posted October 06, 2004 16:19            

779.6+ Billion O/S has already been challenged.
noah wrote: "So looks like we are back to square one of guessing on the true OS."

posted October 06, 2004 16:27            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bill1352:
noahltl
Member posted October 06, 2004 15:10

---

posted October 06, 2004 17:43            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bill1352:
ucad gave 7,500,000 shares to cmkx for this dividend if you divided the 7.5 million number by the split number you get how many cmkx shares got the dividend thus the 779 billion o/s number

---

If I'm not mistaken Rendal Williams was quoted the other day as saying that UC could pay the dividend using the numbers for the A/S, O/S, or the "float", whichever he chooses. It looks like he chose the A/S which still leaves us with not knowing the O/S or the float, retired shares, or anything else. I'm still betting the O/S is low!! IMHO!!!

posted October 06, 2004 17:44            

Press Release Source: NanoSignal Corp.

NanoSignal Corp. to Issue Special 20% Restricted Stock Dividend
Wednesday October 6, 1:24 pm ET

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 6, 2004--NanoSignal Corp. (Pink Sheets: NNOS - News) has determined, after an extensive review of a detailed shareholder audit, conclusive and stunning documented proof of the market making activity involving the approximately 7,000 mystery names of various DTC and NOBO lists obtained by the company document that many names obtained by the company are not shareholders.
To address this very troubling issue, NanoSignal Corp. called a special meeting of legal, accounting and forensic experts together with litigators to discuss this problem and how to resolve this dramatic event. One conclusion approved by the board of directors is to issue a special one time 20% restricted stock dividend to our known shareholders as of Nov. 3, 2004.

The results of this special 20% restricted stock dividend, when issued to proven shareholders who actually do tender their recognized and verified certificates to the company's transfer agent, should prove that although the company can identify approximately 240,000,000 issued shares, other records tend to indicate that there are an additional 500,000,000 shares allegedly held in Street and retirement accounts that regrettably are not recorded shareholders of ours at our transfer agent. To resolve this presumed imbalance of sales to the unsuspecting, NanoSignal Corp. will be issuing a special 20% restricted stock dividend to those actual verified shareholders of record at the transfer agent only.

Details of the pending distribution of restricted shares will be filed in sufficient time to allow newly designed certificates to be issued along with new restricted dividend share certificates from the transfer agent to the actual proven owners of record. "We wish to reward real shareholders while also keeping in mind our desire to provide better security for our real shareholders we are redesigning our share certificates and issuing new ones in conjunction with this special dividend," stated Sir Rupert Perrin, chairman of NanoSignal.

About NanoSignal Corp.

NanoSignal Corp. is a medical technology company introducing its patented Slices(TM) technology to the MRI industry, allowing radiologists and technologists to perform advanced imaging features beyond the capabilities of the standard MRI computer.

Information about NanoSignal Corp. is available at www.nanosignalcorp.com.

This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements can be identified by the lead-in "Looking Forward." These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve significant risks and uncertainties. Actual results may vary materially from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of the effectiveness of management's strategies and decisions, general economic and business conditions, new or modified statutory or regulatory requirements, and changing price and market conditions. No assurance can be given that these are all the factors that could cause actual results to vary materially from the forward-looking statement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
NanoSignal Corp.
investor@nanosignalcorp.com
or
Princeton Research Inc. for NanoSignal

posted October 06, 2004 17:53            

as for the restriction...we dont knoiw when it will be lifted

posted October 06, 2004 18:15            

If you can believe that naked shorting is a reality, then you would also have to agree that for it to be widespread, that the DTC has to be involved and complicit.

posted October 06, 2004 18:25            

1) the otc split number comes from the SEC who gets this number from cmkx. if cmkx is playing honest this is the way it worked. ameritrade is my broker, it was them that explained to me how it works it is also has been posted in cmkx threads before, the SEC rules about dividends

2) if the a/s was used the split would have been 8.5 not the 9.6 we got. do the math

3) 2 days before the own by date cmkx raised its a/s by 300 billion shares. 279 billion of these shares showed up in the ucad split. why or who got the money we don't know. we do know our dividend and o/s was diluted by 279 billion from the a/s as of aug. 17th

posted October 06, 2004 19:04            

quote:

---

Originally posted by noahltl:
Let me just explain quickly. When the story unfolds, you can bash me if I'm wrong. I think everyone knows that there is a naked shorting problem. If you don't think it is true for CMKX, at least admit that the hundreds of companies bringing lawsuits against the MM's have some proof of their claim. Look above at what I posted from Nano Signal. Many, many, companies are having to go this route.

If you can believe that naked shorting is a reality, then you would also have to agree that for it to be widespread, that the DTC has to be involved and complicit.

Today, our shares in UCAD were distributed by the DTC according to what numbers. Ours
or theirs? Can anyone see a trap being sprung? Can anyone else see that this "Squeeze" is actually coming down on the DTC as well as the MM's?

---

Noah, if you are right then UC is TRULY a Robin Hood.....
if you are right i will be the FIRST to apologize to you and esp. DEBI......

i am a SKEPTICAL optimist. i agree that there are NS issues all over the penny market, but i still don't see the numbers in CMKX trading to support these claims....

posted October 06, 2004 19:43            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doctoall:
Weird things going on today: E-trade just showed a price of 0.0009 and a days high of 0.0020. Anyone care to speculate as to what is happening with CMKX today besides getting ready to sky rocket!!!!!!!!!

---

posted October 06, 2004 20:27            

(1)"it is a stock whose future is being guided by a top Wall Street attorney.
(2)There are serious problems going on at the DTC.
(3)If some here would DD that, instead of trying to find some obscure lawsuit against a JV principal,"
---------------------------------------------

1) "Guided"?? Then, why didn't he DEMAND disclosure of the increase in authorized? He had to know the impact when found out or leaked out! That does NOT sound much like a "top Wall Street attorney" to me.

(2)You mentioned hundreds of companies. Is that true or is it an exaggeration? I have seen no evidence of "hundreds of companies", whether going after the MMs or the DTC with lawsuits.

(3)"an obscure lawsuit against a JV partner"??
As I understand the FACTS, it is not the only lawsuit. Apparently that company (MHM Company, he was Pres. and signed all documents) was selling something where they guaranteed a 20 to 1 return...and that is not a SCAM? If you were investigating Dhnoau as a police detective, is that what you would conclude with such evidence? Obscure? How many others might he have been involved with?
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

I doubt there are few, if any, on this thread who do not want CMKX to succeed. Some see the majority of the FACTS directed toward a BK situation or worse. For my part, I do not care one way or the other. I do wish many of the hopeful lots of luck.

Pay attention to what Bill1352 is saying about the issued and outstanding shs amount!
THAT is just ONE more key reason CMKX is going down (.0002 today). It appears to be nothing more than a circus act or shell game! What a book this one will make!!!

[This message has been edited by Wallace#1 (edited October 06, 2004).]

posted October 06, 2004 21:35            

if it's too lame a question, I apologize..

but what are we supposed to do with these shares of US CANADIAN MINERALS INC RESTRICTED that just showed up in our accounts that have no assigned value?

posted October 06, 2004 21:51            

quote:

---

Originally posted by betting babe:
Ok, admittedly I haven't been following... not done DD on UCAD.
it's such a circus in here.

if it's too lame a question, I apologize..

but what are we supposed to do with these shares of US CANADIAN MINERALS INC RESTRICTED that just showed up in our accounts that have no assigned value?

~BB

---

posted October 06, 2004 22:25            

quote:

---

Originally posted by betting babe:
ah, ok...

so don't unwrap 'til next christmas?
~BB

---

posted October 06, 2004 23:40            

1) "Guided"?? Then, why didn't he DEMAND disclosure of the increase in authorized? He had to know the impact when found out or leaked out! That does NOT sound much like a "top Wall Street attorney" to me.

(2)You mentioned hundreds of companies. Is that true or is it an exaggeration? I have seen no evidence of "hundreds of companies", whether going after the MMs or the DTC with lawsuits.

(3)"an obscure lawsuit against a JV partner"??
As I understand the FACTS, it is not the only lawsuit. Apparently that company (MHM Company, he was Pres. and signed all documents) was selling something where they guaranteed a 20 to 1 return...and that is not a SCAM? If you were investigating Dhnoau as a police detective, is that what you would conclude with such evidence? Obscure? How many others might he have been involved with?

1) Why didn't he demand disclosure? We are a "pink" no requirement for disclosure. A good attorney doesn't allow much to be said if it applies to his strategy.

2) OK I'll give you that one. I finished with many, many. I really don't know if there are hundreds of lawsuits yet, but there are hundreds of companies complaining either by lawsuit, or by PR. Admitted, some of these are using ns as a cover for their mismanagement. But there is too much smoke not to be fire. Some of those many, many I have posted here in past threads.

3) The lawsuit that was posted here was in Ohio, if I recall. It was local and involved only a few "victims". If it had been a nationwide "scam" the Feds would have been involved civily or criminally. I remember doing an investigation on a couple of Kirby sweeper salesmen in my jurisdiction. They were making some pretty outrageous claims about their product. The victims filed suit as well, against the Kirby Co. and their President. But after investigation, it was just the salesmen trying to earn a little commission. I never suspected or had any reason to suspect that the President of the Kirby Co. was involved. But the company was slapped on the wrists, just as the lawsuit used here. It is common in business, it does not indicate a nationwide criminal network.

posted October 07, 2004 00:29            

My repost of that lawsuit stated as follows:

(15) MHM Company, Inc. and Dhonau issued promissory notes to at least 30 individuals, of which promissory notes were issued to at least 23 Ohio investors from April 1995 to July 1995, according to documents given to investors as part of the sales presentation and records received by the Division.
----------
You stated:

3) The lawsuit that was posted here was in Ohio, if I recall. It was local and involved only a few "victims".
---------
Noahltl, that suit involved just a few investors that appear to have been hoodwinked. Not so local either...23 found in Ohio from Apr '95 to Jul '95 (4 mos)...and that is state wide. Total of 30 found during that time. Doesn't it make sense that they were operating far longer than 4 months? It would take longer than that to just do a little dirty work! Looks like at least 7 others found were outside Ohio. Not so local either. How many more could have been found outside Ohio with further investigation beyond the 4 month span. Inside Ohio?
---------
You also stated:

They were making some pretty outrageous claims about their product.
--------
Apparently that was the Kirby salesmen exaggerating about their product. Maybe Dhonau's salesmen DID exaggerate as well with the 20 to 1 return. However, that was not the illegal act for which a "Cease and Desist" order was issued against MHM and John (Ed) Dhnoau. He apparently illegally issued securities.

This is what that "order" was about:

"therefore, the promissory notes and debentures were sold in violation of Revised Code section 1707.44(C)(1)."

That was a violation of Ohio securities law by MHM Company and it's President, John (Ed) Dhonau (not by the salesmen).
--------
You also wrote:

1) Why didn't he demand disclosure? We are a "pink" no requirement for disclosure. A good attorney doesn't allow much to be said if it applies to his strategy.

-------
No requirement for disclosure? Of course there was. Information about the 300 billion increase in authorized had leaked out and it is obvious some traders had the information while others did not have access to that information. Further, it was Glenn who indicated the need for full disclosure in the SEC rulings. In addition, it was the "proper" thing to do from a business point of view by a publicly trading company.

The "strategy" response is too weak and without merit.

posted October 07, 2004 03:28            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bill1352:
trading...we missed our chance!!!!!! lets see $51 X 2 million minus taxes & commision ya i could except that profit margin...lol

---

LOL... You read my mind! BTW Bill, I like your posts. You impress me.

posted October 07, 2004 08:17            

quote:

---

Originally posted by toddr545:
anybody know why etrade is not showing any ucad divy? Ive had my cmkx cince april and may.

---

Don't know. Not in my ETRADE account either. I think they are just slower than some of the other brokerages.

posted October 07, 2004 11:56            

CA:KPG
Consol Pine Channel Gold (CA:KPG) $0.11 0.00 0%
CA:SEI.H
Shane Resources (CA:SEI.H) $0.36 0.00 0%
CA:UCA
United Carina Res (CA:UCA) $0.42 +0.02 +5%