quote:Originally posted by ed19363: And the bad part is that the SEC in this instance, is correct. NSS is entirely irrelevant to the charges faced by CMKX/UC. IMO, NSS evidence will NOT be allowed to be introduced, and, lacking that evidence, the judge has no choice but to find CMKX guilty as charged for not filing required reports. It will be interesting how the Koolaid drinkers respond to this. The SEC just kicked the last leg out from under the company. If the court convenes on May 10 as it is supposed to, CMKX is cooked well done and will be served shortly thereafter. IMO serves them right for not filing the reports we have been asking for for years. Hate to lose the money, but if that's what it takes to maintain integrity in the market, so be it.
Ed,you might want to wait until the judge rules on the subpoena. That was just the SEC's response to the subpoena request. The judge hasn't ruled yet.
IP: Logged |
quote:The fact (IMO) is that the continual manipulation of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. /CMKX affected Urban's ability to file a proper share structure without breaking the law
If that's the case then a whole lot of CEOs will be going to jail. There's many companies that complain of naked shorting yet they file as required. Did they all break the law?
IP: Logged |
Posts: 902 Registered: 22-10-2004 Member Is Online
posted on 3-5-2005 at 12:12 PM
DTCC DUMPING ON BROKERAGES IN NANOPIERCE CASE
At first, I found this judicial decision to be just another attempt to cover the DTCC and the shorts. However with further reading I noticed (in the bold area), that it appears the DTCC is dumping responsibility on the brokerages.
DTCC Applauds Court Decision To Dismiss Nanopierce Lawsuit Tuesday May 3, 11:20 am ET
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 3, 2005--The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) today applauded the decision by Nevada's Second Judicial District Court in Reno to dismiss the Nanopierce Technologies Inc. lawsuit against DTCC and its subsidiaries. The Nevada court adopted DTCC's argument that DTCC's clearing and settlement functions are subject to the oversight and approval of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and therefore, under the U.S. Constitution, cannot be challenged under state law, as Nanopierce sought to do.
As stated by Judge Brent Adams in dismissing the case, "(S)tate law may not be applied as to impose damages on (DTCC). To do this would be to forbid Defendants from doing what the SEC authorized them to do."
Nanopierce had filed the case in May 2004 seeking to hold DTCC responsible for the drop in its stock price, claiming that DTCC's Stock Borrow Program had somehow enabled brokerage firms to engage in "naked short selling" of Nanopierce shares. DTCC responded by demonstrating that its clearing and settling activities are extensively regulated by the federal government and that the specific program challenged by Nanopierce, the Stock Borrow Program, had been approved by the SEC. DTCC demonstrated that Nanopierce's attempt to use state law to forbid DTCC from utilizing this program is barred by an established legal doctrine known as federal preemption. The Nevada court agreed and dismissed the case.
"We are extremely gratified that the court agreed with us that neither DTCC nor its subsidiaries are proper defendants here," said Larry Thompson, DTCC's First Deputy General Counsel. "All of our operations are taken in accord with our SEC-approved rules and subject to strict federal regulatory oversight. The Nevada court agreed with us that plaintiffs like Nanopierce cannot attempt to use the laws of 50 states to challenge DTCC's SEC-approved operations designed to ensure stability and uniformity in clearing and settling the nation's securities transactions."
While focusing its decision on the federal preemption doctrine, the court heard extensive argument and reviewed voluminous documents regarding the Stock Borrow Program and DTCC's clearing and settlement activities.
"Plaintiffs' claims that the Stock Borrow Program results in the manufacture of artificial shares is pure invention," Thompson stated. "Only shares that are actually on deposit in a broker's account can be borrowed. We hope that Judge Adams' decision will be taken to heart and the ill-considered litigation and media campaign against DTCC will come to an end."
The judge's decision to dismiss the case against DTCC follows a series of nine other case that have been dismissed or withdrawn against DTCC.
DTCC
DTCC is the parent company for the nation's principal clearing and settling firm, National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and the nation's principal securities depository, The Depository Trust Company (DTC). NSCC is registered with the SEC to record, clear, and settle equity, bond, money market, government, mortgage-backed, insurance, and other security transactions. NSCC's services are utilized by the country's major brokerage firms, the U.S. government, the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, the American Stock Exchange, and other markets. DTC is the nation's principal securities depository. DTCC's subsidiaries are regulated by the SEC, which approves the rules under which they operate.
The Stock Borrow Program was established and approved by the SEC in 1981 to permit NSCC to borrow shares from its members and use the shares to fulfill delivery obligations where selling brokers had failed to deliver their shares. The Program, as the court found, "operates in a automated fashion without the exercise of discretion by NSCC as to whether any particular open transaction should be covered by (the Program)."
The Stock Borrow Program does not in any way release sellers from their legal obligations to complete deliveries. In addition to regulatory and enforcement action, those sellers remain subject to "buy-ins" by brokers from whom shares have been borrowed, as well as other brokers whose purchase orders remain open.
The SEC, the national exchanges and the Nasdaq regulate the activities of broker/dealers engaged in the purchase and sale of securities, including short selling.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact: The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation Stuart Z. Goldstein, 212-855-5470 sgoldstein@dtcc.com
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ed19363: And the bad part is that the SEC in this instance, is correct. NSS is entirely irrelevant to the charges faced by CMKX/UC. IMO, NSS evidence will NOT be allowed to be introduced, and, lacking that evidence, the judge has no choice but to find CMKX guilty as charged for not filing required reports. It will be interesting how the Koolaid drinkers respond to this. The SEC just kicked the last leg out from under the company. If the court convenes on May 10 as it is supposed to, CMKX is cooked well done and will be served shortly thereafter. IMO serves them right for not filing the reports we have been asking for for years. Hate to lose the money, but if that's what it takes to maintain integrity in the market, so be it.
Ed,you might want to wait until the judge rules on the subpoena. That was just the SEC's response to the subpoena request. The judge hasn't ruled yet.
If your screen name indicates anything about your profession or knowledge, then if you read all the words, you already know how the judge is going to rule. What the company is accused of is not filing. Legal or illegal, there is no middle road. I have never heard any case decided that states the defendant is PARTIALLY guilty or PARTIALLY innocent. And in this case, even if you have a small nose, it can be plainly seen that the company DID NOT FILE, and when they did, it was erroneous. Since ignorance is not a defense, then they MUST be guilty. I'm no lawyer, but I have a pretty good understanding of our legal system. IMO the judge has no choice, the facts are plain, and NSS has nothing to do with it. I truly hope I am wrong, but that's how I read it. Guilty as charged, punishment to be determined.
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed
IP: Logged |
posted
I normally try to stay out of this cat fight, but I think it's interesting that the motion is to "exclude all evidence of naked short selling..." Not "all accusations", not "alleged short selling", but "all evidence of naked short selling."
IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely correct...the SEC is saying, in effect, that they dont care if Naked short selling was a reason for not filing. They are saying the question is "Is CMKX/UC guilty or not guilty of violating the rules" FOR ANY REASON! Simple question....simple answer.... YES or NO, no middle ground.
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed
IP: Logged |
posted
Ed said: "If your screen name indicates anything about your profession or knowledge, then if you read all the words, you already know how the judge is going to rule. What the company is accused of is not filing. Legal or illegal, there is no middle road. I have never heard any case decided that states the defendant is PARTIALLY guilty or PARTIALLY innocent. And in this case, even if you have a small nose, it can be plainly seen that the company DID NOT FILE, and when they did, it was erroneous. Since ignorance is not a defense, then they MUST be guilty. I'm no lawyer, but I have a pretty good understanding of our legal system. IMO the judge has no choice, the facts are plain, and NSS has nothing to do with it. I truly hope I am wrong, but that's how I read it. [B]If your screen name indicates anything about your profession or knowledge, then if you read all the words, you already know how the judge is going to rule. What the company is accused of is not filing. Legal or illegal, there is no middle road. I have never heard any case decided that states the defendant is PARTIALLY guilty or PARTIALLY innocent. And in this case, even if you have a small nose, it can be plainly seen that the company DID NOT FILE, and when they did, it was erroneous. Since ignorance is not a defense, then they MUST be guilty. I'm no lawyer, but I have a pretty good understanding of our legal system. IMO the judge has no choice, the facts are plain, and NSS has nothing to do with it. charged, punishment to be determined." [B]"If your screen name indicates anything about your profession or knowledge, then if you read all the words, you already know how the judge is going to rule. What the company is accused of is not filing. Legal or illegal, there is no middle road. I have never heard any case decided that states the defendant is PARTIALLY guilty or PARTIALLY innocent. And in this case, even if you have a small nose, it can be plainly seen that the company DID NOT FILE, and when they did, it was erroneous. Since ignorance is not a defense, then they MUST be guilty. I'm no lawyer, but I have a pretty good understanding of our legal system. IMO the judge has no choice, the facts are plain, and NSS has nothing to do with it.
Yes ed, I have been around a couple of courtrooms. Let me try a comparison. You go to the bank today and pull some cash out of your ATM, and go shopping. At one of the stores, security collars you and takes you to the back room because you just passed a counterfeit $20. Are you guilty of counterfeiting? Should you go to prison? After all, ignorance of that bill being counterfeit is no excuse. Right?
IP: Logged |
quote:At one of the stores, security collars you and takes you to the back room because you just passed a counterfeit $20. Are you guilty of counterfeiting? Should you go to prison? After all, ignorance of that bill being counterfeit is no excuse. Right?
That's not an applicable analogy in my opinion. Ignorance of the law, or in CMKX's case, ignorance of the requirements, is no excuse. In the scenario you laid out, ignorance of the counterfeit bill would be an excuse.
IP: Logged |
posted
Guess I will point out that "I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" Note the following posts and, although denying any connection to NSS with the company subpoena just now, legal sure did push it as the reason:
Wallace's post - p.36, Apr. 28, 2005 at 20:33
Fact is folks, the SEC isn't bringing action because of NSS, but because of falsification of the Form 15. Seems to me they would have to have reasonable cause to want and get that information. Since the proceedings deal with an entirely different matter there is no reasonable cause to get it.
Wallace's post - p.37, Apr 29, 2005 at 9:24
legal reposted: "Guys and gals, to prove the naked short they need to collect as much evidence as necessary to prove their case."
NOW HEAR THIS!!!! NSS IS NOT PART OF THE CASE!!!
legal's post - p.38, Apr 29,2005 at 22:29
The orginal Form 15 carried 300 shareholders. After the recent audit discovered that number was in error, there was a correction filed amending it to 698. That was the right and proper thing to do, amending a false report when the truth became apparent.
The company position appears to be that that original number was skewed by the naked short, and that is why they are subpoenaing the appropriate documents to prove their defense.
NOTE: In no uncertain terms, legal states, "The company position appears to be that that original number was skewed by the naked short,...defense. Legal, I would suggest you, the cult, Frizzle/Frazzel and CMKX's attorney tell us why they want DTCC records if it is not for a NSS defense which has nothing to do with falsification of Form 15 and not filing 10Ks, 10Qs, etc.
Have you noticed that Maheu(sp) hasn't been heard from lately? Is he smart enough to stay out of this and keep quiet or unavailable to comment?
posted
It's going to be interesting just how much weasel wording CMKX's atty uses to try to persuade the judge as to the supposed importance of any DTCC documents. If the judge has any brains at all, she will see through the ploy and throw it out as the SEC has requested.
IP: Logged |
quote:It's going to be interesting just how much weasel wording CMKX's atty uses to try to persuade the judge as to the supposed importance of any DTCC documents.
What possible wording could they come up with that would make it admissible? If, as the SEC states, a possible naked short position has no bearing on their filing requirements, how could they get it admitted? If a massive short position is a reality, it's a separate issue for a different arena and has no impact on this case.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: originally posted by Legaleagle:
quote:At one of the stores, security collars you and takes you to the back room because you just passed a counterfeit $20. Are you guilty of counterfeiting? Should you go to prison? After all, ignorance of that bill being counterfeit is no excuse. Right?
That's not an applicable analogy in my opinion. Ignorance of the law, or in CMKX's case, ignorance of the requirements, is no excuse. In the scenario you laid out, ignorance of the counterfeit bill would be an excuse.
Thanks Upside, you beat me to it....also, note that you WOULD lose the $20. The bank whose ATM you got the bill from is NOT liable. So, as usual the little guy loses.... This case more resembles UC actually printing the bills, not getting them from an ATM.
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed
IP: Logged |
posted
Rulings against Agra-Tech and Pace American Group, both identified by the SEC as related situations or precedents:
RE: Agra-Tech:
ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrations of the securities of Agra-Tech, Incorporated, Kilimanjaro Group.Com Inc., Savannah River Group, Inc., 2KSounds Corporation, and Xunantunich, Inc., are hereby REVOKED.
RE: Pace American Group
H. As a result of the foregoing, Pace American does not have on file with the Commission (1) any audited financial statements or complete annual reports for the fiscal years ended December 31, 1991 and December 31, 1992, or (2) any quarterly or annual reports for the period from September 30, 1993, through November 22, 1995 (when the company filed a Form 15 to terminate its obligation to file periodic reports) in violation of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. IV. FINDINGS In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that it is necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors that Pace American s registration of common stock pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act be revoked.
NOTE: There is nothing mentioned about any NSS in either case, but strictly applies to the Exchange Act of 1934 and the required filing of true and appropriate documents.
IP: Logged |
posted
Upside wrote: "What possible wording could they come up with that would make it admissible?" **********************
I cannot imagine any words that could mislead the judge into admitting the DTCC information....and that assumes the DTCC is sitting still too and not saying the same thing as to it's being irrelevant (no reasonable cause to request).
Any NYSE company that did not file those very same documents (and others) with the NYSE would be promptly delisted. It has nothing to do with NSS.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't doubt that the Judge will rule against CMKX, but there are other sources that we have to prove the NS. It's just good to get the SEC on record as saying that "Evidence" may be damaging to their case. Don't forget that we still have OBO & NOBO records. If those didn't show a naked short, then we wouldn't have asked for the DTCC records.
posted
I have answered that a few times here. If you have evidence that the numbers you have received from your TA are, in fact, incorrect, then it would have been a criminal act to enter the false number.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not that well versed in the legal system but if they have that evidence, thus making it a criminal act to file, shouldn't that be admissible right off the bat then?
IP: Logged |
posted
Evidence is admissible Upside, but you always want your "best" evidence. The records from the SEC and DTCC are preferable to OBO/NOBO. So they went for those first.
IP: Logged |
posted
It doesnt matter. If they are revoked, they will have nobody to show the NSS to. For sure the SEC dont want it, and the judge wont take it either. Stick a fork in it....see ya next Tuesday.
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed
IP: Logged |
posted
oh boy...its spin time in cult land...lol. legel your argument sound like bill clinton saying he didn't think oral was sex. i guess all those other companies on nasdqa & the NYSE & OTCBB & other pinks that files & are naked shorted are breaking the law. i guess we are in for a huge run in SEC investigations of illegel files because these companies didn't include the n/s shares. oh wait, thats right i forgot, this stuff only applies to cmkx. sorry legel i take all that back, where was my head.....reality maybe?
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
What good would an OBO/NOBO list do? You can bet that Urban and company won't be on the NOBO list. Assuming he is a beneficial owner, he'll be on the OBO list which wouldnt list his holdings, right?
IP: Logged |
posted
a serious point is being missed here...first the SEC is going after cmkx because of not filing. cmkx could save a lot of trouble by filing before court, prove they want to be on the up & up, but no filing. n/s has nothing to do with the SEC's problems with cmkx but if they want to say & prove a n/s problem now is the time to file. then take everything to the judge & say ok, we filed but its false because of a n/s problem. all the n/s info they want entered then has to be included period. the trouble with that is they also have to explain all the deals, where stocks & money went, the full story behind the divy's, who they paid & what they paid them, have they found anything in the claims. why the o/s increase & how 279 billion got in the o/s from the a/s in 3 days. who owns what in the way of stocks. if ya think the SEC is upset with not filing wait till that info hits the fan. i'll bet there is jail time in that info & thats why cmkx has not filed anything & won't. revoked is in UC's best interest.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
Also, why lie on form 15 and how about all the filings that don't require o/s that they didn't file. Like the S-8's they didn't file to dilute shares like candy. Your response that it would be illegal to file false numbers only holds water to the o/s and float. But guess what its not a lie to file the numbers you issue. Other companies do it all the time. Its a dilusion the longs have to justify not filing. But still all the other filing would have been just as important to the investor. We would have seen the dilution and been able to make honest choices if they were filed. Not having to guess o/s and telling us it wasn't that high when in fact it was massive.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart.
IP: Logged |
posted
Besides they didn't have the right not to file. If they felt any number was influenced by NSS then they needed to file and include that in there filing. Refusing to file was so they could P&D plain and simple. Now they are trying to flood the court with NSS to divert the courts attention from why they are there.
Besides, nothing justifies a lie on a offical document (form 25). Don't say it was a mistake either. Your arguement is either it was a mistake or they lied on it because they had to because they would be in trouble for lies on the financail. See ho funny that is. They had to lie to keep from a lie. roflmao
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart.
IP: Logged |
Gender: Posts: 4510 -KsBradley's thoughts on the Judges rulings today! « Thread started on: Today at 17:16:03 »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What we know to be true is that the Judge has denied the subpeonas.
But......
She also stated:
"ANYONE THAT WANTS TO REQUEST THAT I RECONSIDER MY RULINGS MAY DO SO AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING ON MAY 10TH 2005"
And when the Judge asks us why we were delinquent on filing---NSS may be Forced back into the equation. We all know it is illegal to falsley file with false numbers. And being naked shorted up the wazoo, it is literally impossible to file accurately without first knowing the naked position. An open ended statement in my opinion. We are watching a Chess game folks. We saw the subpeonas and people were saying "we won", and other junk.
Now this comes out, and people are like "we lost" LOL
There are many more moves in this game. 7 days---probably 7 more moves.
IP: Logged |
posted
As I predicted, the judge is right on point. She is refusing to be detered by frivolous motions and subpoenas. Only one thing is to be determined by this meeting. CMKX is guilty by their own admission that they have not filed necessary forms. What needs to be decided is their punishment. Anything else will not be allowed into evidence, no NSS, no DTCC, nothing. IMO, it's all over but the shouting (and a drink of Koolaid).
IP: Logged |
posted
ed, it will never be over for these fanatics. Unlike you and I, they like not having information, or misleading information, so they can make up their own outcome. Even after the Judge revokes CMKX they will be forming groups, making outlandish claims of revival, and on and on and on. Jezzzz they might even tell their grandchildren how the system screwed them and how they should hold and cherrish the CMKX certs they left them because it will be vindicated and resurrected some day.
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
posted
Bobby Fisher (sp), is over in Iceland. The guy turned to be a a complete piece of crap. Maybe Urban will make him CO CO CHAIRMAN, he'l be in charge of the cocopuffs.
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
