ChuckWheat
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
New Theory I would like to discuss on CMKM 20 hours ago
Post by ChuckWheat on 20 hours agoSince we can't definitively close the loop regarding his true intentions, I can't say your ideas about strategic revocation lack merit.
As a person present during the SEC hearing, I can say that IBM and virtually all of his team were solidly behind the plan to get CMKM's reporting brought up to date, as a minimum just a year's worth. Six months later the company announced it was allowing itself to be revoked...with none of the promised reports produced.
Also during the hearing, the judge made it perfectly clear no questions/testimony/discussion about NSS would be allowed.
And further discussion about CMKM's short position has been since discussed in a courtroom, to my knowledge.
So if the idea was to lock in the shorts...it seems those advancing that strategy didn't take into account that no court wants the entertain that notion.
Why? There's lots of ideas out there to choose from, virtually all suffering from the same Achilles' heel...lack of evidence, lac
k of real insight to what was going on back then. My personally preferred brand is that those working to get us back into compliance realized there was no way to reconstruct everything based on missing or incorrect data/forms/filings...and pulled the plug before more financial loss/damage was incurred.
C-Dub
Bob
1MM Forum
New Theory I would like to discuss on CMKM 19 hours ago
RoughCut, ines, and 1 more like this
Post by Bob on 19 hours agoC-Dub,
First, thank you for attending the Hearing first hand.
You wrote:
Also during the hearing, the judge made it perfectly clear no questions/testimony/discussion about NSS would be allowed.
And further discussion about CMKM's short position has been since discussed in a courtroom, to my knowledge.
So if the idea was to lock in the shorts...it seems those advancing that strategy didn't take into account that no court wants the entertain that notion.
I recall reading of the courts "no interest" in the naked short.
But I do believe validation and proving the existence and size of the short was extremely valuable.
It served as a foundation to bring all the "shorters" to the Las Vegas Hotel room and explain the choice of "pay or go to jail."
This was the influence and power of IBM. The folks in that room were not lightweights.
And I believe they paid -
the questions that begs for both an answer and action -
1) How much did they pay
?
2) Where is the money
?
3) Who is so powerful that even a small token payment cannot be released
?
I also believe CMKX (as we knew it) does not exist and that our claims/assets were put into friendly hands.
Of course, I believe Shore Gold/Diamonds is involved and if their is a Conglomerate - so much the better.
This concludes my thoughts and opinion
As my good friend Forest would say - That's all I have to say about that
Bob
ChuckWheat
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
New Theory I would like to discuss on CMKM 13 hours agoI was glad to contribute my time and relay what I had witnessed at the hearing for the community, and I'm glad you're finding value in it even today. Thank you.
I believe the questions above are some key points where successive people in our management teams have let us down, frankly. When we break these points down into individual elements, we see that there's little to be concerned with as far as security, if a pinch of imagination were added to a tablespoon of common sense. For example:
•How much did they pay? This question, in it's purest form, is non-threatening. From everything we've been told, there were multiple companies involved; no one company could be singled out with a specific amount they settled for if the total collected was announced, particularly if given in a range (i.e. $987 Billion to $1.03 Trillion). As we see with the recent data released from the DOJ/FBI to the US House of Representatives, redactions for the sake of hiding embarrassing disclosures cloaked behind claims of "national security"...people hide the stupidest things for the stupidest reasons. We've been patient...supportive...positive...and all we have to show for it is expectations that we should give even more. It's been fourteen years...throw us a bone, preferably with some meat on it for once...?
•Where is the money? This could be sensitive, especially if combined with a specific dollar value. If bad guys know it's in the Trustme Bank of Detroit with a deposit in 2006 totaling $1T, it's not particularly hard to find the account, and potentially drain it or lock it up in legal filings until our grandkids' grandkids are living out their retirements. So I'd settle if we could be told the range of how much was collected, and a redacted version of the trust documents specifying how funds are safeguarded, and what the terms are that would activate the release of those funds.
•Who is so powerful that even a small token payment cannot be released? My thoughts here are simple, but it's not a "who" but rather a "what": Fear. Fear that releasing any info could jeopardize the eventual payment to shareholders. Fear that the world is somehow in jeopardy unless those funds are "borrowed" to help ensure a specific political outcome. Fear that one crack in the dam could lead to others, eventually causing a catastrophic collapse of the entire structure. Fear of the unknown.
What's the antidote for fear? Action. Release something like the two elements above, even if just in the safest manner imaginable. Action has a way of breaking up paralysis, and encouraging even more action as time proves fears to be irrational.
Finally, I hope Mr Gump's advice isn't taken too literally...yours is a good voice to be heard in our community. ;-)
C-Dub