|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:11:03 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Mar 2009, 02:46 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 817245 of 817295
Jump to msg. # unreal Ty snoopstock5 Re: **Smoking Gun, 622 Unreg, part of 703 or Above « Reply #40 Today at 12:23pm »
Many people are not going to like this post, but post it again I will. It is rumored that UC increased the A/S and put them into trusts or other companies. If this is true, the O/S is far less than everyone thinks. Also, when crooks to pump and dump scams and short sales, they do "box jobs". In these "box jobs", the shorted shares are not sold to individuals, they are sold in different offshore accounts. It was and still is my belief that there are way less shares that everyone things there are. It was NOT the task force job to collect from the shorts. The task force does not have the authority to get after the shorts. Only the SEC and DOJ. All the info from the Task force stated that only BONA FIDE would be accepted. I highly doubt that the brokers would have sent our naked shorted certs. We have an unshareholder website. Therefore the conclusion that we held naked shorted shares is false. If the task force did make brokers pay for our shares, that is aiding and abetting crooks. I highly doubt IBM, DS, RG, and others would have done this. UC bought back shares in 2004. There were 16.5 billion, 1.8 billion, 4.4 billion, 9.02 billion, and 6 billion.
Lastly, if this stock is/was worth as much as everyone is telling you, then they would not have thrown the shares to the general public. The idea was a hostel takeover of the company. Destroy it through naked short selling and buy it cheap. Acca has stated numerous times that 634 billion is not the O/S. He has also stated that 97% would take the money for CIM instead of the shares. If you reread the shareholder derivative letters, you will see what I am talking about and be able to know how many of the 39,995 shareholders sent in STATEMENTS instead of CERTS. Also, the task force never stated if UC's shares or other companies that still held were included in the numbers. Mass majority of investors buy low and sell high. I am sure many of them sold CmKx in Oct of 04 before CIM. Then they may have bought it back. However, I doubt the ones they bought back would count as bona fide. Jay was always telling other posters this same thing. He also stated that we shouldn't worry if he held the stock. At one time he stated something similar to this, "If you didn't follow the urge to push the sell button, then you are alright. I don't think UC scammed us. He stated many times that we would be very happy with the O/S. Acca keeps talking about the "MANY BAD ACTORS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS STOCK."
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:11:34 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Mar 2009, 08:28 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 817249 of 817295
Jump to msg. # talk about dead, the conglomerate board is really dead.
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Mar 2009, 08:28 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 817250 of 817297 (Reply to 817249 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # and sterling's died several years ago.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:12:39 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 08:47 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 817252 of 817298
Jump to msg. # don't forget...
'nothing posted here matters'
'wrapped up'
'DISTRIBUTION will go forward'
'shift is here'
'expect the un-expected'
'deriv says ouch'
'i guess i am not one of the 'transmittal letter' companies, or am i?'
hagd
ms
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:14:11 GMT -5
By: newtopennies 15 Mar 2009, 10:58 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 817275 of 817299
Jump to msg. # " THE GREAT thing about the market, is that it has nothing to do with the actual stocks." Jim Cramer. eom.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:15:13 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Mar 2009, 11:34 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 817289 of 817300
Jump to msg. # does any of this DeliDog stuff amount to any more than a hill of beans?
frankly, why should we care? in the grand scheme of things does DeliDog buying and selling shares of cmkx means,,, what?
how many shares were bought and sold through him? 5, 10, 20 billion? given that we're looking at 600-700 billion, what's another 10 billion?
i say they slap his wrist and let the shares stand. the buyers and sellers can't be blamed if he violated the regulations. so, i'm guessing all those shares will remain in the total which means in the end it doesn't mean a thing. we're still looking at 600-700 billion shares.
about the only thing i'm interested in learning from the DEliDog case is who was he getting the shares from? was it that crook that ran USCA? was it urban? and exactly who it was and what the eventual outcome of this case is will determine the meaning we attach to those shares. for example, if you want to put a totally positive spin on the shares is that urban sold them to Deli knowing that by selling them into the after-market he was allowing more individual investors to participate in any settlement funds.
the negative spin, of course, is that urban simply continued the CON and used Deli to keep dumping whatever remaining shares he had. he knew the shares were worthless and figured he could get Deli to dump the rest of the tens of billions of shares he had for .0001 to .0002 a share - good money. urban and carolyn would get another couple of million that way and Deli could make good money and the people in the various rooms that were clamoring for shares would be happy because of the sales job they kept hearing from ACCA and the others.
everyone was happy: urban/carolyn, Deli, the buyers and ACCA and friends that got a piece of the pie from Deli for helping him create the marketplace and locate the buyers.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:15:44 GMT -5
By: oil.ipo 15 Mar 2009, 11:30 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 817288 of 817300 (Reply to 817067 by oil.ipo) Jump to msg. # He knows; video.ap.org/?f=AP&pid=UuFP4coJ0B6DAk_fF_Tu8SxVdM0eBJXs HE, OBAMA KNOWS (THE MISSING QUOTIENT $,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00). There really can only be one cure for this ailing Economy. GROSS, IMMEDIATE SPENDING by way of the INFLUX of CASH INTO THE HANDS of the AMERICAN CITIZENS, who are overdue DAMAGES/RESTITUTION. ___________________________________________ In contrast, with regard to the reality of what the population at large is seeing (in the aftermath) of Worldwide exposure to fraud; No one escapes, and evidently no one has escaped. It makes no difference what side of the law you are on. Even the victimized are seeing that they can never again turn their backs, nor place any faith, trust, security in the oversight of the law (or lack of it), any management system public or private especially. For the reign of faith is within ones own grasp and mind. Sleep with one eye open at all times if you can. If you can fathom the possibility of any future failure(s) then expect them, and be ready for "it" to occur again. Mitigate damages by lowering your risk, and exposure at all times going forward. NEVER FULLY TRUST ANYONE AGAIN!~ With reference to the above segment/Video; On the right side of that same page you will see another video entitled "FIRST PERSON: INVESTOR ON MADOFF GOING TO JAIL"- Highlighting a woman victimized who eloquently described what her life is now like essentially "being married to Bernie Madoff " /analogy in the emotional and psychological state (she is now mentally in) that she gets up in the AM, and goes to bed in the PM with him on her mind , her controlled lifestyle, (spending) that she lives on = food stamps. You will see the video on the same page as the President's video. Worth a look see for a reality check. AIMVHO2~ Oil
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:16:29 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Mar 2009, 11:59 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 817292 of 817301 Jump to msg. # bellingus and others keep referring to a process (a transaction between cmkx owners and ) whereby the cmkx shareholder is going to jump at an offer to buy his/her shares. what could this transaction be? will each of us receive a small package in the mail stating that shares will be bought for X amount? we get the choice to sell what we want or keep the shares in exchange for another stock that will begin trading in two months from that time, or some such thing. and bellingus and the others are suggesting people will be so tired of the bullshiiitt they will jump at the chance to get their money back but in the long run will be making the wrong decision because the real money is going to be in the second stock. there are a whole bunch of assumptions behind that scenario for it to work. for example, where is the money coming from? who is buying our shares? how is it explained to people? for example, CNBC might asked, "who would pay this amount for a worthless stock like CMKX?" the response might be, well the FALC claims were determined to be worth billions. okay, but remember, pretty much ALL of our former claims are now owned by SHORE GOLD, not us. so, back to the main question, how do you justify someone paying us good money for our shares? i don;t see how it can be done. but maybe it's another transaction. maybe we return to trading. people that want to sell get to sell at some fixed price. we all get to sell what we want. to price is fixed at X amount and we get to buy and sell for that price. once a certain amount of time goes buy all remaining cmkx shares are swapped out for another stock and the cmkx saga becomes a thing of the past. buy here again you have a whole bunch of assumptions about what needs to go on before this transaction occurs and makes any sense. to get us back to trading it will require a big , messy job of turning in our certs, etc. a total mess. i guess it could happen, but it is questionable. what's another transaction? maybe it involves ENTOURAGE? maybe. but how exactly isn't clear to me. what, we get shares of ENTOURAGE and then get to trade those shares? so what? how does that solve anything? unless ENTOURAGE sells for thousands of dollars per share none of us are going to see a ROI on our CMKX shares. so, again, how does ENTOURAGE help us? and i don't see how ENTOURAGE can hold any claims worth much. just look at the current FALC claims maps and you will see that ENTOURAGE looks to be out of the "money" area. SHORE now has most of that. so, if it not one of these three transactions, what's it going to be? how are we going to be given the opportunity to "make a mistake" by selling our shares cheap? what is the transaction? i don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:17:44 GMT -5
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:03 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817294 of 817301
Jump to msg. # I brought up a valid point of contention with regards to the SEC and this 622 billion unregistered security. The company should be addressing this issue and the company is the only entity that can do this. But how do you get the company to do this?
You the shareholder write a letter to the company a very simple letter asking the following questions:
1. Is the stock certificate that I am holding registered? Provide the company with your cert number.
2. Is the 622 billion unregistered securities that the SEC stated are in the market part of the 703 billion or are they above the 703 billion?
Two very simple questions. Don't ask about where my money is or idiotic stuff like where is my Entourage Cert.
But it seems people have trouble understanding these 2 very easy questions. I have read on PB86 that they want to ask Bob Hollenegg for advice. What the hell does that do?
Only the company can this and they have the SEC behind a rock and hard place. Force the company to get the answers and do not wait.
Or wait for Bhollenegg and Al Hodges and then watch the statute of limitations expire.
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:09 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817295 of 817301 (Reply to 817294 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # chris,
do you have the current contact address for the 'wrapped up' cmkm nevada? i would be happy to write that letter and ask those exact questions?
tia
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Mar 2009, 12:12 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817298 of 817301 (Reply to 817294 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # chrisl, good advice, but what i don't understand is how are our certificates not registered?
and haven't we been told repeatedly by people at the company that if you have a certificate you are a bona fide shareholder?
i guess i'm still confused about why there should even be a question about all of this. and what's more confusing to me is why Mark Faulk couldn't answer your direct question about this very point. how is it the CEO, a man that's been focused on this very subject for years now, couldn't give you a straight answer other than to say he'll ask the SEC. WHAT?!! jesus, i'm not the CEO and i could have given you that answer! LOL
but, seriously, why should any of us question the legitimacy of our certificates?
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:13 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817299 of 817302 (Reply to 817294 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # chris - I already did - I took it 1 step further and called the SEC and here was the responce the lady n California:
She first walked through the CMKM webiste and then this - if u hold your shares n cert form then u r BonaFide and your shares r registered
The 622B r seperate
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:18:13 GMT -5
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:11 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817296 of 817301 (Reply to 817295 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # thingyy are you here to pacify people to allow the statute of limitations to expire?
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:14 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817300 of 817305 (Reply to 817296 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # chris,
can u provide the current contact address for the 'wrapped up' cmkm diamonds inc nevada corporation or not?
and can you provide a link to this 'statute of limitations' and show how it applies to a 'wrapped up' corporation or not?
tia
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:21:26 GMT -5
By: jonas-dcccxiv 15 Mar 2009, 12:11 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817297 of 817306 (Reply to 817294 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # Chrisl315- You don't know your ass from your elbow.
The 622 BILLION unregistered shares are indeed a part of the 787 BILLION issued. They HAVE to be!!!!! They are just not registered properly and the person issuing them to the markets have performed a criminal act. The 622 BILLION shares and the remaining of the 787 BILLION are all valid legal shares.
You don't know schitt from shinola........
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:15 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817301 of 817305 (Reply to 817297 by jonas-dcccxiv)
Jump to msg. # jonas wow so you agree that 622 billion were put into the market illegally. So who is responsible to check the validity of those illegal shares to make sure that this does not happen?
By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 12:19 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817305 of 817325 (Reply to 817301 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # What is your point, chris? The SEC is responsible for enforcing regulations, including the sale of unregistered shares. They don't do it real time.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:34:09 GMT -5
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:18 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817302 of 817321 (Reply to 817298 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # rosen,,,,Yes the company has stated you are bonafide cause you own a cert but is the cert legal? The SEC states that 622 billion are unregistered which opens up the question am I holding a unregistered security?
The company is the only entity that can get this information from the SEC. The company needs to demand from the SEC are the 622 billion unregistered securities part of the 703 billion o/s and if so that would leave only 81 billion registered. If the SEC says they are registered now how did they become registered cause the company never registered them.
See how this works rosencrantz?
By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 12:20 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817306 of 817328 (Reply to 817302 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # chris, you flaming moron, it is illegal to sell unregistered shares. Once they are in the market they are legitimate, idiot.
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:22 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817308 of 817331 (Reply to 817302 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # chris,
are you saying because the 622 are unregistered, if the fbi/sec or whoever declares then illegal we get totally wiped out?
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:35:04 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:19 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817303 of 817322
Jump to msg. # chris,
did u get your 'transmital letter'?
just curious
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:35:59 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:13 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817299 of 817324 (Reply to 817294 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # chris - I already did - I took it 1 step further and called the SEC and here was the responce the lady n California:
She first walked through the CMKM webiste and then this - if u hold your shares n cert form then u r BonaFide and your shares r registered
The 622B r seperate
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:19 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817304 of 817324 (Reply to 817299 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # thingyy,,,Provide her name to the company and have them verify this information if it is true of course.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:39:57 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 11:16 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 817285 of 817330
Jump to msg. # hey nott -r u a shareholder?? -BonaFide shareholder??
By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 12:22 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817307 of 817329 (Reply to 817285 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # thingyy-bona fide has no legal meaning.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:42:46 GMT -5
By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 12:19 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817305 of 817332 (Reply to 817301 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # What is your point, chris? The SEC is responsible for enforcing regulations, including the sale of unregistered shares. They don't do it real time.
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:23 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817309 of 817331 (Reply to 817305 by notthetroll)
Jump to msg. # not,,,,,,Follow this scenario for 1 second:
What if the company on Monday morning files to trade again? Remember Judge Murray in July 2005 stated get your financials and filings in order and no problem. Say they did and they apply to trade.
Now the SEC is stating that there are 622 billion unregistered securities on the market. Is the company responsible for those cause they are not registered.
So the company can petition to file to trade again with 81 billion in o/s couldn't they?
So where are these unregistered securities right now?
By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 12:24 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817311 of 817332 (Reply to 817309 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # Chris, you dumb ####, the company has to file a form 10 to trade again, and they need to register a whole new class of shares
|
|