Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 30, 2015 13:32:17 GMT -5
Just wondering if Stan Polsom was still following this saga?? And wondering what he would have to say about things now & today, that would be different from statements made in his CMKM Diamonds Inc. resignation letter?
??
Especially since the shareholders are now being asked to support some persons & things that Mr. Polsom refers to in his letter.
cmkxunofficial.proboards.com/thread/9460/stan-polsom-director-cmkm
HIS RESIGNATION LETTER.....
I hereby tender my resignation from the Board of Directors of CMKM Diamonds Inc. In accordance with the rules and regulations, I must give my reason for resigning. They are as follows:
1. First, I must point out that it is my belief that this is a "make work" only program for the Executive Branch based out of Tyler, Texas. I have asked repeatedly for an accounting of upcoming court cases, the anticipated cost of conducting same, and the anticipated revenue left over to be put in treasury as shareholder equity. To-date, no answer has been forthcoming. However, when we look at the past performance, every cent of equity collected during the past four years has been consumed by legal expenses, day-to-day expenses and wages. Therefore, if there is never to be any value for the shareholders, why are we doing this?
2. Secondly, our Tyler group (including legals) appear to approach each case as if it was their personal case. The Board of Directors were never consulted regarding the direction of these cases, and if we were asked about anything, it was late in the day when the only decision left was their decision. The Roger Glenn case is a good example. After sitting through every minute of the trial, my conclusion was that we were ill-prepared and too quick to assume that the documents we had were going to win the day. Our witnesses were will-prepared, while their witnesses were well rehearsed in how they were to present their evidence. Our expert witnesses came off as weak and without strong knowledge of the rules and regulations regarding the stock market. On the other hand, their witnesses appeared to be well rehearsed and were prompted by their attorney at the right time and with the right questions, so that what they had to say was totally devastating to our case. Our cross-examination was weak and without direction, consequently the verdict went against us. To give you an example, rarely did we "object" to the evidence and statements offered by the other side. However, there were many objections by the other side that forced us to stop our line of questioning because the objection was upheld by the judge. Again, we appeared weak and indecisive.
3. The pending of Well Fargo case only confirms that there will be little or nothing in the form of shareholder equity. Already I have heard of varying amounts from five million up to 70 million dollars as expected settlements. Whatever the amount is, by the time you take out 40 percent for legal costs, probably another 10 percent for special costs, office expense, interest on loans, salaries, etc., what will be left to share amongst the 690 billion shares? Again, thought it may appear to be a sure thing, as in the Roger Glenn case, we may be running up high bills with no guarantee of return.
4. There is also the matter of five or six properties that we will be attempting to seize under court orders. The total value of these properties will most likely to be in the three to four million dollar value. However, if the value of these properties follows the pattern set by the Georgia and Virginia properties, probably much less will be realized, even if we are successful in our court actions. Again, since most of these properties are outside the Texas Law Jurisdiction, extra legal costs will be necessary.
5. Insofar, as the Saskatchewan diamond/mining claims are concerned, as a Director, I know very little about the circumstances of discussions held between the Executive Branch and Emerson Koch. The only thing I am aware of is that Emerson Koch is demanding a two million dollar payment to include us in the venture. No mention has been made to the Board of Directors regarding the magnetic overviews, the number of test drill holes made, the result of geological reports, assay reports or the likes. I cannot and will not commit the shareholders to this venture unless there is a very detailed report made to the Directors regarding all of the above.
6. Lastly, we are committed to paying $14,500 - that is $8,000 to Mr. James Lowden and $6,500 to Mr. Kevin West to carry on the work for CMKM. However, since our only endeavors appear to be "legal cases", and since we are already committed to paying legal expenses for these cases, the Board of Directors felt that bi-weekly time sheets showing what work was being done for CMKM would be appropriate. After making the request in September 2011, we have had no response from the Executive Branch. Like so many of our requests, it appears that if they don't like it, they ignore it.
7. After much discussion and prodding, we finally arranged for Mr. Steve Walker to become our Public Relations Officer. The Board of Directors felt that there is little in the way of CMKM news that would harm the company, but the shareholders have a right to know, and should know what we are doing with their company. However, it appears that the Executive Branch would prefer that Mr. Walker held the title in name only, and that he would have little contact with the shareholders. The lack of information is not the fault of Mr. Walker, but the fault is with the directive of CMKM.
8. Finally, the Board of Directors has no funds to finance the overseeing of the direction and management of CMKM. This makes the job of the Board of Directors impossible. For this and all of the above reasons, I must in honesty and fairness to the shareholders, tender my resignation. Whatever the future decisions that are made by the shareholders, I wish you good fortune in your endeavors.
Signed: ______________________________________________
Stan Polsom, Director of CMKM
??Especially since the shareholders are now being asked to support some persons & things that Mr. Polsom refers to in his letter.
cmkxunofficial.proboards.com/thread/9460/stan-polsom-director-cmkm
HIS RESIGNATION LETTER.....
I hereby tender my resignation from the Board of Directors of CMKM Diamonds Inc. In accordance with the rules and regulations, I must give my reason for resigning. They are as follows:
1. First, I must point out that it is my belief that this is a "make work" only program for the Executive Branch based out of Tyler, Texas. I have asked repeatedly for an accounting of upcoming court cases, the anticipated cost of conducting same, and the anticipated revenue left over to be put in treasury as shareholder equity. To-date, no answer has been forthcoming. However, when we look at the past performance, every cent of equity collected during the past four years has been consumed by legal expenses, day-to-day expenses and wages. Therefore, if there is never to be any value for the shareholders, why are we doing this?
2. Secondly, our Tyler group (including legals) appear to approach each case as if it was their personal case. The Board of Directors were never consulted regarding the direction of these cases, and if we were asked about anything, it was late in the day when the only decision left was their decision. The Roger Glenn case is a good example. After sitting through every minute of the trial, my conclusion was that we were ill-prepared and too quick to assume that the documents we had were going to win the day. Our witnesses were will-prepared, while their witnesses were well rehearsed in how they were to present their evidence. Our expert witnesses came off as weak and without strong knowledge of the rules and regulations regarding the stock market. On the other hand, their witnesses appeared to be well rehearsed and were prompted by their attorney at the right time and with the right questions, so that what they had to say was totally devastating to our case. Our cross-examination was weak and without direction, consequently the verdict went against us. To give you an example, rarely did we "object" to the evidence and statements offered by the other side. However, there were many objections by the other side that forced us to stop our line of questioning because the objection was upheld by the judge. Again, we appeared weak and indecisive.
3. The pending of Well Fargo case only confirms that there will be little or nothing in the form of shareholder equity. Already I have heard of varying amounts from five million up to 70 million dollars as expected settlements. Whatever the amount is, by the time you take out 40 percent for legal costs, probably another 10 percent for special costs, office expense, interest on loans, salaries, etc., what will be left to share amongst the 690 billion shares? Again, thought it may appear to be a sure thing, as in the Roger Glenn case, we may be running up high bills with no guarantee of return.
4. There is also the matter of five or six properties that we will be attempting to seize under court orders. The total value of these properties will most likely to be in the three to four million dollar value. However, if the value of these properties follows the pattern set by the Georgia and Virginia properties, probably much less will be realized, even if we are successful in our court actions. Again, since most of these properties are outside the Texas Law Jurisdiction, extra legal costs will be necessary.
5. Insofar, as the Saskatchewan diamond/mining claims are concerned, as a Director, I know very little about the circumstances of discussions held between the Executive Branch and Emerson Koch. The only thing I am aware of is that Emerson Koch is demanding a two million dollar payment to include us in the venture. No mention has been made to the Board of Directors regarding the magnetic overviews, the number of test drill holes made, the result of geological reports, assay reports or the likes. I cannot and will not commit the shareholders to this venture unless there is a very detailed report made to the Directors regarding all of the above.
6. Lastly, we are committed to paying $14,500 - that is $8,000 to Mr. James Lowden and $6,500 to Mr. Kevin West to carry on the work for CMKM. However, since our only endeavors appear to be "legal cases", and since we are already committed to paying legal expenses for these cases, the Board of Directors felt that bi-weekly time sheets showing what work was being done for CMKM would be appropriate. After making the request in September 2011, we have had no response from the Executive Branch. Like so many of our requests, it appears that if they don't like it, they ignore it.
7. After much discussion and prodding, we finally arranged for Mr. Steve Walker to become our Public Relations Officer. The Board of Directors felt that there is little in the way of CMKM news that would harm the company, but the shareholders have a right to know, and should know what we are doing with their company. However, it appears that the Executive Branch would prefer that Mr. Walker held the title in name only, and that he would have little contact with the shareholders. The lack of information is not the fault of Mr. Walker, but the fault is with the directive of CMKM.
8. Finally, the Board of Directors has no funds to finance the overseeing of the direction and management of CMKM. This makes the job of the Board of Directors impossible. For this and all of the above reasons, I must in honesty and fairness to the shareholders, tender my resignation. Whatever the future decisions that are made by the shareholders, I wish you good fortune in your endeavors.
Signed: ______________________________________________
Stan Polsom, Director of CMKM
