posted September 01, 2004 15:24            

quote:

---

Originally posted by VNGNTN1:
LANEBRO
A person(by own admission) of two weeks does not hold a position to make some strong statements you have. You are talking to people here with far more knowledge. I suggest continuing your education for another year or so. At that time maybe a question or two would be in order. We have lost some great posters from this site because of this type of confrontation.
Should you decide not to take this as a helpful offer I will add you to my little green book of bashers.
VAN

---

Lanebro ignore him he's yet another pumper just like Jim Brewer who posts the only postive post from the "Hs urban mislead us" thread
http://cmkxdiamond.********s32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1094057943

I am still long and still holding ALL my shares...
I am not saying that some wonderful 'Master Plan' is not unfolding behind the scenes...

But you need to read the PR's for CMKX, because you obviously read some OTHER company's PR's...!!

Use the link to the PR's in Canuck's newbie section.
They are full of missed commitments, postponements and cancellations.

Countless promises of drilling for more than a year before we actually drilled.

The release of the O/S and share structure after the split & spinout...LAST OCTOBER...!!

I could go on, but you apparently don't want to believe what you are reading in the PR's, so why would you believe me.

JMO/GLTA.
Tony.

posted September 01, 2004 15:35            

on Today at 1:22pm, scribe wrote:Point #1 - the company stated the samples were 'diamondiferous'. Fact - they were. Who cares who PRs the results or the quality of the results.

The people who paid .0011 for their shares I bet care what the actual results were.. and the company still hasn't clarified the actual results. From what I understand from people in the diamond industry the term diamondiferous is a real stretch when talking about to bits of diamond dust...

on Today at 1:22pm, scribe wrote:Point #2 - A company can 'authorize' as many shares as they want while at the same time retiring 'issued and outstanding' shares. This is a fact.

That is true. The jury is out on this one for now. If the OS is much lower than most of us expect then you will be correct, if it is anywhere near the 483+billion shares or higher I will be correct.

on Today at 1:22pm, scribe wrote:Your take on these facts as being misleading is what I'm talking about. You think when you read 'diamondiferous' that it means the samples are drenched in diamonds, when in fact it means they found some diamonds (doesn't matter what size or quantity).

I never thought they were drenched in diamonds, but I did expect more than dust particles and for them to pick up the drill rigs and move on. I also expected to hear the specific results back regarding the findings. To exclude the results from the term "diamondiferous" when they know how little there actually were, allow the stock price to run on this news and never PR the actual findings IS misleading by it's very nature. Not lying but misleading.

on Today at 1:22pm, scribe wrote:Your perception when you read that the company is retiring shares is that either the 'authorized' -OR- 'issued' shares can't increase, and the fact is that they can. JMO.

posted September 01, 2004 15:48            

misleading is:

telling us Carolyn was a new discovery when in fact it had been drilled by another company in 96 and abandoned in 2000.

Read the reports, Smeaton aka "Carolyn" is barren.

Apparently our new anomaly showed up on scale with the star and 140/41 pipes so we have good potential with this target.

We have to keep things in perspective. Shore Gold has been at Falc since 95 and are still 5-8 years from having a viable mine. The jury is still out on whether it will even be economical. IMO the overall FALC play hinges on the valuations Shore will be releasing around Christmas time. They will also need to improve their overall grade.

JMO and views...

posted September 01, 2004 15:52            

quote:

---

Originally posted by noahltl:
Ever notice how all the worms come out after a storm?

---

posted September 01, 2004 16:16            

You are an owner of CMKX as well as it's predecessor(s). You have been burned with so-called dividends, spin offs, misinformation, etc. well before now with the same people associated with CMKX.

You also claimed to have been into stock trading for at least 5 years.

posted September 01, 2004 16:19            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wallace#1:
VAN,

You are an owner of CMKX as well as it's predecessor(s). You have been burned with so-called dividends, spin offs, misinformation, etc. well before now with the same people associated with CMKX.

You also claimed to have been into stock trading for at least 5 years.

Why are you still in such a defensive position relative to CMKX when it is being run by the same people in the same way as they have operated in the past? Shouldn't your experience with them dictate otherwise?

---

posted September 01, 2004 16:32            

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the pending CMKX spin-offs. There are currently three spin offs taking place. The ex-date for the first transaction is 8/20/04. This is the date on which the seller, and not the buyer, of a stock will be entitled to a recently announced dividend/spin-off. It is indicated in newspaper listings with an "x". The shares from the spin-off are due to payout on 9/24/04. The terms of the spin off are 1 share for each 103950 shares held of CMKX. If you are due to receive the shares, you should see them appear in the first week of October.

The second spin off's ex-date is 8/31/04, with a pay date of 10/1/04. The terms of the spin off are .0256 shares for each 1 share held of CMKX. The third spin off's ex-date is 9/17/04, with a pay date of 10/3/04. The terms of the spin off is 1 share for each 1 share held of CMKX.

For additional information, you may contact CMKX's Investor Relations Department at 306-752-3755. Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thank you.

Sincerely,

posted September 01, 2004 16:54            

quote:

---

that would be a bad thing for GEMM holders if correct....

---

posted September 01, 2004 16:55            

I thought the same thing too...

Wallace, SEC, glass, lol... This is bigger than the Jackson Five comming to town !

I am expecting a full assault by bashers this weekend... Considering what we have now

posted September 01, 2004 16:56            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dwman:
WOW!!!! The best PR of the day is comprised of secman, wallace, justthisice. Something big must be very close around the corner. The "Top gun basher" are pulling out all stops. Correction...the MMs have run out of bashers and had to resort to the dregs.

---

posted September 01, 2004 16:59            

All Bash and no play makes Secman a dull girl...

posted September 01, 2004 17:01            

Yeah, sec. He does. But it is a diamond studded leash. By the way, "REAL" is the magic word. We're real. You're not.

posted September 01, 2004 17:17            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dwman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by secman:
[B]Geeze Urban must have you on a REAL short leash lol.
QUOTE]

Yeah, sec. He does. But it is a diamond studded leash. By the way, "REAL" is the magic word. We're real. You're not.

[This message has been edited by dwman (edited September 01, 2004).]

---

posted September 01, 2004 17:35            

Thank you for contacting us today concerning CMKX.

For CMKX, the spin off rate will be .0000155:1 for restricted shares of US Canadian Minerals Inc. The record date is 8-20-04, payable 9-24-04. This means your CMKX buy trades needed to settle on or before 8-20 in order to receive the spin off shares.

The company will be spinning off shares of Casavant Int'l Mining on 10/1/04 at a rate of .0256, fractions being dropped. The record date is 8/31/04. This means your CMKX buy trades needed to settle on or before 8/31/04 in order to receive the spin off shares.

posted September 01, 2004 17:45            

[This message has been edited by VNGNTN1 (edited September 01, 2004).]

posted September 01, 2004 17:56            

Can I answer that one?

The answer is 0, nil, nada, zero, flatline,
not, none, ziltch...

There is not a single mineral claim registered under CMKX, CMKM, CMKI, or
any other company that we know to be CMKX.
At least according to the Government Web
page which is public and shows all claims
in the area.

Another item that was brought up on the board
is that the claims have to be worked within
a period of time or the rights are lost.
(I believe I have that one right).

quote:

---

Originally posted by VNGNTN1:
SECMAN
You are already in the little green book.
VAN
PS Here is a question for you & Lanebro ( you can work together ) for the answer.
HOW MANY MINERAL CLAIMS ARE FILED IN CMKX NAME? A correct answer will be documented!

---

posted September 01, 2004 18:42            

I talked to Thomas Cook - He does not
represent CMKX...

He gave me a number to a Brian Devorak
(not sure if I have the spelling correct)
I have the number if anyone needs it.

Finally got ahold of Brian...

Bottom-line is that he has never had anyone
make this type of request. I can say that
he was not overly helpful either.

I asked for the information I am after...

He told me that the company was closed
for a scheduled Holiday and no one from
the company would be back for two weeks.
I would have to call during company business
hours when they were not on Holiday.

I then said, that I was sorry that I thought
that the company did not have an office in
Nevada. I thought the company office was
in Canada. He said it is... I said then
I have to go to Canada to get the information?

He said no that the books were with him...

I expressed that according to NRS-78
I only had to provide 5 days notice
from my understanding.

I asked to see the information as
outlined in NRS-78.

We did go through the Nevada State Regs... He was not
overly familiar with the regulation.

So we went through the regulation on-line...
He pointed out what I had originally posted...
before I saw the other area.

Bottom-line is that we went through the
area that I outlined. He asked if I owned
5%. We read the regulations together.
I pointed out the "or" and stated that
I read it as being a shareholder of record
for more than six months I am entitled
to see certain information.

I outlined that I didn't think he
was being very helpful to a sharholder
of the company.

Can't say it was the most pleasant conversation
I have ever had with someone.

We left our conversation with him asking
me if I would send an affidavid saying that
once I viewed whatever material that I would
not use that information in any way outside
of company (it wasn't policy, wishes, interests...
but something along those lines... basically
use this information in a way outside of the
what was in the best interests of the company.)

I said I would contact the Nevada State
SEC to determine what I did and did not
have to agree to...

He told me to send him the letter and
we would go from there.

I thanked him for his time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by noahltl:

Shadow, every corportation in the State of Nevada, has to have at least a resident agent. CMKM's resident agent is:

Thomas C. Cook
Firm: Law Offices of Thomas C. Cook

Address: 4955 S. Durango Dr., Suite 214
Las Vegas, NV 89113-4436


Phone: (702) 952-8519

Fax: (702) 952-8521

E-mail: Contact Us

I'm sure he will be able to help you if you want to pursue the information.

---

posted September 01, 2004 18:51            

What I see are bashers using unsubstantiated rumors.

1. Prove to us UC is using our OS to fund his hobbies. I want you to prove that statement.

Everything the bashers are saying is totally 100% unsubstantiated. UC could be a sincere businessman trying to hit it big.

Prove what you are saying if you can.

I think WWJD hit the nail on the head. Our lawyer thinks his legit. Should I trust Wallace whom I dont know or any other basher here or someone with an official stake.

1. The Canadian government recognizes us as legit, they have issued the permits for the surveys and for the drilling.
2. The SEC thinks we are legit. A letter written by the SEC addressing the concerns of investors said we were checked out in March 2004, and nothing illegal was discovered.
3. Our lawyer thinks we are legit.
4. Our partners, including a major player in UCAD , Cameco, thinks we are legit.

posted September 01, 2004 18:53            

quote:

---

Van,
Can I answer that one?

The answer is 0, nil, nada, zero, flatline,
not, none, ziltch...

There is not a single mineral claim registered under CMKX, CMKM, CMKI, or
any other company that we know to be CMKX.
At least according to the Government Web
page which is public and shows all claims
in the area.

Another item that was brought up on the board
is that the claims have to be worked within
a period of time or the rights are lost.
(I believe I have that one right).

---

posted September 01, 2004 18:54            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RaiderJR:
Bashers vs pumpers

What I see are bashers using unsubstantiated rumors.

1. Prove to us UC is using our OS to fund his hobbies. I want you to prove that statement.

Everything the bashers are saying is totally 100% unsubstantiated. UC could be a sincere businessman trying to hit it big.

Prove what you are saying if you can.

I think WWJD hit the nail on the head. Our lawyer thinks his legit. Should I trust Wallace whom I dont know or any other basher here or someone with an official stake.

1. The Canadian government recognizes us as legit, they have issued the permits for the surveys and for the drilling.
2. The SEC thinks we are legit. A letter written by the SEC addressing the concerns of investors said we were checked out in March 2004, and nothing illegal was discovered.
3. Our lawyer thinks we are legit.
4. Our partners, including a major player in UCAD , Cameco, thinks we are legit.

Who should I trust, these parties or the bashers on this board who claim inside info but wont even use their real name.

---

Raider? CMKX on the side of the machine and yet you refuse to accept the fact that he is using company money to fund it?????
give me a break.....

there is a big difference between LEGAL and LEGIT raider and if this is your first penny stock then you are going to learn the difference.

that is why i came to this board and parked here. cuz there are a lot of rumors being passed off as DD....

this letter from the SEC...first i've heard of it. can you share that with us? PLEASE? i would like to see it....

posted September 01, 2004 19:20            

They have downloadable files that
have all of the claims... and dates.

Also shows percentage...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Upside:
Shadow,
Can you provide a link to that claim map page?

[QUOTE]Van,
Can I answer that one?

The answer is 0, nil, nada, zero, flatline,
not, none, ziltch...

There is not a single mineral claim registered under CMKX, CMKM, CMKI, or
any other company that we know to be CMKX.
At least according to the Government Web
page which is public and shows all claims
in the area.

Another item that was brought up on the board
is that the claims have to be worked within
a period of time or the rights are lost.
(I believe I have that one right).

---

[/QUOTE]

posted September 01, 2004 19:35            

I wasn't aware that CMKX was going through any "cyclical period". To me, it has been the same old thing and accomplishes nothing but diverting attention to their stated business which is mining for diamonds.

As far as lurkers and newbies are concerned, I believe by reading ALL the posts, those that disagree with you are providing far more valuable information when it comes to securities trading and CMKX as opposed to "flame throwing". You see, whether you like it or not, some of us do see some possibilities in your favor but very few (for me only one). On the other hand, the are probabilities are greater that anyone currently owning CMKX shares will lose everything or almost everything they have put in as a so-called investment. That is what newbies, lurkers and anyone thinking of committing money to CMKX should be made aware of.

What you have done with other investments or penny stocks has nothing at all to do with CMKX. All the facts and opinions of experienced investors should be considered, not just those with vested interests and minimal experience.

posted September 01, 2004 19:47            

I have never been able to find any information
that shows that Urban owns Saskatchewan Ltd.
Of course, if you look at the earlier maps
and references - it shows sask ltd. I
just do not have anything tangible to link
him... beyond the company saying that they
have the rights.

If you have anything I would be interested.

I am trying to determine what we really do
own or have rights to...

---
Mr Devorak's number is 702-768-2960 if anyone wants to call him...
---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Upside:
Thanks shadow.
I downloaded this file in excel format and found some interesting things. Urban also owns a company called Saskatchewan Ltd. They have a load of claims on this list. Those could be ours but I can't imagine it's a good thing that they're not in CMKX's name. Also noticed that UCAD had no claims but Nevada Minerals had quite a few. Not drawing any conclusions here, just posting information.

---

posted September 01, 2004 19:50            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RaiderJR:
2. The SEC thinks we are legit. A letter written by the SEC addressing the concerns of investors said we were checked out in March 2004, and nothing illegal was discovered.

Who should I trust, these parties or the bashers on this board who claim inside info but wont even use their real name.

---

posted September 01, 2004 20:11            

What I see are bashers using unsubstantiated rumors.

Everything the bashers are saying is totally 100% unsubstantiated.

I think WWJD hit the nail on the head. Our lawyer thinks his legit. Should I trust Wallace whom I dont know or any other basher here or someone with an official stake.
---------------------------------------------
Is it bashing to outline the truth and the facts? Based upon what I am seeing above, we cannot even say they own claims, right?

Is it a rumor or unsubstantiated that CMKX:

Has not provided financial information;
Withdrew from SEC filing;
Has found only 2 micro diamonds;
Has not released issued, outstanding and/or
holdings;
Did not inform anyone of the authorized
increase - even to this day.
That they did increase the authorized by
800 billion which further dilutes holdings;
That they have said sample results would be
forthcoming and have not;
That there are conflicts of interest involved
with various companies;
That there appear to be non-arm's length
transactions between companies;
That stupid statements have been made about
Mt.St.Helen's eruptions and other
outlandish and incorrect things;
That UC and/or CMKX is sponsoring things that
have nothing to do with the business of
mining for diamonds;
That - on and on and on and on?

Those things are not rumors. They are fact!

As for Glenn, what has he done for the shareholders to date? Oh yeah, it's top secret so it cannot be mentioned. Sure!!
Have another lollipop! That's BS. The least he could have done was caution UC about not releasing the 300 billion increase in authorized, instead of letting it come out in a negative manner. This is a guy who is supposed to know what it means to provide timely, accurate and proper information to shareholders. How many times do you have to be reminded that his responsibility is to whomever pays the bill? Whether you like it or not, that is UC and not you as a shareholder. That is where his loyalty resides.

Speaking of not releasing the information in a timely fashion and it being found out as it was, how many unsuspecting people were buying while other people who knew about the increase might have been selling...until it became common knowledge? How many of those buyers are right here following this thread?

The more I think about this the more I think it is outrageous that Glenn did not insist that the increase in authorized be immediately released upon filing in Nevada. He had to have known it was then available to a limited number of people until the word seeped out. That, in my opinion, is not Wall Street savvy or indicative of any securities expert and not the least bit knowledgeable. Trust that!!!

posted September 01, 2004 20:17            

On November 25, 2002 the Company agreed to acquire the Casavant Family Mineral Claims in certain kimberlite deposits located in the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada. The Mineral Claims were held in the name of five companies owned directly and/or beneficially by the Casavant Family and Morgain Minerals, Inc. (a company held by third parties with the claims under option). These companies include Commando Holdings, Ltd., Buckshot Holdings, Ltd., 101010307 Saskatchewan Ltd., 101012190 Saskatchewan Ltd., and 101027101 Saskatchewan Ltd. In addition, Fort a la Corne Diamond Fields, Inc. acted as the claims and exploration manager for the five companies above, as well as, the claims held by Morgain Minerals, Inc. Each of these companies have agreed to transfer 100% of the Mineral Claims to the Company in accordance with the Mineral Disposition Regulations of Saskatchewan, 1986.

posted September 01, 2004 20:56            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wallace#1:
[B] PS: I never heard of a "quiet period" either but suppose it's possible.

Bye y'all

[B]

---

Well Wally Wall St.,glad to help you out on this...
http://www.investorwords.com/4012/quiet_period.html
http://www.sec.gov/answers/quiet.htm

posted September 01, 2004 21:04            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Upside:
The main problem I see with the quiet period theory is that it takes place after a registration filing with the SEC. So far, no such filing has been made.

---

posted September 01, 2004 21:07            

this would imply that a NEW company is being formed.....and a new IPO is being made

quiet period
The period starting when an issuer hires an underwriter and ending 25 days after the security begins trading, during which the issuer cannot comment publicly on the offering due to SEC rules.

what issuer did they hire?

posted September 01, 2004 21:11            

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
not only that:
[b]
Quiet Period
The term "quiet period," also referred to as the "waiting period," is not defined under the federal securities laws.
[/B]

---