posted July 20, 2004 09:57            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bill1352:
i agree with the post from another board about the 400 billion o/s...i don't think UC is dishonest just the opposite i think he is an honest blue collar type guy in a business areana or a duck out of water and this is where the lawyer comes in. this is his ballpark. he is at home with the market, #'s of shares, the mm's. i also think the lawyer would not have gotten involved if the diamonds were not there. IMO

---

posted July 20, 2004 09:57            

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 10:06            

----------------------------------

How about leaving richnessforeveryon1 alone as he asked. He has a right to his opinions and there is not cause to demean him for his command of English or for being an European.

--------------------------------

posted July 20, 2004 10:06            

quote:

---

Originally posted by richnessforeveryon1:
I read quickly today's and yesterday's posts....
No one is wonder why UC sell now 5% of he's rights on the claims he hold to UCAD.
Let ask the question otherwise....
If you know that you found the biggest diamonds finding in North America would you sell 5% of your claims???
NO AND AGAIN NO......
In my opinion UC will now try to sell his claims (this is only the beginning) to mining companies on the basis of geometric results and this is WHY HE NEED A LEGAL FIRM for represent him.....
Here is the big deal ...not for you the shareholders (again I'm not a shareholder) but for UC....(nice play UC).....
So now you know my own DD........
This explain UCAD price increase like now they have more claims on diamonds fields.
MM's aren't stupid.....so this explain too why CMKX will stay in the 0.0001-0.0005 range....
My opinion is as valid as yours and can be based on yesterday trading day......and perhaps will be valided in the future especially if UC continue to sell his claims to mining companies.....
I guess that you (the optimists) are all wrong.......but perhaps I'm too wrong.
Please stop to criticize my English knowledges and to attack European people with your verbal statements....
Never I said something bad about US people....
Enough is enough...try to be more tolerating and to accept criticisms from other persons or are you so blind men in your investments......
[b]THE TRUTH IS ELSEWHERE

[This message has been edited by richnessforeveryon1 (edited July 20, 2004).][/B]

---

posted July 20, 2004 10:11            

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.

---

posted July 20, 2004 10:25            

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

posted July 20, 2004 10:42            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tradingpennys:
Again - READ again!

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

---

posted July 20, 2004 11:02            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad:
I know the downside of holding the actual certificates

---

posted July 20, 2004 11:09            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Frey:
There is no real downside other than the cost from your broker to issue them and that you must call your broker to sell.

---

Hi Bob!

posted July 20, 2004 11:22            

Here is a little story.

Man was in the desert with his camel and a Genie came to him and said to the man. Put sand in your bag on your camel and do not open it until you have reached the city. When you open it you will be both happy and sad. So the man thought strange, but put sand in his bag, but only half full. The next day the man arrived in the city and opened his camel bags. The sand had turned into diamonds over night! Seeing this than man immiediatly was sad that he had not put more sand into his bags, but was happy he had the liitle bit that he had.
To end this story I leave you all with this.
Don't be caught wishing you had more sand.
This will go just wait until we have reached the city.

Thank you,

posted July 20, 2004 11:29            

quote:

---

Originally posted by TradingWizard:
Noah do you mind closing the CMKX III ... thread so it does not get bump up..thnx

---

posted July 20, 2004 11:30            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Money_Penny:
TradingWizard,

That thread is nowhere near the top. Try refreshing your browser!

---

Done....thnkx

posted July 20, 2004 11:47            

quote:

---

Originally posted by onthemark:
first thing the short sellers are not worried about the issue of 1/2 of a cent or 50 cents its all relitive its the % that matters if ucad is at 4.00 and it goes up 50 cents that would be a12.5% gain if cmkx goes up from .004 to .005 thats 25% if you had 10000 to put in one wich profit would you rather take home and wich stock has movement more times a day

---

posted July 20, 2004 11:51            

quote:

---

Here is a little story.

Man was in the desert with his camel and a Genie came to him and said to the man. Put sand in your bag on your camel and do not open it until you have reached the city. When you open it you will be both happy and sad. So the man thought strange, but put sand in his bag, but only half full. The next day the man arrived in the city and opened his camel bags. The sand had turned into diamonds over night! Seeing this than man immiediatly was sad that he had not put more sand into his bags, but was happy he had the liitle bit that he had.
To end this story I leave you all with this.
Don't be caught wishing you had more sand.
This will go just wait until we have reached the city.

Thank you,

FastTracker

---

Without knowing it you've probably just started another rumor. Urban was seen in the desert around Las Vegas with a Genie! He was carrying bags of sand too but according to Sterling they were really bags of diamonds!

posted July 20, 2004 11:59            

I know you're not a basher. But the tone of your posts was getting more and more negative and you were starting to sound like richness and co.

posted July 20, 2004 12:39            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tradingpennys:
Trap is CMKM. Not anyone else!

---

posted July 20, 2004 12:41            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tradingpennys:
Trap is CMKM. Not anyone else!

---

posted July 20, 2004 13:00            

SMELL THE BASHERS
« Thread started on: Today at 12:42pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you who were around when we had our .0011 run, do you remember the week before?

The official CMKX website was loaded with bashers. Actually the few days before our run, there were just about as many bashers on the board as there were shareholders. It seemed like every other post was a basher strutting their stuff.

I haven't seen a lot of bashing on this board for many weeks now. However, the last couple of days, things seem to be warming up. It is without question coming to a time when we will be surrounded by the enemy.

Remember the last time. The MM's HAVE to loosen shares from our hands. They will do everything in their power including fake pr's (we saw those), terrible news comments from other websites (saw that with Janice) and loads of infiltrators sent to our boards that first gain our trust, then they send out mixed messages creating doubts in our minds. I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again;
BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING. Those we have come to respect (like Joel) might turn out to be a MM spy and setup. Use the official information to make your own rational decisions. DO NOT USE SPECULATED INFORMATION on this board or any other. You must rely on your own instincts to tell you what to do rather than follow someone else. Think about those (and I'm sure there were several) that dumped their shares when Joel dumped his. He is a perfect example of a supposed guru trusted by newbies. These types will take you down on behalf of the MM's. They are already here. Believe me when I tell you that. They will wait for the right opportunity to create doubt and distrust in CMKX.

Think hard about what is going on. Be strong. We will be tested many many times along the way over the next 4 weeks. I expect to see quick spikes and quick falls back down to make it appear that it is short lived. All we will have to compare it too is the last .0011 run and them taking it down to .0003. BUT DO NOT BE FOOLED. They cannot hold it down for any lenght of time with all that has and is going to happen. Remember they make money on both the run up and the run down. If they make enough, they can cover their losses. But if you sell, you will kick yourself (just like Joel now if he really did own shares) when it runs the other way. The **** is hitting the fan. And lots of stinky stuff is going to be flung in a lot of different directions. Put your goggles on and see through it all and guess what, YOU AND I WILL BEAT THEM!

And to coin Uncle Melvin's term; You can take it to the bank!

All is STILL better than well.

posted July 20, 2004 13:01            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tradingpennys:
Trap is CMKM. Not anyone else!

---

I normally sit by and read these posts and decypher truth from fiction. I intentionally give every post consideration. However, I have heard all I care to hear from some of these BASHERS and yes tradingpennys you appear to be one of the biggest bashers. If you are a basher then please stop and go away. On the flip side, if not, then provide informative supportive information in a way that we enjoy your point of view and not just scroll past it. All negatives quickly turn people off. Think about it...JMHO
Go CMKX.....Long and strong

posted July 20, 2004 13:23            

Okay, my money cleared and I now own 2,740,000 shares of CMKX!!!

My mother bought 200k today and my father owns 600k shares as well. The family total is 3,540,000 CMKX shares!!!!

I have a buy order in for 370k more shares at .0003 just in case there is some dip, I want to be in line to get on it!!!!

Next Monday I plan on purchasing at least another two hundred dollars!!!!!!

I am so happy, 2,740k shares for me, yeahhhhhhh babbyyyy!!!!

P.S. Where are my boys Pharm and Stoned?!?!? Upto no good In my honest DD-Opinion! hehe...

posted July 20, 2004 13:56            

Hi Wallace-Glad to see you back here.

posted July 20, 2004 14:16            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JBCak47:
...P.S. Where are my boys Pharm and Stoned?!?!? Upto no good In my honest DD-Opinion! hehe...

-John-

---

¡Estoy aquí!

posted July 20, 2004 14:32            

BOCA RATON, FL (Market Wire) - OTCPro.com announces its list of stocks to watch! These stocks are looking to move!

OTCPro.com adds US Canadian Minerals Inc (OTC BB: UCAD) to its Stock Pick List. UCAD is new to OTCPro, and just announced great news! US Canadian Minerals Inc is a multi-dimensional, mineral-based corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. Watch this stock; it could break out on the upside in the near term! Other stocks looking to move are:

CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (OTC: CMKX) has agreed to invest US$1,000,000 in Casavant International Mining referred to as (CIM). CMKM Diamonds,Inc. will receive in return a 10% lifetime royalty on all mineral claims of CIM , specifically including the George Lake Zinc Deposit.

posted July 20, 2004 14:33            

400 BILLION OUTSTANDING SHARES IS TOTALLY OUT OF THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT DOESN`T MAKE ANY SENSE AFTER ALL THE PAST EVENTS

THE SHORT SCENARIO IS MOST LIKELY A CASE
A HIGH VOLUME MANIPULATED SECURITY IS PERFECT FOR THAT
I MEAN NOT EVEN A FOOL WOULD SHORT UCAD
AND I HOPE EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THEIR
OFFICES IN L.V. ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER
maybe somebody can elaborate on that

posted July 20, 2004 14:48            

THE answer was:

M.M. would normally not short a pink sheet ,because pink sheets often trade on low volume , BUT IN THIS CASE...

IT IS VERY LIKELY ,BECAUSE OF IT`S HIGH VOLUME.
NAKED OR DRESSED (that is the question)
The naked happens if m.m. want to execute their orders in order to perform and get their commission)
SO I would say that`s a very likely scenario

BY THE WAY TECHNICALS LOOK GOOD,FINALLY
IT LOOKS LIKE A TURNAROUND

in the last month or so it always looked like a CHART THAT WANT`S
TO
BREAKOUT!!