posted
i think there is a problem here that hasn't been mentioned very often. the rule states over 300 shareholders or less then 500 shareholders & under $10 million in value. thus a start up company gets going, less then 300 shareholders but ppl think it has a chance & 450 ppl own shares on a daily basis but they still have no money, both cases no reports required by the rules. but 1 day good news & all of a sudden they have 600 shareholders or 1000 shareholders, this company must start filing. CMKX knew they had 100 billion in the o/s by the end of 2003, 400 billion in mid-2003 up to 779 billion by aug. 2004. you can't tell me they didn't know they had over 500 shareholders. 500 shareholders would be an average of 1.558 billion shares. cmkx's obligation to report even if they had 300 in july of 2003 started at the point they had to know they were over 500 shareholders no matter what they thought value was. its not the SEC's job to track the number of sharehoplders of every company. its on the company to be honest, its on the company to periodicly check to be sure they are compliant. the divys should have proved to the company it was over 500 1,000 times & thus the form15/a or a form stating by law we have to report should have been filed. not doing so does show intent. it does show cmkx or UC didn't care if they were following the rules. it does show a blantant disregard for the rules. that form 15 did not give them a free pass till they felt like filing.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bill, I was amazed to see your post over at PB32. Not that you were posting, but that you completed an entire paragraph, beginning each sentence with a capitalized word. Keep up the good work. But one question, why do you like them more than us? LOL
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i did that???? must be someone hacked in under my name. d**n bashers...lol ....seriously if i did that it was a mistake. i am getting popular over there, the pm's are starting to come in...lol of course most are not very civil. i just found out i'm retarded, a moron, can't read & that i need help in understanding simple basic principles of the stock market. i have soooooo much to learn...lol
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you're doing is akin to playing with fire. That's the serious Kool-Aid board and right now you're trying their free samples. Before long you'll be hooked and coming back here every now and then, all strung out, posting their brand of babble. For your sake I hope CMKX is revoked. You might not be to the point of no return by then, if you're careful.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bill1352: i did that???? must be someone hacked in under my name. d**n bashers...lol ....seriously if i did that it was a mistake. i am getting popular over there, the pm's are starting to come in...lol of course most are not very civil. i just found out i'm retarded, a moron, can't read & that i need help in understanding simple basic principles of the stock market. i have soooooo much to learn...lol
THEY ONLY HAVE YOUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART, BILL
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if the SEC could press forward with a liable suit against the owners group for basically calling them criminals?
Posts: 204 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hate to say "I told ya so", but I told ya so..... NSS has absolutely nothing to do with CMKX's failure to file, and I expect the judge to block this evidence. IMO, the only way out for CMKX is to FILE, and be damn quick about it. Time's a-wasting.
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by ed19363: NSS has absolutely nothing to do with CMKX's failure to file, and I expect the judge to block this evidence. IMO, the only way out for CMKX is to FILE, and be damn quick about it. Time's a-wasting.
I've thought of one way massive NSS could affect this case, but to be honest I don't think, given what we know from testimony that this should be even considered. What if I had 300 or less shareholders holding legitimate shares and enough "shareholders" held counterfeit shares to take the total above 300? What we have then is not only counterfeit shares but counterfeit shareholders!
Like I said, this has no bearing on this case and I only put it forward as an example of how NSS COULD affect a judgment as to whether filing is necessary under SEC regulations.
I wholeheartedly agree that the only way out for CMKX at this point is to file, and file very soon.
-------------------- The opinions expressed here by myself and others should be taken for what they are: opinions. Beware, many express opinion as fact. Do your own research from reputable sources and never invest more than you can afford to loose. ~,-,-< GatorMan Posts: 752 | From: Springville, Utah | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Hate to say "I told ya so", but I told ya so..... NSS has absolutely nothing to do with CMKX's failure to file, and I expect the judge to block this evidence. IMO, the only way out for CMKX is to FILE, and be damn quick about it. Time's a-wasting.
PROBABLY WILL STRIKE ED, BUT SHE HAS ALREADY SEEN THE NS EVIDENCE AND THE WORLD HAS SEEN THE EVIDENCE. AND I WILL STILL MAINTAIN THAT CMKX HAS NO INTENTION OF FILING. IF SO, THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT, SINCE THE FILING INFO HAS BEEN READY FOR MONTHS.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
upside...no worries...in a way its fun. i get to be like wallace was about 8 months ago here. i will say i'm not completely alone. there are a handful of ppl that quit drinking the kool-aide & reality is starting to set in. i even had 1 person agree with me that the Lee Webb posts of the transcript are real. they dont like him, they don't agree with his comments & i don't think they realize the meaning of what was said but at least they didn't call it lies as a few came close to doing.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like the blame is finally coming back to where it belongs, on the shoulders of Urban Casavant et al. CMKX will be revoked plain and simple
-------------------- Be Careful Of The Toes We Step On Today, They Could Be Attached To The Butt We Have To Kiss Tomorrow Posts: 4727 | From: Elk Grove ( Sacramento )CA USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
the SEC had every right & was correct in posting that about the OG brief. does it mean they are protecting anyone...no. it means this court case is not about NSS. would they protect mm's NS'ing cmkx or any other stock? who knows, that court case has yet to happen. as ed just posted, this case is about not filing period. there is no second part of this case. if frizzy wants to go after NS'ing he needs to file a lawsuit against the SEC, DTC & whoever he can prove is ns'ing cmkx. then we will see the SEC's reaction & if they protect the ns'ers.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if the SEC could press forward with a liable suit against the owners group for basically calling them criminals?
MYDOG, I THINK THE OG WOULD WELCOME THAT. THEN THEY COULDN'T BLOCK THE ISSUES.
Legal I don't understand what it is the OG is fighting for anymore. Do you believe there is any material worth to CKMX or is the owners group hoping to make their money back on a supposed NSS? I mean all I hear about anymore is the NSS which means that no one left in this stock, bashers and pumpers, believes CMKX holds any land worth any value. If this is the case doesn't that tell you, through simple common sense, that CMKX has been playing everyone since day 1? Forget about the size of the float, a/s, NSS, etc, etc if the land isn't worth anything then the stock isn't worth anything. If the judge were to let this stock stay trading because of the OG's arguements the OG would be worse then the owners of CMKX because they would know that this stock is worthless but they would be ok with it because they simply want to make their money back on the backs of "fresh blood" investing into this stock. I know a lot of people lost a lot of money, but trying to make that money back through new investors isn't the way you should go about making your money back. IMO take what I say with a grain of salt because I lost money on this stock as well...and I wouldn't want to make that money back from an single mom trying to invest in something to make some extra money not knowing any better.
Posts: 204 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Guess I'll have to take your word for it but you know how it goes, it's always fun at first but then the fun turns into a need and before you know it..... well, you know the rest of the story.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mydog, this is a legal play and a valuation play. The legal play of eliminating the NS has to be played out before announcing valuation, because the valuation would do nothing for the stock with trillions of claims (legit or not)against it.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Originally posted by bill1352:
quote:upside...no worries...in a way its fun.
Guess I'll have to take your word for it but you know how it goes, it's always fun at first but then the fun turns into a need and before you know it..... well, you know the rest of the story.
YEP, SOMEBODY GETS AN EYE PUT OUT.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legal, you get to play right field. This is NOT a legal play, they've already lost. NSS is not an issue, and they've admitted not filing. What is so hard to understand about getting revoked? They have tried without success to get their views introduced, and been stopped at every juncture. IMO, the judge will not allow NSS, CMKX will be revoked, and our shares will become worthless. Begging for additional time probably wont work either, since they've already had two years plus. Also, how can you call it a valuation play, when nothing has been decided about the valuation. In order for there to be valuation, a filing needs to be done, financials need to be published. Otherwise, it's all speculation.
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by ed19363: Legal, you get to play right field. This is NOT a legal play, they've already lost. NSS is not an issue, and they've admitted not filing. What is so hard to understand about getting revoked? They have tried without success to get their views introduced, and been stopped at every juncture. IMO, the judge will not allow NSS, CMKX will be revoked, and our shares will become worthless. Begging for additional time probably wont work either, since they've already had two years plus. Also, how can you call it a valuation play, when nothing has been decided about the valuation. In order for there to be valuation, a filing needs to be done, financials need to be published. Otherwise, it's all speculation.
ed, you are just plain not listening, so it doesn't do me any good to answer your questions.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think the judge will be interested in any NS total frizzy can prove. but again this is UC's fault. he quit filing, he filed a false form 15 & its his job to make sure its correct, not the SEC & he never made sure correct book were kept so filing could be done. UC opened the door to a legal & for very real reasons a SEC flush of cmkx is a month away. the SEC listed a bunch of companies that did the same thing. they screamed NS, they quit filing & never did file thus the SEC flushed the companies. stock is worthless, no settlements, no nothing except a negitive entry in broker accounts in thousands of ppl's names. cmkx will be on the next list for the next company screaming NS & not filing.
-------------------- "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 listening, but all I've heard from you is long posts of things I've already read, and babble about IMO, which dont cut it. WE NEED A FILING, AND IT MUST HAPPEN BEFORE THE JUDGE REVOKES CMKX !!!!!!! Just which one of those words don;t you understand?
-------------------- 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 |
"Naked Short Selling And Its Relevance To This Proceeding I was informed by this Court at the evidentiary hearing that this Court’s policy is to accept post trial exhibits until it enters its final ruling in this matter. (Hearing Tr 22) This Court ruled that evidence of naked short selling would not be allowed at the hearing and the Court granted the SEC’s Motion in Limine. This writer recognizes that naked short selling is not a part of the pleadings in this case. However, at the beginning of the public hearing of this matter, the Court referred to the e-Smart case. In the Matter of e-Smart Technologies, Inc., 2004 SEC LEXIS 2361 (Oct. 12, 2004). Judge McEwen held in her conclusions of law that “Generally, arguments and factual matters falling outside the scope of the order instituting proceedings are considered only for limited purposes, such as background”. Int’l S’holders Servs. Corp., 46 S.E.C. 378, 386 n.19 (1976) The Court held that conduct outside the scope of the order instituting proceedings may also be relevant."
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Court ruled that evidence of naked short selling would not be allowed at the hearing and the Court granted the SEC’s Motion in Limine. This writer recognizes that naked short selling is not a part of the pleadings in this case.
So this, is the definition of beating a dead horse. These two sentences say volumes about what is going to happen in JULY.
-------------------- 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
"The Court held that conduct outside the scope of the order instituting proceedings may also be relevant." ..................................there ya go, the judge will see the OG briefs & look at any short frizzy can prove. big problem is that NS'ed companies file every quarter & yearly. it doesn't stop any of them from filing.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only problem with that is that UC gave 360 people shares and thats one of the proof that they knew they had over 300. That would never fly with that. And for fact they had 698 legitimate shareholders when they filed the form 15.
quote:Originally posted by GatorMan:
quote:Originally posted by ed19363: NSS has absolutely nothing to do with CMKX's failure to file, and I expect the judge to block this evidence. IMO, the only way out for CMKX is to FILE, and be damn quick about it. Time's a-wasting.
I've thought of one way massive NSS could affect this case, but to be honest I don't think, given what we know from testimony that this should be even considered. What if I had 300 or less shareholders holding legitimate shares and enough "shareholders" held counterfeit shares to take the total above 300? What we have then is not only counterfeit shares but counterfeit shareholders!
Like I said, this has no bearing on this case and I only put it forward as an example of how NSS COULD affect a judgment as to whether filing is necessary under SEC regulations.
I wholeheartedly agree that the only way out for CMKX at this point is to file, and file very soon.
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still, if you go into a court of law and make claims against the prosecutor without hard fact the Judge will get pretty peeved. Making an allegation that the SEC is doing a cover up without hard proof will get this judges panties in a bunch. I bet it gets tossed out real quick. The Judge made it clear she would give a little lee way to Frizzle but that NSS wouldn't be allowed as evidence for the hearing at hand. I think she had a personal interest in it thats why the lee way but once you start claiming that the SEC is somehow covering up NSS and trying to revoke them to protect the shorts is only going to make the judge wonder about your attentions.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The legal play of eliminating the NS has to be played out before announcing valuation, because the valuation would do nothing for the stock with trillions of claims (legit or not)against it.
Just so I've got this straight, the short situation has to be dealt with first either through a settlement, a court of law or some other channel, then once that's done, the valuation, share structure, all filings, etc. are released and CMKX starts trading fairly. Assuming that is correct, how is all of this going to be accomplished by mid July?
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frizzell excerpts dealing with NS and SEC complicity:
Why did the SEC choose the shortest possible time period to obtain a ruling from this court?
Rule 360 of the SEC Rules of Practice provides for a decision in 12(j) cases to be rendered in either a 120, 210 or 300 day time frame “at the discretion of the Commission”.
Why not extend this matter into the 210 or 300 day provisions instead of the lightning fast 120 day program we are under at this time so that filing might protect this large groupof shareholders?
Why was this proceeding filed prematurely (at least by our interpretation)?
Can the Court assist us in this regard?
Why does the SEC resist the company’s request to view the “open fails to deliver” which are given to them daily from the SEC?
If the naked short position in this stock has any bearing whatsoever on this rush to judgment, I implore this court to slow down the judgment train.
If the SEC feels that these questions are pointing a finger at them, then maybe they should just answer them. Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
that 360 shareholders in january is the damning evidence. there is no way around it. the t/a testifyed they were issued. to be issued on an order form cmkx for payment of a service as these had been UC had to sign the order. he had to know they got the shares or the t/a would have informed him. shares held in street name do not count as 1 shareholder thus the NOBO list & the number of holders on it that frizzy keeps talking about. the t/a may not know each name but they know how many are on it.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place" Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Originally posted by Legaleagle:
quote:The legal play of eliminating the NS has to be played out before announcing valuation, because the valuation would do nothing for the stock with trillions of claims (legit or not)against it.
Just so I've got this straight, the short situation has to be dealt with first either through a settlement, a court of law or some other channel, then once that's done, the valuation, share structure, all filings, etc. are released and CMKX starts trading fairly. Assuming that is correct, how is all of this going to be accomplished by mid July?
Up, if there were a settlement, the SEC would be party to it, and the judge would be informed and the charges would be dropped immediately.
Posts: 2375 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So barring a settlement that the SEC is a party to, do you see any way out of revocation considering how little time is left until the ruling date?
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
