|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2008 18:31:59 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. Well if the sequence of event dates are correct in my above post.. then I stand by my statement. goodolboy, if what I posted is correct...... then what I am looking at makes no sense at all. (to me at least..lol lol)What reason would UC have for signing and committing to the extra burden of proof, to recoup any monies? He already had KW's signature which would holdup in the legal system. As for the checks....The checks are already exhibits in a law suit... aren't they(asking)?? and they are posted on the CMKM website. How much more public can the checks be made? Available for any agency to use for their benefit?? So with or without the document signed on 4/29/07 the results would have been the same.IMO Nawwwww... seems there is more going on here than meets the eye!! Wheeling dealing going on? Coniving? or other? As usual, the shareholders are left in the dark. About time for Tyler to turn on the light because they have some a whole lot of explaining to do!!  I plead the 5th on discussing which posters deserve merit or not..lol lol jmo Single  |
|
|
|
Post by goodolboy on Sept 10, 2008 18:58:42 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. Well if the sequence of event dates are correct in my above post.. then I stand by my statement. goodolboy, if what I posted is correct...... then what I am looking at makes no sense at all. (to me at least..lol lol)What reason would UC have for signing and committing to the extra burden of proof, to recoup any monies? He already had KW's signature which would holdup in the legal system. As for the checks....The checks are already exhibits in a law suit... aren't they(asking)?? and they are posted on the CMKM website. How much more public can the checks be made? Available for any agency to use for their benefit?? So with or without the document signed on 4/29/07 the results would have been the same.IMO Nawwwww... seems there is more going on here than meets the eye!! Wheeling dealing going on? Coniving? or other? As usual, the shareholders are left in the dark. About time for Tyler to turn on the light because they have some a whole lot of explaining to do!! I plead the 5th on discussing which posters deserve merit or not..lol lol jmo Single I do think it deserves more discussion. But I do believe Chrisl's post does have merit regardless of whether you are anyone else feels Chrisl has any. If it had been bhollenegg that posted it, I still would have felt it has merit. |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2008 19:10:30 GMT -5
My statement of pleading the 5th regarding merit has nothing whosoever to do with ChrisL personally. It was just a general statement. Single |
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 10, 2008 19:23:38 GMT -5
fishing4diamonds Seaman Re: Entourage Doc's and what is going on « Reply #57 Today at 7:13pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin responded to an email I sent about these. He gave permission for me to post his response here without his personal email address in it. It "no matta" to me whether you believe this was from him or not. But here is what he had to say about those docs which have been misunderstood and further misleading the CMKX shareholders. Enjoy f4d~ Hi Mike,
Hope all is well for you and your family.
The note that you are seeing is factual although the April 29th date is a typo on the “Letter of Understanding” page. It was signed on the same day as the promissory note as an addendum to the promissory note on March 29, 2007.
Mr. Koch was unaware that Urban used his name on this note and has disclaimed anything to do with it.
As he has always done, Mr. Casavant lied to me about the monies he said were owed him just like he has done to all of the other shareholders with just about everything he has ever said. I signed this note well before we were given undeniable evidence of Mr. Casavant’s conversion of Company funds by one of his former attorneys when Company records were requested. If I would have known these facts beforehand, I would have never even entered into such an agreement.
On the evening before signing over the Company to me, Mr. Casavant hit me with a lie about having paid several attorneys out of his pocket on behalf of the Company. He said that he wanted a note from the Company to repay these “loans” that he made to the Company out of personal funds. He named the attorneys one by one and followed up with the amounts paid along with an extra $1,100,000 thrown in for good measure under the pretense of “travel, food and lodging”. Mr. Casavant promised that he would be able to provide proof of payments along with proof that the funds were personal funds belonging to him outside of CMKM. As you know by now and as we found out a few short weeks later, Mr. Casavant never had any personal funds involved with this Company. Everything he has and has obtained since the Company was started was from money derived from the illegal issue and sales of CMKM stock. 100% FACT as can be evidenced by court documents already filed against him!
This note is 100% void because of the above. The Company has absolutely no intention of ever even considering this note. We are about to hit Mr. Casavant with a multi-million dollar judgment that will absolutely swallow the amount that this note was written for.
I find it very sad that he would continue to use people to try and make himself look innocent when the facts showing his fraudulent activities are insurmountable. I find it very hard to believe that shareholders would continue to look at anything coming from this man as credible. Again, Mr. Casavant seems to be trying to find a way to keep some of the shareholders on his side regardless of what he is putting them through emotionally.
Sincerely,
Kevin cmkxdiamond.proboards66.com/index.cgi?board=general1&action=display&thread=57552&page=4 |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 10, 2008 20:20:29 GMT -5
OK.... so now we have an explanation, excuse, a reason... call it what you choose to... to maybe come up with some type of chronological sense to this... yet another fiasco. Do I put 100% credibility into the above post.... not on your life. I will take it with a grain of salt as I take most info in regards to CMKX. Not shooting the messenger, just considering the source of the information and checking over Tyler's track record .....still come up way short of 100%. Trust must be earned and imo Tyler has a lot more explaining to do before they even come close. Would be an excellent idea if Kevin or Frizzell would step up to the plate and address the numerous other inconsistencies, discrepencies and matters that they either choose to ignore or feel that it is none of the shareholders bussiness... Would also be an excellent idea if these matters were addressed publicly to ALL shareholders at the same time in an official PR. tsk.. tsk... Kevin... you really need to pay closer attention to details in regards to company matters. Just shakes head..... Single |
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Sept 11, 2008 7:14:32 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? right on Goodolboy!! Good catch  Yesterday at 9:19pm, smegadild wrote:ahhhhh yes, the infamous typo excuse..... How do you dispute that one...? lowriderbill
DIAMOND DIGGER
Re: Maybe this will clarify David Jmar's and Spude« Reply #13 Yesterday at 9:50pm » 1) What day was the company handed over? 2) What day was the note signed? 3) What day was the conversion of domicile? 4) If it's a typo, then why does it say "Under the laws of Texas"? answers1. March 29th, 2007 2. March 29th & April 29th 2007 3. Convert Out on 4/27/2007 4. Someone's lying? Seems Kevin just put his foot in his mouth once again.Single |
|
