes to money, delays usually are not good for the possible recipients. The only phrase applicable to our situation is "if we get paid." I have constantly repeated that I will let anyone know who I am and what i do. I do not need to hide behind a pseudonym or make up some phoney job I hold. I have a web site that tells exactly what I do. I only wish others on this board would be so candid. And how do some people post on this board day and night. Do they work for a living? I may disagree with gusjarvis and drillbit. But at least they do DD and present rational positions. There are just too many looney tunes on this board. My most fervent wish is for speedy resolution of this CMKX. Even a negative outcome is still an outcome. But I believe some of you on this board would like this to go on forever. For some, this board is one great lovefest for those that agree with you. By: ctla_4_me 25 Aug 2008, 06:29 PM EDT Msg. 756385 of 756385(This msg. is a reply to 756359 by lou60447.) Jump to msg. # Lou, Yeah it was hard to just admit that the naked shorts won the cmkx battle, even though they were exposed. That's why the anonymous hypsters were able to generate so much of an interest. Looks like they're just going to keep getting away with it, and no real regulation is in sight, and before we got it figured out and controled, our economy went to crap anyway... so we did all that we could but we were too late.
|
|
|
Post by hundredtoone on Aug 25, 2008 17:36:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snifferpup on Aug 25, 2008 17:56:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 25, 2008 18:11:28 GMT -5
By: elvis-is-here 25 Aug 2008, 04:24 PM EDT Msg. 756346 of 756380Jump to msg. # Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct, (1989) reprinted in Tex. Govt Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. (Vernon Supp. 1995)(State Bar Rules art X [[section]]9)) I CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP 1.09 Conflict of Interest: Former Client (a) Without prior consent, a lawyer who personally has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in a matter adverse to the former client: (1) in which such other person questions the validity of the lawyer's services or work product for the former client; (2) if the representation in reasonable probability will involve a violation of Rule 1.05; or (3) if it is the same or a substantially related matter. (b) Except to the extent authorized by Rule 1.10, when lawyers are or have become members of or associated with a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client if any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by paragraph (a). (c) When the association of a lawyer with a firm has terminated, the lawyers who were then associated with that lawyer shall not knowingly represent a client if the lawyer whose association with that firm has terminated would be prohibited from doing so by paragraph (a)(l) or if the representation in reasonable probability will involve a violation of Rule 1.05. By: my69z 25 Aug 2008, 04:38 PM EDT Msg. 756352 of 756380(This msg. is a reply to 756346 by elvis-is-here.) Jump to msg. # What does this law have to do with CMKX's attornies ??... By: elvis-is-here 25 Aug 2008, 06:50 PM EDT Msg. 756400 of 756407(This msg. is a reply to 756350 by leowanta.) Jump to msg. # leowanta Frizzle knows these rules. He has to. The question is if just ignored the rules, or if the interests are not adverse. Yes, it points more toward one team imo. By: leowanta 25 Aug 2008, 06:54 PM EDT Msg. 756403 of 756407(This msg. is a reply to 756400 by elvis-is-here.) Jump to msg. # elvis...i agree he has to have these rules... at the same time, does he remember this rule...i think not. agree...we are still one team... the original team
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 25, 2008 18:29:42 GMT -5
from the Millionaire Board.... breaking72 DIAMOND DIGGER Re: buzz talk 8/25 and beyond...« Reply #19 Today at 12:16pm » I find it odd that if you look at the entire post from that last Gusjarvis posting of JMartins Letter on the Sterling Board it states the following: "Bill Frizzell is walking a very fine line. He has to deal with some of the most selfish individuals I think I have ever encountered. He has to deal with a company that has done a lot of things wrong, HOWEVER, may have the goods. He has to deal with the SEC; he has a law license to protect; and he has to work for 5,000-6,000 shareholders who deserve to receive their due. He has to juggle information in a way that does not completely destroy the company in which we all have believed; and he has to know what to tell his clients without informing the enemy. On top of all this, he has to deal with little funding. Folks, we are spending most of our time attempting to convince people we are doing the right thing! I know you cannot see it, but Bill is spending 10-12 hours per day on this, and we are at a junction that could make or break our efforts to succeed for all of us. " Why is it that BF says he never worked for us...am I wrong about that ?? From what I remember per Bill Frizzell.. MP3... He was retained by and represented only 1 client, which was John Martin. For those that contributed their $25.00 or $50.00..... It was kinda like.... Hey if ya want to contribute to the cause send your money. Again Frizzell stated "He was retained by and represented John Martin only". portrush Mod Squad Re: buzz talk 8/25 and beyond...« Reply #20 Today at 12:22pm » Breaking72, Yes, you're mistaken here. This letter was written during the time the OG was in place and there were 5-6,000 people who signed up and supported the OG/Frizzell at that time. Unless I am mistaken, Martin was speaking in terms of serving the OG members. Frizzell has never been retained to represent the CMKX shareholder base en masse.
|
|
|
Post by twobits10 on Aug 25, 2008 19:18:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by twobits10 on Aug 25, 2008 19:23:13 GMT -5
Potrush...you said:
portrush Mod Squad Re: buzz talk 8/25 and beyond...« Reply #20 Today at 12:22pm » Breaking72, Yes, you're mistaken here. This letter was written during the time the OG was in place and there were 5-6,000 people who signed up and supported the OG/Frizzell at that time. Unless I am mistaken, Martin was speaking in terms of serving the OG members. Frizzell has never been retained to represent the CMKX shareholder base en masse.
----->REMEMBER when Frizzell wanted to be a third party to the SEC hearing, he put out a letter of agreement, for all cmkxers to give him $25 for his services....in that agreement, he also included cmkxshareholders WHO DID NOT PAY...i objected to Frizzell's agreement because i refused to pay him $25 and did not want him to represent me in any way....
so from that agreement, frizzell maybe assuming more than reality...he might think he represented all shareholders in the hearing....then after during the certificate pull...which was not the case...frizzell was just counting shares for the taskforce...he was NOT representing cmkxers in any legal capacity.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Aug 25, 2008 20:14:18 GMT -5
Goodolboy raises a good question?? So what is the significance and the reason for a declaration from Brewer?? Remember these threads regarding the alleged shady dealings of Steven Brewer??cmkxunofficial.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=mofo&action=display&thread=1575cmkxunofficial.proboards29.com/index.cgigoodolboy Junior Member Edwards Suit Update« Thread Started Today at 2:27pm » 08/19/2008 DECLARATION OF STEVEN M BREWER IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT For CMKM Diamonds Inc Filed By CMKM Diamonds Inc 15 pages Can someone explain this? Why would CMKM need Brewer's support for default? Goodolboy Chief Administrator Re: Desormeau Case Update « Reply #1 Today at 5:05pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is TOO Good... It appears that Frizzell... I mean Brewer typed the wrong case number on his filing. LMAO!! Yeah, Brewer filed Pro Se... ROTFLMAO!!! sure he did... cmkxclubhouse.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2162
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Aug 25, 2008 20:16:58 GMT -5
Goodolboy Chief Administrator Why is Bill Frizzell... « Thread Started Today at 5:15pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- working on Steven Brewer's case against USCN? Anyone care to discuss the relationship between Bill and Steve? Ric Executive Administrator Re: Why is Bill Frizzell... « Reply #1 Today at 5:28pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve is a major backer of the TOGI so I would assume he is the one that has been paying all of CMKM's bills to date. Not sure how he got rich, he seems to throw good money after bad hands over fist. So not only will he make money from helping dump shares after revocation, he will make money on the interest fon loans rom any money recovered which probably will never be more then his bill. Ric Executive Administrator Re: Why is Bill Frizzell... « Reply #2 Today at 5:32pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seems to me everytime someone gets the shareholders trust in this stock they get screwed in the end. cmkxclubhouse.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2163
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Aug 25, 2008 20:45:45 GMT -5
By: adrienne07 25 Aug 2008, 04:04 AM EDT Msg. 756224 of 756459 Jump to msg. # Who bears the most responsibility for over 600 billions un-registered/illegal/counterfeited shares ?
|
|