|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 9, 2008 22:52:29 GMT -5
Wonder WHAT is behind the closed door?? WHY the blackout?? And WHO blacked it out?? I know, I know... curiousity killed the cat..... <sigh> Single  |
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 10, 2008 7:35:16 GMT -5
so what exactly WOULD this mean if the documents are real? It means UC wasn't going to step down without encumbering CMKM with the $4,000,000 he personally owed Koch. The only documentation UC delivered to Kevin as per the promissory note was the seven boxes that has actually documented the corporate fraud he commited. |
|
|
|
Post by eastcoastswing on Sept 10, 2008 7:39:52 GMT -5
Where did these docs come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2008 7:53:19 GMT -5
i'm still puzzled though, sorry. what kind of conversation is this? Marc, Seems that davidjmar came across these documents which caused much speculation on just what they mean. The post immediately below your question on pg1 gives a good summary. I tend to agree with Ines, that these documents seem to say that UC & KOCH were asking for reimbursement for monies spent in the company prior to KW's taking the reins. One poster seems to think she knows where these docs came from Posted by: nufced
Date: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:57:01 PM
I'm pretty sure its from CMKMs exhibits in the Entourage suit. ****side note**** The ETGMF vs CMKM suit is a suit filed by Entourage that states CMKM defaulted on agreements made, (10/25/05) , to distribute the ETGMF shares to the CMKM shareholders. These shares are still being held at this time by Donald Stoecklein. However,Like everything else involved with CMKX, there are always questions. I learned a long time ago to take all with a grain of salt as there have been many many twists and turns and most assuredly will be many many more yet to come.! Where CMKX is concerned, very little is truly as it appears on the surface. Single |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2008 8:55:36 GMT -5
Today at 6:12am, tenbeers wrote:Look at this document www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/doc_index.htmland take a close look at the 4 mill note at the start of this thread and see if you notice anything peculiar!!!!! Today at 6:46am, tenbeers wrote:OK here is a clue. This lawsuit against UC was filed 4 days before UC and Kevin signed the note. Why would Kevin file a lawsuit against UC and then 4 days later sign a promissory note with UC and not serve him right there then later claim they can't find UC and have to serve by publication?
|
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 10, 2008 10:01:27 GMT -5
Today at 6:12am, tenbeers wrote:Look at this document www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/doc_index.htmland take a close look at the 4 mill note at the start of this thread and see if you notice anything peculiar!!!!! Today at 6:46am, tenbeers wrote:OK here is a clue. This lawsuit against UC was filed 4 days before UC and Kevin signed the note. Why would Kevin file a lawsuit against UC and then 4 days later sign a promissory note with UC and not serve him right there then later claim they can't find UC and have to serve by publication? Not exactly. The suit was filed in April, one month after Kevin signed the prommisory note. |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2008 12:44:03 GMT -5
Today at 6:12am, tenbeers wrote:Look at this document www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/doc_index.htmland take a close look at the 4 mill note at the start of this thread and see if you notice anything peculiar!!!!! Today at 6:46am, tenbeers wrote:OK here is a clue. This lawsuit against UC was filed 4 days before UC and Kevin signed the note. Why would Kevin file a lawsuit against UC and then 4 days later sign a promissory note with UC and not serve him right there then later claim they can't find UC and have to serve by publication? Not exactly. The suit was filed in April, one month after Kevin signed the prommisory note. Ok... now i am really getting confused. Help me out here. 3/29/07It was announced that Kevin would be the new CEO. 3/29/07The first 2 pages of the promissory note were dated 3/29/07. The PR 4/20/07was the PR where Kevin expressed to us that his worse fears were confirmed after receiving the infamous boxes. 4/25/07The suit against UC and others was filed on 4/25/07... I believe this is the correct date... (I can't open the pdf files to check.) and then finally on... 4/29/07 ??The 3rd page of the documents we are looking at states that the promissory note was executed on 4/29/07? (I can't make out the exact date). But it sure looks like 4/29/07. goodolboy, if what I posted is correct...... then what I am looking at makes no sense at all. (to me at least..lol lol) I always said... I hate this legal mumbo jumbo and have a hard time following it. <sigh> Single |
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 10, 2008 13:10:15 GMT -5
Not exactly. The suit was filed in April, one month after Kevin signed the prommisory note. Ok... now i am really getting confused. Help me out here. 3/29/07It was announced that Kevin would be the new CEO. 3/29/07The first 2 pages of the promissory note were dated 3/29/07. The PR 4/20/07was the PR where Kevin expressed to us that his worse fears were confirmed after receiving the infamous boxes. 4/25/07The suit against UC and others was filed on 4/25/07... I believe this is the correct date... (I can't open the pdf files to check.) and then finally on... 4/29/07 ??The 3rd page of the documents we are looking at states that the promissory note was executed on 4/29/07? (I can't make out the exact date). But it sure looks like 4/29/07. goodolboy, if what I posted is incorrect...... then what I am looking at makes no sense at all. (to me at least..lol lol) I always said... I hate this legal mumbo jumbo and have a hard time following it. <sigh> Single Look at the date on the first page of the doc. March 29, 2007. It is clear that the date on the last page was changed as the fonts do not match. |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2008 13:27:22 GMT -5
 Well , I really can't tell the difference. But who are you accusing of changing the font/ date? These documents are rumored to be exhibits of CMKM's in regards to the Entourage suit. And another thought..... could pg1 & 2 be a completely different document than pg3? Always questions, questions, questions. Have we learned from what site these documents were found on yet. I wonder if  Frizzell will see fit to address this matter? This stock never ceases to amaze me !! Single
|
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 10, 2008 13:43:27 GMT -5
Well , I really can't tell the difference. But who are you accusing of changing the font/ date? These documents are rumored to be exhibits of CMKM's in regards to the Entourage suit. Have we learned from what site these documents were found on yet. I wonder if Frizzell will see fit to address this matter? This stock never ceases to amaze me !! Single I haven't a clue who modified the document, but in my opinion, it most likely was the individual that faxed it to jmar. |
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 10, 2008 13:46:26 GMT -5
As for the font issue, just compare it to the line above it.
|
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2008 13:51:09 GMT -5
Well , I really can't tell the difference. But who are you accusing of changing the font/ date? These documents are rumored to be exhibits of CMKM's in regards to the Entourage suit. Have we learned from what site these documents were found on yet. I wonder if Frizzell will see fit to address this matter? This stock never ceases to amaze me !! Single I haven't a clue who modified the document, but in my opinion, it most likely was the individual that faxed it to jmar. Sorry I have a bad habit of modifying my post all the time..... So I will I will post the modification here... And another thought..... could pg1 & 2 be a completely different document from pg3? Always questions, questions, questions.seems to me there is no way to tell for certain the who, what or why.... only thing we have is speculation and our own thoughts I guess. Thanx for yours...... Single |
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 10, 2008 14:11:06 GMT -5
I do have one question about the note. At the time that it was signed none of us knew that CMKM would convert out of Nevada and moved to Texas. So, how is it that jurisdiction of this note came to be under Texas as written in the doc?
|
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2008 15:02:30 GMT -5
goodolboy.... I just put this in the rumor thread..... Watcha think ?? By: nufced 10 Sep 2008, 11:20 AM EDT Msg. 763220 of 763328 (This msg. is a reply to 763218 by allthatsparkles.) Jump to msg. # Re: Entourage Doc's and what is going on « Reply #11 Today at 6:55am » Today at 6:17am, chrisl wrote: "he said that urban called him and told him that tyler, sec, and koch are trying to steal our claims from us, to put these out to show shareholders that we are being robbed" djmar typed that last night in Mona's. Here is what is going on. As most of the sane individuals here understand there is a strong effort to discredit Kevin with past problems in his life. Let me say this first. "Don't throw stones in glass houses" Those documents could of only ended up in the hands of jmar from either Entourage, Urban or Koch. Based on the quote Urban got a hold of them. This is damage control right now. The company recently filed a complaint and named Urban's wife. Now people are whining how come Urban was not named? Hey Urban is named in a bigger complaint no reason to name him again. Urban and Carolyn are trying to unload their house and unload it fast. Does anyone see what they are doing? The new complaint comes out, discredit Kevin and now make it look like Urban is a saint. Urban did not loan the company $4 million dollars. Read the documents and understand them. The documents are clear in what Bill put together in the Letter of Understanding. Urban would have to prove he loaned the company $4 million dollars. How can he prove it when he stole it? Koch never did any work. So there is no $4 million in the company I know this for a fact. I am not guessing either. Next. Now we have a connection from John Edwards to Emerson Koch. The check written was from John Edwards to Koch's company. For a time I actually believed Koch was a fence sitter but this olive branch connection tells me different. He is in bed with Urban, Edwards and is knee deep in corruption from all accounts. And finally. These guys know how to use people. I do not think djmar is a bad individual but a person that has hit hard times in his life. I think Urban and his crew know how to find these people and use them. I believe that at some point Urban reached out to jmar at a time when he needed it and now he is calling in his marker. This is what crooks do. They suck you into thinking they are your friends and bam they f**k you when they need you. jmar is being f**k right now but he is a big boy and knows what he has done. Money will do weird things to people. One more finally. I can only hope that the company has turned this file over to the proper authorities namely the IRS. I am sure the IRS would like to see the records of this loan that Urban made to the company and where did he get the money from to loan it. It looks as if the gloves are off. I am predicting Urban to tell one of his cronies to ask people to write letters on his character and how he is being railroaded. Sorry for the long post.  Whose thoughts are these?? ChrisL's?? or Nufced?? Is this person stating this as fact, if so how come the rest of the shareholders are not privy to the facts? ? If not, then where's the IMO? Then again this is the rumor thread.change of date >> hmmmmmmmmmmmmm the person who faxed the docs to him you guessed goodolboy?? it never ends.... |
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 10, 2008 15:13:34 GMT -5
Chrisl wrote this and posted it on pb66 this morning. I personally think it holds merit, and I believe Nufced concurs as well based on her repost of it on RB.
After reviewing all three pages again, I do see where I was mistaken. Page one and two makes up the prommissory note dated March 29, 2007. The third page is a separate doc clarifying terms of the Prommissory note (must provide documentation of the money owed) dated April 29, 2007.
This would prove to be somewhat of a delemma for UC if he chooses to make demand on the note, knowing that all the checks he wrote out to himself would be brought up.
|
|
