|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 6:44:02 GMT -5
hawkeye1 King of Diamonds Re: SOLID CONFIRMATION "DTCC/ DISTRIBUTION" « Reply #5 Today at 3:34am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, What seems to be on the table at this point is wrapping up the CMKM and Entourage deal then it makes sense to do the distribution. After asking Craig Doctor when this could be completed he said by the end of May. To me, we can't go forward with this Naked Short on record and be a reporting company also. I listened to the G-20 summit video yesterday and they were very serious about getting these TOXIC ASSETS off the books and NOW! Well, someone said something is cooking and I agree because I can smell it, and its all in our flavor. « Last Edit: Today at 3:38am by hawkeye1 » tramp2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8536
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 6:55:25 GMT -5
By: stkupnc 10 May 2009, 07:43 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 832117 of 832238 (Reply to 832115 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # Well then, back to my original question. If 40k shareholders sent in the individual certs for the 622b shares, how is that a BULK cert? Help me understand your thinking. This info has me confused.
By: monetaryshift 10 May 2009, 07:49 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 832127 of 832238 (Reply to 832117 by stkupnc)
Jump to msg. # stkupnc, it's not a bulk cert idiot and stop trying to spin it like shara and jumbo the drunken pilot.
40k never requested certs toad
but you will soon learn more
hang in there ok
By: homeyclausecalif 10 May 2009, 11:01 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 832200 of 832238 (Reply to 832127 by monetaryshift)
Jump to msg. # I see false prophets are still here as well... so sad. This post should disqaulify this poster on you keep hope alive list. Do any of you actually believe there were NOT 40K pluse certs obtained and turned in?? Come on people.. Think for yourselves out here.. In any even, it's your right to follow yet another pied piper.. Enjoy...lol
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 6:57:29 GMT -5
By: tuscan9 11 May 2009, 03:40 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832213 of 832238
Jump to msg. # Is Frizzell with cmkm OR Owners Group??/
By: tuscan9 11 May 2009, 03:41 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832214 of 832238
Jump to msg. # If BOTH.. isn't that CONFLICT of Interest?/
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 6:58:04 GMT -5
By: tuscan9 11 May 2009, 03:44 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832215 of 832238
Jump to msg. # Martin says...
'You have a right to know how many shares another shareholder has..
ahhhhhhh.... do I really think I have a right to know how many the lineup of shareholders in Millionaire board or Paltalk have...
never thought I had a RIGHT and must say I have never heard that in any other company.
Let's see, let me go to Microsoft and tell them at a shareholder meeting I have a right to know how many shares everyone there has... lol...
that would go over really well.
Whats wrong with this equation?
something fishy here in my mind...
let me think...... hmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 7:00:47 GMT -5
By: tuscan9 11 May 2009, 04:16 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832231 of 832240
Jump to msg. # Frizell...
which is it you work for ...?
cmkm Company
or
cmkm Owner's Group......
can't have it both ways.......... well, appears you are, but what are the ramifications of this?
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 7:01:34 GMT -5
By: eaglesrock2008 11 May 2009, 05:37 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832232 of 832240 (Reply to 832209 by tuscan9)
Jump to msg. # This just proves how useless John Martin and his Ambulance chasing blood sucking ticks are. They had Years to help shareholders and now they want to help a few days before a hearing? lol
THE ONLY INFORMATION THEY ARE GETTING FROM SHAREHOLDERS IMO IS THE LAW SUITS THAT WILL BE FLYING THEIR WAY SOMEDAY. LOL
did Frizzel Clear up his tax problems? dont want a novice messing up the the cmkx sting. lol
did faulk really try to sell a book with no ending?
who is John Martin hes not my friend? lol
And the cmkxownersgroup site gives a virus of some sort so I wouldnt go there.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 7:02:11 GMT -5
By: stkupnc 11 May 2009, 07:30 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832236 of 832240 (Reply to 832175 by snoopstock5) Jump to msg. # Snoop, I must have missed something here. Where can I find the info that the SEC declared the 622b unregistered? I have heard the talk about the "unregistered" for some time but never saw where they were declared unregistered y the SEC. By: sharasilva 11 May 2009, 07:42 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832237 of 832240 (Reply to 832236 by stkupnc) Jump to msg. # stk, those 622b shares are what UC sold to you shareholders. If they are deleted your shares are deleted. Not that it matters. There is no value to them. By: rosencrantz2010 11 May 2009, 07:49 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832238 of 832240 (Reply to 832237 by sharasilva) Jump to msg. # shara, you could be right because i have yet to get a straight answer to my question about who owns the 622B shares. someone has to own them. if it's shorty then there is no short. shorty sure as hell didn;t buy the shares from himself. so, who bought them? who owns them? the easy answer is urban owns the shares. that is, urban bought 622B non-existent shares in the open market. if those shares are owned by the average investor then we are right back to where we all thought we were, which is, there are 622B naked shorted shares in the market owned by small time retail investors. if those 622B shares aren't owned by the small investor, the 622B can be eliminated somehow and there really are only 4,000 cmkx shareholders owning 17B shares then we have a new ball game. but no one seem capable of explaining who owns the 622B shares in any clear, logical fashion. And that's TOO bad because it would make for a compelling and exciting story for shareholders. By: sharasilva 11 May 2009, 08:11 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832241 of 832242 (Reply to 832238 by rosencrantz2010) Jump to msg. # rose, are you saying that almost all of the shareholders who pulled certs for 600+b shares do not exist? That the sharecount conducted is almost completely false? By: stkupnc 11 May 2009, 07:57 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832239 of 832242 (Reply to 832237 by sharasilva) Jump to msg. # Shara, well one thing is for sure....someone sold them to me, and thousands of others. I don't see how they can be deemed legally unregistered if we have legit certs. I have seen nothing so far that declares them unregistered or counterfeit, except various posters opinions. Worthless....maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I think that is yet to to be proven one way or the other. I remain hopeful, for myself and the thousands of others, that there will be at least some restitution and that this saga will come to a conclusion soon. I don't profess to know anything other than what I read on these boards, but it seems to me that it is all very complex and is the stuff that legends are made of. I remain hopeful, but with my eyes and mind open. By: sharasilva 11 May 2009, 08:16 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832242 of 832242 (Reply to 832239 by stkupnc) Jump to msg. # stk, you are 100% correct about various posters opinions. When thinking cmkx is the stuff of ledgends don't forget is that cmkx never ever discovered or created anything of any value. It may be a legendary scam, but nothing more. By: monetaryshift 11 May 2009, 08:38 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832244 of 832277 (Reply to 832237 by sharasilva) Jump to msg. # sharasilva, that's not true and you know it. "WHEN" the 622b shares are deleted, you are deleted. hagd
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 9:12:57 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 11 May 2009, 08:39 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832245 of 832279
Jump to msg. # OPSURROUND,
you out there?
how many individuals responded to your request for CERT NUMBER info you worked on several years ago?
there is a claim being made by a poster named MONETARYAHIFT stating there are only 4,000 shareholders who own 17B legit shares.
i was wondering if your data collection effort could shed any light on MONETARYSHIFT's claim.
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 9:16:04 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 11 May 2009, 07:49 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832238 of 832280 (Reply to 832237 by sharasilva)
Jump to msg. # shara, you could be right because i have yet to get a straight answer to my question about who owns the 622B shares.
someone has to own them. if it's shorty then there is no short. shorty sure as hell didn;t buy the shares from himself. so, who bought them? who owns them?
the easy answer is urban owns the shares. that is, urban bought 622B non-existent shares in the open market. if those shares are owned by the average investor then we are right back to where we all thought we were, which is, there are 622B naked shorted shares in the market owned by small time retail investors.
if those 622B shares aren't owned by the small investor, the 622B can be eliminated somehow and there really are only 4,000 cmkx shareholders owning 17B shares then we have a new ball game.
but no one seem capable of explaining who owns the 622B shares in any clear, logical fashion. And that's TOO bad because it would make for a compelling and exciting story for shareholders.
By: stkupnc 11 May 2009, 07:59 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832240 of 832280 (Reply to 832238 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # Rosen.....very well stated! Hopefully we have a logical answer someday soon!
By: chico_marx 11 May 2009, 08:41 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832248 of 832280 (Reply to 832240 by stkupnc)
Jump to msg. # stkupnc...well if we DO get a "logical answer" do you think that it will come from "Darlene" spilling the beans to "Monetary" ?
By: stkupnc 11 May 2009, 08:49 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832255 of 832280 (Reply to 832248 by chico_marx)
Jump to msg. # Chico....probably not, but for a lot of us this hope is what keeps us going! It's just too bad that so many take pleasure from others pain. There is so much of this mess that just doesn't make sense and most of us are just seeking some "reasonable answers".
By: chico_marx 11 May 2009, 09:21 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832261 of 832282 (Reply to 832255 by stkupnc)
Jump to msg. # stkupnc...the ONLY "reasonable answer" is WHEN something IS "announced officially", whenever that MIGHT be...
And then you would have to see whatever IS "announced officially" actually play out in the logical way that it MIGHT BE "announced"...
Until then your "hope" is subjecting you to being "played" by the "actors" that are tweeking around with those that are impatient or are trying to "will something" to ACTUALLY happen...
Look at events that ACTUALLY happened in your life...Did they ACTUALLY happen before they ACTUALLY happened -or- WHEN they ACTUALLY happened and were concretely "real" (and not just "wanted" or "expected" or "anticipated")...
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 9:17:26 GMT -5
By: rosencrantz2010 11 May 2009, 09:40 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832263 of 832282
Jump to msg. # okay, URBAN owns the 622B. fine. that's possible. however, if URBAN owns the 622B and is making all the various shorties pay to cover, and that process is separate from the 17B and the 4,000 shareholders, then why haven't things moved forward? if the two groups are different, then why haven't we been made the tender offer and the new conglomerate formed?
why the holdup if the 622B/TYLER are distinct from the 17B shares/4,000 shareholders?
By: monetaryshift 11 May 2009, 09:43 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832264 of 832284 (Reply to 832263 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # maybe 'consolidation' was needed
By: sharasilva 11 May 2009, 09:45 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832265 of 832285 (Reply to 832263 by rosencrantz2010)
Jump to msg. # rose, if uc owns 622b then who sent in certs for 600+b
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 9:19:14 GMT -5
By: mquietstorm3 11 May 2009, 09:46 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832267 of 832285
Jump to msg. # Remember when I stated this:
" I WOULD RATHER OWN CMKX AND NOT KNOW WHAT THE OUT COME WOULD BE; THAN TO NOT OWN AND NOT KNOW WHAT THE OUT COME WILL BE "
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 9:20:43 GMT -5
By: mquietstorm3 11 May 2009, 10:04 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832274 of 832288
Jump to msg. # nonshareholder or lilfella, Do you think news is coming any time in the near future? If so, what do you feel that news would be since you have said that CMKX is finished many years ago?
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 9:24:06 GMT -5
By: mquietstorm3 11 May 2009, 10:12 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832279 of 832292 Jump to msg. # " WHY WOULD NEWS WEEK POST SUCH INFORMATION ON A COMPANY THAT WAS SAID TO HAVE NO ASSETS? lilfellas, if I were you I would call News week with a return number so that you could be reached and find a way to destroy that type of information immediately. Trying to do it on the message board right now,will not be a great way to spend time. Millions of folks read NEWS WEEK. Not what you say on this board. Just trying to help lilfellas! By: mquietstorm3 11 May 2009, 10:15 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832281 of 832292 (Reply to 832276 by joesixpack333) Jump to msg. # joe, Now the world will become inquisitive and will be looking for a way to park some cash for greater returns when it is released. Many overlooked the signs that were saying "GOT CMKX ". It is called "CONDITIONING THE ATMOSPHERE " by a wise ole man! By: mquietstorm3 11 May 2009, 10:17 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832284 of 832296 Jump to msg. # " GET ON THOSE PHONES AND START CALLING NEWS WEEK lilfellas! DO IT NOW AND THEN REPORT BACK WITH A TWISTER " not trying to shake things up. Just lending advice! By: mquietstorm3 11 May 2009, 10:21 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832291 of 832299 Jump to msg. # " THE FIRST lilfella THAT COMES BACK WITH A REPORT FROM NEWS WEEK GETS AN ADDITIONAL TWO WEEKS OF POSTING AND ANOTHER NAME CHANGE " eheheehheeeee! eheheheheeee!
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 9:28:12 GMT -5
joe, I know that you and rosen read this board. Please send pm as I want to know more about you. :PThat is not the comeon it sounds like as I probably have children older than you :PEven tho my youngest son (46 yrs of age) is wanting a stepdaddy. By: joesixpack333 11 May 2009, 10:15 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832282 of 832292 Jump to msg. # monetary.. is a Chief Operating Officer of a company an important position ... hmmmm.. tks again to soonerlew on pb29 and Hawkeye1.. David A. Bending B.Sc., M.Sc, P Geo Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, President, Member of Compensation Committee, Member of Corporate Governance Committee and Member of Technical Committee, Shoreham Resources Ltd. Age Total Annual Compensation This person is connected to 2 board of directors in 2 different organizations across 4 different industries. See Board Relationships 53 $32,748 As of Fiscal Year 2008 BACKGROUND David A. Bending, B.Sc., M.Sc., P Geo. has been Vice President of Project Development at MacMillan Gold Corp. since March 31, 2008. Mr. Bending has been Chairman of Shoreham Resources Ltd. since December 2008 and has been its Chief Executive Officer and President since October 27, 2005. He is responsible for kimberlite and diamond discoveries in Canada and Brazil and metallic mineral deposits throughout the Americas. He is a Geological Consultant with a private firm ... named D Bending and Associates Ltd. He manages geological consulting practice based in Reno, Nevada, with clients and projects throughout the Americas. He serves at The Bunker Hill Company and Rio Tinto Canadian Exploration Ltd. He has been Consulting Geologist since April 1998. He served as Vice President of Corporate Development at MacMillan Gold Corp. since April 3, 2007 and served as its Vice President of Exploration unitl April 3, 2007. He also served as Chief Financial Officer of Shoreham Resources Ltd. He served as Vice President of Kenai Resources Ltd. (formerly, Triumph Gold Corp.). He served as President and Chief Operating Officer of CMKM Diamonds Inc. (formerly, Casavant Mining-Kimberlite International). He served as Vice President of Corporate Development & Exploration of Duran Ventures Inc. He has 25 years of exploration, mining and corporate development experience with major mining companies including three years at Texas gulf exploration, fourteen years at Homestake mining company from 1983 to 1998, where he also served as Exploration Manager at Northern Latin America., and eight years in successful consulting and management of junior mining companies. He served at Texasgulf Exploration from 1980 to 1982. He had experience as Teaching Assistant at the University of Toronto, which helped to develop his excellent interpersonal skills. He is fully conversant in Portuguese, Spanish and French in addition to English and is familiar with mining law, mining development trends and business practices throughout the Americas. He has been a Director of Shoreham Resources Ltd. since October 27, 2005 and Duran Ventures Inc. since March 2004. He served as Director of MineCore International Inc. (formerly, Americana Gold & Diamond Holdings Inc.) until March 25, 2008. He served as a Director of Kenai Resources Ltd. since January 12, 2004. He is a Professional Geologist certified by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia. His thesis won him the CIM President's Gold Medal Award. Mr. Bending is honors B.Sc. Geology graduate from University of Oregon and also completed his M. Sc. at University of Toronto in Mineral Deposits Geology, Geochemistry, Geochemistry and Geophysics. By: monetaryshift 11 May 2009, 10:19 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832287 of 832296 (Reply to 832282 by joesixpack333) Jump to msg. # hey joe, i'm not shore, maybe...but i do know the "Chief" was very influential within the Indian tribes. By: mquietstorm3 11 May 2009, 10:19 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 832288 of 832297 (Reply to 832282 by joesixpack333) Jump to msg. # " JUST THINK; ALL THESE MEN OF BUSINESS ACUMEN JOIN A REVOKED COMPANY BECAUSE THEY GOT TRICKED? " EHHEEEEHEEEE! EHEHEEEEE! lilfellas! EHEEHEEHEHEEE!
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on May 11, 2009 9:50:01 GMT -5
hundredtoone Diamond Wiz (Moderator) Re: What do UC, EK and KW have in common?? « Reply #4 Today at 7:20am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well ever since Rogers day the SEC/ABCs have been fully involved IMO and the TASK FORCE was overseen by REGULATORS...so I figure all TRUE LONGS that recieved CERTS are BONA FIDE SHAREHOLDERS even if they represent non voting NAKED SHORT INTEREST......the shares not AUTHORIZED in CERT FORM could be canceled or become UNSHARES for further repercussions...IF we really collected 622 BILLION in CERTS like the TF said...I BET there are at least 10 times MORE out there...it would not surprise me if UC bought the whole O/S up when it was CHEAP...if he did we own CERTIFIED COUNTERFIET SHARES IMO...CERTIFIED by the GOVERNMENT...and EVENTUALLY...I expect they will have to PAY US...Roger wrote those opinions to authorize the increase in A/S under the scrutiny of the SEC and others...that IMO is why he is not named by the SEC...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial) cmkxunofficial.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=mofo&action=display&thread=3553
|
|