posted July 20, 2004 00:12            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Upside:
noah,
That's more like a 2 dollar word. I'll tuck it away and use it sometime. I will concede the fact that you have a valid point about the MM's coming up with something that doesn't exist but if it doesn't exist, how is it paid to legitimate shareholders?

---

posted July 20, 2004 00:14            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Upside:
noah,
That's more like a 2 dollar word. I'll tuck it away and use it sometime. I will concede the fact that you have a valid point about the MM's coming up with something that doesn't exist but if it doesn't exist, how is it paid to legitimate shareholders?

---

posted July 20, 2004 00:14            

Is it safe to assume they ain't orders from normal folk? When we see these trades, can we assume it's either UC or the MMs?

Plus, isn't it possible that the MMs started covering even back at .0001? After all, it's not like they didn't hear about the plans to squeeze them. Were they all so arrogant as to think they could hold their ground and win the war? Or, do you think some were actually smart enough to know when to pack up, cut their losses and move on?

I have no answers, just questions. I'm hoping this sparks some creative discussion from those who know more than I.

posted July 20, 2004 00:21            

[This message has been edited by VNGNTN1 (edited July 20, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by VNGNTN1 (edited July 20, 2004).]

posted July 20, 2004 00:25            

quote:

---

UpMan, for the last time, it isn't about value. I know you are not a proponent of the naked short theory, but it sure would expose them. Can you admit that much? Is it a good move or stradegy for the clowns?
Jesus, I might have to apologize for calling them clowns, but I'll never forgive Marvin for that Mt. St. Helena, crap.

---

posted July 20, 2004 00:29            

Retire the naked shorts and go home. Give us our money. Life would be better for us all.

posted July 20, 2004 00:33            

UpMan, I can't argue, I don't knw if the will publish the findings or not.

All I know is:
There is a dividend to shareholders of 8/20/04.
There is a diviend to shareholders of 8/31/04. Allbeit in a nontrading company.
Now I'm thinking, where did the million dollars come from lol.

That's it, I had enough tonight. I worked today, and I'm tired. I'll check in the morning see if you guys have figured this out.

posted July 20, 2004 00:39            

quote:

---

Upside, if the dividend date comes and goes and there are no shares in my Ameritrade account, they're going to hear from me and a few thousand other shareholders wanting to know where they are. At that point I'm sure Ameritrade will be making it know to the MM's just how many there are.

---

posted July 20, 2004 00:39            

quote:

---

Originally posted by noahltl:
They're all being very quiet tonight. Maybe they knew you were out and about. LOL

---

posted July 20, 2004 00:41            

quote:

---

Originally posted by noahltl:
Upside, if the dividend date comes and goes and there are no shares in my Ameritrade account, they're going to hear from me and a few thousand other shareholders wanting to know where they are. At that point I'm sure Ameritrade will be making it know to the MM's just how many there are.

---

posted July 20, 2004 00:47            

We now have UCAD div. and more spin off shares of CIM. This time Wednesday we may have other Dividends. From the other companies in the area. I can see right now that Roger and UC is in the making of weaving a web that the MM's cannot unravel. Too many companies envolved for them to cover all angles.
Remember the RUMORS of a .54 cent div. this past weekend? What if the dividend is comprised of several companies that in return will equal an aprox. .54 cent return from several different sources. Makes alot of sense and will cost cmkx very little. Remember they are the ones holding the "Oreo cookie" pictures that will show more than just diamond areas to mine. We will be meeting with other minerial companies in the area, Gold etc companies. All wanting the results of OUR over flight. Again this is just an opinion and nothing more, but sure makes alot of sense.

Happy hunting, this week should be full of new PR's..

posted July 20, 2004 00:53            

Pro-rata could mean any proportion, not just 1 for 1.

BQ - really liked the young lady...took me half an hour to go on to the next post! LMAO

VAN - correct me if I am wrong, but didn't UC, with one of his companies back when, declare or suggest a dividend and later renege on it?

Upside,

You seem to be saying the very same things I was thinking when the release first came out.
I knew you would.

I cannot see much to the CIM dividend either.
No value =s no value. We also agree on the "later" statement.
---------------------------------------
If all or most of the issued and outstanding shares (other than those held by insiders and/or in Treasury) are electronic transactions with the DTC, how in hell will they be able to differentiate between the real ones and the "air shares"? Who's to say Will's are real and someone else's are "naked shorted"? Won't the TA just get what is reported to them? Then what do they do...who decides who is to get any dividends when and if they are paid? What if Upside insists his are the real ones?

posted July 20, 2004 01:59            

1. UC is "investing" in all these companies for two possible reasons.
a. He is giving all the CMKX holders lots of dividends so that they will feel the need NOT to sell our shares, making the MM's more and more desperate and therefore raise the price of CMKX. (In which case we win)
b. He is planning a merger with both companies, as booty stated earlier in the thread. Therefore issuing all these dividends and making all these deals with these companies would not matter because the $1 mill he gave to CIM for example would be given right back when the merger is made, because it is the same company. If this is the case then the MM's are STILL going to have to cover the naked shorts and it would be even harder to make people sell. (we still win)

UC is being very smart about it, he is making it to where noone would want to sell, PR after PR. Its not about how worthless the dividends are, its about the fact he is giving them to us, making us feel like we are getting something, and to people who won't read message boards as closely as us, they see all this news, and think... O man im going to hold onto this.

Also, I would like to add that on pinksheets can anyone guess the top 3 requested quotes? 1. CMKX 2. UCAD 3. CIM

We are going to get paid one way or another, its only a matter of time.

posted July 20, 2004 04:20            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Upside:
originally posted by will:
These mopes don't have a plan. Yesterdays p/r and todays don't really tell us anything. Yesterdays p/r says they will issue the UCAD shares "later" and todays says we are getting shares in a valueless, untradeable company. How this affects any naked short position or gives us any indication of the float of this company is beyond me.

---

____________________________________
Your absolutely right! If I remember correctly - I saw that CIM went BK. I think it was on the Edgar web site that has the information that I read. Probly filed Ch.11.

I am NOT impressed at all with these so called dividend chump change. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

posted July 20, 2004 04:29            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tradingpennys:

The second part of my post is where alot of things CMKM is doing is blatant by these tell-tale-signs.
__________________________________

SHORT STORIES OR TALL TALES? – WHAT DOES THE SEC’S NEW REGULATION SHO MEAN FOR SHORT SELLERS?
October 27, 2003

Have short sellers conspired to depress the value of dozens of over the counter companies? Or is the short selling conspiracy simply a convenient bugaboo that allows struggling companies to hide behind their own failures?

Optimists hoped that the SEC’s new short sale regulations would help investors answer those questions, but the relatively toothless SEC proposal is unlikely to end the debate.

News of the pending SEC proposal was greeted with anticipation by the champions of those self-described beleaguered OTC companies. Some even tried to spin the new proposal before details were announced – suggesting that it would herald an end to naked short selling.

Those observers were none too pleased with the SEC Staff’s proposals for Regulation SHO, which fell far short of expectations. Regulation SHO would establish new standards for short sales of exchange traded securities – those listed on the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ – starting with a two year experiment eliminating rules that bar short selling when a stock's price is falling. That rule, however, would not apply to over the counter stocks.

As far as the OTC markets go, the SEC proposal would make it more difficult to short-sell stocks without actually borrowing the securities, a practice known as “naked short selling.” Traders who short stocks but fail to deliver the securities at settlement would face restrictions, such as being required to pre-borrow the security before shorting it again over the next 90 days. Critics say that this would do little to deter the brokerage firms that enable short selling.

It also would be unlikely to discourage professional short sellers, particularly those who trade outside the U.S. and beyond the reach of domestic regulators.

Are the critics truly displeased – or will they breathe a sigh of relief that the SEC seems satisfied with half measures? That depends upon whether the short selling conspiracy is real or imagined. Undoubtedly, the answer to that question is not a simple yes or no.

In the past year, a host of over-the-counter companies have claimed to be victimized by these “naked” short sellers. For the most part, these companies have several things in common; they are struggling, trade at microscopic prices, have little or no business, have few, or no revenues, have few, or no assets.

In all likelihood there are some over the counter companies that have been victimized by naked short sellers. They justifiably complain that lax short selling rules have adversely affected their prospects.

But how many other companies have jumped on that bandwagon and raised the red flag of short selling to conceal their own shortcomings?

Trying to distinguish between legitimate and feigned complaints, however, is a daunting task – particularly since none of the supposedly aggrieved companies have been able to establish with certainty the alleged naked short selling.

And investors should keep in mind that some of these over the counter companies are architects of their own misfortune, even where short selling is present. Lacking assets or significant revenues, those companies become desperate for cash, and make devastating deals with financing devils. These include arrangements where the company issues massive amounts of stock to their friendly financiers, and agrees to register those shares even before they have received financing. Such arrangements encourage those financial “angels” to short the company’s stock, thereby driving down the stock price, and then cover those short positions with the registered shares they receive (often at a discount) in exchange for their financing.

It’s a win-win for the financiers, who can use proceeds from the short sales to provide the promised funding to the company – and then pocket the excess after they cover their short position by delivering the newly registered shares, which are now trading at a lower price thanks to the shorting scheme.

But it’s a losing proposition for the company, which has effectively provided its own financing, and is left with a severely depressed stock price.

That, of course, is just one scenario – but a very real one.

The naked short selling debate is made even more murky by the fact that it involves so many companies with dubious credentials, and few legitimate prospects. Their eagerness to adopt the mantle of “victim” threatens to detract attention from the handful of over the counter companies that really have suffered from this practice.
http://www.stockpatrol.com/yours/talltales.html

___________________________________________
-> ***Second part***

Regulatory shortcomings have allowed short selling sharks to ply their trade without sufficient accountability. But just how many sharks swim in these waters?

It is impossible to tell since the extent of naked short selling is a matter of conjecture. Companies point to high trading volume and depressed share prices and claim that it is the work of short sellers. They blame brokers and market makers and clearing agencies like the Depository Trust Company. Investors, eager to understand why their holdings continue to plummet, are ready to accept this explanation because, after all, it sounds perfectly plausible.

And sometimes it is - but who is telling the truth?

Sure, naked short sales might account for deeply depressed stock prices - sometimes. There are, however other logical explanations which would just as easily explain these trading phenomena.

The first is also the most obvious: some of these companies have no meaningful value. [b]If a company has few assets, no revenues, no substantial operations, and little realistic expectation of success, it should come as no surprise that its stock trades at pennies, or even a fraction of a cent.

High volume accompanying such meager stock prices is hardly an indication that Wall Street has discovered a hidden gem. Nor is it necessarily a sign that the naked shorters are loose. Think logically. If a stock is already trading at pennies, does it make sense to sell short? Just how many shares would the professional short seller have to sell for that exercise to be worthwhile?

And if the short seller is a pro, wouldn't he be savvy enough to find a more highly priced stock, where the potential spread and profit is significantly better?

Which brings us to a second, more logical explanation for the activity attributed to the short sellers: someone is dumping shares. Is it possible that a bump in trading volume signifies someone selling stock - rather than shorting shares? And are there circumstances where companies might want to avoid acknowledging that shares are being unloaded? You bet there are.

Some companies might be reluctant to admit they placed shares in the hands of the sellers who are dumping them on the marketplace. How might stock find its way into the hands of those sellers? There are a variety of ways, as the following indicates:

Some shares may have been registered on Forms S-8 and then issued to consultants, employees and attorneys who resell them immediately.

Other stock might have been sold to offshore investors under Regulation S, which provides an exemption from registration for shares issued to certain non-U.S. residents. Those offshore shareholders can then resell the shares overseas, immediately.

Shareholders who have held stock for at least one year can sell their holdings, without registration, under the exemptions provided by Rule 144.

Financiers who provide "equity-based" financing for small companies generally receive large allotments of registered stock in consideration for their investment. These investors may sell those shares short in anticipation of their registration, or simply wait until they have been registered and then liquidate their position. Either way, they would be trading in substantial volume.

Then there are PIPES, the popular acronym for private investments in public entities. These private investors receive large numbers of shares in return for providing funding to companies who are desperate for funding. If the PIPE investors are U.S.-based, the shares may be registered. If they are overseas, their shares could qualify for the Reg. S trading exemption. Either way, the investors would be in a position to introduce a large quantity of stock to the public float.

Companies who have been diluting their public shareholders by issuing stock to consultants or insiders, or on favorable terms to financing entities, may be loathe to admit that they are the source of a sudden spurt in volume. In that case, naked short sellers make for a convenient scapegoat.

The problem for investors, and ultimately for regulators, is to separate those companies that have truly been victimized by naked short selling, from those that have not. Ultimately, the public will have to determine who are the pretenders, and who is telling the truth.
http://www.stockpatrol.com/yours/toc.html

[/B]

---

posted July 20, 2004 07:04            

By: honoluludavid
20 Jul 2004, 06:57 AM EDT
Msg. 46579 of 46579
Jump to msg. #
Why the O/S is 400B...

First, let me say that I am long and strong on CMKX. In fact, I think I am a lot longer than many, because I am not going to run for the hills when the 400B O/S that I think exists becomes officially announced on 20 Aug 04. Here is my rationale:

A while back (30 Jun 04), Joel called in to IBC Radio and said that he was told by Pacific that the outstanding shares were 400B. And while others have castigated Joel for saying such, others corroborated his claims with calls of their own. The next week, Pacific was fired. Why? Perhaps because they leaked info that was not supposed to be leaked. Speculation? Of course, but how about this:

If you look at the PR dated 18 Jul 04, you will see that UCAD has a 1-year option to purchase a 10% stake in our mineral claims for $15M. Therefore, although we do not have a specific valuation on the claims yet in the form of a PR, using $150M ($15M/.10 = $150M) is as reasonable as any other estimate, particularly since it is empircally based on numbers within a PR. Obviously, the value of the claims may prove to be more in the future – MUCH more, in fact – but for now, this estimate is as logical any other posited.

Now, has anyone taken the time to find out what $150M is when divided by 400B shares? You guessed it – about .0004, the PPS where we are today. Therefore, could it be that this stock has a huge float and it takes monster volume to get it to move even one tick rather than some MM conspiracy? Why not? Speculation? Of course, but what theory isn’t? Need more? Keep reading:

Yesterday (19 Jul 04), a pro rata dividend was declared for the issuance of 40B shares of CIM to CMKX shareholders as of 31 Aug 04. The keys to this PR are NOT the value of such shares, but the fact that the dividend is pro rata and that this dividend date is after the UCAD dividend date. Let me explain:

The term "pro rata" by definition means that the numbers are proportionately divisible into exact amounts. In other words, CMKX's O/S is divisible BY or INTO 40B (the number of the CIM shares being issued as a dividend). Therefore, our O/S, for example, could be 4B (10:1 ratio of CIM:CMKX shares, where you would receive 10 CIM shares for every 1 share of CMKX you own), 10B (4:1 ratio), 20B (2:1 ratio), 40B (1:1 ratio), 80B (1:2 ratio), ... etc all the way up to 400B (1:10 ratio). Moreover, and contrary to what others have posted, a pro rata dividend can as easily be a fraction (eg, 1:10) as it can a multiple (10:1). As such, the O/S can as easily be 400B as it can 40B or 4B.

Now, given the other two pieces of circumstantial evidence above (the current PPS and confirmation of Joel’s claim regarding the number of shares issued), I believe the O/S is 400B. This would make a neat 1:10 pro rata ratio for the CIM dividend as well, where you are issued 1 share of CIM for every 10 shares of CMKX you own. Speculation? Absolutely, but here’s the final piece of the puzzle – the CIM dividend declaration date of 31 Aug 04.

See, my speculation is that once the O/S is released (which it must be on 20 Aug 04 in order for the UCAD dividend to be issued), people are going to s**t their pants because it is so much larger than everyone speculated. Well, how do you keep shareholders from running to the hills? You keep them aboard by guaranteeing them a reward for their loyalty - say, a dividend at a later date, like 31 Aug, for example. By doing so, you are providing investors incentive to not dump their millions and billions of shares on the market, which, of course, would deflate whatever gains had been achieved. But why would UC do this? Pessimistically, it could be to keep the PPS up. However, I think differently. I think he would do so because he knows we have bigger and better things to come, so while he cannot hide from the truth of the O/S being 400B, he can do whatever it takes to keep us together as a team through the announcement so that we can all benefit from the greater returns down the road.

Speculation? ALL OF IT. But for those who are ready to dismiss my premises, why are they any different from others’? They aren’t. It’s just that they aren’t “pie in the sky” predictions. That’s it. So before you write this post off as nonsense, read it and tell me I haven’t backed up my speculation with logic and numbers. You can’t.

posted July 20, 2004 07:05            

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upside, if the dividend date comes and goes and there are no shares in my Ameritrade account, they're going to hear from me and a few thousand other shareholders wanting to know where they are. At that point I'm sure Ameritrade will be making it know to the MM's just how many there are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noah,
I don't know when you bought into this company but last year they spun off their CIM shares just like this time. If you're on Ameritrade you can find the old p/r's relating to it by retrieving them through the company news screens. To date many shareholders (I'm not one of them) have supposed CIM shares sitting in their accounts and they are unable to trade them. All of the hollering in the world won't make any difference if the same thing happens. You will need to holler at CMKX, not Ameritrade.

posted July 20, 2004 08:21            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Booty Quest:
...FarmBoy, you out there? I hope you're not missing all the fun...

---

Hey 'Panky!! He'e I is!

Rough week at work! Damn! I missed all the fun! or did I? Looks like thing are going to percolate over the next month

posted July 20, 2004 08:37            

Bid: 6 x .0004

posted July 20, 2004 08:38            

Bid: 7 x .0004

Ask: 1 x .0005 (guess who)
9 x .0006

posted July 20, 2004 08:41            

[This message has been edited by noahltl (edited July 20, 2004).]

posted July 20, 2004 08:45            

quote:

---

Originally posted by noahltl:
Pre-open L2 looks like this:

Bid: 6 x .0004

Ask: 1 x .0005 (guess who)
7 x .0006

---

posted July 20, 2004 09:08            

quote:

---

Originally posted by VNGNTN1:
NOAH / COOL
Do you agree if Bid-ask begins to separate that would indicate covering ?
1-Picking up extra money
2-Hold off buying
VAN

---

posted July 20, 2004 09:21            

Ucad closed at $4.50 yesterday and has an ask of $5.00 right now. Nice!

And now...for an encore presentation:

posted July 20, 2004 09:21            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Money_Penny:
READ the last two pages of this thread and LEARN - you don't have to be an english major to figue this out...and even stupid people should understand .

---

OHHHHHHHHHH Money......you are soooooooooooooooooooooo genious and I'm a poor stupid person.....
Of course you went to New-York last days for meet CMKX legal represent and now you know all..........
Be real...you post here only rumors like me.....
No one know what happent but Van is certainly close the truth (read Van's posts on page 7)

posted July 20, 2004 09:24            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Upside:
TW,
As far as I can tell there is no Casavant International Mining (CIM) company trading on any board. Unless they register for trading on one of them, we get shares in something that for the most part is valueless, just like last time.

---

posted July 20, 2004 09:44            

July 20, 2004

LAS VEGAS, Jul 20, 2004 (BUSINESS WIRE) --

Juina Mining Corporation (Pink Sheets:GEMM) announced today that the Company has received in its office in Las Vegas, its first processed gold from the Yellow River Gold Mine. Juina will continue to process at Yellow River and update and expand its current facilities.

Juina Mining Corporation, a Nevada corporation, has a 49% interest in a joint venture partnership with DIAGEM International Resource Corp. (DGM) in the Brazilian company Juina Mining Mineracao, Ltd. (JMML) JMML holds an 86% working interest in the mining and mineral rights to approximately 1000 hectares (2,471 acres) of diamond bearing land in the District of Juina, Mato Grosso, Brazil -- the "Property 1000." Property 1000 is located in the District of Juina, at the southern region of the Amazon Basin.

Further details relative to this project, and other potential upcoming projects, will be forthcoming in future press releases and at http://www.juinamining.com/.

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements contained in this document which are not historical fact are forward-looking statements based upon management's current expectations that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in or implied by forward-looking statements.

SOURCE: Juina Mining Corporation

Juina Mining Corporation Chris Hanneman, 303-220-8476

Customize your Business Wire news & multimedia to match your needs. Get breaking news from companies and organizations worldwide. Logon for FREE today at www.BusinessWire.com.

posted July 20, 2004 09:45            

quote:

---

Originally posted by thinkmoney:
hmm. ucad is up today.
cmkx a measley 25 % in 2 days so far.

Whats up with ucad up ann not us?
Show me the money1
i dont care what anyone say because ultimately its the money, who gets it that counts as far as investing.

---