|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:37:37 GMT -5
oh well.... at least he has a different line this time......By: lilburrito0 27 Mar 2009, 09:49 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 820325 of 820335 The monkeys bananas are about to get split By: rosencrantz2010 27 Mar 2009, 11:46 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 820347 of 820399 (Reply to 820325 by lilburrito0) Jump to msg. # lilburrito, you've been promising us that URBAN would be charged, arrested and in JAIL over FOUR YEARS AGO! LOL come on, man, don't you have better sources? LOL you're blowing smoke. you've been laying out the same lamo threat for years and you're no better than the other side that's been promising riches. bring it on! who cares if the man goes down in flames after this long. the problem is, you're just as much a lying ######## as every other loser on this board promising this or that and when it comes down to the end line you end up being just as much of a pu%#@# as all the rest. lilburrto, the man with the KING size PU@#%%. promises, promises. BWAHAHAAAAAAAAA
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:38:10 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 28 Mar 2009, 08:19 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 820364 of 820400
Jump to msg. # Convo w/ Anthony M Santos, Esq.....ShowMeTheMoney « Thread Started Yesterday at 9:36pm »
By: gusjarvis 28 Mar 2009, 11:23 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 820385 of 820400 (Reply to 820364 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # rosen the problem with that convo is what about
the massive massive amount of stock sold before the share raises, and what about the fact the sec had the proof of the scam in sept 04 before the party. And what about the fact that bill frizzell and everyone on the boards knew roger did those letter in early 05 and he knew the silver state bank fraud in early 05 as it was in his nasd complaint letter, he just left out urban's name despite knowing the evidence then worked with him and said nothing but good things for years
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:38:36 GMT -5
By: aladin99 28 Mar 2009, 02:44 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 820362 of 820401
Jump to msg. # SEC does not tell us the truth... if 622B is part of the 703B, JE sold 259B Unregistered shares then who else sold the other 363B Unregistered shares. Why SEC did not have or show any data on this?
We should ask Leslie (Less lies, more lies) to show us the following data: 1. How Jeffries covered his 111B long sales 2. Who sold 363B Unregistered shares beside John Edwards
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:39:07 GMT -5
from the kitchen.....
Is there ANYthing Tyler could say that « Thread Started Today at 7:45pm »
would make you happy?
I'm curious of what would make the toughest CMKM critics on the planet happy.
Anything? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I need something more...to keep on breathing for...
scottbro2 Matey
Re: Is there ANYthing Tyler could say that « Reply #1 Today at 8:25pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is easy. Either of these would make me extremely happy. *and would help me support Bill and Kevin and Mark fully.
1. Here are the names of the board of directors of cmkx. 2. Here are the names of the people "funding" cmkx and the arrangement for payment we have with them. 3. Here is how we were able to make executive decisions such as moving to texas and hiring a ceo without needing shareholder approval: 4. This is our plan of action to bring value back to cmkx shareholders *specific goals and action items 5. Explain why Urban Casavant has not been indicted and why they are not pursuing him. **A blind, one legged monkey could find Urban and sue him quicker than our "team" Scottbro2
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:39:36 GMT -5
Roger Glenn July 19, 2006 (188 pages); October 23, 2007 (197 pages).all those pages to say... I looked over the documents and everything was ok??Posted by: Pedro2004 Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009 9:42:30 AM In reply to: h24ever who wrote msg# 269800 Post # of 269806 If you go back through the CMKM website and SEC lawsuit documents you'll see the extent Roger Glenn was involved. Nevwest was asking the SEC and FIRNA for direction on the continued dumping of shares. Nevwest questioned Bagley on the validity of the source documents used/required to issue a (new) certificate. Bagley started asking questions too! That's where Roger Glenn came in-- He was used to look over the documents to make sure the "CMKM Board Minutes and Dvorak opinion letters" were in compliance. Roger Glenn did not write any opinion letters to make the shares "free trading." He wrote the "everything's a-okay" letters to tell everyone that -- Brian Dvorak's opinion letters and Urban's CMKM Board Resolutions -- were "compliant." hat's why the SEC did not go after Roger Glenn in the civil lawsuit! SEC knew in 2003 ?? and allowed 2004 & 2005 to happen?? Even after a temporary halt and allowed to resume trading?? Posted by: Pedro2004 Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009 10:07:05 AM In reply to: janice shell who wrote msg# 269788 Post # of 269806 They SEC knew something was wrong back in May 2003. www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/justice/sec_ltr_bagley_5-26-04.pdfJames Kinney was one of the people Edwards/Urban funneled the certifiates: Kinney then dumped them. www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/documents/kinney-may-2004-amtd-sample.pdf
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:40:20 GMT -5
squeezebox Dr. Of Diamonds Re: Updated Daily!! RUMORS ....Believe em' or NOT! « Reply #209 Yesterday at 2:49pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's something interesting on our corrupt financial system. It has Jap/Chineese also so scroll through to the english parts. It has a section about disinformation which can be applied all over the place in cmkx land. benjaminfulford.typepad.com/benjaminfulford/
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:41:52 GMT -5
Here's something interesting on our corrupt financial system. It has Jap/Chineese also so scroll through to the english parts. It has a section about disinformation which can be applied all over the place in cmkx land. benjaminfulford.typepad.com/benjaminfulford/here it is.... How to neutralize illuminati disinformation agents on the internetThere are plenty of government and illuminati agents whose job is to manipulate information on the internet. They are fairly easy to spot because they have only a few tools at their disposal: insults, lies and lies mixed with truth. Insults are their favorite trick. For example if someone writes “911 was an inside job” they will not argue the evidence based on facts but will say “that person is an conspiracy nut.” You can reply to them “that is an ad hominen attack (an insult)” and not a debate based on evidence. Disinformation agents hate to debate on facts because they know they will lose. The best technique they have for lies is to attack straw men. For example when I asked NSA Admiral Bobby Inman about the privately owned Federal Reserve he said “are you one of those UFO nuts?” He was both insulting me and attributing a belief to me I did not state so he used both ad hominen and straw man techniques but avoided facts. The mixing of disinformation with real information is the hardest technique to beat but it is still easily beatable. What you need to do is see how much you can confirm from other sources. For example if someone says “911 was an inside job that was carried out by reptilians,” well you can find mountains of evidence about 911 but the reptilian thing can all be traced to a couple of sources who have not provided any evidence other than testimony. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof and that has not been provided in this case. In fact, I have personally met several of the people who are called reptilian and one of them even admitted to me it was just a metaphor. So let us root out all the insulting liars from the internet by ignoring any posters who insult, tell lies and mix truth with lies. Also if we write something that turns out to be false, we must issue corrections so that we cannot be accused of being liars ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:43:11 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 PM Junior Member Total Posts 6 Joined 2007-11-12the 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.....ad=25137&page=5
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:43:48 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.....ay&thread=25201
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:44:36 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~ cmkxdiamond.proboards.com/index.c....ay&thread=58416
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:46:01 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 imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:46:37 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.c....ad=58416&page=2
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:47:54 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....lay&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. «
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:49:35 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 imSINGLEruRICH on Mar 29, 2009 11:50:06 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
|
|