|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 10:46:37 GMT -5
By: mquietstorm3 08 Oct 2009, 11:24 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 876196 of 876204
Jump to msg. # Have you noticed that the DOJ and the boys are giving more updated information on a more consistent basis than the actual company itself? Why is that? Is it because what was said a few years ago "We will gladly cooperate with the powers that be and we are here for our shareholders"? Or could it be "Even if we have to take it to the highest court in the land"?
Its amazing how on a timely basis how what was said in the past, is revealing itself for the future?
Kind of goes along with what I stated before:
Have you ever seen a movie where they show the ending at the beginning and then show how it got to that point?
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 11:00:26 GMT -5
cmkxshareholder Full Member Re: DOJ Questionairre
I just don’t think they’ll be a trial. I think it’ll be over this month, or before the end of the year. There was no trial for all the hundreds of doe’s & roe’s, no mention of them, so they must have settled. Now, the focus is on Urban, others, & management. I expect settlements from them also.
Over the years, when we kept continuously hearing that payments was being made, or sent out for the shareholders, maybe it was the wrongdoers settling into a trust fund.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 13:20:16 GMT -5
By: aladin99 08 Oct 2009, 11:52 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 876206 of 876266 (Reply to 876189 by mquietstorm3)
Jump to msg. # MQ - $558 in the bank...never reported...zero income...and a whole bunch of folks involved like Roger Glens, Robert Maheu, Congressman Dean Heller, Trimbath, Al Hodges, Bill Frizzell, Stoecklein Steve Oshins, John Moran and all five departments of the government plus 60,000 smart investors!
Does this make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 13:49:53 GMT -5
Posted by: jarta Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6:38:52 AM In reply to: janice shell who wrote msg# 279821 Post # of 279851 Janet, ... "No. The motions for a protective order would be on the docket." If you look at the docket histories Pedro posted there are a few missing document numbers. But, right now, you can't tell if the missing document numbers refer to minor bookkeeping documents, like the AO 257 defendant information sheet for the superseding indictment Pedro referred to as a copy of an arrest warrant, and they will be filled in when they are posted to the docket in a week or so or something more important. If you want to see a copy of an actual arrest warrant, look at Document 34 in the full docket posted by Pedro in post 279778. You will find the one served on Kinney in Las Vegas on September 16. The original warrant was Document 20 which is now missing from the list of documents. So, right now, I can't tell you what all the missing document numbers mean. But, the missing document numbers do not necessarily mean that there are unsealed indictments against other people. You just can't tell yet, but it is very, very unlikely there are more sealed indictments. BTW, Casavant and Edwards were initially indicted back on March 25, 2009. The grand jury ordered warrants to be issued then. And, BTW, the order unsealing the indictments was not entered until yesterday (October 7). That means Faulk's PR and the newspaper article appeared prior to the case actually being unsealed. Bye-bye, Faulk. ... eom Posted by: Aristo Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:19:16 AM In reply to: jarta who wrote msg# 279829 Post # of 279851 Are you saying that Faulk was let go because he pre-announced the indictments before they were unsealed? but DOJ said the same thing: The defendants are charged in a Superseding Indictment, which was returned by the Federal Grand Jury in Las Vegas on May 27, 2009, but remained sealed until Thursday, September 17, 2009 www.usdoj.gov/usao/nv/press/september2009/cmkm09212009.htm I don't really understand what they mean in the docket by case being unsealed on 10/07/09. Posted by: jarta Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 2:11:27 PM In reply to: Aristo who wrote msg# 279850 Post # of 279875 Aristo, ... I was not at the proceedings on Thursday, September 17, 2009. So, I only hinted about Faulk. I do not actually know what happened. But, I can tell you this. It is SOP for the DOJ to have a press release in the briefcase when it expects an indictment to be unsealed. None was ready on September 17. No written motion to unseal the case was docketed in Pedro's posting of the docket. Nor is there a docket entry for any order unsealing the case that day. The DOJ press release was only issued on Monday, September 21. It says the case was unsealed, but doesn't specifically say that the judge unsealed it. Twice before, the case was temporarily (on a written motion and with a written order) unsealed and resealed so that the information concerning Edwards could be shared with out-of-US law enforcement (like for an Interpol alert). But, not on the 17th. The actual motion to unseal the case (which states that it is a "sealed motion to unseal") was filed on September 29. The order was entered on October 7 (yesterday). I detect a bit of tension in the words used: "Based upon the sealed motion to unseal the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case be unsealed." So, the case was not officially unsealed until yesterday and was only findable on PACER this morning - long after Pedro posted a link to some docket (much of which does not now appear on the PACER web site). Where Pedro's information came from must be perplexing to the feds. They have shut down the sublinks on the link he posted and a Federal Warning sign now pops up when you try to view a document by pushing the number (sublink) on Pedro's docket history of the case. Even with the entry of my PACER account number and password I couldn't get in. Was the case really unsealed by the judge on September 17? Maybe something was said that gave Faulk and the reporter the impression that it had been. Maybe the judge screwed up. Maybe Chu and Vasquez screwed up. Maybe Faulk just posted that it had been unsealed. But, it seems the case hadn't been unsealed. It's very odd and unusual. Unsealing a case before it should be unsealed can jeopardise ongoing investigations and allow the destruction of relevant evidence. Plus, Faulk sure left abruptly, didn't he. ... eom Posted by: jarta Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 4:49:37 PM In reply to: Aristo who wrote msg# 279880 Post # of 279893 Aristo, ... I had better get new reading glasses. Two mistakes in one day that I have to apologize for. It is there in the minutes of proceedings for the 3 defendants who were in court that day. I thought I understood the conflict in the docket. Now I don't. Maybe the second, written sealed motion to unseal and order to unseal were just "housekeeping" steps required by the folks who run the PACER site before they would open up any docket entries. Goofy - but now the case is officially unsealed! Thank you for the correction. ... eom
|
|
|
Post by snifferpup on Oct 8, 2009 15:30:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snifferpup on Oct 8, 2009 15:47:09 GMT -5
It's funny that Daniel Bogden is saying there are to many shareholders to do a mailing to..........................But if their running for office, I can expect four color postcards, placards, multi-page brochures and ongoing recorded messages from the president.......................I always stop eating when the president calls~
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 15:57:28 GMT -5
Posted by: jarta Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 4:32:03 PM In reply to: nufced who wrote msg# 279879 Post # of 279891
nuffie, ... That motion concerning victim notification is the best PR that West & Frizzell could get for CMKM.
It doesn't guarantee that anything much will ever come from the Texas company, but it is a show of faith in the integrity of the Texas company and its current management by the DOJ, the best possible endorser around these days. I am very surprised that Bogden's office would contemplate something that forward-looking. ... eom
|
|
|
Post by hundredtoone on Oct 8, 2009 16:06:29 GMT -5
Posted by: jarta Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6:38:52 AM In reply to: janice shell who wrote msg# 279821 Post # of 279851 Janet, ... "No. The motions for a protective order would be on the docket." If you look at the docket histories Pedro posted there are a few missing document numbers. But, right now, you can't tell if the missing document numbers refer to minor bookkeeping documents, like the AO 257 defendant information sheet for the superseding indictment Pedro referred to as a copy of an arrest warrant, and they will be filled in when they are posted to the docket in a week or so or something more important. If you want to see a copy of an actual arrest warrant, look at Document 34 in the full docket posted by Pedro in post 279778. You will find the one served on Kinney in Las Vegas on September 16. The original warrant was Document 20 which is now missing from the list of documents. So, right now, I can't tell you what all the missing document numbers mean. But, the missing document numbers do not necessarily mean that there are unsealed indictments against other people. You just can't tell yet, but it is very, very unlikely there are more sealed indictments. BTW, Casavant and Edwards were initially indicted back on March 25, 2009. The grand jury ordered warrants to be issued then. And, BTW, the order unsealing the indictments was not entered until yesterday (October 7). That means Faulk's PR and the newspaper article appeared prior to the case actually being unsealed. Bye-bye, Faulk. ... eom Posted by: Aristo Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:19:16 AM In reply to: jarta who wrote msg# 279829 Post # of 279851 Are you saying that Faulk was let go because he pre-announced the indictments before they were unsealed? but DOJ said the same thing: The defendants are charged in a Superseding Indictment, which was returned by the Federal Grand Jury in Las Vegas on May 27, 2009, but remained sealed until Thursday, September 17, 2009 www.usdoj.gov/usao/nv/press/september2009/cmkm09212009.htm I don't really understand what they mean in the docket by case being unsealed on 10/07/09. Posted by: jarta Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 2:11:27 PM In reply to: Aristo who wrote msg# 279850 Post # of 279875 Aristo, ... I was not at the proceedings on Thursday, September 17, 2009. So, I only hinted about Faulk. I do not actually know what happened. But, I can tell you this. It is SOP for the DOJ to have a press release in the briefcase when it expects an indictment to be unsealed. None was ready on September 17. No written motion to unseal the case was docketed in Pedro's posting of the docket. Nor is there a docket entry for any order unsealing the case that day. The DOJ press release was only issued on Monday, September 21. It says the case was unsealed, but doesn't specifically say that the judge unsealed it. Twice before, the case was temporarily (on a written motion and with a written order) unsealed and resealed so that the information concerning Edwards could be shared with out-of-US law enforcement (like for an Interpol alert). But, not on the 17th. The actual motion to unseal the case (which states that it is a "sealed motion to unseal") was filed on September 29. The order was entered on October 7 (yesterday). I detect a bit of tension in the words used: "Based upon the sealed motion to unseal the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case be unsealed." So, the case was not officially unsealed until yesterday and was only findable on PACER this morning - long after Pedro posted a link to some docket (much of which does not now appear on the PACER web site). Where Pedro's information came from must be perplexing to the feds. They have shut down the sublinks on the link he posted and a Federal Warning sign now pops up when you try to view a document by pushing the number (sublink) on Pedro's docket history of the case. Even with the entry of my PACER account number and password I couldn't get in. Was the case really unsealed by the judge on September 17? Maybe something was said that gave Faulk and the reporter the impression that it had been. Maybe the judge screwed up. Maybe Chu and Vasquez screwed up. Maybe Faulk just posted that it had been unsealed. But, it seems the case hadn't been unsealed. It's very odd and unusual. Unsealing a case before it should be unsealed can jeopardise ongoing investigations and allow the destruction of relevant evidence. Plus, Faulk sure left abruptly, didn't he. ... eom Posted by: jarta Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009 4:49:37 PM In reply to: Aristo who wrote msg# 279880 Post # of 279893 Aristo, ... I had better get new reading glasses. Two mistakes in one day that I have to apologize for. It is there in the minutes of proceedings for the 3 defendants who were in court that day. I thought I understood the conflict in the docket. Now I don't. Maybe the second, written sealed motion to unseal and order to unseal were just "housekeeping" steps required by the folks who run the PACER site before they would open up any docket entries. Goofy - but now the case is officially unsealed! Thank you for the correction. ... eom If BASHERS like PEDRO and others are LEAKING DOCUMENTS before a case is UNSEALED it could be they are intentionally compromising the case so their BOSSES can get off or get a better DEAL...I don't put ANYTHING past the CROOKS...this is HUGE...the obvious solution is to ROUND UP all the BASHERS and PUMPERS that work for SHORTY or anyone else that would be positively effected by such a leak...then they can be prosecuted along with their BOSSES for doing it...might backfire on them IMO... Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial)
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Oct 8, 2009 16:14:34 GMT -5
By: newtopennies 08 Oct 2009, 04:36 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876314 of 876334 (Reply to 876309 by eaglesrock2008)
Jump to msg. # 10/19/09 = D-DAY. eom.
|
|
|
Post by hundredtoone on Oct 8, 2009 17:29:13 GMT -5
I wonder if dat is d day we get PAID???...or if it is d day we get more CRUMBS...Flying Moose(cmkxunofficial)
|
|
|
Post by sweettime on Oct 8, 2009 20:36:52 GMT -5
Isn't in interesting that all this grand jury stuff is coming out about the grand jury earlier this year...but if you are like me and trust Jfarn's information then we know via Roger Glenn that there was a 2005 grand jury in regards to CMKX....that we still don't know what happened with......wonder what that one was all about!
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Oct 9, 2009 19:21:09 GMT -5
By: aladin99 09 Oct 2009, 01:37 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876577 of 876663 Jump to msg. # DOJ posting Restitution Info...If there will not be one then what in the world they would post that? By: yetihunter04 09 Oct 2009, 01:41 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876578 of 876663 (Reply to 876577 by aladin99) Jump to msg. # are you really that dense? it's a requirement that they post that info because it's possible there will be restitution, depending on the outcome of all the future proceedings. but in the majority of cases, no restituiton ever comes to shareholders, regardless of the outcome. read up on some of this stuff. jeez. what i said was there is CURRENTLY no restitution in place. how is that incorrect? By: aladin99 09 Oct 2009, 01:46 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876581 of 876663 (Reply to 876578 by yetihunter04) Jump to msg. # yeti - 5 departments involved and they would fail??? are U seriously that dense?lmao By: yetihunter04 09 Oct 2009, 01:56 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876584 of 876663 (Reply to 876581 by aladin99) Jump to msg. # aladin, stop fantasizing and read up on the realities. the scam artists being found guilty in numerous stock scams have still resulted in zero restitution for shareholders because there was no money left. we'll be lucky if all that money isn't already gone. By: calvinwinters 09 Oct 2009, 02:01 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876588 of 876663 (Reply to 876584 by yetihunter04) Jump to msg. # yetihunter:But we've been told the claims and what resides within them has been returned, that makes us far different from the others. cal By: yetihunter04 09 Oct 2009, 02:28 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876595 of 876663 (Reply to 876588 by calvinwinters) Jump to msg. # calvin, getting the claims back and the proceedings against stock fraud and the people who stole are money are two different things. they are mutually exclusive: if the company (or whatever company tyler is creating out of this) actually works the land and gets some value out of it, then our shares might be worth something someday (provided we ever go back to trading). this has nothing to do with restitution. the people involved in the "old" company who stole our money (UC, edwards, et al) through fraud and lies have nothing to do with any claims the current company may hold. any restitution would come from the proceedings against these crooks, not any claims the company may or may not have currently. mutually exclusive. two different things going on. my point is to not hold your breath for any restituiton from the crooks. that money is probably already long gone. By: calvinwinters 09 Oct 2009, 03:14 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876618 of 876663 (Reply to 876595 by yetihunter04) Jump to msg. # yeithunter:It has everthing to do with restitution. There is something there for a future day. Paws of many nations are interested in those claims. One day soon, our street will be a one-way, and all will be clear who stole and maybe for what reason. Any of us who've experienced any litigation know that things aren't always as they seem. We've just experienced a wrist slapping that was done with a cotton cloth. And I know, you know, our government is seldom guilty, so I respect your right to your opinion, I just dont agree....cal
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Oct 9, 2009 19:24:24 GMT -5
By: james_worley 09 Oct 2009, 02:27 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 876462 of 876663 Jump to msg. # One good question is, why should a company be allowed to gag the transfer agent at all? In every case, that seems to be a sign of a major scam. If you have nothing to hide, tell shareholders what the real OS is. James By: oldepro 09 Oct 2009, 02:47 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 876464 of 876663 (Reply to 876462 by james_worley) Jump to msg. # The O S was 3% of 352,000,000 when the first short ( pre Edwards short)occurred in December 2002.The rest 96.5% were issued and outstanding, but never left the Treasury until, Mar/April 2004. Thank you Brian Dvorak. The Dec 2002 float was approx, 10 MILLION, the volume that month was approx 100 MILLION. The first week 0f Jan, one day it traded 80 MILLION. In Feb 2003 the Edwards short began. The first short was the wellspring to the second and the brokers and MM's lapped it up like a dog in the desert. Now, it's time for the longs, every dog has his day. By: aladin99 09 Oct 2009, 04:19 AM EDT Rating: Msg. 876470 of 876663 (Reply to 876464 by oldepro) Jump to msg. # oldpro - Many brokers must have had "irrational exuberance" over cmkx like Santos had... irrational exuberance = Indescribable feeling! and I think he meant it's better than making love with a beautiful woman...lol...we must admire UC for all this... Read Msg. 876423 By: aladin99 08 Oct 2009, 10:00 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876423 of 876663 Jump to msg. # Santos said... "I've never seen such irrational exuberanceover a stock in my life. It traded billions and billions of shares a day," Santos said. "I'm not pitching this stuff." www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Oct-29-Sun-2006/business/10180307.html
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Oct 9, 2009 19:25:18 GMT -5
By: aladin99 08 Oct 2009, 10:31 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 876432 of 876663
Jump to msg. # Hakala said, if you prove the naked short, we will investigate it."...
SEC, DOJ, FBI, IRS and Treasury will never fail when they work together...and its HUGE....
|
|
|
Post by soonerlew on Oct 9, 2009 19:26:29 GMT -5
|
|