posted
not sure how it works when a company is revoked but its probably about the same was when a company goes bankrupt & cancels all the o/s & then issues a new stock. the canceled shares sit in your account till dooms day or until you sign a form to remove them. i had this happen with williams communitcations. they sat in my account for 2 yrs till i got the form signed it and snail mailed it back. a faxed copy was not good enough they needed a hard copy.. i believe if cmkx is revoked the same applies. it has to do with laws about they cant touch your account & tax laws.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They can not roll shares into anything. If they do they roll the revoked status too. All they could do is sell the assets to another company. Shares are can not be transferred though. If that was true then there would never be a reason to revoke a stock if all they had to do is roll the shares into another stock.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Posts: 1110 Registered: 22-10-2004 Member Is Online
posted on 12-6-2005 at 04:45 PM
WHAT'S GOING ON?
WHAT'S GOING ON?
A lot of my Christian Traders friends have been asking me what I think is happening with CMKX. Here is what I believe is going on right now. It is only that, my opinion. It is not meant as fact, insider knowledge, or anything other than that.
I think CMKX has been naked shorted into the trillions. "Shorty" (be it market maker, hedge fund or offshore interests, or a combination) thought that he could drive CMKX out of business and never have to settle their short position as they forced CMKX into bankruptcy. It didn't happen because we have the goods; and we have an unrelenting shareholder base, who believes in the company and investigates every avenue involved.
That whole story has been speculated, investigated, and theorized ad infinitum, so I won't detail it here. But we have finally arrived at an impasse that needs to be broken. The "breaking" began when CMKX forced a reluctant SEC to act with the Form 15a. Why was the SEC reluctant to deal with the CMKX mess? Because they knew it was naked shorted beyond imagination and that settlement was going to be, at best, crippling to the market. And they knew that there was going to be egg on their face, as well as on the DTCC and the "system" as a whole. How do we know that the SEC was aware of the naked short and the impact? Because they have just told us that they knew, in announcing that they were in possession of information and data that is part of an ongoing "law enfocement", active investigation. And information they are withholding is apparently too sensitive for shareholders or their attorney to view. That alone tell us that the "known" is far more sensitive than a "failure to file". So, how do we know that the information isn't about an ongoing criminal investigation of Urban and the company? Because the investigative agency wouldn't have permitted the SEC to open a "can of worms" with the hearing. The investigation would have gone on quietly until presented to a Federal Grand Jury, to consider indictments. IMO the "law enforcement" is the culmination of the Department of Justice "sting" investigation that has been "rumored" for months to have been going after the naked shorting culprits with CMKX as the vehicle of the "sting".
I believe that now the DOJ is "on their own" to pursue the criminal aspects of this investigation, and we are on our own to pursue the civil remedies for what was done to the company. This is the reason that we have seen Maheu on the outside of this company since at least 2003 when his right hand man, Kevin T Ryan bought Crystalix and began working with Woodward and Dhonau. Crystalix is the company that Urban has been loaing money to. Now Maheu has been brought in officially to handle the "dirty work" of getting this mess settled. And he is "hot" after them.
The officials at the SEC and the DTCC have been aware of the problems for some time, but have failed month after month to take any action. That is why the Form 15 was filed, to force the SEC to finally act.
Now with the SEC actively involved and being forced to take additional action, the DTCC and the Market Makers have finally come to the bargaining table, and I believe, that a settlement agreement has already been reached, or is very near completion. They have to, or face the wrath of the public and the enforcement actions of the SEC, when Bill Frizzell files our responses and proofs on the NS next week. It would be better to "buy us off" than to have to go through that. It would be an embarassment to the Administration, the SEC, the DTCC and hopefully more than an embarassment to the perpetrators.
If we accept a settlement that "makes CMKX go away", is that the end? No the criminal prosections are still coming.
How much will we get and when? Both unknowns and I won't even speculate. But it would sure make sense to get things done before either Frizzell proves the NS, or the company reports share structure and valuation. Those are the two big things that could be killers to "shorty" and the MM's / DTCC and bring this thing to a glaring public light. They don't want that. But won't the criminal prosecutions shine the light on this thing? Yes, some light, but criminal prosecutions can be "directed", whereas media publicity tends to be exteme and not as "contorollable" as a criminal prosecution. When the media works properly, the sky is the limit on questions of fault. Criminal investigations can be "surgical" in scope and zero in on one or two particularly "dirty" perps.
As far as an amount of settlement, I think it would have to be "punitive". Shareholders who have been in this thing for awhile, and know the huge potential of CMKX, will not settle for the simple return of their investment and commission fees, as compensation. Nor should they.
Why are the brokerages getting so "testy" with shareholders. I think they are complicit, and know the end is near and time to "ante" up.. "Markers" didn't get into our accounts without the knowledge of the brokers. They knew there was a naked short, by at least the time the divies were divided up and there weren't enough to go around. They have been making up stories and excuses ever since, misleading their shareholders, and even recently eliminating the "free trading" of the stock. However, brokers who have heavily invested in the Market Makers, (like Ameritrade and Knight) have other reasons to be complicit, at least in the "cover up". They are going to lose money and lose "big time".
What about pulling certs? That is the big question on all of the boards right now. I personally took over half of my CMKX in certs and left the other half in electronic, in order to have security and peace of mind that whichever way this thing goes, I will be ready. And for the same reason, I have also taken all of my restricted divies in cert form. Many have posted their reasons for why it makes sense to pull certs or not. I think the most comprehensive posting on this matter was put out by Dr D this weekend, and we can all learn a great deal from his investing wisdom.
What does concern me, is that some are using the divy issue to divide us, just like they did the Owners' Group issue. There is no need for division, it is as simple as each person weighing the good and the bad, the possible and the probable, and making your own decision on what makes sense to you.
In summary, I think the company has reached a settlement agreement with at least the majority of the MM's and the DTCC, if not all. I think we are seeing the results of this in the confusion within the brokerages. I believe we will we be seeing more "results" of this as we near the deadlines for filing our responses with the hearing judge. So to my friends, I say, "Think this thing through before you act." Understand what is happening when it does happen. Don't make rash decisions. Pray. Seek counsel from those you have come to trust over the months or years. Know your "stewardship" responsibilities. "Now is the time" How do I know? My wife was asking that this morning and I explained: When you are standing on the edge of a lake, and see ripples coming ashore. You may have not seen the source, but you know for a fact that something has applied pressure to the surface.
God Bless
Jim
"There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens" Ecc 3,1
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
a little problem with the trillions theory. lets say there are 56,000 shareholders. & the o/s with the NS equals 2 trillion shares. the average would be 35.7 million shares. right now the OG has 5460 ppl in it with an average of 54 million. to get to a final average of 35.7 million the average now for the OG would need to be over 100 million. lets say 20,000 ppl own 10 million shares each or 200 million total shares your average drops to 19.6 million per shareholder. your already 16 million below the needed average. you got to know that most own 5 million or less. even if all 51,000 missing shareholders owned 10 million on average you still only just go over the a/s of cmkx. as of right now the missing 51,000 shareholders would need to average over 25 million shares each to get to 2 trillion shares.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
new info...CMKX is in default as of 5.01.2005...sounds like they didn't pay the state fees to stay registered in nevada. ya think maybe they figured why waste the money???
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
"I think the most comprehensive posting on this matter was put out by Dr D this weekend, and we can all learn a great deal from his investing wisdom. "
I just wonder how long after this thing has been revoked will this continue. And by that time will people like Dr. D, Willy, Sterling, and others be able to escape the rage when reality sets in. I can here the settlement theory still being said next year.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bill1352: well i'll be...is this auditor telling us you can audit a company & then file a 10K without including NSS & its legal? you mean all that is required is what the company issued??? was he trying to tell us that every audit is done this way & its passes thae Sarbanes-Oxley act? dont tell the folks at willy willies that, they would hire a hitman to get ya. i do think stockwatch has it wrong...it didn' suprize the cult, in fact i'm sure there are a few vodoo dolls out there of levine with pins in them right now.
bill,
The above is precisely what I said some time back about accounting for outstanding stock of any company and the faithful refused to consider it as fact. That included, legal, who claimed to have some kind of accounting background. Sure do not know where he got his accounting experience or lessons. That happens to be very basic accounting procedure.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bill1352: new info...CMKX is in default as of 5.01.2005...sounds like they didn't pay the state fees to stay registered in nevada. ya think maybe they figured why waste the money???
quote:Originally posted by Dustoff101: Wallace how ya doing dude...Heh, are ya ever gonna wind this thing up and join the fun on the off topic thread...I sure would like to see ya working other stocks again...Your conciderable talents would sure be helpful to many.....Thanks, ya old Tin man.
Dusty,
Not working too many new stocks lately. Busy with Genealogical cousins on my family name where there are a few questions still open. Been doing it since the mid-60's.
I did buy BWDI @ .0067 some time back and it's around 012 now. It is a company with earnings. Usually avoid recommending companies because, as I have said before, if someone loses $$$$s I feel badly for them if the bought because I did....and I experience considerable anguish brushing something like that aside even if I did tell them to research and do lots of DD.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I read your "Super Administrator" posting. It is a sorry state of mind when someone with your talents becomes so wrapped up with distorted convictions that they guide your decisions and opinions. I am truly beginning to feel sorry for you. Alas, I sincerely hope you and other faithful CMKX members do nothing drastic when CMKX is gone. Just let the money go and continue on elsewhere....AND LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is one of the few stocks were if you make up some wild off the wall theories that claim will make you rich quick you become an instant god. You will get followers drooling at your feet calling you a stock expert and all you had to do is basically lie. Make up a story with no facts or foundation and pass it off as a probability. I bet that a psych major could write a thesis off this cult.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Brenda Fuller U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission FOIA Office, Stop 0-5 6432 General Green Way Alexandria, VA. 22312-2413
General Counsel Securities and Exchange Commission 450 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20549-0207
Re: FOIA Request by Attorney for represented shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Request No. 05-05834-FOIA
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
Dear Brenda and General Counsel:
Please consider this as a formal appeal of Brenda Fuller's ruling on June 3, 2005 denying the release of information made by me under Request No. 05-05834-FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) (6), 17 C.F.R. Sec. 200.80 (d)(5) and (6).
Facts
Appellant is an attorney representing a group of approximately 5,400 shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (hereinafter CMKX). Appellant has been formally retained by 5,400 CMKX shareholders but the information requested is equally important to all 50,000 plus shareholders of this company.
Background
CMKM Diamonds, Inc. is a mining and exploration company that has traded on the pink sheets for several years. Due to press releases and other forms of promotion, this stock became the largest selling stock issue in numbers of shares in the history of the stock market. The shareholder base is so large no one has been able to determine the extent of it with any degree of certainty. Some projections are as low as 30,000. Some projections go as high as 70,000. This attorney's group of shareholders has undertaken the task of contacting CMKX shareholders to confirm and verify both the numbers of shareholders and their respective holdings. The information I am requesting under this FOIA request would be helpful to the shareholders in some of their efforts.
This large shareholder base has invested millions of dollars in this company's stock. The company claims to have significant value in its mineral deposits, mineral claims and joint venture projects with third parties. In 2004 sales in this stock averaged over four billion shares a day. On December 14, 2004, 41,635,715,982 shares were traded and reported through normal channels. This number did not include the trades that occurred during that time as unreported trades. My shareholders have learned that in addition to the outrageously high volume of trading, 121 billion shares were traded during a six month period in 2004 on an "ex-clearing" basis and thus were not revealed to the investing public. See "Exhibit A".
This company was once a reporting company but chose to go "non-reporting" in 2003 by the filing of a Form 15 with the SEC. Although required to do so, the SEC did not conduct an investigation or convene a hearing to determine the propriety of such filing. The investing public soon after this company went to non filing status became enamored with the stock as reports of diamonds and gold findings were released and speculative value of the one million acres of mineral claims became a topic of the internet. The one million acres surrounded proven diamond producing claims of the largest producer of diamonds in the world. Although the company was a "non-reporting" company, a prominent and respected ex-SEC enforcement attorney was hired in June of 2004. The sole purpose of his hiring according to a press release was to assure the investing public that public filing of the company's financial reports would soon occur.
In March of 2005, the SEC filed a 12(j) proceeding to revoke the registration of CMKX for the company's failure to file required financial reports. Financial reports have not been filed for 2002, 2003 and 2004. For some reason the SEC began an investigation of CMKX in 2004 (and probably before that time). We know the SEC began investigating the trading of CMKX because the shareholders learned of some "unusual" trading strategies that were being used by certain members of the NASD in 2004. The trades which had occurred "ex-clearing" were discovered when a letter was sent by Jefferies' deputy general counsel to the NASD explaining these trades. This letter was generated as a result of inquiries by the SEC to the NASD. (See Exhibit "A") Shareholders learned of this letter at the deregistration hearing being conducted by the SEC on May 10, 2005.
On May 11, 2005, a meeting was held at the SEC office in Los Angeles between myself, the company attorney and various CMKX Board members with three SEC enforcement attorneys in attendance. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the company's belief that billions of shares of CMKX were shorted and open "fails to deliver" in this stock were rampant throughout the market place. Evidence compiled by the shareholders suggests there have been over a trillion shares of CMKX stock sold to the investing public. During this meeting I was asked by one of the SEC attorneys if I had any proof of our allegations. As we discussed the proof we had accumulated, I was also asked if I had made a request under the FOIA for the DTC's "fail to deliver" list which is purportedly given to the SEC on a daily basis as required by Regulation SHO. I confessed that I had not made such request.
The meeting I am referencing concluded with the SEC attorneys giving me an assurance that enforcement action would be taken if we could prove that naked shorting existed in CMKX stock. I can only assume this was a representation by the SEC's enforcement attorneys that they were not doing an investigation into abusive shorting of CMKX stock. This appeal is for the SEC's refusal to provide the information which I now have formally requested under the FOIA.
Authorities
Brenda Fuller (Branch Chief) has informed me by letter that my request for information is being denied under 5 U.S.C. 552 (b) (7) (A). It is the SEC's stated position that I am requesting records which were "compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement activities".
The Freedom Of Information Act was created to promote the release of records and materials in the possession of federal agencies to any member of the general public unless the requested material falls within one of nine exemptions. However, if the government invokes one of the nine exemptions, the burden is on the government to justify nondisclosure. 5 U.S.C.S. 552 (a) (4) (B) The government must overcome two legal hurdles to satisfy its burden for justifying nondisclosure under exemption 7 (A) of the FOIA. First, the government must prove the existence of a concrete prospective law enforcement proceeding for which records were compiled. Second, the government must prove that the disclosure of the requested information would interfere with enforcement proceedings. To prove interference the agency must be specific as to what information is being withheld and the distinct harm that could result from its disclosure. The agency may not be conclusory or vague. Scheer v. United States Department of Justice F.Supp.2d 9; 1999 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 953. City of Chicago v. United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 287 F.3d 628; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7537
In the Scheer case, the Department of Justice conducted an internal investigation into misbehavior by a prosecutor following a trial. After the investigation was complete the opposing attorney that was victimized filed a request for the file and the Department of Justice refused to release the file. The Washington D.C. District Court ordered the release of the information and clearly discussed the two prong test I have referenced above.
In the City of case, the city was requesting information about gun sales that were routinely filed with the ATF. The City of Chicago had filed suit against certain firearms manufacturers. The Seventh Circuit Court ruled the City was entitled to the records. The ATF gave numerous examples of how these records were used in possible law enforcement actions. The Court was not persuaded that such request should exempt the ATF from disclosing this information. The Court ruled that the ATF could not point out a single concrete law enforcement proceeding that could be endangered by the release of the requested information. Like the materials requested here, what law enforcement proceeding could be endangered by the shareholder's receipt of these requested materials?
What Materials Have We Requested?
The request made by me on behalf of CMKX shareholders seeks information from you in three categories:
Category 1 and 2 We are seeking records that are provided to the SEC from the NSCC on a regular basis pursuant to Regulation SHO. Clearly these records are not compiled for any concrete prospective law enforcement proceeding. Even if such records were deemed to be procured for some law enforcement proceeding, the disclosure of these records would not interfere with any enforcement proceeding. The agency makes no assertion in its response as to what, if any, investigation is ongoing. The agency does not specify which information is being withheld and makes no showing of any distinct harm that could result from these daily reporting records. SEC enforcement attorneys implied to me in the presence of others there was no ongoing investigation into "fails to deliver" of CMKX stock. Thus we are clearly entitled to the information requested.
Category 3 We are seeking copies of inquiries that are routinely sent out by the SEC to NASD and its members. We are also seeking copies of all responses to these inquiries. Brokers/Dealers routinely respond to these requests for information. The requests are so common they have acquired the name of "Blue Sheet" requests. My shareholders learned that in deed some brokers violated trading rules and chose to trade in a fashion that escapes normal scrutiny and reporting. Since there has been no public action taken against any parties, we are left to assume there will be no enforcement action in spite of such activity. To refuse this request, the SEC must show that these records were deemed to have been procured for some concrete prospective law enforcement proceeding. These acts occurred over a year ago and were known to the SEC and the NASD at that time. The government must now state that this information was compiled for concrete prospective law enforcement proceeding. The SEC cannot simply respond that such records were for law enforcement purposes. Even if the SEC makes the assertion that such records were so compiled, the agency must show that disclosing this information at this time would interfere with enforcement proceedings at the time of this request and make a showing of the harm that might come from such disclosure. "Exhibit A" is self explanatory. The SEC has contended that although the Jefferies letter suggests an "unusual trading technique" there were no acts that lend themselves to enforcement actions. There have been no actions reported publicly against any trading firms. There is no evidence known to the company of any enforcement action being taken against any firms. Thus, the records we are requesting are clearly subject to disclosure.
Argument
The fox that guards the hen house often finds himself mired in conflict. The SEC enacted Regulation SHO to combat naked short selling and to bring public awareness to short sellers that fail to follow the mandatory close out rules. The DTCC was directed to report daily fails to deliver positions over the threshold limit to the SEC. For some bizarre purpose, the regulation as enacted publishes the names of companies that have been shorted but secrecy remains as to who the guilty financial institutions are that refuse to follow the law. This is akin to publishing the names of the rape victims, but protecting the names of the rapists.
The SEC has a new person at the helm and I watched as our President introduced him on television a few days ago. I heard the news anchors discussing the struggle between corporate rights and shareholder's rights and how Mr. Cox will try to reconcile the two. Our President has undertaken a battle to convince the public that it will be a benefit to have part of our social security funds placed in the hands of the investing public. Should we do this if we do not allow our investors to know what goes on in the market or within the DTCC and other clearing firms. Our President would be very concerned if he saw the thousands of monthly brokerage summaries that have been sent to my office which evidence serious investment in IRA and other retirement accounts. He would be most concerned if he knew the SEC was doing all it could to keep vital information from the investing public.
I would like to invoke an equitable argument here. The SEC has a mission statement of protecting the investor. In this case, this company has been allowed to draw in millions of dollars of investment without the supervision or scrutiny of the agency we all depend on to provide such scrutiny. This occurred partly because there was never any action by the SEC to question the inappropriately filed Form 15. Such was the duty of the SEC. The SEC now demands Sarbanes-Oxley compliance in all of its required reports. Sarbanes-Oxley speaks of transparency. Politicians demand openness so that the Enron and World Com fiascos will be lessons learned. Do we try to find reasons to deny these shareholders information that may help them see what went on in the market place with their stock? Or do we follow the law and open those files which seems to be so well guarded by the proverbial fox.
Payment Enclosed
I have enclosed the fee of $56.00 as you have requested in your letter. I must say I was initially disgusted that I would be asked to pay for the privilege of obtaining a rejection from you for my request. After reflection I gladly enclose the fee because your letter states that you have in fact found materials responsive to my request.
You have also stated that you have not determined if any other exemptions apply since you believed Exemption 7(A) would protect you from disclosure. You went further to state that you reserved the right to assert other exemptions if Exemption 7(A) no longer applied.
Could I ask you kindly to assert at this time any and all exemptions which you plan to assert to this request? This matter is of critical importance to thousands of innocent investors who are searching for some answers to questions they have about their stock. You certainly have the right to assert one exemption and then assert another if your decision is in error but that would not seem to be consistent with the mandates of the law regarding transparency and openness in government. Your help would be greatly appreciated by thousands of citizens wanting to review the information you possess.
Sincerely, Bill Frizzell Attorney for the CMKX Owners Group
Cc: John Martin Don Stoecklein Leslie Hakala Chairman Chris Cox
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
wallace i dont think anyone except legal on this board ever thought filing without including any NS was illegal. maybe joeturbo. the idea that filing without any NS shares included would be illegal is so foolish it hurts my head to think of. if you dont include illegal shares your filing is illegal.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What strikes me odd about the evil SEC trying to cover up a huge conspiracy theory, is has it happened before. Where in the past has the SEC gone after a company in spite. Since when has the SEC ever revoked a company that really didn't break the rules. True some got over turned but the company is the one that corrected the problem so it could be over turned. As stated in the SEC response to the hearing. If CMKX is revoked and comes clean and files its documents then they can either appeal the ruling or refile the registration. No big deal if the company does what it suppose to. Where is the evidence that the SEC attacks a poor little pink sheet for no reason or cover up. IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. Geeze people you are graspng at straws here.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lets see a huge naked short on a .00005 pink sheet company with a 703 billion o/s & no proven value will hurt the market as a whole more then Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Adelphia & a few other companies that lied & cheated shareholders. all of which the SEC chased down & took to court. with a 703 billion o/s & a huge diamond find CMKX might be worth .0002 per share or $400 million if & thats a big if there are 2 trillion shares & they all need to be bought out. unless the company files this week & thats 10 missing reports plus all the needed 8K's & insider ownership reports its over. to get .0002 per share cmkx would have to prove it had a very large value, at least a couple billion. nothing says they have any value just unexplored claims. but dr. d thinks the SEC is more scared of CMKX & its naked short & the damage it would do then it was of exposing 4 very large companies in a little over 1 yrs time. that guy is going to hurt himself when reality sinks in.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Opinions are like a-holes, everybody's got one and some stink more than others. To the Koolaid drinkers, I'm tired of your baseless opinions. I say this: Prove it or shut up.
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed Posts: 1772 | From: Oxford, PA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
now ed what would we have to pick apart if legal didn't bring the cults posted over here? dr d did stop by once, he lasted about 1 hr. without the cult there wouldn't even be the entertainment value....cmkx would be completely void of any value....lol
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guess you have a point on the entertainment. I had a bad weekend. I'll shut up and wait for the judge to make the decision. My apologies. I just wish this stock would go away somehow.
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed Posts: 1772 | From: Oxford, PA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legal has slowed down on his comical relief lately. He must be getting wore out from having to pump this company so hard to try and cover up the fact it is a scam. Come on you need to push it harder. Only one more month anyway.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry xyz. Nothing "funny" going on at the moment, but still much happening elsewhere. I just don't have time to get it all here.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
its ok ed & legal...i went and joined a pro cmkx board just for the fun of it. not real welcome there but who cares...lol everyone knew i was from allstocks by the way. 1 guy did say i attempted to see the cults veiwpoint not sure what he was talking about as i see no value & no hope. i do try to respect the fact that its a cult board & i have not used the word scam over there...lol....yet. but i do lay the complete blame right where it belongs...on UC's doorstep. ns'ed or not the main problem is UC & his failure to be honest & aboveboard with the shareholders. he let every hope & dream of the cult down. CIM is no help because it already has over 20 billion in the o/s.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi bill1352 ..like your sig..Goalie myself. But way back at the beginning of this thread I saw Scottrade listed as a holding broker?.. I belong to Scottrade and they repeatedly stated they didn't trade on cmkx listed board thus I haven't invested in cmkx.... kinda ironic now. So, I'm not sure of that list. I may be wrong, but I believe that cmkx is tied in with SGGM. If so, SGGM went to almost a dollar for three weeks in mid 04. Wish I had that stock...it's trading .011 today. This is not a PUMP, I'm a small penny trader and throwing my two cents in (pun intended) First post here and trying to read everything to get up to speed. GLTA S5
-------------------- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.... Posts: 400 | From: Jupiter, somewhere out there | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a very serious stock market question for any and all: With the number of shareholders being so high, with an obvious scam like it is, and surely a few of the stock holders live within driving distance from Las Vegas, how is it that UC is still walking around alive? Esteban
Posts: 259 | From: Rogers, AR | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
howdy stockster & welcome. SGGM did climb to .75 right after they bought part of CMKX's claims for $10 million & 200 billion shares...not a typo that is billion...lol. UC (CMKX's CEO) has all those shares too. the cmkx cult has driven every company that gets involved with cmkx up for a bit then they crash, like GEMM & USCA.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lmao esteban....i have wondered the same thing. if the whole story ever does get out i wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
USCA only has 4 mm's listed on the L2's...the last DOMS has its ask at $100,000.00...lol. doesn't look like the mm's want to buy any shares either, .06 gap.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not pro or con for cmkx, but it's not always the company that is the scammer, outside people or groups can trade in counterfeit or phantom shares I think. But billions 'traded' in one day is a big red flag, and if the company actually issues multi billions at one time that also could be a red flag for investors. Or should be. Another possible sign my be incorporation in states (Nevada..others) that have no sec regulations in place. I always look for multiple reverse splits followed by name or incorporation changes in short amount of time with a penny or sub penny company. This suggest to me officers of company trying to cover their tracks. Here is a link that some people may find interesting. ...
-------------------- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.... Posts: 400 | From: Jupiter, somewhere out there | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
thanks bill... some time I just have to tell the story how I got cmkx tip. Pretty hilarious. Yup, checking out my dd, SGGM is a player. But I think SGGM, GEMM and USCA may be small legitimate company's with cmkx a bridge financing company. (money laundering company?) Also, I don't believe SEC has any real power of enforcing the regulations or fining anybody directly, please correct me if I'm wrong as well. Like the BBB (better business bureau) is actually paid by the very companies its supposed to protect us from. The BBB is one of the biggest jokes and con jobs foisted on the US people.
S5
-------------------- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.... Posts: 400 | From: Jupiter, somewhere out there | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by legaleagle: CMKX is definitely tied to SGGM
with a large anchor chain !!!!
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed Posts: 1772 | From: Oxford, PA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
jeeze, I can't even input .00005 in my stock trading field online....!!!! It won't let me go 5 decimals....
S5
-------------------- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.... Posts: 400 | From: Jupiter, somewhere out there | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess that's the down side of having a bridge finance partner.... the bridge starts sinking.....
S5
-------------------- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.... Posts: 400 | From: Jupiter, somewhere out there | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, as far as the CMKX cult, you can't PAY for all that advertisement so the COO would never rock that boat. It's an amazing amount of eyeballs there. S5
-------------------- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.... Posts: 400 | From: Jupiter, somewhere out there | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
