posted
I have a theory based upon the form 15 filed.
We believed there were under 300 customers. It turned out there were many more. It could be they used a different list than originally used to prove it. Say they initially used OBO/NOBO lists of certificate holders, but the TA had issued twice that number. How could that be possible? It is the same as the 5/8 PR. When CMKX turned in the form 15 it was based on the NSS certificate holders also.
quote: Preliminary Share Numbers: Our initial reports from our group indicate ownership of over 210 billion shares of company stock and we are working on reports from 4,000 shareholders. The OBO and NOBO lists received today from the Company prove that nearly 60,000 accounts/shareholders exist in this stock. We have evidence that this number is far short of the actual number of shareholders. We need your help to prove the shares that have been sold in your company stock.
The OBO/NOBO lists must not contain the actual number. There may be people requesting certs who are not on that list. There could be 100K shareholders they have identified.
They are looking for people not contained in the list. IMO
IP: Logged |
posted
I stopped by tonight to see who was posting and what. I only read the last two pages. Is the CMKX bash pretty much all that goes on this board.
I did like the recipes for crow. I don't expect to need them. I think CMKX will do well in court and the shareholders will be well rewarded for their patience.
IMO-Debi
-------------------- 29,000 Children die of starvation every day...but not on a day of hope....Visit the CMKX Day of Hope website to learn more and to make the CMKX day of hope a reality.
IP: Logged |
1) UC on Feb 15 2003 only had 8.3% of o/s yet voted 51% as a loop hole in Nevada law according to the lawyer who said he had a right to under whats called written consent of the shareholders to vote there shares without informing them. Now legal claims that he got more shares after that but in April 2003 he locked up 600 million shares and made it seem thats all he owned. 8.3% of o/s. POINT IS, DOES HE HAVE MORE THEN THE 600 MILLION NOW since he has the right to vote your 51% without your consent?
2) March 2004 to MArch 2005 a 500 billion o/s increase. WOW massive. That avg. 2 billion shares a day over the year period. Even if half to float pinksheets double volume because of buy/sell both are posted.
3) Refuses to give share structure.
4) Refuses to give financial information.
5) Refuses to file
6) claim not to know how to run a public company and voids in financials.
7) can't figure out the difference between 300 and 689 shareholder. Thats hard to believe its a mistake.
8) Did I mention 704 billion shares and refuses to file. And S-8's don't require you to certify shares count. Not that financial require you to claim more then you issued either. Digging deep and it won't work.
9) They stole your voting rights in the Special Meeting. UC didn't own majority from the start.
10) They lied on form 15 shortly afterwards so no one could tell what they where doing.
11) They gagged the TA
12) Rosey Pr's with no supporting evidence but were carefully written so the long could come to there on conclusions which were fairytells.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart.
IP: Logged |
posted
Posted by: zeninvestor32 In reply to: None Date:5/6/2005 10:02:57 PM Post #of 40959
VERY IMPORTANT
IF we have the evidence to back a NSS and IF the judge proves objective in hearing our offer of proof on the NSS and IF she deems it relevant and IF all this comes out in a public hearing, we will indeed be writing history. IMO never has a pink sheet made it this far in possibly exposing the NSS issue for all to see. The bottom line imo is that this "game" that has been rigged for so long to rob from the individual will eventually reach the tipping point.
I, for one, am proud to be a part of this movement. We, the small people, have a legitimate chance imo to expose the greatest financial scandal in the history of the markets. This could never happened prior to the internet. This could never have happened if many small companies before hadn't fallen prey imo to the NSS and at least shined a light on the issue for all to follow. I do not know if we will win. Certainly the odds are still heavily stacked against us given the long history of failure against these enemies and the secretive, protective veil that the sec, dtc and market systems seem to so effectively perpetuate.
And yet here we are. In a public forum. With evidence that we know exists ... and much evidence that we have no idea about. What will our auditor say? What will Maheu say? What are Urban's holdings? As much as the naysayers like to beat everyone up about what a scam this is, there is MUCH information that they do NOT have. Here is just one statement that they can NOT disprove as of yet and COULD be made at the hearing:
Neil Levine: Your Honor, as cmkx's auditor, I cannot sign off on their financials when proof has been presented to me that more shares are being held than exist. It would not only violate Sarbanes Oxley, but the fundamental basics of accounting for me to knowingly approve of a false figure when share are being held by shareholders that have never been accounted for. In fact no honest or reasonable CPA could sign off on such financials without risking criminal liability. Perhaps the SEC can recommend a CPA to cmkx that is willing to risk such criminal sanctions but my ethical obligations and in fact, the law, forbid me to do so.
This is just one entrypoint. But there may be many others. We just don't know. What I DO feel I know though is that this is an awful lot of money being spent to defend the company when, if it was all just a scam, Urban had a lot less costly (and in fact far more effective) ways to close this saga out. I also have to ask why the sec has taken 11 months on this, halted us, investigated us, moved for a proceeding and it's all only over a filing that we did that was voluntary? Where's the proof that Urban has dumped hundreds of billions of shares? Seems pretty basic to me. If the SEC had proof of that, wouldn't cmkx have been shut down a lot longer than this and likely to have never reopened? Was that really all the SEC had?
Anyway, I believe this is history in the making. Factors that no hedge fund could EVER have anticipated have arisen to create the perfect storm imo. Most junior mining companies are complete BS. Most never develop a strong or coordinated shareholder base. Most never have any actual REAL assets. Most never get legitimate legal counsel. Most management will eventually just give up and move on to new companies. Most shareholders eventually give up.
But IF in fact Urban didn't truly screw the pooch with complete and utter financial recklessness. And IF in fact a NSS can comfortably be established. And IF in fact Judge Murray is open-minded enough to hear the evidence and objective enough to be shocked by it. Well then, we will carve out a new order in the markets.
For years, Big Tobacco ruled the courts and hundreds of lawsuits, one after another, were soundly defeated despite the knowing, intentional death spread and covered up by the tobacco executives. (remember The Insider?) But plaintiffs attorneys learned. And persevered. And eventually a ##### in the armor materialized. And suddenly, like a house of cards, one case after another was settled by Big Tobacco resulting in amounts numbering in the hundreds of billions of dollars. (oh yeah, by the way O'Quinn was one of the lead attorneys that broke the back of Big Tobacco - O'Quinn of the same O'Quinn pursuing the hedge funds, dtc and market makers for the NSS scandal).
We are on the edge imo of a new order in the markets if we can truly snap this Chief Judge out of the trance that the SEC and DTC have so conveniently put the markets under regarding delivery failure. A public forum. A massive, coordinated effort. And hopefully, with a little luck, a lot of facts that nobody knows about except cmkx that will bolster our case beyond contention.
To all the "foot soldiers" that have put this plan into action, I am left speechless. Even if we don't win, I am overwhelmed at the passion that people have approached this. It took a Rosa Parks to make a bold statement years ago. It is not without CRISIS that there is ever RESOLUTION. We have all put our hard earned money at risk and by NOT SELLING OUT have taken a stand to achieve not just personal freedom but a much greater liberation. I truly could NEVER have imagined this is where everything would lead just 11 months ago. And yet here we are. Win or lose, this truly is a MOVEMENT. And it will NOT end here no matter WHAT the resolution. But in all honesty, I believe it WILL be exposed here. And if so, this (relatively speaking) small group of shareholders will have achieved one of the most fascinating victories in the history of the financial markets imo. I know I've been all over the map with my opinions and thoughts but I've only spoken from my heart and given my truthful opinion. But no matter where my thoughts may HAVE been, today they are humbled. Humbled by a group of dedicated, passionate people that have stepped forward in their beliefs with astounding steadfast resolution. I bow to every one of you still holding your shares. And I pray that all this courage is rewarded a thousandfold.
Your fellow cmkx shareholder for life, zeninvestor32
IP: Logged |
posted
the idea the t/a issued shares without the company knowing it is just about as stupid as a 703 billion o/s. the company issues the shares not the t/a thus it isnt the t/a's fault they used the wrong numbers 2 yrs ago. if your a/s is 200 billion & you increase it to 500 billion because you are out of shares to issue into the market ya think maybe a light would come on that says i might be over 300 shareholders??? ya think maybe the judge will have that idea cross her mind?. if you have 7.5 billion shares issued into the market & only 10% are insider held & you need to issue more because cash flow dryed up ya think the idea of having over 300 shareholders might cross your mind? to all of a sudden 2 yrs later say opps we had almost 700 not 300 shareholders & since we want to be honest with everyone we are telling you doesn't fly. no judge will pat you on the back for being honest. they tell everyone the number of shares in the o/s, how many certs & how many in street but UC says we have no records of where the cash went, we keep imperfect records. it wont be revoked tomorrow, UC's lawyers get paid by the hr so it will drag on for a few weeks & any real info will be witheld till the last possible moment but in the end the judge will say there is nothing honest about this company & end it. hopefully barring UC from ever being involved with another public company for life.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
AP Reports: E-Trade Makes Ameritrade Offer Monday May 9, 9:20 am ET E-Trade Makes Offer for Rival AmeriTrade, Which Is Considering Deal for TD Waterhouse, Reports Say
NEW YORK (AP) -- In a possible consolidation of the online discount brokerage business, E-Trade Financial Corp. has made an offer for AmeriTrade Holding Corp., according to published reports Monday. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, both citing unnamed people familiar with the talks, also said AmeriTrade was already in talks about a deal with a third brokerage, TD Waterhouse Group Inc.
ADVERTISEMENT
E-Trade made an unsolicited bid to buy Ameritrade on Friday for more than $5.5 billion in a letter to its board, according to executives who spoke to the Times.
Representatives for New York-based E-Trade and Omaha-based Ameritrade, declined to comment to The Times, and The Journal said Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts could not be reached for comment. The Times said a spokesman for TD Waterhouse, which is based in New York, could not be reached for comment. TD Waterhouse is owned by Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Online brokerage firms face pressure as the stock market and trading volumes continue to be weak, never returning to the heights of day trading in the late 1990s.
In a recent research report, Michael Hecht, an analyst at Banc of America Securities, said the management of E-Trade "believes that the discount brokerage industry is ripe for consolidation and hopes to participate."
"To the extent weak equity markets put pressure on the group's economics, consolidation becomes more likely," Hecht added.
Amid fierce competition over the last several years, the commission fees that investors pay have fallen sharply, both online and off. Online brokerage firms now offer trades for as little as $8.95, and some offer 20 or more commission-free trades as an incentive to sign up with the services.
IP: Logged |
AP Reports: E-Trade Makes Ameritrade Offer Monday May 9, 9:20 am ET E-Trade Makes Offer for Rival AmeriTrade, Which Is Considering Deal for TD Waterhouse, Reports Say
NEW YORK (AP) -- In a possible consolidation of the online discount brokerage business, E-Trade Financial Corp. has made an offer for AmeriTrade Holding Corp., according to published reports Monday. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, both citing unnamed people familiar with the talks, also said AmeriTrade was already in talks about a deal with a third brokerage, TD Waterhouse Group Inc.
ADVERTISEMENT
E-Trade made an unsolicited bid to buy Ameritrade on Friday for more than $5.5 billion in a letter to its board, according to executives who spoke to the Times.
Representatives for New York-based E-Trade and Omaha-based Ameritrade, declined to comment to The Times, and The Journal said Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts could not be reached for comment. The Times said a spokesman for TD Waterhouse, which is based in New York, could not be reached for comment. TD Waterhouse is owned by Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Online brokerage firms face pressure as the stock market and trading volumes continue to be weak, never returning to the heights of day trading in the late 1990s.
In a recent research report, Michael Hecht, an analyst at Banc of America Securities, said the management of E-Trade "believes that the discount brokerage industry is ripe for consolidation and hopes to participate."
"To the extent weak equity markets put pressure on the group's economics, consolidation becomes more likely," Hecht added.
Amid fierce competition over the last several years, the commission fees that investors pay have fallen sharply, both online and off. Online brokerage firms now offer trades for as little as $8.95, and some offer 20 or more commission-free trades as an incentive to sign up with the services.
Looks like we will all end up with the same broker....LOL
IP: Logged |
posted
thanks legel..i did. why i asked is wouldn't you think insiders would list their shares? if they own so much wouldn't they want that number over 703 billion? there is no gag order except by cmkx. there is no hand to hide now, the cards have been dealt. the time for secrets is over. if names were listed maybe not but since nobody knows who has what why not add to the total? why not just post everything & if it is naked shorted the cult would be cheering & gloating, you'd have us bashers by the short hairs so to speak.
1 more thing, i wish there was an uninterested third party in the court reporting events & numbers. frizzy is looking to start a class action as soon as this is over. i know its not part of the owners group but it makes good business sence. he would be foolish to not be looking for such an opertunity. we know where the SEC stands, protect the markets interests & if they can save a few stock buyers along the way good. bashers would be looking for negitive only so groups like stockwatch would be bias. it would be nice if there was a reporter from someplace unconnected to any side sending out daily info.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
"thanks legel..i did. why i asked is wouldn't you think insiders would list their shares? if they own so much wouldn't they want that number over 703 billion? there is no gag order except by cmkx. there is no hand to hide now, the cards have been dealt. the time for secrets is over. if names were listed maybe not but since nobody knows who has what why not add to the total? why not just post everything & if it is naked shorted the cult would be cheering & gloating, you'd have us bashers by the short hairs so to speak."
The insiders cannot be represented by different attornies. They are already represented by Stoekclein since they are "insiders". Therefore they cannot be represented by Frizzell. But I agree that it is time for the whole share structure to come out. That is what tomorrow is all about for us.
IP: Logged |
posted
Frizzell is a major stockholder himself. He'll have plenty of money after he proves the naked short. Probably won't ever have to work again IMO
IP: Logged |
USCA -- U.S. Canadian Minerals, Inc. Com ($0.001)(New)
FORM 3 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
INITIAL STATEMENT OF BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES OMB APPROVAL OMB Number: 3235-0104 Expires: January 31, 2005 Estimated average burden hours per response... 0.5
Filed pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 17(a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 or Section 30(h) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
1. Name and Address of Reporting Person * NEVADA MINERALS INC 2. Date of Event Requiring Statement (MM/DD/YYYY) 8/1/2004 3. Issuer Name and Ticker or Trading Symbol U S CANADIAN MINERALS INC [USCA]
(Last) (First) (Middle) 4955 S. DURANGO SUITE 218 4. Relationship of Reporting Person(s) to Issuer (Check all applicable) _____ Director __ X __ 10% Owner _____ Officer (give title below) _____ Other (specify below)
(Street) LAS VEGAS,?NV? 89113
(City) (State) (Zip) 5. If Amendment, Date Original Filed (MM/DD/YYYY)
6. Individual or Joint/Group Filing (Check Applicable Line) _ X _ Form filed by One Reporting Person ___ Form filed by More than One Reporting Person
Table I - Non-Derivative Securities Beneficially Owned 1.Title of Security (Instr. 4) 2. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned (Instr. 4) 3. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 5) 4. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 5) Class A Preferred 10000 D
Table II - Derivative Securities Beneficially Owned ( e.g. , puts, calls, warrants, options, convertible securities) 1. Title of Derivate Security (Instr. 4) 2. Date Exercisable and Expiration Date (MM/DD/YYYY) 3. Title and Amount of Securities Underlying Derivative Security (Instr. 4) 4. Conversion or Exercise Price of Derivative Security 5. Ownership Form of Derivative Security: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 5) 6. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 5) Date Exercisable Expiration Date Title Amount or Number of Shares
Explanation of Responses:
Reporting Owners
Reporting Owner Name / Address Relationships Director 10% Owner Officer Other NEVADA MINERALS INC 4955 S. DURANGO SUITE 218 LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 X
Signatures
John E. Dhonau, President Nevada Minerals, Inc. 5/9/2005 ** Signature of Reporting Person Date
Reminder: Report on a separate line for each class of securities beneficially owned directly or indirectly. * If the form is filed by more than one reporting person, see Instruction 5(b)(v). ** Intentional misstatements or omissions of facts constitute Federal Criminal Violations. See 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 78ff(a). Note: File three copies of this Form, one of which must be manually signed. If space is insufficient, see Instruction 6 for procedure. Persons who respond to the collection of information contained in this form are not required to respond unless the form displays a currently valid OMB control number.
posted
the problem with what andy says is the memory of a guy named melvin. all us bashers could be wrong UC might have bought a very large number of the o/s or had someone do it for him. it is possible but his history & known facts and figures say otherwise & the only hope cmkx shareholders have is attached to that hope. there is a part of me that hopes a huge naked short is proven, with the cult & all the publicity it would bring something would have to be done to clear the extended shorts up. some naked shorting is needed to keep the penny market flowing but they need to be covered in a reasonable amount of time say 5 to 10 trading days. it would also make it harder for scam stocks to find marketmakers to trade them. but to put that hope in UC??? the guy that said we didn't keep good records? we cant rebuild financials?? they thought the derby winner had long odds...lol
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
ok here is a company that has been listed in almost every article about n/s'ing. lawyers & everything involved & here is a 10QSB released today. why is it ok for them to list a share count & not worry about it being called illegel but cmkx can't? this company even sued the SEC.
posted
I just found out I own 900,000,000,000 shrs....Somebody gave them to me, ya think it was U/C trying to hide um...Is Spitzer gonna come after me?.............I'll tell um it was payment for my restricted shares...
IP: Logged |
posted
johnny, sorry pal it don't work that way. your post about cede is incorrect. cede is street read cmkx's clarifacation a little better
======================
Shares Outstanding and Stockholders of Record.
In the March 4, 2005 press release, the Company disclosed it had 703,518,875,000 shares of common stock issued and outstanding to approximately 2,032 stockholders of record (excluding shares held in "street name").
Several stockholders have raised concern over what the previous statement actually means. The issued and outstanding share number includes all shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of March 4, 2005, including those held by stockholders in their respective brokerage accounts and/or other nominee names.
A stockholder of record is a person/entity that holds an actual certificate for shares of the Company's common stock in its name. Therefore, the Company has 2,032 stockholders that hold certificates in their own name.
"Street name" refers to shares held in a person's/entity's brokerage or other trading account. The majority of these shares are typically shown on stockholder lists as being held in CEDE & CO. The Company is not aware of how many stockholders have shares held in "street name", but the Company's stockholder list as of March 4, 2005 had 407,321,106,308 shares held in CEDE & CO.
those are not certs. you cant add the cede & OG street together, that double counting
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
Still doesn't matter, UC doesn't have to own 51% to vote 51% and didn't in the past. All I am saying is since we know he doesn't need to own the shares then how many does he own? The 600 million he locked up? Who know because he refuses to give share structure. So the OG may have to own 702 billion for all we know before NSS can be proven. IF UC WOULD RELEASE INFORMATION, then we wouldn't have to guess.
EX-5 3 opinion.htm OPINION RE: LEGALITY DVORAK & ASSOCIATIES Attorneys and Counselors at Law ______________________________________________________________________________
136 Arbor Way Henderson, Nevada 89074 PO. Box 230656 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 (702) 794-4992 (Fax) (702) 794-4532 bdvorak@lvcm.com
January 12, 2003
Board of Directors Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc. 3887 Pacific Street Las Vegas, Nevada
Re: Opinion of Counsel Respecting certain Shareholder Actions
Gentlemen:
I am an attorney to practice law in the State of Nevada. I have been asked to render an opinion as to whether certain actions may be taken at a shareholders meeting held without notice with the consent of a majority of the corporation shareholders. Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc. is a Nevada corporation and is thus governed by Nevada law.
In connection with the matter I have examined relevant records and documents and have examined such relevant law, as I have deemed necessary to render the following opinion.
The actions proposed to be taken at the shareholders meeting on January 15, 2003 are as follows:
a) adopting amended bylaws
b) amendments to the corporate charter
c) ratifying majority share acquisitions
d) electing directors and ratifying officer appointments
e) approving investment banking and other financings
f) approving shares issued by the corporate to date.
Nevada section 78.320 states:
2. Unless otherwise provided in the articles incorporation or the bylaws, any action required or permitted to be taken at a meeting of the stockholders may be taken without a meeting if, before or after the action, a written consent thereto is signed by stockholders holding at lease a majority of the voting power, except that if a different proportion of voting power is required for such an action at a meeting, then that proportion of written consents is required.
3. In no instance where action is authorized by written consent need a meeting of stockholders be called or notice given.
Nevada section 78.390
(b) At the meeting, of which notice must be given to each stockholder to vote pursuant to the provisions of this section, a vote of the stockholders entitled to vote in person or by proxy must be taken for and against the proposed amendment. If it appears upon the canvassing of the votes that stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, as provided in subsections 2 and 4, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation, have voted in favor of the amendment, an officer of the corporation shall sign a certificate setting forth the amendment, or setting forth the articles of incorporation as amended, and the vote by which the amendment was adopted.
The actions listed above to be taken are all such that would be regularly voted upon at a shareholders meeting and/or meet the requirements for amending the articles of a Nevada corporation.
It is thus my opinion that the items listed above may be voted upon at a meeting of shareholders of Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc. held without notice to which written consent of in excess of 51% of the shareholders is received.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Brian Dvorak Brian Dvorak, Esq.
[ May 09, 2005, 19:43: Message edited by: Ric ]
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart.
IP: Logged |
posted
signed off that he only held 600 million or 8.3% on Jan. 15 2003. Better read.
The following Table sets forth the Common Stock ownership information as of January 15, 2003, with respect to (i) each person known to the Company to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company's Common Stock, (ii) each director of the Company, (iii) each person intending to file a written consent to the adoption of the Amendment described herein, and (iv) all directors, executive officers and designated shareholders of the Company as a group. This information as to beneficial ownership was furnished to the Company by or on behalf of each person named. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each person listed is 1481 West Warm Springs Road, Suite 133, Las Vegas, NV 89014.
Table 1. Beneficial Ownership (a)
Shares Beneficially Owned Percent of Class
Urban Casavant (1)(2)(3) 600,000,000 8.3%
Casavant Family As A Group (2)(4)(5) 170,300,000 2.4%
In April 2003 he still only had 600 million shares. Only 8.3% of total o/s.
Share Lockup Agreement
This Share Lockup Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this ___ day of April, 2003 by and between Urban Casavant, an individual resident in the State of Nevada (hereinafter referred to as "Casavant"), Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, a Nevada corporation ("CMKI"), and Thomas C. Cook and Associates, Ltd., a Nevada professional law corporation (hereinafter referred to as "TCC").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Casavant currently is an affiliate of CMKI, by virtue of the fact that he is currently the president of CMKI and is the holder of record of six hundred million (600,000,000) common shares of CMKI, represented by certificate number 5171 (the "Shares"); and
WHEREAS, Casavant and CMKI believe that it would be in the best interests of CMKI and its shareholders for the Shares to be held in escrow for a period of time; and
WHEREAS, Casavant and CMKI have mutually chosen to utilize TCC as the Escrow Agent.
-------------------------------------------
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands this ___ day of April, 2003.
Urban Casavant, an individual Thomas C. Cook and Associates, Ltd., ("Casavant") a Nevada professional corporation
("TCC")
By: /s/ Urban Casavant By: /s/ Thomas c. Cook Urban Casavant Thomas C. Cook, Esq., President Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, a Nevada corporation ("CMKI")
By: /s/ Urban Casavant Urban Casavant, President
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart.
IP: Logged |
posted
UC didn’t own 51% when he started voting 51% in Feb 15, 2003. He only owned 8.3% and used a Nevada law to vote your shares without his permission. Below are letters to lawyer to steal your vote. Feb 15 special meeting were he states he only has 8.3% of shares then April share lockup where he still states he only owns 8.3% of shares. Heres why its going to be revoked.
1) UC on Feb 15 2003 only had 8.3% of o/s yet voted 51% as a loop hole in Nevada law according to the lawyer who said he had a right to under whats called written consent of the shareholders to vote there shares without informing them. Now legal claims that he got more shares after that but in April 2003 he locked up 600 million shares and made it seem thats all he owned. 8.3% of o/s. POINT IS, DOES HE HAVE MORE THEN THE 600 MILLION NOW since he has the right to vote your 51% without your consent?
2) March 2004 to MArch 2005 a 500 billion o/s increase. WOW massive. That avg. 2 billion shares a day over the year period. Even if half to float pinksheets double volume because of buy/sell both are posted.
3) Refuses to give share structure.
4) Refuses to give financial information.
5) Refuses to file
6) claim not to know how to run a public company and voids in financials.
7) can't figure out the difference between 300 and 689 shareholder. Thats hard to believe its a mistake.
8) Did I mention 704 billion shares and refuses to file. And S-8's don't require you to certify shares count. Not that financial require you to claim more then you issued either. Digging deep and it won't work.
9) They stole your voting rights in the Special Meeting. UC didn't own majority from the start.
10) They lied on form 15 shortly afterwards so no one could tell what they where doing.
11) They gagged the TA
12) Rosey Pr's with no supporting evidence but were carefully written so the long could come to there on conclusions which were fairytells.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart.
IP: Logged |
posted
what Ric is posting says that could have been signed at any time even back in 1998 all that had to be done is transfer articles from 1 to the next thus that right to vote transfers. which explains why at the last known share structure insiders held 10% but had the vote without telling the rest of the shareholders.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
