|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:00:54 GMT -5
By: goodolboy27 15 Sep 2008, 09:08 AM EDT Msg. 765242 of 765491 (This msg. is a reply to 765230 by rosencrantz2010.) Jump to msg. # No rosen, that's not the case. You and everyone else bought the unregistered shares.
By: imsowearyi 15 Sep 2008, 09:28 AM EDT Msg. 765253 of 765491 (This msg. is a reply to 765242 by goodolboy27.) Jump to msg. # GOODOLBOY, U R WRONG SO STOP THE LYING -SEC AND 1ST GLOBAL CONFIRMED TO ME THAT IF U HAVE SHARES N CERT FORM THEN YOUR SHARES R REGISTSRED
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:09:50 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Sep 2008, 09:30 AM EDT Msg. 765256 of 765494 (This msg. is a reply to 765250 by goodolboy27.) Jump to msg. # goodolboy, oh, okay. what's your guess on the number? i know several good posters have debated this issue several times.
my69z agrees with you and thinks shares will get cancelled. several other posters say none will get cancelled because the final bona fide list is set in concrete.
i tend to agree with my69z on this stuff, but for the life of me i don't see how the SEC is going to step in and start canceling shares/certs?
i can see where they'll take away the shares/certs from bad guys that don't deserve their shares because they were just gifts given by urban, but i don't see how they are going to cancel all that many shares,,, maybe 50b.
do you think they will cancel a lot more than that?
By: goodolboy27 15 Sep 2008, 09:34 AM EDT Msg. 765260 of 765494 (This msg. is a reply to 765256 by rosencrantz2010.) Jump to msg. # rosen, how do you cancel the bulk cert a certain brokerage firm tried to buy post reve without canceling ALL the post rev shares sold by Deli and Ines that were brokered by Brewer?
Frizzell will seek to have the brokerage cert canceled in the next round.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:10:34 GMT -5
By: aladin99 15 Sep 2008, 09:32 AM EDT Msg. 765258 of 765494 (This msg. is a reply to 765230 by rosencrantz2010.) Jump to msg. # Rose + ImSo...$622B must be destroyed somehow!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:12:38 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Sep 2008, 09:42 AM EDT Msg. 765262 of 765495 (This msg. is a reply to 765260 by goodolboy27.) Jump to msg. # goodolboy, sooo, the brokerage cert you're referring to is included in our overall count, that is, in the 622b ?
and let's just say the brokerage cert is for 100b shares,,, then that woul bring our cert share count down to 522b. correct?
and then anything else TYLER can clear out, like some of the gift shares handed out by urban and still being held by those individuals, those an get written off the count too. good.
so, maybe if/when we return to trading the overall OS could be reduced to 500b?
500b is still mind-numbingly huge, but i'll take it over 622b.
but back to the unregistered idea. how does the SEC even allow any of the shares to trade if they were unregistered? has such a thing happened before?
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:14:24 GMT -5
By: smartmoneyknows 15 Sep 2008, 11:16 AM EDT Msg. 765282 of 765495 Jump to msg. # INES1OO: they dont own 51 % of the company INES1OO: so .. buyout .. directly to shareholders can happen INES1OO: somebody offers a buyout and if enough cmkx shareholders agree then it goes.
BUYOUT!!!!!!!! BUY OUT WHAT??? LOL KEEP DREAMING
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:15:06 GMT -5
By: smartmoneyknows 15 Sep 2008, 11:19 AM EDT Msg. 765286 of 765495 Jump to msg. # INES1OO: therefore we can be offered a buyout from anybody and they dont have a say in it INES1OO: at all INES1OO: its up to shareholders accepting it
STOP ALREADY...YA DUMB FOREIGN BIMBO
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:15:40 GMT -5
By: sharasilva 15 Sep 2008, 11:36 AM EDT Msg. 765291 of 765495 (This msg. is a reply to 765230 by rosencrantz2010.) Jump to msg. # The 622B shares were sold into the market. You own them. There are no 622B registered shares.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:16:19 GMT -5
By: aladin99 15 Sep 2008, 11:44 AM EDT Msg. 765294 of 765495 Jump to msg. # Vanguard trying to supply certs « Thread Started Yesterday at 11:02am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't post because I don't get news other than what I read on this board. But, my brother-in-law who has 2.5 million shares was contacted by Vanguard and was told they are trying to get his certs. My brother-in-law had not requested his certs and this came out of the blue. They could be tying up loose ends or something might be happening. He called me and asked if I knew anything, and of course I didn't.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:20:13 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 15 Sep 2008, 11:47 AM EDT Msg. 765295 of 765496 (This msg. is a reply to 765291 by sharasilva.) Jump to msg. # shara, people have been saying the SEC said that we own 622b unregistered shares! even though they were sold into the market and we all bought them the shares never were registered properly and that causes problems.
i don't understand the rules surrounding registered vs unregistered shares, but it seems to me that the SEC should have been able to prevent this kind of activity.
shareholders, like ourselves, can be constantly worried about buying illegal shares in the marketplace! good lord, how do i know what i'm buying if i buy securities through one of the big brokerage houses? shouldn't i assume my hard earned money is going toward an investment in a sound security like CMKX, lehman brothers or enron or fannie mae or bear sterns?!
something should have been done to protect the American investor. if i bought illegal securities then somehow i should be compensated since this crime was allowed under the nose of our federal watch dog, the SEC.
how can i ever feel good about the markets again?
things have really gotten out of hand.
now to be told that the shares in my stock certificate are unregistered or illegal shares is just outrageous! it almost seems like a double crime.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:22:30 GMT -5
By: aladin99 15 Sep 2008, 09:44 AM EDT Msg. 765263 of 765496 Jump to msg. # When people close their accounts or declare CMKX as Wash Sale Brokers own all these shares....Next step is how to deal with all these shares? Should brokers return these shares back to original owners?
By: leowanta 15 Sep 2008, 11:57 AM EDT Msg. 765301 of 765496 (This msg. is a reply to 765263 by aladin99.) Jump to msg. # aladin99...let me give you a BIG CLUE
those shares don't exist....they are all naked shorted bogus shares....those that left those shares in their account are simply left out...they didn't follow directions to get their resolution now, the brokers have every right to cancel those shares due to REVOCATION of CMKX, therefore shares held in accounts are worthless. that's just the way it works. when they are cancelled, each account holder will need to hire their own attorney and fight their battle privately.....if this the the "work" hodges and frizzell are trying to capture...i hate to break the news...neither one of those lawyers are SECURITIES lawyers....i doubt seriously any cmkxer would want to use Tyler as their lawyer....every post i read about Tyler is negative...except for the tyler bod like yourself who pumps Tyler's existence, without benefit of intelligence of the law.
leowanta
By: aladin99 15 Sep 2008, 12:02 PM EDT Msg. 765304 of 765496 (This msg. is a reply to 765301 by leowanta.) Jump to msg. # LEO - This is America not third world country!
Every share will be treated the same whether they are electronic shares or they are in cert form...
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:25:28 GMT -5
By: reality.bytes 15 Sep 2008, 12:03 PM EDT Msg. 765306 of 765496 Jump to msg. # My prediction: A government bailout will rescue CMKX.
I kid you NOT!!!! Mark my words.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:27:01 GMT -5
By: imsowearyi 15 Sep 2008, 08:48 AM EDT Msg. 765221 of 765498 (This msg. is a reply to 765218 by rosencrantz2010.) Jump to msg. # rosie, 622B unregistered shares - and yes when I first called the sec - they couldnt tell me how they got the 622B number - I did find out that are shares are "SEPERATE"
By: leowanta 15 Sep 2008, 12:11 PM EDT Msg. 765311 of 765498 (This msg. is a reply to 765221 by imsowearyi.) Jump to msg. # Again, in no way will any SEC employee give you this kind of information over the phone...that is a complete load of crap...
the standard answer is CMKX is still under investigation and we are not permitted to give out any info....so you "special" sec person is full of crap.
the Intial Decision July 12, 2005, final October 25, 2005 clearly orders all CMKM DIAMONDS INC. SHARES (CMKX) ALL CLASSES OF CMKX ARE UNREGISTERED...REVOKED...
there is not one SEC EMPLOYEE THAT CAN OVER RULE JUDGE BRENDA MURRAY.......THERE IS NO SEPARATION FOR TYLER'S SPECIAL NEEDS....THAT IS JUST A LOAD OF CRAP COMING FROM TYLER....
leowanta
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:28:30 GMT -5
By: leowanta 15 Sep 2008, 12:30 PM EDT Msg. 765319 of 765499 Jump to msg. # he he OOPS..of course you all know it's "2006" not 2005... for in September 2005, the PFR was still alive, the cert pull had not been completed (may 2006)...so no, Urban's Oshins trust was started a few days before my email to Steve Oshins on 9-20-2006
sorry for the typo...please excuse.
By: leowanta 14 Sep 2008, 03:52 PM EDT Msg. 765045 of 765074 Jump to msg. # "The concern I have is that every time we pass a 'quarter marker'........ the money cannot be taken out until the next quarter since it is locked in....... or so it seems... Remember all the little comments like "If we are not paid by ______(say the end of April) we are screwed" ? Well it seems those comments are coming in quarters... April, July, Oct. .... so the other must be Jan."
posted by seagull on pb29...
i have come to the same conclusion....so...remember when oshins was first talked about back in 2005....i emailed Oshins to discuss urban's trust...to try and discern if cmkxers where part of that trust. my emails are dated September 20, 2005 so i know urban setup that trust this month and prior to the 20th.
.....mq recently said...'SEQUENTIAL ORDER' as if, it has begun....that was posted last week....the big shareholder meeting is the 15th....i believe the window for payout of the trust began on whatever day mq posted "sequential order".....FWIW
leowanta
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:29:13 GMT -5
By: leowanta 15 Sep 2008, 12:33 PM EDT Msg. 765321 of 765500 (This msg. is a reply to 765319 by leowanta.) Jump to msg. # Urban, the best way to avoid tyler's crapola is to simply distribute the trust....tyler gets NOTHING
they hold electronic shares..no shares...and soon they won't be able to file any more lawsuits based on UNREGISTERED SHARES if all goes well....
stay tuned...
leowanta
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Sept 15, 2008 21:30:52 GMT -5
By: lilburrito0 15 Sep 2008, 12:04 PM EDT Msg. 765308 of 765500 (This msg. is a reply to 765295 by rosencrantz2010.) Jump to msg. # rosencrantz2010 Re: i don't understand the rules surrounding registered vs unregistered shares, but it seems to me that the SEC should have been able to prevent this kind of activity. You need to understand what "unregistered shares" are. Read this: www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm By: rosencrantz2010 15 Sep 2008, 01:57 PM EDT Msg. 765335 of 765500 (This msg. is a reply to 765308 by lilburrito0.) Jump to msg. # lilburrito, i don't think that document you linked me addresses the problem. the SEC apparently is saying all 622b of CMKX are "unregistered." it's not my responsibility to check with the company when i buy my shares in the marketplace as to whether or not the stock is registered. that document speaks to the responsibility of the buyer and seller when dealing with restricted stocks, and i'm not even sure if the terms "restricted" and "registered" pertain to the same issue. but that's just a guess on my part. thanks anyway for the assistance.
|
|