CEO OF PINK SHEETS MAKES PLEA TO END NAKED SHORTING???
Dear OTC Investor:
I am writing to alert you of a very important rule change that is needed to improve the OTC marketplace. I need your help to make regulators turn on the lights and protect investors from the menace of hidden short selling in the OTC market.
I think you'll agree that this issue deserves the small amount of your time it will take for you to tell the SEC what you think about this issue.
As Chairman & CEO of the Pink Sheets, I know perhaps better than anyone the importance of improving the Pink Sheets and OTCBB trading. And I know the devastating impact that small companies face when their market is tarnished by the threat of manipulation.
There is a crisis facing the OTC market today in the lack of short sale position reporting and disclosure for OTC issues. This lack of transparency regarding short selling in the OTC market allows fraudulent acts to go undiscovered and manipulative short sellers to hide.
I believe regulators should fix the problem. Small issuers traded on the Pink Sheets and the OTCBB deserve the same transparency and regulatory oversight of short selling as those listed on Exchanges or NASDAQ.
Therefore, Pink Sheets has petitioned the SEC to cause the amendment of NASD Rule 3360 and require NASD broker dealers to maintain a record of total "short" positions in all customer and proprietary firm accounts in all publicly traded equity securities as well as report this information to the NASD for public dissemination of the short positions by security. The SEC's action is urgently needed to prevent fraudulent acts, expose market manipulation, promote fair principles of trade and protect investors.
But I cannot make this important rule change happen without your help. Thus I'm asking you to write a letter today, and voice your support to the SEC for the Pink Sheets' Request for Rulemaking Regarding Member Records of "Short" Positions and Reporting and Public Dissemination.
So please send your comments via Email to: rule-comments@sec.gov with a Cc: copy to: pubcom@nasd.com
Or, if it's more convenient, you can mail your comments to:
Jonathan G. Katz Secretary, Securities Exchange Commission 450 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20549
With a copy to:
Barbara Z. Sweeney Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary, NASD 1735 K Street, NW Washington DC 20006-1500;
Either way, your Email or letter should refer to SEC File No. 4-500. Request for Rulemaking Regarding Member Records of "Short" Positions and Reporting and Public Dissemination of Aggregate Positions by Security.
I know I'm asking you to do a lot. But it's important that we make the OTC market transparent and fairly regulated. I think you'll agree that this issue deserves the small amount of your time to tell the SEC what you think about this issue.
Remember, the only way to succeed in achieving this rule change is through the public outcry of investors demanding the SEC make this needed improvement to the OTC markets, and there is no substitute for your personal voice in this debate. This important rule change is not going to happen if you remain silent.
So please, don't rely on others to get the job done. Write your Emails or letters today. Together, we must win this battle and convince the SEC not to treat the OTC secondary markets for small companies as second class citizens.
Without this rule change investors and securities regulators will be blind to any short selling activity in Pink Sheets and OTCBB stocks. The SEC needs to know that the lack of short sale information in your securities is unacceptable and demand they change NASD Rule 3360 immediately.
I'm asking for your help to improve this critical part of the securities market, so that companies like yours will be traded in transparent, efficient and well regulated OTC markets. Please do your part by writing your Email or letter today. Every voice counts in the debate, and yours could be the one that puts us over the top.
Thank you for your time and help in this fight.
Sincerely,
R. Cromwell Coulson Chairman & CEO
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
One of our staff with The Green Baron Report was able to sit in the courtroom and view all the proceedings at the hearing Tuesday, May 10, 2005 in Los Angeles. The SEC is trying to make a case to deregister the common shares of CMKX stock against the wishes of the Company, or its shareholder group organized and represented by attorney Mr. Bill Frizzell.
Here are some general notes we gathered from the hearing. Although Mr. Frizzell was not able to enter evidence at this time regarding the naked short issue, his involvement has been vital to this case and his continued work is extremely important going forward for the shareholders to prove manipulation and naked shorting of CMKX (more on this later). Several people that were thought to be supportive to CEO Urban Casavant appear to have had ulterior motives. USCA CEO Rendal Williams was less than honest on the stand when he claimed that USCA's halt just prior to the CMKX shareholder appreciation party did not have any effect on plans to make announcements at the event. It remains a big question what exactly Ed Dhonau and Roger Glenn brought to the table to help CMKM Diamonds. The accountant hired by CMKX to file to become fully reporting resigned the day before the hearing and nearly nothing to show for his payment of at least $70,000. We also heard some other names that we will be researching in the near future that appear to have steered CMKX the wrong way.
It is evident that CMKX has maintained some sloppy bookkeeping, but the DTCC and market makers' trading activities may be equally or more questionable. Mr. Bill Frizzell is very confident that shareholders will be redeemed so long as they remain focused and supportive of his efforts. A new document now appears on the website at http://www.cmkxownersgroup.com/ titled Jeffries Letter that opens the door to perhaps some unscrupulous trading activities.
IMPORTANT: Mr. Frizzell has asked that all shareholders fax copies of their CMKX positions from brokerage statements to his office at (903)595-4249 at some point over the next week (the sooner the better) in an effort to prove without doubt there is a huge naked short position on CMKX. More information regarding this can be found under the icon Naked Short Fax Campaign at the shareholders attorney website at http://www.cmkxownersgroup.com/
The judge has until July 15 to make her final ruling and Mr. Frizzell says there are many avenues the Company can take over this time and beyond that will benefit the shareholders. The Green Baron Report must remain somewhat hushed on CMKX until more information surfaces regarding the potential of its land claims and the entire case. We hope CMKX will be able to file all required documents to be fully reporting by July 15, and we encourage the Company to do so.
quote:CMKX DAYS TRADING SLOWED TO ONLY 929 MILLION. THAT'S LESS THAN WILLY'S PORTFOLIO. LOL
And it's 929 million more than mine. After almost two years of this, I'm happy to say I am out.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hold the door, Upside, I'm right behind you. They can take this whole mess and shove it.
Posts: 1772 | From: Oxford, PA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
well unless i read that letter wrong & since i read it 3 times i dont think so it said that was a report of all the trades & that they were clearing but not reporting to the Big Tape. if i'm not mistaken that is the daily volume we see every day & since they had to go thru under 10 million explains all those 9.9 million trades. nowhere in it does it say where those shares came from, just says a broker/dealer. that broker could be where cmkx dumped the shares into the market. that broker/dealer might be UC's market connection. i am glad to see frizzy is looking into who jeff was getting the shares from but i wouldn't be too suprized if they were coming straight from UC. notice the first sentence of the fourth paragraph..."from a trade reporting perspective." in the fifth paragraph right after the total number it says "failed to report to tape". the last sentence before the if you have any questions says it will ensure they get reported to tape. no place does it say they did not clear. last sentence, third paragraph states "from a settlement perspective, these ex-clearing trades settled without incident". in other words if jeff was selling NSS they would not settle but they would report to tape. in this case it worked the other way around, they settled but never reported. which again suggests these shares came straight from cmkx.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
UPSIDE, you sold you peice of the cmkx pie????!!!!! are you crazy???? those certs would be collector items...lol
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
missed the whole day so i need to catch up on my bashing, close to being back to paid basher status & dont want to mess up now...lol
the judge not allowing valuation evidence would be normal. this trail is about not reporting. its not about the value of the claims, its not about how many shares are in the market, thus no float info. its about why didn't UC call his t/a before filing a form 15 & can cmkx even file at all period. the judge said right from the start she was not going to clutter this up with things that did not deal with filing or not filing. so far it seems she did just that. she did bend a bit in letting frizzy give her any NS proof he had thus keeping the cult hopes alive.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bill, thanks for the explanation. When I first read it I wasn't sure just what the ramifications were. I saw it was the period during the run. It doesn't tell you who JEFF's customer's were, but my first thought was UC.
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
no problem will...lol i'm here to keep you straight on things. we cant have you confused...lol
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of you have already presented logical and meaningful explanations for the volumes in the Jeff report. My first reaction was the same as Glassman's with reference to UC/CMKX selling shares through Jeff's client brokers.
The one thing I found strange, is at the bottom of each page was the date Feb. 08, 2001 while all the information was supposedly for 2004.
I do think Bill made a pretty good explanation of the end result of that whole thing....that settlements were made without incident.
Legal, made other comments earlier which I will address separately.
PS: I am betting Fizzle is now in the process of setting this thing up for future litigation. The problem is that he favors UC and CMKX and will likely go after the wrong parties. I would not touch him with a ten foot pole....with or without another $$$$$ contribution to him.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the long position could have been a hedge fund who borrowed them from the DTC. Or a fund who bought billions at .0001 over a long period.
Uh could we borrow a few, say 111 billion which is legal if registered shares exist to cover them. They sell them at .0007 and the pps plummets.
If the buys were in the billions and sells in the millions don't we think the pps should have risen instead of falling?
I doubt this was the company because they would have benefited more from a volume rise taking the pps to a penny and then diluting. That is what should have happened.
Urbans pump and dump was short circuited by an equally dangerous sell them to helllll.
This sounds like a Don King promotion, in this corned pump and dump urban vs hedge fund louis the king of the short.
So they short sell it at .0007 or whatever from the dtcc and buy them back and cover at .00006. They may not have been using fake shares. They could have bought real shares at .0001 and waited til the rise and the time to dump them forcing the pps down. What a bunch of businessmen.
What a bunch of suckers we are. Small investors don't have a chance in heckville.
Posts: 660 | From: Kansas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
The one thing I found strange, is at the bottom of each page was the date Feb. 08, 2001 while all the information was supposedly for 2004.
glassman:
i saw that too, but i think it's just the fax machine not programmmed properly....(i still can't program my VCR ) d'oh we retired the VCR (except for "certain" movies)
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
JR, i think you are beginning to see what i've SUSPECTED for quite awhile...i can't prove it obviously, but i think the shareholders got caught in the middle here...
i bet the "fund" got them for more like .00007...
i watched too many .0001 trades go thru for about 6 months in the first half of '04
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
L: If CMKX had not provided any information to the Auditor Levine, why would they call him as a witness?
ANS: Stupidity, damn it, stupidity!
L: And it was CMKX that called him, not the SEC?
ANS: As I recall, it was FizzleFrazzle who listed him as a witness. FizzleFrazzle is NOT "the Company". Of course, he and the OG people do think that way, huh?
L: Second question, if there are no financial records available for the company, how did they file their corporate Federal taxes each of the last several years?
ANS: What makes you so sure they did? And, if they did, what makes you so sure "evasion" was not involved?
L: With all of the govt. agencies watching CMKX and Casavant, wouldn't you think Urban would already be in jail for evasion if this hadn't been done?
ANS: Not particularly. Maybe they had none of the evidence now provided so had no reason to question purported tax filings. Now, THEY DO!!
L: Regardkess bill, if Levine had been given no records, why would the company call him as a witness?
ANS: See above ANS.
L: Oh, I'll probably have some more posts today ed. Actually there were two questions. Still waiting for answers.
ANS: Now you have those answered. How about answering the about 30 to which you have not responded. Please go back and do so.
L: BTW, many are posting that D Roger Glenn didn't do anything for the company since he only turned in a one page letter. If any think that that is all he gave the company, please know that over 8 months, one piece of paper would not cover the billing statement, not to mention the Sask meeting, the Ecuador trip, and the dividend issues. cover the billing statement, not to mention the Sask meeting, the Ecuador trip, and the dividend issues.
ANS: You answered that one yourself in less than 1 full sentence...."cover the billing statement, not to mention the Sask meeting, the Ecuador trip, and the dividend issues."
L: As long as it's Q & A day at Allstocks, why did the SEC prevent valuation information from being given when CMKX was trying to establish it?
ANS: Because no one there, including your friend and confidant-UC, are qualified to answer it. Remember, UC once marketed fishing lures for suckers!
L: Hmmmm, was that in the shareholders best interest?
ANS: What and mislead shareholders all the more with outrageous claims about "potential" from non-experts?
L: Frizzell: "It was frustrating to see the judge exclude Mr. Stoecklein’s offer of evidence of the evaluation of various properties. Ed Dhonau was to testify about the value of the claims in Canada and the value of the gold mining operations in Ecuador."
ANS: See immediately above. And Ed Dhonau does not appear to be the most trustworthy of people as well as having no expertise in valuing mining properties.
L: I would think they would have asked him some qualifying questions before "disqualifying" him.
ANS: And I would think you would have known he was not "qualified"!
L: I am sure the SEC, like so many others, know that Ed Dhonau is a major player in this company.
ANS: The SEC was already informed about Ed Dhonau since he or his name has come up before them under other circumstances in serious question about securties trading and alleged scams. Does the name "Hackman" (a lawyer) ring any kind of bell, legal?
L: In the pursuit of "truth and justice" (LOL) by the shareholders' government "champion", I think the exploration of valuation would have been good from any source that closely connected with the company.
ANS: Valuation of claims has nothing to do with the charges brought against CMKX. "Good from any source"? It could only have been an exaggeration, but still meaningless. Shareholders would then "run with it".
L: How would valuation information have been prejudicial to a charge of lack of filing?
ANS: Answered above. You are answering your very own question.
Sorry for the length folks, but it took me a while to catch up and respond to a bunch of nonsense.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with bill, I am not sure what legal is getting hyped up about. Looks to me it was a reporting issue only. It was all the trades over 10 million wasn't reported to the "Big Tape". Whats the big deal now. Jeff said he was sorry and the SEC said they didn't think CMKX was NSS. It still would be funny if it was short 111 billion after they claimed trillions of NSS. Still don't know for sure if it has NSS or not. 704 billion shares by UC is enough to handle IMO.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think the Levine issue is nothing more then UC's why of getting out of jail. Hope it doesn't work. When the SEC comes after him in a criminal hearing then he can say. I hired people to do the filings but they couldn't get it done because of voids in the records. I tried, I swear but its there fault.
Not the real issue. I am hiding or destroyed the records because I don't want to go to jail.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
L: "With all of the govt. agencies watching CMKX and Casavant, wouldn't you think Urban would already be in jail for evasion if this hadn't been done?"
ANS: I sure do hope there ARE many govt. agencies watching CMKX and Casavant....expecially the FBI and the IRS. Do you have any specific knowledge about their activities surrounding the subject, legal? That would be wonderful! Please post in detail.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case some forgot, just a few of the many tidbits about Dhonau, Williams and their illustrious backgrounds in both mining valuations, other adventures, etc.:
U.S. Canadian Minerals is still far outpacing the accomplishments of its two earlier incarnations, E-Bait Inc. and Barrington Foods International Inc.
E-Bait was being reeled in by Barrington Foods in a reverse takeover Barrington Foods, promoted as a purveyor of powdered soy-based milk products, was headed by Mr. Williams, now serving as chief executive officer of U.S. Canadian Minerals.
According to an Oct. 29, 2001, registration statement filed with the SEC, at least two people with connections to U.S. Canadian Minerals and associated companies were also early participants in Barrington Foods; specifically, lawyer Brian Dvorak and, perhaps more significantly, John E. (Ed) Dhonau.
In late 2003, Barrington Foods abandoned its vaunted soy project and vaulted into the mining business, changing its name to U.S. Canadian Minerals in January of this year.
The first beneficiary of Mr. Williams's share-issuing acquisition strategy was Nevada Minerals, headed by Mr. Dhonau.
Mr. Dhonau, once the recipient of the Charlie Hustle award from one of his employers, also played a role in Voyager Entertainment International Inc., an OTC company with an interesting history. Among other things, Voyager Entertainment featured the rather significant involvement of serial stock manipulator Barclay Davis and his wife Loretta Davis.
Perhaps not surprisingly given his numerous business associations, Mr. Dhonau has been involved in a number of lawsuits, on occasion as plaintiff and other times as a defendant.
He also ran afoul of Ohio securities regulators for selling unregistered securities and was the subject of a 1998 cease and desist order.
Mr. Dhonau's brush with Ohio regulators pales in comparison with the regulatory and law enforcement woes of some individuals with whom he has been directly and indirectly associated.
For example, Mr. Davis and his wife Loretta, participants in Voyager Entertainment in which Mr. Dhonau played a role, were tagged with a $3-million disgorgement order obtained by the SEC in an unrelated matter in 1998. That was not the end of Mr. Davis's woes.
On Sept. 26, 2002, a Nevada judge sentenced Mr. Davis to 30 months in prison for his 1993 to 1997 rig job of Combined Companies International Corp. Among other things, the Combined Companies stock fraud included bribed brokers, false audit reports, bogus S-8 stock issuances to consultants and illegal use of nominee accounts. The sentence also took into consideration Mr. Davis's plan to have a witness injured to prevent him from testifying against him.
There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Dhonau had even the slightest clue about the dastardly deeds of Mr. Davis.
Similarly, there is no indication that Mr. Dhonau had any knowledge of the alleged criminal activity of Canadian Laurent Barnabe, a third party defendant in a Nevada civil lawsuit featuring Mr. Dhonau as both a primary defendant and third party plaintiff.
While that lawsuit was wending its way through the judicial system, Mr. Barnabe was arrested by the FBI in connection with an unrelated matter. On Jan. 5 of this year, a 75-page superseding grand jury indictment was unsealed in Oregon charging Mr. Barnabe, Gilbert Ziegler, Robert Skirving, Rita Regale and Douglas Ferguson with 147 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud for their alleged roles in defrauding investors of at least $206-million in connection with the massive First International Bank of Grenada scam.
The charges against Mr. Barnabe and his alleged associates, which stem from a five-year investigation, include one count of conspiracy, 22 counts of mail fraud, 19 counts of wire fraud, 103 counts of engaging in transactions with proceeds of crime, and one count each of money laundering conspiracy and forfeiture.
Mr. Barnabe, recently released on bail, denies the allegations and has pled innocent.
In the same vein, there is nothing to indicate that Mr. Dhonau knew anything at all about the less than reputable activities and alleged activities of disbarred, SEC-suspended and subsequently indicted lawyer Shawn Hackman, who served as secretary and treasurer of four Nevada companies headed by Mr. Dhonau: Horizon Prime Inc.; Red Bluff Corp.; Silver Stream Corp.; and Western Sky Inc.
Again, my aplogies for the length, but with legal around you must be well accustomed to lengthy posts. LOL
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Again, my aplogies for the length, but with legal around you must be well accustomed to lengthy posts."
Yes, but unlike this one, his aren't worth reading.
Come to think of it, I haven't seen a repost from any of the wordy winbags. Dr D, Zen, Sterling, and the likes.
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. Posts: 4893 | From: Burbank IL USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also as a point of information and maybe additional research are the possibilities that either Dhonau or Woodward were required to file with the SEC as "beneficial shareholders" of CMKX. Wasn't something said somewhere that Woodward held a pile of CMKX stock? 5% or more?
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
well wallace again we agree...claim value has nothing to do with these charges as i posted earlier. it would just clutter up the courts time & have no value in the findings. now if the charge was lying on claim value in prs that would be differant. again why we bashers have said all along, the 1 old drill rig was so that UC could put out prs about drilling & looking for diamonds. it made those prs legel. just like the diamond find pr...no size or amount no real report from a geologist just, the sample was diamondferious which was a true statement it was. only the fact that it was 2 tiny flecks the size of a pencil point dot on a paper was left out. why do you think even the SEC never asked for a share structure? it had nothing to do with the charges & why they objected to claim value.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Posts: 94 Re: Jefferies letter posted on OG site « Reply #131 on: Today at 1:44pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm about to type out a paragraph fromthe letter that should have anyone scratching their heads. I'll break up the paragraph so you can see the parts within it that give conflicting lame excuses.
"Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the firm, from a trade reporting perspective these Ex-Clearing trades presented a problem. As you may know, there is a size limitation on ACT so that any single transaction of greater than 10 million shares automatically rejects on ACT. The firm had built a propietary system so that any orders greater than 10 millin shares was submitted in component part of less than 10 million shares first through BRASS (our front end system) and then to ACT for (a) clearing and (b) Tape reporting purposes (called "The Big Report"). In short the Big Report allows trades over ten million shares to be accepted rather than rejected by ACT.
~~Here's the doozie~~>>" However, when the firms traders entered the "Ex CLearing Order" they failed to enter the trades larger than 10 million shares on The Big Report." ~~oh really??.....why??~~ >> "The traders mistakenly believed that since these trades were 'Ex Clearing', the ACT limit would not affect their tape report."
~~ So JEFF, you set up this elaborate system to account for Ex-Clearing trades over 10 million, then I would think you see you account way out of balance early on, and you do even notice or ask why there are no trades over 10 million showing on your esteemed ACT system?? Good Lord JEfferies, you define insulting a person's intelligence with that excuse.~~
~~But wait, their is another lame excuse~~The paragraph's next sentence>>
"We now know that Ex-Clearing trades over 10 million shares were rejected by ACT."
~~so which excuse is it, INTENTIONAL trader entry error & gross daily oversite on your part, or system error? But wait JEFF, how can it be system error if they weren't putting the numbers in anyway as you just said 1 sentence ago?? So now you are trying to tell us you had 2 things in place to hide naked short trades trades, or is the above just a silly 6 month coinsidence?? It goes on~~>>
"While BRASS has a pop up system to alert the trade procession area that an order has been rejected by ACT, the pop must to activated by the member firm utilizing BRASS. The firm had not turned on this pop up feature during this time frame."
~~I know the grammar isn't good, but that is how the letter reads in these sentences. Okaaay, so Door number 3 is that nasty popup feature wasn't working. We're going to blame it on that. Why have a pop-up in the first place if you have worked to set up a system to account for trades over 10 million??
Why would you be so naive to offer three excuses in this letter?? You mean to tell me that something as serious as setting up a system to balance your books, then watching it fail for 6 months isn't suspicious Then to have 3 excuses and not be able to identify any of these after the first day or two of out-of-balance trading?? They are very simple causes to detect.
Soooo, we work at JEFF and see a short sell trade for 30,000,000 shares. We see that it's not accounted for properly, then see out of balance trading day after ut of balance trading day go by for 6 months...and DO NOTHING.
Please. What is a word beyond corrupt and insulting? What ever that word is, that is what we have been subject to from CMKX and the MM's.
I would like to know the 2 "broker-dealer customers" mention in the 3rd paragraph as well. Don't they have an obligation to report their identity to the SEC as part of this record?
Eye yi yi. What a week.
About now, I think we all need to watch about 3 hours of liquor fueled mudwrestling.
posted
He made a couple good points but that guy was basically an idiot. Why re-post such garbage. You may put a theory on this all you want but this was long sells not short and was covered. They didn't report it when it was over 10 million. If that was against SEC rules then the SEC can impose a penalty but it says nothing to NSS. And could even be shares UC is selling for all we know. But Guess what. It would only be a guess.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ric, give the guy a break!~! At least he got the following part right:
"What is a word beyond corrupt and insulting? What ever that word is, that is what we have been subject to from CMKX..."
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ric: He made a couple good points but that guy was basically an idiot. Why re-post such garbage. You may put a theory on this all you want but this was long sells not short and was covered. They didn't report it when it was over 10 million. If that was against SEC rules then the SEC can impose a penalty but it says nothing to NSS. And could even be shares UC is selling for all we know. But Guess what. It would only be a guess.
Ric, you are calling this guy an idiot, yet you apparently failed to even read the letter if you think these trades were settled.
Check page three, second paragraph, last sentence: "We would like to report these trades in a manner acceptable to you." So after over a year, Jeffries is just now bringing this short to the attention of the authorities. And obviously, only in response to an inquiry from the SEC investigators.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So legal. It says how do we report it to the tape now. duh. And still were do you see short anywhere in the letter. All I see is long sells. It didn't say we want to cover this, because it was already covered. He said how do we report this now since we didn't report it on the big tape a year ago. How easy is this to understand.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ric: They didn't report it when it was over 10 million.
It was over 10 million in the case of 110 billion shares. In about 6 months time, Jeffries alone moved one-fifth of the entire AS of CMKX without reporting it.
Didn't their books show an imbalance? So why did it take them a year to find their errors?
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who knows legal. But we can't assume either way. You can try and infer but theres no proof of any wrong doing not to say that there wasn't. But it was still long sells. The worst you can say is the seller didn't give Jeff the shares. I dought that but who know. I read it as saying they did cover the sells. Also you could infer it was UC who was the one that was the long seller but then again that is only a theory. No proof. It never said. Adding things as facts doesn't make them facts. But one fact for sure is its a long sell not short and a reporting error which would throw off volume. Thatss the only facts I see.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ric, I don't see SHORT in the letter, I see a weak attempt at CYA by Jeffries for the naked short situation.
JEFF was the first card in the Counterfeit Securties house. What excuse will the rest use? How long will it take each of them now, to come forward with some similar excuse. "Sorry, your honor, the dog ate my tape."
It will all be coming apart now. Frizzell has the statements to prove it, and the SEC now knows it.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) d'oh we retired the VCR (except for "certain" movies)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
