|
Post by hundredtoone on Mar 28, 2009 18:48:17 GMT -5
Chrisl are you a DISINFORMATION expert...HA HA...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial)
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 28, 2009 19:23:49 GMT -5
ty penny pauly... By: gusjarvis 28 Mar 2009, 12:49 PM EDT Rating: post rating 0 Rate this post: Msg. 820407 of 820448 (Reply to 820387 by rosencrantz2010) Jump to msg. # so rosen what about leslie talking with roger while he was writing these letters, in contact with our lawyer that people say screwed us. Weird hey, weird how we all knew on the boards everything that was happening, but nobody from our own company or the sec know a fing thing, weird hey. It is almost like they have to forget certain things. But my friend if things don't go well for us in the next month then the chit will hit the fan, and the sec and roger will be tops on the list with others that helped: Oaks Posted: 24 April 2008 07:54 PMJunior Member Total Posts 6 Joined 2007-11-12 The SEC knew all about CMKX via Roger Glenn… « Thread Started Today at 7:28pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some things have come to mind today that I want to tell you all about. This happens at times for me when I am mulling CMKX over, once again....LOL We know Glenn was utilized to write further opinion letters to increase the authorized and outstanding. I know that Glenn had been in discussion with Leslie Hakala’s SEC office and this absolutely confirms to me the SEC was fully aware of the enormous outstanding shares, etc., but did nothing to halt trading at that time or visibly intercede in any way. The question is WHY? Then Maheu comes aboard but I have never been entirely sure how or who brought Maheu into the CMKX picture, but it is very possible it could have been the SEC(?). Then there was a change of securities counsel from Glenn to Stoecklien with very little by way of official explanation via the PR at that time. Feb/05 saw a FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT when Stoecklein immediately resubmitted the Form 15 to put CMKX back into reporting status. As the SEC was obviously aware of CMKX during Glenn’s involvement, one has to wonder why the reporting status was not reinstated prior to Feb/05? Why did Stoecklien do this vs Glenn doing it? If the SEC was involved, it is logical to conclude the SEC did not want it done until then? Via Glenn the SEC knew many things about CMKX. Jump forward to the bizarre Hearing, the delisting decision, appeal period, and then BOOM, please DELIST CMKX...and I am CONVINCED more than ever… THE SEC IS and HAS BEEN SCRIPTING CMKX MATTERS FOR A VERY VERY LONG TIME. I still say bona fide CMKX SHAREHOLDERS are going to… WIN… just like Urban Casavant told me. Oaks (aimho) By: gusjarvis 28 Mar 2009, 01:58 PM EDT Rating: post rating 0 Rate this post: Msg. 820421 of 820449 (Reply to 820407 by gusjarvis) Jump to msg. # and rosen speaking of leslie and roger why on earth was leslie so angry towards andy when things got on the boards, why on earth would she care, why on earth was she in contact with our lawyer on such matters: What I specifically remembered today was a phone call one day from a very upset Roger Glenn (I think it was Summer/04 time frame) over something I had said which had made it’s way to the message boards and forums. I cannot recall what it was that Glenn was upset with me over. However, I remember he said he was calling me because Leslie Hakala’s office had phoned him. Glenn told me he was working very hard on getting CMKX reporting again and my comments did not help matters. I immediately called Urban and asked him what the heck was going on with Glenn and that I did not appreciate his phone call and his tone toward me. Urban said to not worry about it and he would discuss with Glenn. Wish I could remember what he was upset over..perhaps it will come to me later. The significance though is the clear fact the SEC was VERY aware of many aspects of CMKX at the time, ie mid 2004, but took no action at that time to visibly protect shareholder interests or future potential shareholders from investing. Very strange unless one accepts it is all part of the SCRIPT? I think so folks. Oaks (aimho) millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=25137&page=5
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 28, 2009 19:26:00 GMT -5
curtisrp DIAMOND MINER John O Quinn the Big Time Lawyer and.............. « Thread Started Today at 12:31pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey everybody! If I am not mistaken Patrick of Overstock.com has a court date in April to settle the NSS lawsuit. Patrick has this big time lawyer John O Quinn. My question is if Patrick and John O Quinn win the lawsuit against Naked Short Sellers, Do we want to hire John O Quinn to be our lawyer? I think we should push this after April to see if they win the case. We need John Quinn to be our lawyer to fight for us against brokers, SEC, DTCC, Hedge funds, Market Makers, and ETC for RICO damages and other things. Does anybody want to join? We need to forget about Bill Fizzell, Mark Faulk and Kevin West!!! I feel that they are not doing nothing for us and wasting our time. They are too d**n quiet and lacking information from us!!!! Curtis millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=25201
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 28, 2009 19:29:21 GMT -5
fishing4diamonds Seaman Re: Is there ANYthing Tyler could say that « Reply #14 Today at 11:09am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually T, there's a BIGGER question here. (Using Pedro's and ChrisL's "idea"); What happens if CMKX files bankruptcy? Don't the board of directors and officers who haven't been paid (but appointed a certain compensation per month) become "creditors" who then are first in line BEFORE any CMKX shareholder has a shot at theirs? So all of them who have compensation "due" would then be first to cash out from anything that's been recovered and awarded by the court? Anyway...........just more questions than answers as usual with this stock. f4d~ « Last Edit: Today at 11:10am by fishing4diamonds » cmkxdiamond.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general1&action=display&thread=58416
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 28, 2009 19:31:00 GMT -5
fishing4diamonds Seaman Re: Is there ANYthing Tyler could say that « Reply #18 Today at 2:05pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today at 12:29pm, tec1958 wrote: Exactly. Isn't THAT special? How much is Faulk suppose to be getting (for doing what)? That would come right off the top right? How come I got a feeling that's where this is now headed? Well at least SOMEBODY will make something off of CMKX besides the insiders. Oh wait...............they are the new insiders. Same ship different tide? cmkxdiamond.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general1&action=display&thread=58416&page=2
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 28, 2009 19:32:28 GMT -5
timontoo Administrator Captain Re: Is there ANYthing Tyler could say that « Reply #20 Today at 5:13pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last I heard(two days ago), CMKM had no intentions of filing bankruptcy. Pedro and chrisl were going to file it for them. If bankruptcy benefits creditors first, as fish points out, then what chris and Pedro proposed is a bad idea, no? That makes me think they shoot from the hip and to hell with the consequences. Then there is the possibility that those pranksters had no intention of doing it anyway. In fact, I remember chrisl telling me not to believe anything he says. Kinda makes you wonder... Thanks for the replies. cmkxdiamond.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general1&action=display&thread=58416&page=2
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 28, 2009 19:36:25 GMT -5
chrisl Crossfire Administrator I spoke to a Security Lawyer « Thread Started Today at 9:40am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I provided only the facts. I stated that I am a shareholder in a company that is revoked. Current management has complaints filed against various insiders. I did not dwell on this cause it is a waste of time. I stated that the Security Exchange Commission stated that the company has 622 billion unregistered securities and that this number is part of the 703. First thing he said was if a company is revoked the SEC might refer to the existing securities as unregistered. I said then how come they did not state the whole 703 was unregistered. He said good point go on. I asked him as a shareholder can I apply to put the company into receivership. He stated well if you are holding a unregistered security you really have no legal right against the company. So he recommended me to send a letter to the transfer agent and the company asking to verify if I am holding a registered or unregistered security. He stated it sounds like alot of corruption was going on so do expect too much from either party. But that is the first thing you should do. So that is what I am doing. cmkxclubhouse.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2484 Ric Executive Administrator Re: I spoke to a Security Lawyer « Reply #2 Today at 5:29pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason that the SEC only mentions the 622 billion is because that is the only shares they have legal rights to go after Urban and Edwards for. It doesn't matter that all the 703 billion shares are unregistered at this point. It only matters that Urban and Edwards sold 622 billion shares that didn't met s-regs restrictions. As far as you holding registered shares, the lawyer must be informed of the SEC distinction between unregistered to sell on the market and unregistered shares with the state. Your shares are registered with the state on a state level but they are not registered to be sold on a federal level with the SEC. Here is where Urban registered 800 billion shares as authorize to be issued by CMKM Diamonds. Only 703 where issued but Urban had the rights to issue 800 billion because that is what he registered with the state of Nevada. esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=FLHUb1Wr8HP4FN0InjoBtg%253d%2 53d click here for the above link tinyurl.com/rsx8zThis document proves your shares are registered to be issued with the state of Nevada. You still hold registered shares from the state level as far as legal shares registered to be issued. You just don't hold registered shares with the SEC on a federal level to be sold on the open market. This is two completely different registrations. If you where a private company who wanted to get shareholders like TOG for example. You would need to register those shares with the state that you are incorporation in before you could issue those shares. These shares would registered shares on a state level and would make you absolutely part owners in the company as set forth by the bylaws. But since you are private and do not trade and haven't filed for registration with the SEC, as far as the SEC is concerned those shares are unregistered with them and you couldn't trade TOG shares on the market. I used to have to deal with this all the time. « Last Edit: Today at 5:56pm by Ric » Ric Executive Administrator Re: I spoke to a Security Lawyer « Reply #3 Today at 6:23pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that the confusion is that people are taking two separate registrations and making them into one. You have a state registration to issue shares then after they are issued then you can register those shares with the SEC after they met certain restrictions to be sold. The SEC has nothing to do with the first registration with the state. Only the registration to sell on the market. Here is the process for a public company. You go to your state that you are incorporated in and you register the number of shares you want to be able to issue. Urban did this. He raised the A/S several times with the state (authorized shares). Urban registered 800 billion shares with the State of Nevada to be issued and could issue as many as 800 billion shares anytime he wanted too. Now that the A/S is registered with the state then you issue those shares up to the A/S which you registered. In CMKX's case that would be 703 billion shares. Actually at one point it was 776 billion shares. All new shares after IPO are place on a S-Reg restrictions as set forth by the SEC. Once the S-reg is met then you have a lawyer draft a opinion letter stating that the shares met the S-regs and that they met SEC guidelines to be sold. If this is done properly then these shares are now considered registered with the SEC to be sold on the open market. But in CMKX's case, the S-reg were not met on 622 billion shares and thus are considered unregistered by the SEC. But that status has nothing to do with the registration of the shares with the state of Nevada. The shares are still registered with the state and legal shares. They are just not registered with the SEC as being able to trade on the market. « Last Edit: Today at 6:27pm by Ric »
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 28, 2009 19:40:55 GMT -5
By: monetaryshift 28 Mar 2009, 07:08 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 820547 of 820604
Jump to msg. # friendly reminder...
'nothing posted here matters'
'wrapped up'
'DISTRIBUTION will go forward'
'shift is here'
'expect the un-expected'
'deriv says ouch'
By: Gooddolphin 28 Mar 2009, 07:27 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 820561 of 820604 (Reply to 820547 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # monetaryshift... When?.. Where?.. How much?.. (I don't expect a relpy). Good luck.
By: monetaryshift 28 Mar 2009, 07:30 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 820563 of 820606 (Reply to 820561 by Gooddolphin)
Jump to msg. # i like
09,falc,>5
By: stockrich0 28 Mar 2009, 08:36 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 820598 of 820606 (Reply to 820563 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # Hook me up, homey....
09/falc/5
If $1.65 is thinking small?
$5.00 would be thinking a little bigger.
Stockrich.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 28, 2009 19:42:21 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 28 Mar 2009, 08:27 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 820590 of 820605
Jump to msg. # brokers completed transactions where they didn't have the stock. they weren't being bad guys, they just figured they would either be able to cover or the stock would go belly up and it wouldn't be a problem.
what they didn't count on was that the stock would get revoked and then the company would do a cert pull. when cmkx did that it started coming out in the wash. they didn't have the shares to show covering the shares they sold.
now they have to fix it. well, maybe they don't. maybe it is not their fault? maybe they make some legal case that it's all the SEC's fault and they were just trying to make a market by doing what they do, buy and sell stock under guidance of the SEC. if there is a problem then maybe it's not the brokers but the SEC?
maybe the brokers are trying to shove it all on to the shoulders of the SEC. if they don't they might have to pay big bucks.
what i would personally like to see is to have it all resolved in the market. let the brokers live or die by the market. LOL
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Mar 28, 2009 19:45:39 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 28 Mar 2009, 08:38 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 820603 of 820607 (Reply to 820595 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # monetary, okay. fine. but man-o-man, what are you really hearing? this is gone on forever and the small guy is taking it in the gut. in many respects there are just as many, maybe more, that were hurt by this SEC scam as are being hurt in the bernie madoff scandal.
a lot of people are losing homes, marriages, cars, businesses, health and so on. the madoff case if bigger money but the number of people being hurt is greater in the CMKX case.
the SEC has to appreciate that and pay dearly for their mistake.
HAKALA and TYLER should both be pressured since neither one wants to answer questions. one or both of them are lying.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 28, 2009 19:50:23 GMT -5
Sooner, bringing posts from RB does not add any credibility to this board for sure
|
|
|
Post by squeezebox on Mar 28, 2009 19:53:49 GMT -5
Chrisl are you a DISINFORMATION expert...HA HA...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial) He d*mn sure acts like one, or at least a little girl!
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 28, 2009 21:26:30 GMT -5
jfarn DIAMOND MINER Re: Conversation with Anthony Michael Santos, Esq. « Reply #38 Today at 1:31pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dvorak, JE, Nevwest et.al were not responsible for the majority of the 622 billion unregistered shares. Why has the SEC treated RG and other large self-clearing brokers like spotted owls? Our pitiful management tries to spin it as they don't have the resources to go after the big boys hence their narrow plan of attack. What's the SEC's excuse? They haven't one and are now caught looking stupid and are currently trying to explain such to the OIG.
It all don't add up because it can't. Look at Phx. Golds letter from way back re: our plight and his tabulation of the numbers. The SEC took portions of that letter and used it as their script for an exit plan. But as we can now see, there are gaps. Thoughts welcome
|
|
|
Post by squeezebox on Mar 28, 2009 21:38:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 28, 2009 22:55:22 GMT -5
from IHub Posted by: tiger760 Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:49:59 PM In reply to: pantherj who wrote msg# 269722 Post # of 269825 All shares held now, are shares in the PRIVATE COMPANY of CMKM DIAMONDS INC. ..... Posted by: pantherj Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:48:02 PM In reply to: tiger760 who wrote msg# 269812 Post # of 269825 Yes indeed, and that is unfortunate. it is possible, unlikely ... but possible, that liability for this private company's debts could extend to the individuals that are its owners. Ummm, that would be you, sir. time to put your assets in a a fail safe trust, i'd say.
|
|