quote:FWIW, Andrew Hill is the new IR guy of CMKX. (from another board)
WHAT??? They didn't get rid of Melvin did they? That would be one more blow for the investors, at least this investor. The last source of amusement from this company might be gone? Say it ain't so!
posted
NO! They are just so busy pumping out information they need two guys. LOL!
quote:Originally posted by Upside: originally posted by TruthTeller: WHAT??? They didn't get rid of Melvin did they? That would be one more blow for the investors, at least this investor. The last source of amusement from this company might be gone? Say it ain't so!
Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Melvin was given another role. I don't know what else he can do. Elcamino announced this paltalk (from the same board)
quote:Originally posted by Upside: originally posted by TruthTeller: WHAT??? They didn't get rid of Melvin did they? That would be one more blow for the investors, at least this investor. The last source of amusement from this company might be gone? Say it ain't so!
posted
Well, if he's destitute I seem to remember a few months back that Will here had a job or two Melvin was qualified for. What were they Will, I can't remember.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm not mistaken, UC stated that Melvin would always have a job with the company. I hope Peter's Principal is not at work. I kinda like Melvin.
Posts: 1005 | From: Grapevine, TX 76051 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dwman: If I'm not mistaken, UC stated that Melvin would always have a job with the company. I hope Peter's Principal is not at work. I kinda like Melvin.
dwman,
Surprised your background might have included knowing about the "Peter Principal". Impressive...no kidding!
Problem with Melvin is that he never qualified for application of the "Principal".
posted
To be truthful, I liked Melvin too but it was more from a shake your head and laugh kind of perspective. I don't know anything about his replacement but he has to be an improvement, at least from a corporate image viewpoint.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Surprised your background might have included knowing about the "Peter Principal". Impressive...no kidding!
Problem with Melvin is that he never qualified for application of the "Principal".
Wallace, my friend, I'll have you know that I have an eighth grade education. Went there directly from first grade. Couldn't handle it so I became a meteorologist.
The Peter Principle was first introduced by L. Peter in a humoristic book (of the same title) describing the pitfalls of bureaucratic organization. The original principle states that in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence". The principle is based on the observation that in such an organization new employees typically start in the lower ranks, but when they prove to be competent in the task to which they are assigned, they get promoted to a higher rank. This process of climbing up the hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely, until the employee reaches a position where he or she is no longer competent. At that moment the process typically stops, since the established rules of bureacracies make that it is very difficult to "demote" someone to a lower rank, even if that person would be much better fitted and more happy in that lower position. The net result is that most of the higher levels of a bureaucracy will be filled by incompetent people, who got there because they were quite good at doing a different (and usually, but not always, easier) task than the one they are expected to do.
posted
Just received this response from Vic Pankratz - Saskatchewan Financial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: "Pankratz, Vic SFSC" <vpankratz@sfsc.gov.sk.ca> FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=Add to Address Book" Add to Address Book To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Subject: RE: CMKM / CMKX Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:56:04 -0600 && &&&&&
There was no hearing because a hearing was not requested. All I can tell you is that we have been in communication with the company. Vic Pankratz
-----Original Message----- From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:09 PM To: vpankratz@sfsc.gov.sk.ca Subject: CMKM / CMKX
Mr. Pankrantz I am a shareholder of CMKM / CMKX and have been following the developments there concerning the halt of the company. The original date set for a hearing was Nov. 9, yet it has been postponed or something now. Could you explain why there was no hearing on the 9th? Did the company respond in any way? Did they ask for a continuance of the matter, or what? Your response would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance
posted
melvin gone???? thats a shame. he might not have made much sense but at least he said something to shareholders unlike the rest of this bunch. who knows maybe he was honest & couldn't front for UC anymore ========================
oh boy back up to .0002, can't buy at .0001 i bet & can't sell at .0002....another fine mess you've got me into stanley.
"Wallace, my friend, I'll have you know that I have an eighth grade education. Went there directly from first grade. Couldn't handle it so I became a meteorologist." *************************************
dwman, LMAO!! Glad you did not take my post the wrong way.
posted
Absolutely not Wallace. I enjoyed your post. I needed a laugh today.
Posts: 1005 | From: Grapevine, TX 76051 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Melvin is a lying piece of garbage. I hope he is gone, never to return. He handled himself like an unprofessional ass. He would lie when the truth would sound better, that's how stupid he is. I see addition by subtraction even if Melvin isn't replaced. I don't like him, didn't like, and never will like him. He was not honest with shareholders. When called on that, "I wish you could see what's on desk" comment, and he denied saying it, that locked the deal for me. Let's not forget "Mt. St. Helens" and "Oreo cookie". The guy is/was an embarrassment in my opinion. Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by will: Be clear then. Will/can the company publish the outcome of the investigation without fear of retaliation from SEC or not? Seems you say it would be good if they were cleared, but the SEC would frown on them publishing the results of the investigation if favorable. Leaving investors in the dark regarding the outcome. Just asking which is it?
Rather that doing your Due Diligence for you let me direct you to a repost list of companies that have been suspended, and returned to trading. Since there are so many reasons why USCA may not be issuing a PR, I thought it better to let you examine how other companies have returned to the market, and how that compares to USCA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
james55702 Diamondoligist
member is offline
Posts: 257 3 out of 150 return to OTCBB after being suspended « Thread started on: Nov 11th, 2004, 7:13pm »
No, no expert on USCA, I do have some experience in the experience though. I ask you step back into reality and check out the list of suspended OTCBB stocks since 1995 and tell me how many of them relisted back to the OTCBB. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions.shtml
Answer: 3 out of 105
Next, what was the average time frame it took for the 3 to return?
It took econnect 18 months and Golden Eagle 28 months. No data on the third. Having Roger might help, I know Golden Eagle had their own SEC Attorney and it took 28 months to be relisted and that was even after the CEO beat the SEC in court. http://tinyurl.com/5l2jb
The point I was trying to make, based on the suspension list and experience dustybutler is that the SEC does not just hand out suspensions unless there are either serious problems or the SEC has a grudge against someone in that Company.
I honestly and truly hope USCA makes history and resumes trading promptly because of my disdain for the SEC and the fact that innocent people (we shareholders) are getting screwed.
posted
. Certainly don't have to wonder about what's on his mind but I think that's a good thing.
Posts: 1005 | From: Grapevine, TX 76051 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly don't have to wonder about what's on his mind but I think that's a good thing.
I've had some experience talking to Mr. Will and you're right dw, you dont want to go there. That's one Pandora's Box best kept closed and fully locked!
posted
I received 500 shares of USCA when there was a forward split of UCAD. Watching some recent posted materials I am now under the impression that the USCA is not restricted like the parent UCAD. However, this may be from shares that are not the result of the dividend, but actually bought separate from CMKX. Perhaps these USCA shares that may not be restricted may be from a brokerage house other than Ameritrade. Any comments would be appreciated.
Posts: 6 | From: East Greenville, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
