|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:46:11 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:25 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817312 of 817332 (Reply to 817304 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # chris - the best thing for u is to call the SEC - they r willing to help
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:25 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817313 of 817332
Jump to msg. # and chris - call helen
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:31 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817320 of 817332 (Reply to 817312 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # thingyy,,Already did and they said I have to talk to the company.
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:32 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817321 of 817332 (Reply to 817313 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # thingyy,,,Helen is being investigated she lies.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:48:17 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:34 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817324 of 817333
Jump to msg. # chris are you indicating a pr might be coming out in the near future regarding the 622 billion unregisturd shares?
tia
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:36 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817326 of 817333 (Reply to 817324 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # No thingyy I am not. If you want the answers only the company can get them and last I checked they have not even addressed this issue.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:50:10 GMT -5
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:33 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817322 of 817334 (Reply to 817317 by jonas-dcccxiv) Jump to msg. # Yes jonas but why is the SEC protecting certain brokers? By: jonas-dcccxiv 15 Mar 2009, 12:36 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817327 of 817334 (Reply to 817322 by chrisl31509) Jump to msg. # Chrisl- Show us all one tangible thread of evidence that the SEC is protecting a broker. Brokers have nothing to do with issuance. More proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:39 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817330 of 817337 (Reply to 817327 by jonas-dcccxiv) Jump to msg. # jonas when a broker sells a share they are issuing the stock to you in good faith that it is registered. Who is responsible me or the broker? I am the buyer not the seller. By: jonas-dcccxiv 15 Mar 2009, 12:48 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817334 of 817338 (Reply to 817330 by chrisl31509) Jump to msg. # Chrisl- That is NOT regsitration of securities entered into the markets you moron. OMG are you stupid. Why do you post securities information when you know nothing about how the system works? ? You are as confused as the rest of the peeps that don't bother learning how the securities markets work. You are as goofy as LeoWanta!!!!!! By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:53 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817339 of 817349 (Reply to 817334 by jonas-dcccxiv) Jump to msg. # So jonas you agree that the markets do sell unregistered securities and that we are holding them right now. By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 12:53 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817340 of 817350 (Reply to 817330 by chrisl31509) Jump to msg. # Chris, you moron, a broker is not issuing a share to you. He is acting as an intermediary who is selling you the share for a customer, idiot.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:50:47 GMT -5
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:37 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817329 of 817335 (Reply to 817294 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:03 PM EDT Rating: post rating 0 Msg. 817294 of 817327 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.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:52:47 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:42 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817332 of 817338
Jump to msg. # interesting posts today...
'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
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Mar 2009, 12:49 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817335 of 817340 (Reply to 817332 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # monetary, what a transmittal letter company refer to?
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:52 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817338 of 817347 (Reply to 817335 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # rosen,
entourage was sending out a 'transmital letter' to the 103 shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:53:12 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Mar 2009, 12:47 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817333 of 817338 (Reply to 817324 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # monetary, i'd loved to see a PR about this, but how are they going to put out news about our shares being unregistered?
maybe a related PR, but not directly dealing with the issue. (just a guess)
maybe they'll tell us we're returning to trading status? wouldn't that be sweet.
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:50 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817337 of 817347 (Reply to 817333 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # rosen,
i think we will see a pr
i think it will address the 622b
just hope it doesn't wipe us out
that would be terrible
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 11:58:49 GMT -5
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:11 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817296 of 817346 (Reply to 817295 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # thingyy are you here to pacify people to allow the statute of limitations to expire?
By: newtopennies 15 Mar 2009, 12:50 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817336 of 817345 (Reply to 817296 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # CHRISL...I'M not fond of your posting 'style', but I have often wondered if there isn't a planned 'stall' in place...eom.
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:55 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817343 of 817354 (Reply to 817336 by newtopennies)
Jump to msg. # new,,,,No stall unless the SEC is trying to allow the statute of limitations to run out? If that is the case new write this off right now. The SEC stated 622 billion unregistered securities in 2007 time is running out and only the company can get the truth now not you or me. But as a group the company can be forced.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 17:38:39 GMT -5
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:39 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817330 of 817432 (Reply to 817327 by jonas-dcccxiv)
Jump to msg. # jonas when a broker sells a share they are issuing the stock to you in good faith that it is registered. Who is responsible me or the broker? I am the buyer not the seller.
By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 12:53 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817340 of 817432 (Reply to 817330 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # Chris, you moron, a broker is not issuing a share to you. He is acting as an intermediary who is selling you the share for a customer, idiot.
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 12:57 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817346 of 817432 (Reply to 817340 by notthetroll)
Jump to msg. # not,,, Actually they are issuing the share cause the cert came in a envelope with the brokers name on it. See how that works not. Also how much did the broker make on the selling of that unregistered security as a intermediary as you so eloquently put it?
By: jonas-dcccxiv 15 Mar 2009, 01:02 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817351 of 817432 (Reply to 817346 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # Chrisl- Keep posting. This is better than the Comedy Channel. You do NOT know a thing about how stocks are issued, introduced into the markets then subsequently traded. Every post you have made today is 100% WRONG!!!!!
You know NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go make friends with Ivory, thingyy, Raven, Leo and Tonytox. They LOVE misinformation.
And you sure as Hell have plenty of that!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 17:40:36 GMT -5
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 01:02 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817352 of 817436 (Reply to 817349 by notthetroll)
Jump to msg. # not,,,What fee did the broker receive for selling a unregistered security for their customer?
By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 01:03 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817353 of 817436
Jump to msg. # What the **** are you takling about, chris. With an opinion letter saying it is free trading they aren't selling an unregistered share, idiot.
By: jonas-dcccxiv 15 Mar 2009, 01:03 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817354 of 817436 (Reply to 817352 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # Chrisl- Brokers receive their commisions on their trades. They are not buying nor selling you flaming moron.
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 01:05 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817356 of 817438 (Reply to 817354 by jonas-dcccxiv)
Jump to msg. # So jonas the broker receives a commission as you stated on selling shares for a intermediary. So when someone is breaking the law even though they are not aware of it and they received compensation for this are they responsible to pay back the compensation or commission as you have stated?
By: jonas-dcccxiv 15 Mar 2009, 01:11 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817364 of 817438 (Reply to 817356 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # Chrisl- Boy are you stupid. Brokers do NOT buy or sell, they trade. Their commission is based upon each brokerage firm and their fees. They match buyers with sellers and never ever see an opion letter. That is someone else's job but that is much too cranial for you to undertsand when you do not even know that a broker merely sets up TRADES!!!!!!!!
God are you stupid.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 17:43:22 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 01:13 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817365 of 817438 (Reply to 817360 by notthetroll)
Jump to msg. # chris, you do know that 'knothead' baloney john cleaver works for the hedgie/broker scene right?
just trying to help
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 17:44:45 GMT -5
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 01:31 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817370 of 817438
Jump to msg. # Here is something to ponder:
There is documentation out there that has stated certain culprits involved with CMKM were being investigated as far back as 2003. In 2007 the SEC stated the company issued as much as 622 billion unregistered securities into the open market thru various channels.
So if these people were being investigated as far back as 2003 they allowed the 622 billion unregistered to go out there and now they admit this happened. There is a statute of limitation in regards to this fraud and it could expire 2010. So are the people here pumping payout don't rock the boat cause they are working for a group that needs this statute to expire?
Something to think about while I go golfing.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 17:46:50 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Mar 2009, 12:47 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817333 of 817439 (Reply to 817324 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # monetary, i'd loved to see a PR about this, but how are they going to put out news about our shares being unregistered?
maybe a related PR, but not directly dealing with the issue. (just a guess)
maybe they'll tell us we're returning to trading status? wouldn't that be sweet.
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 12:50 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817337 of 817439 (Reply to 817333 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # rosen,
i think we will see a pr
i think it will address the 622b
just hope it doesn't wipe us out
that would be terrible
By: alrich 15 Mar 2009, 01:53 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817373 of 817439 (Reply to 817337 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # monetaryshift, What do you mean ? "Wipe Us Out" . Explain that please .
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 17:47:30 GMT -5
By: gusjarvis 15 Mar 2009, 02:17 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817376 of 817441
Jump to msg. # chrisl why do you think mark lied to you
we all know on the boards that bill asked the sec for the foia info and got it, he went to the sec and got allll the info, all the trading records.
through his own work, then the cert pull he knew every single investor and exactly who sold those fake shares to them, every single one.
So why did mark lie about knowing who sold the other shares, and why does he pretend he and bill didn't know about the silver state bank fraud records that were subpoenaed. Why did they pretend for so long until it was on the boards they didn't know the sec tracked every cert sold by je and others. Why do they pretend they didn't do any work at all?
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 03:07 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817386 of 817442 (Reply to 817376 by gusjarvis)
Jump to msg. # gusjarvis spin it in another direction that is what you are good at. How about sticking to the conversation at hand.
By: gusjarvis 15 Mar 2009, 03:27 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817399 of 817444 (Reply to 817386 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # I am not sure what the spin is, the sec tracked
every single share sold by je and urban, bill knew about every share sold by je and urban in 2005 and all other shares sold, this nasd letter which has the proof he knew omits urbans name for some reason.
Bill and the og knew every single thing that happen, why roger wrote the letters, who sold what, what the o/s really was, what urban did, why the sec just watched, why the task force just watched. But he never told his clients that he knew all this.
He says right there in his letter to the nasd he knew about the silver state bank fraud, he surely just didn't know about je when it was already on the net je and urban were using that account. Then he worked with urban.
So twist the fact, wtf, how about you stop the bullchit and stick to the real facts, they knew everything before one og update, and pretending they didn't is a joke.
Commentary - Sep 26, 2006 - Printable Version - NASD Charges NevWest in CMKX Saga...Justice at Last? by Mark Faulk In a saga that many thought was dead-on-arrival, the NASD today filed charges against NevWest Securities Corporation of Las Vegas, and company President Sergey Rumyantsev and Vice President Antony M. Santos. In charging the company and its officers with violating NASD's Anti-Money Laundering Rule, they stated that “between January 1, 2003, and May 31, 2005, NevWest failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports (‘SAR’), or cease trading in multiple accounts owned and controlled by JE, NevWest’s customer, regarding over 500 transactions, involving over 250 billion shares of sub-penny stock issued by CMKM Diamonds Inc. (‘CMKX’) totaling over $53 million. In the 28-page complaint, the NASD also charged NevWest with failing to “adequately perform due diligence, file SARs, or cease effecting wire transfers involving $43 million through 139 separate wires from at least 28 of the accounts JE had opened at NevWest to various bank accounts.”
They were the first charges brought in a story that began in late 2002 (or even earlier including the earlier incarnation of CMKM Diamonds), and might have come to an end on October 28, 2005, when Administrative Law Judge Brenda Murray officially revoked CMKM’s (commonly referred to by its trading symbol CMKX) reporting status, after the company withdrew its appeal of Judge Murray’s initial ruling against the company for failure to file required financial reports with the SEC.
However, this was one company that simply refused to die. Bolstered by over 50,000 shareholders and an advocacy group begun by CMKX shareholder John Martin and represented by attorney Bill Frizzell, the CMKX Owners Group worked their way into the SEC hearings, and continued to press for action against the various people involved in what they perceived as a massive fraud extending into every corner of the financial market process, including not only numerous individuals who took advantage of a system rife with loopholes and poorly enforced SEC regulations, but implicating nearly every major brokerage firm in the U.S. and Canada.
In fact, in a letter to then CMKX attorney Donald Stoecklein over a year ago, Owners Group attorney Bill Frizzell called for the company to take legal action against several of the people who he named as being involved in the scheme to defraud tens of thousands of CMKX shareholders, with John Michael Edwards, or “JE,” at the top of the list. He specifically cited the 36 NevWest trust accounts, along with another 20 additional companies that have addresses in Langley, B.C., and owned and controlled by Edwards. In addition to Edwards and NevWest, Frizzell named company auditor Neil Levine (who was brought into CMKX by Edwards), CFO David DeSormeau, “consultant” James Kinney, secretary Ginger Guitierrez, and attorney Brian Dvorak as individuals who were involved in the problems with CMKX.
weird hey chris, why doesn't bill mention urban who was all over the silver state bank records he talks about here?
actually not weird if you have any common sense at all
By: gusjarvis 15 Mar 2009, 04:05 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817415 of 817444 (Reply to 817399 by gusjarvis)
Jump to msg. # and not only that chrisl bill knew the sec and fbi
and doj and irs were watching while he worked with urban, while he watched all the record shares trade, while he made sure our claims were maintained,
do you actually think it is possible given what bill knew for him to let our money get stolen and our land given away, wtf as he doing here pal. Didn't the cert pull prove what he already knew, we had the largest naked short ever, if it didn't he had the obligation to tell his clients he was wwwwwwwrong. He didn't, he wasn't, the og updates were all right!
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 17:50:46 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 15 Mar 2009, 03:13 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817392 of 817444
Jump to msg. # For Those Who Missed It:
I confirmed with the SEC and 1st Global that the 622B Unregistered Shares "R" seperate from the BonaFide shares - End Of Story
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 15, 2009 17:56:05 GMT -5
By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 03:11 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817389 of 817447
Jump to msg. # The owner has liability, ****face, not the broker.
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 03:14 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817393 of 817446 (Reply to 817389 by notthetroll)
Jump to msg. # So nutjob you are saying that Roger Glenn provided an opinion letter stating they were registered but in fact they were not? And that the brokers are not guilty cause of the opinion letter by Glenn and Dvorak? Is that what you are saying? So that would mean Roger Glenn committed a serious crime also. Right nutmeg?
By: notthetroll 15 Mar 2009, 03:49 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817404 of 817444 (Reply to 817393 by chrisl31509)
Jump to msg. # Yes, chris the dumb f***, that's exactly what I am saying.
By: chrisl31509 15 Mar 2009, 04:23 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 817419 of 817444 (Reply to 817404 by notthetroll)
Jump to msg. # So nutjob the SEC who was investigating CMKM back in 2003 allowed the opinion letters of Dvorak and Glenn as the investigation was going on and also allowed the culprits to put into the market thru various brokers from the transfer agent 622 billion unregistered securities? That is what you are saying?
|
|