|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 6, 2008 12:01:25 GMT -5
By: goliath_grouper 06 Sep 2008, 12:31 PM EDT Msg. 761461 of 761490 Jump to msg. # Leo-cmkx is not a public company. the sec has no jurisdiction over their actions. By: leowanta 06 Sep 2008, 12:41 PM EDT Msg. 761471 of 761490 (This msg. is a reply to 761461 by goliath_grouper.) Jump to msg. # goliath...wrong.... cmkx is a trading symbol...that the Nevada CMKM Diamonds, used to acquire CMKXER shareholders....that do not belong to Tyler and YES the SEC is mandated to protect CMKXER SHAREHOLDERS FROM FRAUD>>>>>FRAUDS LIKE TYLER.... considering filing a motion to dismiss with decaratory judgment as a CMKX shareholder based on lack of jurisdiction.....a simple one-pager.....requesting a hearing.....and immediate ruling....i guess that would end tyler ..... could fax it in monday couldn't i.... (with a newsy letter and cc to the Texas Attorney General and State Bar of Texas....complaining about Frizzell's competence.) how do you like them apples boyzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz what then tyler! heheheheheheheh we have rights...you cannot use CMKXERs damages for your "secret society and Private co....with no revenue, no business model and no INSURANCE BONDS......you are history! leowanta By: goliath_grouper 06 Sep 2008, 12:44 PM EDT Msg. 761475 of 761494 (This msg. is a reply to 761471 by leowanta.) Jump to msg. # leo, you moron, only the people named in the suit have standing to file for a motion to dismiss. And get the BLEEP over your delusion that Tyler is not the same corporation as CMKX Diamonds. By: leowanta 06 Sep 2008, 12:45 PM EDT Msg. 761476 of 761492 (This msg. is a reply to 761471 by leowanta.) Jump to msg. # AND NO RIGHT TO SUE BASED ON UNREGISTERED CMKX SHARES OF STOCK, WHICH IS NON OF TYLER'S BUSINESS IN THEIR "PRIVATE COMPANY" THAT HAS NO BUSINESS MODEL PROFILE ON FILE WITH THE SOS....WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE NOT A DEVELOPMENTAL MINING COMPANY......YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO EMBEZZLE CMKXER'S MONEY....THAT'S THE TRUTH OF IT....YOU WANT TO TRADE BECAUSE YOU LEFT YOUR SHARES ELECTRONIC FORM....AND YOU ARE JUST OUT OF LUCK...CMKX WILL NEVER TRADE AGAIN...NO MATTER WHAT! leowanta By: leowanta 06 Sep 2008, 12:49 PM EDT Msg. 761480 of 761496 (This msg. is a reply to 761475 by goliath_grouper.) Jump to msg. # i suggest you read the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure... as a CMKXER, you are trying to use shares as jurisdiction to recoup money...shares that i am privy too...shares of which i hold a certificate too....i am an INTERESTED PARTY and i do have a right as a third party to file a motion to dismiss.....every CMKXER HAS THE RIGHT TO FAX IN THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON INTERERSTED THRID PARTY....I RECOMMEND EVERY SHAREHOLDER FAX THEIR MOTION TO THIS JUDGE IN OBJECTION BASED ON LACK OF JURISDICTION! leowanta This isn't very nice of you pedro....I am shocked at you!!!  By: lilburrito0 06 Sep 2008, 12:53 PM EDT Msg. 761483 of 761497 (This msg. is a reply to 761480 by leowanta.) Jump to msg. # leowanta I suggest you STFU before Frizzell, Kevin, CMKM Diamonds (corporation) and CMKM Diamond Bonafied Sharesholders end up suing you for your "continued malice." |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 6, 2008 12:05:05 GMT -5
By: gusjarvis 06 Sep 2008, 12:23 PM EDT Msg. 761451 of 761481 Jump to msg. # hey burrito and elo, the cert pull would have proved the shares were unregistered and who sold them right By: goliath_grouper 06 Sep 2008, 12:25 PM EDT Msg. 761453 of 761482 (This msg. is a reply to 761451 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # gus-all the shares cmkx issued were unregistered. By: lilburrito0 06 Sep 2008, 12:34 PM EDT Msg. 761465 of 761486 (This msg. is a reply to 761451 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # gusjarvis No. The cert pull can not prove shares (certificates) were unregistered. No. The cert pull can not prove who sold the shares (certificates). The cert pull proved the shares (certificates)were sold and we ended up buying them. Shareholder Audit and Trading Records determines who sold them. By: gusjarvis 06 Sep 2008, 12:35 PM EDT Msg. 761466 of 761486 (This msg. is a reply to 761453 by goliath_grouper.) Jump to msg. # goliath that is right and there was as cert pull which would have proved just that in 06, and would have proved exactly who sold what, so since kevin and bill have to forget they did that it proves they are lying, for our own good of course. And given that cert pull proved this massive fraud the sec discovered in 2004 bill shut everything down and started the lawsuits, oh no that is not what happened, kevin did the one of a kind precedent setting interplead with that cert pull work product. Kind of weird since it must have showed this massive insider fraud by urban and je, right. and of course they have totally forgotten all the brokers who we ordered certs from, I must have missed them in these lawsuits, and they were holding hundreds and hundreds of billions of shares. By: gusjarvis 06 Sep 2008, 12:37 PM EDT Msg. 761467 of 761487 (This msg. is a reply to 761465 by lilburrito0.) Jump to msg. # well burrito thank god bill had the foia trading records hey and thank god bill and all of us knew of the silver state bank fraud, if not he may have got scammed hey oh and sure as hell the cert pull proved the naked short and would have showed exactly who sold the shares, ie etrade, who had to negotiate to buy their certs like the rest By: goliath_grouper 06 Sep 2008, 12:38 PM EDT Msg. 761468 of 761489 (This msg. is a reply to 761466 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # what are you talking about, jarhead? A cert pull has zero to do with unregistered shares. By: lilburrito0 06 Sep 2008, 12:47 PM EDT Msg. 761477 of 761494 (This msg. is a reply to 761467 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # gusjarvis If the OS of 703 billion shares is backed up with certificates; Which means, at all times there are certificates held by people that total 703 billion shares ............. And the cert pull only had 630 billion shares backed up in certificates; Which means, people holding certificates only held 630 billion shares ......... There leaves a difference of 73 billion shares backed up with certificates unaccounted; Which means, people who did not fax in their certificates were holding 73 billions shares ............ |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 6, 2008 12:05:38 GMT -5
By: goliath_grouper
06 Sep 2008, 12:47 PM EDT
Msg. 761478 of 761494
Jump to msg. #
Posted by: jarta Date: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:26:41 PM
In reply to: nufced who wrote msg# 258401 Post # of 258446
nuffie, ... "Thats a seperate suit, filed in 07..ie:Urban"
The question is not why Urban is not part of the Texas suit. The question is why the Texas suit was filed at all since there is room for many Roes and Does to be added to the Nevada suit. In other words, there already was a vehicle to sue these people that existed in Nevada. Why, then, Texas?
I see Frizzell himself is the attorney for the plaintiffs in the Texas suit. That raises the possibility that the Nevada lawyer, Koch, wouldn't do it and there is no money to pay a Texas lawyer.
In any event, the Texas defendants are all Canucks and they will surely ignore this filing - just as Edwards and Urban have done with the Nevada filing. I'm sorry for the stuckholders, but it sure looks like, as they say in Texas, another dry hole. .
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 6, 2008 12:09:05 GMT -5
By: johnnyic 06 Sep 2008, 12:55 PM EDT Msg. 761484 of 761498 Jump to msg. # Leo Wanta you remind me of Erin Brockovich  By: johnnyic 06 Sep 2008, 01:02 PM EDT Msg. 761492 of 761499 Jump to msg. # Leo does this sound familiar? Erin Brockovich-Ellis (born June 22, 1960) is an American legal clerk who, despite the lack of a formal law school education, was instrumental in constructing a case against the $28 billion Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), of California in 1993. After the success of a film about her, Brockovich was the target of a blackmail attempt by her old boyfriend, George, one of her ex-husbands, and an attorney who threatened to smear her reputation as a parent. She called the police, who later arrested the three for extortion after conducting a sting operation... Be Well my fellow Bona fide shareholder... |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 6, 2008 12:10:01 GMT -5
By: phatboy1988
06 Sep 2008, 12:50 PM EDT
Msg. 761481 of 761498
Jump to msg. #
Not a good time to be a Casavant. All being sued. Pity eh?
By: goliath_grouper
06 Sep 2008, 12:56 PM EDT
Msg. 761486 of 761498
(This msg. is a reply to 761481 by phatboy1988.)
Jump to msg. #
Phatboy-I doubt they will even be able to serve any of them. Not that it matters, since they are all Canadian citizens. Good luck trying to enforce the decision of some two-bit Texas court in Saskatchewan.
By: CHICPICK
06 Sep 2008, 01:01 PM EDT
Msg. 761491 of 761500
(This msg. is a reply to 761486 by goliath_grouper.)
Jump to msg. #
grouper,
Sask., will co-operate with the US. If not, the US., will not co-operate with Canada in the future......Not that it makes a big difference other than jail time, as I doubt that any large amounts will ever be collected. Getting a judgement is one thing, collecting it is quite another
By: goliath_grouper
06 Sep 2008, 01:14 PM EDT
Msg. 761500 of 761500
(This msg. is a reply to 761491 by CHICPICK.)
Jump to msg. #
Not that simple, chick:
“Recognition” and “enforcement” distinguished
7. There is a distinction between “recognition” on the one hand and “enforcement” on the other. For
example, the judgment of a court of State A may be recognized by the courts of State B without
State B necessarily enforcing it. State B will (at common law) recognize the decision of State A if
State B considers that State A possessed jurisdiction (at common law) to render the decision.
Some States are generous in the extent to which they consider they have jurisdiction over parties
with little connection to the jurisdiction (i.e. they exercise a “long arm” jurisdiction). There needs
to be an objective standard by which the issue of jurisdiction is assessed. The simplified test is
that the foreign court is considered to have jurisdiction if;
“(i) the judgment debtor was, at the time the proceedings were instituted,
present in the foreign country.
(ii) the judgment debtor was claimant, or counterclaimed in the proceedings in
the foreign court.
(iii) the judgment debtor, being a defendant in the foreign court, submitted to
the jurisdiction of that court by voluntarily appearing in the proceedings.
(iv) the judgment debtor, being a defendant in the original court, had before the
commencement of the proceedings agreed, in respect of the subject matter
of the proceedings, to submit to the jurisdiction of that court or of the
courts of that country.”
By: CHICPICK
06 Sep 2008, 01:03 PM EDT
Msg. 761494 of 761502
(This msg. is a reply to 761491 by CHICPICK.)
Jump to msg. #
grouper,
Jail time will not be for the civil. It will happen once the DOJ., gets done.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 6, 2008 12:11:33 GMT -5
By: leowanta 06 Sep 2008, 12:58 PM EDT Msg. 761488 of 761499 (This msg. is a reply to 761480 by leowanta.) Jump to msg. # Texas Rules Civ Procedure Interested Third Party Practice Rule 39 PDF] Texas Rules of Civil ProcedureFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Texas Rules of Civil www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Texas+Rules+Civ+Procedure+Interested+Third+Party&aq=f&oq= read it here goliath.......... every CMKXER needs to fax their motion to dismiss with declaratory judgment objecting to this lawsuit by tyler based on lack of jurisdiction, BASED ON UNREGISTERED SHARES OF STOCK WHICH HOLD NO OWNERSHIP VALUE.....MAKE TYLER DEFINE THEIR JURISDICTION CMKXERS WE CAN GET THIS DISMISSED....NEXT WEEK BY REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE HEARING.......it's a 90 minute drive.....many in dallas should also attend.... we get paid when tyler gets shut down...(by urban) leowanta |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 6, 2008 12:16:57 GMT -5
By: nufced
06 Sep 2008, 01:06 PM EDT
Msg. 761496 of 761500
Jump to msg. #
Sally Wind Trust--ETGMF 02/16/06 KOCH EMERSON, Shareholder Planned Sale — $299,925.00 666,500 $— - $— —
02/05/06 WALKER RICK, Unknown Planned Sale — $71,910.00 153,000 $— - $—
08/08/06 REID ERIC, Unknown Planned Sale — $31,800.00 132,500 $— - $— —
05/25/06 SALLY WIND 2 TRUST, Unknown Planned Sale — $188,566.00 589,270 $— - $— —
By: nufced
06 Sep 2008, 01:08 PM EDT
Msg. 761498 of 761500
Jump to msg. #
Sally Wind and Seaena--4) These shares are held of record by four different trusts of which Mr.
Williams is the trustee or a co-trustee: Sally Wind 1 Trust (264,285
shares), Sally Wind 2 Trust (103,807
31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shares), Sally Wind 3 Trust (103,808 shares), and Sally Wind 4 Trust (264,286
shares).
By: nufced
06 Sep 2008, 01:09 PM EDT
Msg. 761499 of 761500
Jump to msg. #
Maybe a lawsuit involving Kevin Ryan and Crystallix/Seaena? Coming to this theater soon?
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 6, 2008 12:20:15 GMT -5
When I visited Tyler, I distinctly remember questioning Bill about the Sally trusts. His reply "Know nothing about them!" Wonder why nothing known then and now they crop up! Hmmmmmm.
|
|
|
|
Post by hundredtoone on Sept 6, 2008 12:37:07 GMT -5
casper 9-6-08 a.m. "Hunch" = A guess or feeling not based upon known facts. a premonition or suspicion. Why the unexpected 4 hour meeting in New York? Why the simultaneous Paulson/Bernake/Freddie/Fannie meeting in D.C.? Why the simultaneous sabotage of deliveries? If the banks illegal trading using our funds as collateral was shut down, if, as the wire services report, Paulson is to "creatively use" the authorities provided him by Congress last month to bail Freddie/Fannie, If the illegal trading activity using our funds as collateral is being continued using Treasury's Traders, Would this not explain the mysterious, bizarre, unexpected sabotage of deliveries yesterday? Is this "trading vehicle" we are all now familiar with not unique to the fiat currency regime? Do we not expect the overnight creation of "monopoly money" to cease with the new banking system and asset backed currency regime? From where are the funds to come to bail the debt holders of Freddie/Fannie after the equity holders have been wiped out? Is the continued illegal trading by Treasury Traders using our funds as collateral PAULSON'S "creative" method of bailing Freddie/Fannie? Just a hunch. www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/nesara/news/news.php?q=1220715619...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial) |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 6, 2008 17:00:36 GMT -5
pennyslave DIAMOND DIGGER Prominent DD'ers « Thread Started Today at 8:13am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have had a lot of top people here just up and leave for what reason ?. Some seem to think they was paid to shut up and signed an agreement not to disclose information. What happen to these folks did they just get tired after all these years or did some get paid.? tuscansun DIAMOND JEDI Re: Prominent DD'ers « Reply #4 Today at 11:12am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I doubt ayone has gotten paid... but, its a for sure that the years of Dd make some totally confident and posting is not a priority in life for some who are watching the world unfold before their eyes. and they don't have to take the guff from those that get ticked at them. The PHONE works well ..... The only ones paid are those that were 'planted'...and their paycheck is about to stop ! millionaires.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=21891 |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 6, 2008 17:43:53 GMT -5
By: gusjarvis
06 Sep 2008, 01:48 PM EDT
Msg. 761508 of 761655
(This msg. is a reply to 761477 by lilburrito0.)
Jump to msg. #
I am a little confused by your post burrito
you said that there were more than enough certificates to cover this, so there was no need for a cert pull I guess. But I thought john edwards and the other scammers sold 622 billion uregistered shares to us, so how is there a cert attached to any of those shares.
And how come the hundreds and hundreds of billions of shares sold by etrade knight ameritrade tdwaterhouse and others is nowhere in this mix. And how come they took months on end to be able to cert their customers
how come the sec allowed five hundred billion unregistered shares to trade after they had the records of the fraud and how did they let our money get stolen given this fact and how did bill work with urban given he had just been busted for fraud. How did don and bob run this ship with bill and allow five hundred billion shares to get dumped to us given they knew the ssbank subpoena's had been served. How come
oh I am just kidding mark, we all know you are full of chit but you are pretty good at it, not good enough to fool anyone with any common sense or smarts, but pretty good. You don't play jonazzz do you, or maybe jay, more like fishing for diamonds or one of the other thingyds I would guess lol. Nobody will hate you after this is over and they have their checks, despite the constant lying and games you played with people.
there is only one team, too bad you are on it
- - - - -
By: lilburrito0
06 Sep 2008, 02:03 PM EDT
Msg. 761510 of 761657
(This msg. is a reply to 761508 by gusjarvis.)
Jump to msg. #
gusjarvis
You don't know how the system works.
You create your own way of how "you" want the system to work.
That's why I don't take time in answering your question.
But FWIW and FYI:
Unregistered shares are backed up with a certificate.
NSS is not backed up with a certificate.
By: gusjarvis
06 Sep 2008, 02:09 PM EDT
Msg. 761513 of 761658
(This msg. is a reply to 761510 by lilburrito0.)
Jump to msg. #
yes unregistered shares are backed up with a cert
a restricted cert right. If it was just that easy to get certs how come it took months on end for some to get their certs. How did we get a cert when we bought and unregistered share, what made it registered pedro, what transaction took place to allow the clients waiting on their certs to get them?
Hey after the silver state bank fraud hit the net all over in feb 05 how come bill frizzell pumped the living chit out of cmkx and worked with urban facilitating what you say is the dumping of 500 billion shares to us by urban and the money stolen.
By: StoneRolling
06 Sep 2008, 02:10 PM EDT
Msg. 761514 of 761658
(This msg. is a reply to 761510 by lilburrito0.)
Jump to msg. #
Pedro: Who gives a fu(k if you answer a question or not? Your dumbazz never has the right answer. You get a couple of documents off the net, post them on a board, and think you are all-knowing?
What you are is a class-A moron with too much time on his hands.
PS: Tell everyone how I was banned from PB66 for putting you in your place. TIA
|
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 6, 2008 17:57:37 GMT -5
By: lilburrito0
06 Sep 2008, 02:19 PM EDT
Msg. 761521 of 761663
(This msg. is a reply to 761513 by gusjarvis.)
Jump to msg. #
gusjarvis
Like I wrote:
You (gus) don't know how the system works!
If you knew how the system works gus, you would have never written:
"yes unregistered shares are backed up with a cert a restricted cert right."
If you knew how the system works gus, you would have never written:
"If it was just that easy to get certs how come it took months on end for some to get their certs."
If you knew how the system works gus, you would have never written:
"How did we get a cert when we bought and unregistered share, what made it registered."
Try to get back to your life before you became involved with CMKM.
By: gusjarvis
06 Sep 2008, 02:23 PM EDT
Msg. 761525 of 761664
(This msg. is a reply to 761521 by lilburrito0.)
Jump to msg. #
if you weren't a liar you would answer the
tough question and not deflect everything that can't be answered. But i should get back to my life for sure, and you get back to your job. Too bad you have to work weekend, say hi to bill and kevin for us
By: lilburrito0
06 Sep 2008, 02:50 PM EDT
Msg. 761547 of 761665
(This msg. is a reply to 761525 by gusjarvis.)
Jump to msg. #
gusjarvis
I'm a liar gus? ___ I don't answer the hard questions? _ LOL
I just don't like wasting my time with people, gus!
So ...... To sum it all up, you wrote:
Re: "yes unregistered shares are backed up with a cert a restricted cert right."
Answer:
If the issuance was a restricted cert, the cert would not be "unregistered." __ would it?
Have a nice life!
By: gusjarvis
06 Sep 2008, 03:25 PM EDT
Msg. 761553 of 761669
(This msg. is a reply to 761547 by lilburrito0.)
Jump to msg. #
just answer this one clearly burrito
the sec busted urban in sept 2004 at the latest, how did they let the scam continue after that and the money and claims stolen. Why isn't bill suing them then
|
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 6, 2008 18:00:54 GMT -5
 By: gusjarvis
06 Sep 2008, 02:26 PM EDT
Msg. 761530 of 761676(This msg. is a reply to 761526 by nufced.) Jump to msg. # nufced it is clear to anyone with a brain the share raises and their certs were used to cover etrade, ameritrade, knight, tdwaterhouse, je short, and the rest. Otherwise how did they cert those hundreds and hundreds of billions of shares they were short. Yes they bought the unregistered share raises to cover By: nufced
06 Sep 2008, 02:31 PM EDT
Msg. 761536 of 761676(This msg. is a reply to 761530 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # hey gus, heres another thought. We never had 40k shareholders. It was an elaborate scheme, with 30k strawshareholders!! Check around the message boards and paltalk...1500 tops? LOL By: aladin99
06 Sep 2008, 02:27 PM EDT
Msg. 761532 of 761677(This msg. is a reply to 761530 by gusjarvis.) Jump to msg. # Gusjarvis....Exactly!!!! How could we all get certs if they did not raise those 500B shares....
|
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 6, 2008 18:03:24 GMT -5
By: nufced
06 Sep 2008, 02:24 PM EDT
Msg. 761529 of 761678
Jump to msg. #
Yesterdays lawsuit, the CEC Irrevocable Trust?? All documents evidencing deposits into the Sally Wind 1,2,3 &' 4 Trusts and the
CEC 2005 Irrevocable Trust
By: goliath_grouper
06 Sep 2008, 02:27 PM EDT
Msg. 761533 of 761679
(This msg. is a reply to 761529 by nufced.)
Jump to msg. #
Nuf-good luck on the money still being in the trust.
|
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 6, 2008 18:05:29 GMT -5
 By: pussim
06 Sep 2008, 03:41 PM EDT
Msg. 761563 of 761680Jump to msg. # UC continues to sell assets... the latest is selling his 1.2 million dollar home in Saskatoon.. converting everything into cash... harder for the courts to get control of cash.. easier to hide cash..just ask John Edwards.... a bit troubling imo...
|
|
