|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:03:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:07:35 GMT -5
seagull Administrator CMKX Gossip Column Re: gossip 2/16/09 « Reply #9 Today at 4:08am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- showmethemoney Acca... thank you for answering me directly. Folks, there was a very specific reason I asked Acca this question. I never really understood Acca's position on Nite/ CitiGroup until now. Assuming Acca is being straight up with us... and at this point in time, his story is beginning to make some sense... Acca is saying that Nite/ CitGroup was the enabler for John Edwards selling Unregistered shares into the securities markets in the first place... and not just the facilitator of NSS - which we have all assumed was Acca's original reason for calling Nite out. Read my posts from today on Rule 15c2-11 -- Initiation or Resumption of Quotations without Specified Information. They are the reason I asked Acca this particular set of questions. His Answer of Yes - as to whether Nite was a Market Maker for CMKM Diamonds (CMKX) is important. Typically, a company has to solicit the services of a market maker... which is what allows the company's securities to be traded in the first place. But, John Edwards' Shares were never authorized/ legal in the first place! By the way, Market Makers are authorized to Naked Short a stock in order to make a market. The market maker makes their money on the difference between the bid and ask price in security transactions. If the demand is huge, as in the case of CMKX, they can make a ton of money. In other words, there is tremendous incentive for a market maker to naked short a company they believe is bogus in the first place, and eventually will go out of business. However, his answer of Yes, Nite was the facilitator of the sales of John Edwards' Unregistered Shares is, imo, Monstrous! This is the heart and soul of my arguments related to Rule 15c2-11 -- Initiation or Resumption of Quotations without Specified Information. Clearly, under this rule Nite would be 100% accountable for understanding the true AS and OS of CMKM Diamonds when the company started trading under the CMKX Symbol... and making that information available to prospective buyers. That obviously didn't happen. There are no caveats to this rule that I can find. Go back and read the texts I cited today. They are both recent legal reviews and discussions on the requirements of this rule. Finally, Acca's statements that "the Opportunity Presented Itself To Yet Illegally Naked Short Another Pinkie" fits my theory that John Edwards actions were the primer to Naked Short Selling that most all of us have believed occurred. It just makes sense. As I said in my posts earlier today, I think John Edwards actually counted on this... to help hide his own activities to "Pump and Dumb" the 259 Billion unregistered shares he is directly responsible for. After all, Nite was legally authorized to naked short the CMKX stock. But, what Nite wasn't authorized to do, is sell stock as a market maker and broker without representing the true AS and OS of the company. Nor where they authorized to sell John Edwards "Unregistered Shares" as these were not legal in the first place... and they had to have known that! Once the brokers and hedge funds saw how many shares were trading, they clearly understood that something weird was going on... and they jumped in, naked shorting the stock to the moon, with the understanding that their actions would be pretty much ignored as "just another Penny Stock scam". Of course, Acca could be making this all up. But, in my opinion, the story is beginning to fit together and make sense. AIMO, - Show Yesterday at 7:19pm, procmkm wrote: tramp2.proboards88.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7694
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:12:15 GMT -5
ty seagull....
by omegapoint
Re: Why is the DTCC still holding CMKX Shares? « Result #1 Yesterday at 7:05pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dicek18: "Why does the DTCC still have CMKX common stock in its possession? Because there most likely still exists a brokerage or two who have yet to purchase back the CMKX shares they sold to shareholders."
That is correct, but the "CMKX shares" are NOT really "CMKX shares" at all but are but are in actuality IOUs/illegal counterfeited shares. ~omegapoint
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:13:17 GMT -5
ty seagull...
by omegapoint
Re: Why is the DTCC still holding CMKX Shares? « Result #3 on Feb 14, 2009, 9:38pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is basically how the fractional U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System is supposed to work:
LEGAL SETTLEMENT PROCESS
In a legal settlement process, all shares are held in the Depository Trust Company (DTC). When buyers buy stock, their brokers' account ledgers are credited the exact number of shares of the purchase of the stock; likewise, when sellers sell stock, their brokers' account ledgers are debited the exact number of shares of the sale of the stock.
In a legal settlement process, all funds are held in the National System Clearing Corporation (NSCC). As soon as the buyers' funds are credited to the sellers' accounts, the NSCC alerts the DTC and the buyers' account ledgers are updated to show ownership of the stock.
In legal short selling, the sellers borrow the shares from legitimate owners' brokers in the DTC and then use those shares to make good on their short sale when it comes time to credit shares to the buyers.
ILLEGAL SETTLEMENT PROCESS
In illegal naked short selling (NSS), the sellers borrow no shares. In place of the shares, the U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System (System) creates IOUs, which in essence are illegal counterfeited shares, about which the buyers are never told. Therefore the buyers receive IOUs/counterfeited shares, in exchange for their real funds. In essence, the System creates the IOUs/counterfeited shares which in turn creates failures to deliver (FTD) because the shares are nonexistent.
"Once a broker purchased CMKX shares from the DTCC, where would those funds from purchased shares go?"
The funds are supposed to go to the National System Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and then credited to the account of the illegal NSS.
"The "participants" go to the DTCC to purchase the CMKX shares that they need, which only then entitles the brokerage to be issued bona fide certs from the Transfer Agent."
"Why does the DTCC still have CMKX common stock in its possession?"
At this point, the DTCC would NOT have any common shares in its possession because of the illegal NSS it allowed and therefore would only have IOUs/illegal counterfeited shares in the ledgers of the buyers in place of the common shares.
Therefore, I believe that when "Mr. Richards has verified that the DTCC still holds common shares of CMKM Diamonds, Inc stock," he was referring to the IOUs/illegal counterfeited shares and mistakingly calling them "common shares."
And that is a misnomer. They are NOT shares at all.
We need to somehow initiate an audit of the DTCC; but I am unsure if that is possible.
And therein lies the dilemma.
~omegapoint
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:15:39 GMT -5
ty binkinipro...
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Feb 2009, 01:56 PM EST Rating: Msg. 810536 of 810576
someone is paying good money to TYLER. a risky move in this environment. nothing certain. and yet, someone has stepped up and decided to lend millions to TYLER. wow.
i wonder if TYLER will pay it back in the event nothing pans out for them?
given TYLER's desperate need for money from the lawsuits it is a little strange that they haven't done more to go after urban to try and get some money.
here it is, a year after urban stuck his tongue out at the judge, court and TYLER and said, "go suck an egg," and yet TYLER just let him go. why? and why would they do that when they obviously need the money?
maybe the deal was that TYLER agreed to sell their first born in the event they can't win their lawsuits and make any money? what would the lender want as collateral? maybe it was a local bank that wasn't caught up in all the banking scandal and that bank had more money than it knew what to do with?
rich texan that just doesn't care about money?
local bank with more money than it knows what to with?
or,,, maybe someone lent them all that money? but who?
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:22:18 GMT -5
fishing4diamonds Seaman Re: One advisory member public « Reply #1 Yesterday at 2:42pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barry is indeed correct in everything he's explained. I agree 100%. goodolboy..................is just struggling to understand that he's been screwed by a bunch of bad guys. It isn't Tyler's fault we got fugged. It's OUR fault. Now you can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. The screwing is done. They can't get anymore of OUR money. It's already gone. Now if THEY (Tyler) are able to get some back.............................d*mnM GOOD FOR THEM. Ric Cannoneer Re: One advisory member public « Reply #2 Yesterday at 5:18pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just have a problem in the fact the ones that they put on the board and at least the one we know now on the advisory committee were idiots that couldn't buy a clue until after Kevin. Most, not saying intentionally, were why many are trapped in this scam. trying to protect Urban and using stuff like the Def 14 theory to try and say how people were trying to frame Urban. These people are no different then Bhollenegg. I am sure those on the board are nice people that still doesn't mean they are the brightest in the bunch. Just Kevin look a likes. Yet these morons are running things and making the decisions of the company, also making decisions that supposed to be the shareholders while refusing to say who they are. cmkxdiamond.proboards66.com/index.cgi?board=general1&action=display&thread=58278
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:24:15 GMT -5
Posted by: nufced Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:24:45 PM In reply to: None Post # of 267994
TSX..The RCMP is well aware of an investigation, wonder why they aren't pursuing one? I believe with Petro, according to you and others, would have been his first strike..and now this. I don't understand why the SEC didn't freeze any assets like they do in other cases.
FDiv-LaRonge@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, FDiv-PA_Rural_Detachment@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, FDiv-Regina_Detachment@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, FDiv-SK_Rural_Detachment@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, FDiv-Smeaton@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, FDiv-Melfort@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:35:25 GMT -5
By: kesselshlot 16 Feb 2009, 09:35 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810722 of 810797
Jump to msg. # well, dem, 'Team Tyler' has accomplished what anybody could; nothing.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:36:03 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 16 Feb 2009, 09:41 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810723 of 810797
Jump to msg. # and demntx, what are you hearing out of tyler? anything other than the latest letters and the petition?
still weird the way they go after urban, edwards and the others? it seems inconsistent. and why aren't they screaming for that summary judgment, even if they know they can't enforce it? to an outsider it looks like they don't even want it. at least it owuld be a moral victory for tyler.
honestly, urban's forces are winning the PR battle, and that shows how weak tyler's communication strategy is. they are the legal management. they have the government on their side. they are legit. they are fighting a crew that has been successfully sued for stealing tens of millions of dollars from the shareholders and yet, the tyler guys are increasingly being cast as the bad guys. wow, talk about a poor strategy. maybe the guys in TYLER should think about hiring a PR company to help them with their image problem? LOL
urban is winning the PR war - no doubt about it. and what makes it all the more remarkable is he's winning while hanging out at the casinos in saskatoon.
amazing.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:36:32 GMT -5
By: jboydwv 16 Feb 2009, 09:45 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810724 of 810797 Jump to msg. # The case for nationalizing entire economy .... www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1879745,00.html
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:37:14 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 16 Feb 2009, 09:51 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810726 of 810797 (Reply to 810725 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # okay, so the SEC is warned of this possible latest scam last year and they are already moving on it,,, or at least we are reading the news of such action in the press -- and i'll bet there will be some big stories about it in the NY Times, etc. today and the coming weeks.
and where are we? where are our big stories and coverage? and why isn't the SEC talking about the CMKX fraud case along with these others? ,,,,,
The SEC was alerted to Stanford last year when two former company employees, Charles Rawl and Mark Tidwell, told regulators that they suspected Stanford was engaged in illegal practices related to selling the CDs and other securities.
In an internal memo obtained by Bloomberg, Stanford blamed the investigations on former disgruntled employees: "We are all aware that former disgruntled employees have gone to the regulators questioning our work and our processes," he said in the email. "This could have compounded an otherwise routine examination."
The investigations come in the wake of the SEC's failed bid to heed warnings that Madoff's investments were too good to be true. Since the $50 billion ponzi scheme was revealed, the SEC has announced lawsuits against at least seven other money managers.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:38:13 GMT -5
By: aladin99 16 Feb 2009, 10:05 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810729 of 810797
Jump to msg. # By CNBC - Madoffs Victims will get restitution up to $500K each investor.
By: rosencrantz2010 16 Feb 2009, 10:10 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810732 of 810797 (Reply to 810729 by aladin99)
Jump to msg. # aladin, that's good news,,, i guess. if the award is in proportion to their investment we could be looking at pennies on the dollar.
in our case, if the average cmkx investor put in $1,500 then we may only get $150 each back from the feds.
if that's all we see it will hurt,,, big time.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:38:39 GMT -5
By: pennypauly 16 Feb 2009, 10:05 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810730 of 810797
Jump to msg. # carquest does that snake have Two heads! give us more please.ty
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:41:46 GMT -5
By: kesselshlot 16 Feb 2009, 10:19 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810733 of 810799 (Reply to 810732 by rosencrantz2010) Jump to msg. # rosie-all the money is gone. you won't see jack. penny scam investors never do. By: rosencrantz2010 16 Feb 2009, 10:21 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810734 of 810799 (Reply to 810733 by kesselshlot) Jump to msg. # kessel, so, you are saying urban is the dumbest crook in the world, right? or is he smart? which one? By: rosencrantz2010 16 Feb 2009, 10:03 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810728 of 810799 (Reply to 810727 by aladin99) Jump to msg. # aladin, how is urban and the casavant clan going to overcome the bad press it has received these past few years? i can't imagine urban or carolyn or the kids and relatives can go anywhere without people whispering behind their backs, "there goes those casavants. they are accused of stealing millions in a stock fraud scheme." if it were me, i'd die of embarrassment. maybe urban and carolyn don't care? i don't know them so i don't know. but i don't see how they do it. even going to the market would be tough to do under the circumstances. so, assuming urban is innocent, what do you think the plans are for undoing the years of negative press about the casavant family name? even if urban is declared an innocent victim in all of this there will still be many that don;t believe it and will never invest in anything the man has his name on, such as CIM. in short, how does urban overcome the bad press? and can his name ever be recovered from being associated with crime? By: aladin99 16 Feb 2009, 10:22 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810735 of 810799 (Reply to 810728 by rosencrantz2010) Jump to msg. # Rose...If UC ran a SCAM of raising UNregistered shares and selling them which this didn't make any sense at all...I have no idea why he did not do any R/S while hired Mahue, created Tyler and paid for the cert pull....I believe UC will prove himself that he tried to run a reversal operation of Mandoff's and banks' SCAM...
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Feb 16, 2009 12:43:29 GMT -5
By: aladin99 16 Feb 2009, 10:34 AM EST Rating: Msg. 810747 of 810800 (Reply to 810739 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # Rose - SEC said UC raised Restricted shares and sold them which does not make sense...why any company would raise Restricted shares and sell them...
Madoffs tried to destroy millionaires... UC tried to create millionaires...
|
|