quote:Originally posted by bill1352: legal, did you read stockliens letter to the last auditor??? the part about the SEC wanting to find certain ppl connected to cmkx? i'd say thats an indication the investigation is not over. they have it revoked, step 1. now its time to gather criminal charges, step 2.
Of course bill, they are trying to find out who the premerger syndicate financiers are. The ones with the forebearance agreement not to reveal their identity. Those are the people that they are after. And that is why UC has to keep pleading the fifth. If he reveals their identities outside of a court of competent jurisdiction, he loses the company.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: then i guess you will be really ticked when you find out how many times he laid down a heavy bet on six the hard way
Actually I don't care what Urban does with his money, as long as I get mine. The difference between us is, I think it's coming, you don't. However, UC is a "slot man", which is the only thing I have against him right now.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hey T T,what the hell's Sammy got to do with OJ,lol... unless he's stealing cable to watch the race tonight?LOL
But I might not be surprised to see Snoop crack a lacking around at a race one day.With the former Dog/Williams connection and all.Speaking of Williams, check what BBAN did Fri. He's on the BOD there.
IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe UC being a "slot jockey" is code talk for cmkx's next racing arm - thoroughbred racing.
and when "What? Me dilute?" wins the triple crown, that will be the signal to unleash... yea, you know what i'm bout to say boys...a SHOT OVER THE BOW!
IP: Logged |
posted
legal you already got yours. the kool-aide dulled the pain. once they quit handing the kool-aide out you'll feel it. 1 day sitting down will be very uncomfortable & UC won't be sending flowers either.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
By: phxgold 31 Jul 2005, 12:49 AM EDT Msg. 244346 of 244491
Again I ask why does ameritrade, Pershing, and computer clearing services show up on the master shareholders list outside of cede and company? If those shares are street name they should be represented by cede and co. not the individual brokers, mm's or clearing houses as we do not have a 15c-211 so they cannot hold an inventory as the stock cannot be quoted and must be matched trades, what gives? ~Phx
IP: Logged |
Fantastic job on finding that securities sold outside the US don't count...for the report or not to report dilemma.
Now, Stoecklien's letter head clearly states they practice law relating to - Federal Securities.
Now, do you honestly think that Stoecklien is unaware of the rules you found? That Kristen Buck doesn't do her research? The question is important because if the answer is of course they know about it....then it begs the question, well if they knew, why didn't they use it as a defense.
So could it be they're saving this argument for their appeal? If it's in CMKX's best interest to get revoked, and they get officially revoked, then those idiots trying to steal our claims can be revealed...like you say.
CMKX is revoked. CMKX retains the claims. The bad guys are OUT. CMKX uses that securities regulation you found to get unrevoked fast and at the same time does NOT have to file f/s....since it would work out that their form 15 was proper afterall.
Is that where you're going? Or am I confusing things even further. - - - - -
posted
abgg, she is a moron. And I don't use that word lightly either. She is the one that sent the letter to the judge. She worships Accaddaca and believes every word that comes out of his mouth. She comes in Willy's room and does nothing but praise Willy and ACCA and scream settlement soon. She claims to be and accountant but when was asked simple accounting question in the past she couldn't do it. Oh well, shes a cult member, what do I expect.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart.
IP: Logged |
posted
anyone catch the part in this article that proves what we have been saying all along. 703 billion in the o/s & 650 billion float will go no where. cmkx can not mine enough or sell enough to give it any value. the U.S. buys 50% of the worlds diamonds. that equals $30 billion times 2 is $60 billion. if cmkx sold every diamond in the world which is impossible they couldn't earn enough to have any pps value.
quote:Originally posted by bill1352: anyone catch the part in this article that proves what we have been saying all along. 703 billion in the o/s & 650 billion float will go no where. cmkx can not mine enough or sell enough to give it any value. the U.S. buys 50% of the worlds diamonds. that equals $30 billion times 2 is $60 billion. if cmkx sold every diamond in the world which is impossible they couldn't earn enough to have any pps value.
posted
Yeah, two diamond chips, a bucket of oil, 1 ounce of uranium, a pound of gold, and one truckload of zinc. That adds up to ummmm...calculating......
$980,000,000,000
Wait, let me check those figures....
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed
IP: Logged |
posted
lets see...passed over a few times zinc in CIM's name, passed over a few times uranium controled by another JV, gold that last quarter brought in $60K minus 20% and oil....show me 1 pr that says CMKX has any oil rights. show me an 8K, anything that says CMKX, not some other hope cmkx is part of company, not a JV, but CMKX has oil rights of any kind even those cheap passed over by real oil companies sand oil type claim rights. all totaled you dont have enough of anything to give 1 billion shares value let alone 703 billion.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
yep got CIM too & the sad thing is right now cmkx has more value & i bet there isn't another stock of any kind anywhere that cmkx can say that about.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
No, I never did invest in CIM. Oh, you mean that stock that's been taking up room in my account but has never had a value. Oh, yeah, I got plenty of that crap, but no CIM.
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed
IP: Logged |
THIS IS CIM: BUSINESS SUMMARY CIM High Yield Securities operates as a diversified, closed-end management investment company. It invests in corporate bonds and notes, and foreign bonds. The company’s portfolio comprises investments in utilities; wireline; lodging and casinos; chemicals and plastics; wireless communications; cable and satellite television; building and development; industrial machinery/components; pipe lines/natural gas; food/drug retailers; office/business equipment; publishing; auto parts and accessories; containers/glass products; leisure goods, activities, and movies; food service; electronics/electric; railroad; oil and gas; paper/forest products; ecological services and equipment; consumer products; health care; financial intermediaries; aerospace; airlines; retail; insurance; agricultural production; personal services; equipment leasing; apparel manufacturers; marine transportation; and steel sectors. INVESCO Institutional (N.A.), Inc. serves as the investment advisor of the company. CIM High Yield was organized in 1987 and is based Louisville, Kentucky.
Lay off the koolaid long enough to digest this fact: Casavant Mining Company IS NOT CIM !!!!!!
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed
IP: Logged |
posted
We got it, ed. We call it the CIM dividend for lack of a real name or description. No arguement that it is worthless, but we have to refer to it as something besides dog crap.
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
posted
i hate to correct you Will...well actually i do like correcting you but thats another story.....dog crap has value, it feeds flys, thus the term dog crap could give someone the idea of value. CIM on the other hand has no value, thus the fact that CMKX is worth more.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
On July 22, 2005, the Registrant terminated the engagement of Beckstead and Watts, LLP (“Beckstead"), as the Registrant's independent accountants.
Beckstead did not perform an audit of the Registrant's financial statements nor perform any significant audit related functions from the time they were engaged (July 11, 2005) through the date of the termination of their engagement (July 22, 2005). However, Beckstead continued to charge the Registrant for services performed following their termination (from July 22, 2005 through July 29, 2005). Total fees billed for the 114 hours of services performed by Brad Beckstead, audit partner at Beckstead, over the 11 day period prior to their termination and the 7 day period following their termination was $51,300, which did not include $6,750 in legal fees incurred by Beckstead. The foregoing does not include a non-refundable due diligence fee of $25,000 previously paid to Beckstead before their engagement.
This is a change in accountants recommended by the Registrant's Executive Management and approved by the Registrant's Board of Directors. The Registrant is seeking a new independent accountant.
At the time Beckstead was dismissed by the Registrant; there were no disagreements between the Registrant and Beckstead on any matter of accounting principles or practices, or financial statement disclosure, or audit scope or procedure. However, the Registrant had received a draft letter from Beckstead outlining items having to do with Beckstead's ongoing audit procedures.
The Registrant attempted to meet with Beckstead to discuss its ongoing audit needs and the items mentioned in the draft letter, but Beckstead refused to meet with the Registrant. The Registrant's securities counsel issued a letter to Beckstead addressing all items raised by Beckstead's draft letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.
After business hours on July 28, 2005, Beckstead issued the Registrant a letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 99.2, outlining certain items Beckstead believed to be possible illegal acts. The items raised in this letter are essentially the same items raised in Beckstead's draft letter, which were fully addressed in the Exhibit 99.1 letter from Stoecklein Law Group.
Despite the contention of Beckstead, the firm never made an attempt to meet with management of the Registrant or Robert A. Maheu, acting as the Registrant's audit committee, to address the specific issues raised in either of its letters.
Beckstead refers to four possible items in need of addressing in this Current Report:
1. The possible improper personal use of corporate assets by Mr. Urban Casavant, the Registrant's sole officer and co-chairman of the board. Beckstead, based upon information provided by the Registrant, questioned whether the expenditure of approximately $4 Million, designated as “promotion and advertising" expenses, to sponsor the CMKXtreme racing team “truly advanced the best interest of CMKM". In addition, Beckstead questions whether the expenditure was a related party transaction, because of Mr. Casavant's ownership position in CMKXtreme, Inc., that may not have been presented to or approved by the Board of Directors of CMKM.
In the Registrant's opinion, it was outside the scope of Beckstead's engagement, as the Registrant's independent public accountant, to determine what “truly advanced the best interest of CMKM", especially given Beckstead's lack of professional expertise in the promotion and advertising industry. Additionally, it is unclear to the Registrant what authority Beckstead has as an independent accountant to make judgments upon business decisions without jeopardizing its independence. Numerous private and public companies spend millions of dollars to sponsor racing and other professional sports teams. Further, at the time of the expenditures Mr. Casavant was acting in the capacity as the sole officer and director of the Registrant. It is unclear how Beckstead could question whether Mr. Casavant presented to the board or whether the board approved the expenditures, when Mr. Casavant was the sole acting board member.
2. The possible loans to officers and directors of the Registrant in violation of Section 402 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
The Registrant filed a Form 15 on July 22, 2003, which the Registrant believed suspended its reporting obligations under the 34 Act. On February 17, 2005, the Registrant filed an amended Form 15, thereby reinstating its reporting obligations under the 34 Act. Assuming the Registrant's reporting status was suspended immediately upon filing the original Form 15 on July 22, 2003, loans made to officers and directors, if any, from July 22, 2003 through the reinstatement of the Registrant's reporting obligations under the 34 Act could not be in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as the Registrant would not have been subject to the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley. On several occasions, both before and after Beckstead's engagement, the Registrant discussed with Beckstead, and Beckstead was fully aware of the Registrant's willingness to address any possible reporting deficiencies and, the disclosure obligations related to those deficiencies, if any, that would be made once final determinations were made.
3. The Registrant's books and records are in Beckstead's opinion, at this point and time, unauditable because they are incomplete, and the records that exist have been improperly maintained. The unavailability of corporate records appears to be a violation of the 1934 Act.
Since the Registrant's initial meetings with Beckstead in June prior to their engagement and throughout Beckstead's due diligence period, the Registrant was entirely upfront and honest in disclosing to Beckstead not all documents required to commence an audit were in the possession of current management and the Registrant was using its best efforts to obtain records
from prior management. The Registrant's board of directors was forthcoming in stating it was currently unable to provide enough information to Beckstead for the purpose of performing general audit procedures. This information was fully disclosed to Beckstead prior to their choosing to accept an additional $75,000 and engage as the Registrant's auditor.
4. The completion and possible failure to disclose related party transactions between; the Registrant and US Canadian Minerals, Inc., the Registrant and its officers and directors, including Urban Casavant, and potential stockholders of the Registrant.
The Registrant, as discussed above, believed it did not have to file periodic reports from July 22, 2003 through February 17, 2005, therefore Beckstead's point over the disclosure of related party transactions is unfounded. It has always been the Registrant's intentions to fully and completely disclose all related party and other relevant transactions as part of its audited financial statements when they are completed, as was discussed with Beckstead on several occasions. Further, Urban Casavant, as the acting sole officer and director of the Registrant, had full authority to enter into transactions on behalf of the Registrant.
Beckstead's letter further advised the Registrant that the actions it identified may have a material adverse impact on the Registrant's financial statements for at least the following reasons, although Beckstead was not able to quantify the amounts at the present time:
1. The related party transactions may or may not be recoverable assets on CMKM's balance sheet and, to the extent they are not recoverable, the reserve for recoverability will impact CMKM's statement of operations and other financial statements;
2. The apparent loans to officers and directors may or may not be recoverable assets on CMKM's balance sheet and, to the extent they are not recoverable, the reserve for recoverability will impact CMKM's statement of operations and other financial statements;
3. We do not have sufficient information to determine whether the apparent improper use of corporate assets should be classified as an expense or an asset;
4. The apparent violations of the securities laws described above may result in SEC enforcement action against CMKM which could result in a significant expenditure of corporate assets in defense, and may result in fines, penalties, and damages;
5. The apparent violations may result in civil litigation or criminal enforcement, which may also result in fines, penalties, and damages.
99.1 Letter from Stoecklein Law Group to Beckstead and Watts, LLP dated July 28, 2005.
99.2 Letter from Beckstead and Watts, LLP dated July 28, 2005
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.
By: /s/ Urban Casavant
Urban Casavant, President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 1, 2005
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
well, well, well...i think the OG should pitch in to buy good old UC some soap on a rope...wouldn't want him to drop a bar & have Big Bubbu get too freindly.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
There was more....lol by the way this is new...just out.
July 28, 2005
Mr. Urban Casavant
CEO and Director
CMKM Diamonds,
4760 S. Pecos Road, Ste. 211
Las Vegas, NV 89121
Mr. Robert Maheu
Chair of the Audit Committee and Director
CMKM Diamonds, Inc.
4760 S. Pecos Road, Ste. 211
Las Vegas, NV 89121
Gentlemen:
You are, to our knowledge, the directors of CMKM Diamonds, Inc, ("CMKM"), a company whose common stock is registered under the Securities Exchange Act of I934 (the "1934 Act") and is trading on the over-the-counter market (quoted on the pink sheets). This firm was appointed as auditors for CMKM on July 11, 2005 (announced in a Form 8-K filed by CMKM on July 15. 2005).
We received a letter from your counsel, Donald J. Stoecklein, Esq. of Stoecklein Law Group, dated July 28, 2005. That letter contains a number of misstatements and misunderstandings. It is our intention to resolve those matters in this letter and to provide you notification as required by Section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "1934 Act").
First, and among the most important of all, is his statement that CMKM is not an "issuer” as defined by Sarbanes-Oxley and therefore is not subject to the provisions of that act or the SEC reporting requirements following the initial Form 15 filing on July 22, 2003. On February 17, 2005, CMKM filed an amendment to that Form 15 which stated very clearly:
This Amendment No, 1 to Form 15 is being filed to amend the Form 15 initially filed on July 22, 2003 (the "Original Filing"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission In order to revoke the Original Filing. As of the date of the Original Filing Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc. had approximately 698 stockholders of record, thereby making the use of Form 15 inapplicable.
The Original Filing is hereby superseded and revoked with respect to the information set forth in this Amendment No. 1. Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc. will be required to submit filings under Section 12g of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
With the original Form 15 inapplicable, it is clear that CMKM was and remained an issuer for the purposes of Sarbanes-Oxley and the filing requirements of the 1934 Act notwithstanding the wrongful filing in 2003 of the Form 15. If Mr. Stoecklein will provide to us an unqualified legal opinion that CMKM was not an "issuer” as defined by Sarbanes-Oxley and was not subject to the reporting requirements of the 1934 Act after July 22, 2003, we will be pleased to review his opinion letter and consider it.
Secondly, we disagree with his understanding of our letter of July 27, 2005 and our engagement letter. We understand the word "termination" and we will account for the funds on deposit once our statutorily required services are completed as stated in our earlier response. Mr. Stoecklein's efforts to imply to the contrary are disingenuous.
As auditors, we are subject to a number of rules and regulations, including Section 10A of the 1934 Act. Under Section 10A(a)(1), in conducting our audit of CMKM, we are obligated to implement "procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance of detecting illegal acts that would have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statements amounts." Should we detect or otherwise become aware of information indicating that an illegal act has or may have occurred (whether or not perceived to have a material effect on the financial statements of the issuer), we have an obligation to report the information to management and, if management does not take what we consider to be appropriate remedial action, we have an obligation to report the act to the audit committee. See Section 10A(b)(1) and (2) of the 1934 Act and the rules thereunder.
In performing our audit procedures, we have become aware of information relating to possible illegal acts, including (without limitation) the following:
We have received information relating to the possible improper personal use of corporate assets. Information we have uncovered indicates that Mr. Casavant may have caused CMKM to advance approximately $4 Million to the benefit of CMKXtreme, Inc. in the name of "promotion and advertising”. Based on the information provided to us, it caused us to question whether the use of the funds truly advanced the best interest of CMKM. Additionally, it appears that Mr. Casavant owns CMKXtreme, and that this may have been a related party transaction that may not have been presented to or approved by the Board of Directors of CMKM. We fully understand marketing issues raised by Mr. Stoecklein in his letter, but we are unaware how any such transactions benefited CMKM.
We have received information that indicates that CMKM may have made loans to its officers and directors in violation of the requirements of Section 402 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (codified at §13(k) of the 1934 Act). Our information indicates that Mr. Casavant and others related to CMKM may have advanced themselves undetermined amount of money without adequate explanation or documentation. Mr. Stoecklein makes the argument that, because of the Form 15 that was improperly filed, CMKM was not subject to the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley act at the time in question.
It is our understanding that Form 15 was not available to CMKM at the time and therefore was ineffective to relieve CMKM of any obligations. As noted above, we are willing to review an unqualified opinion letter from Mr. Stoecklein on that point.
The CMKM books and records are, at this point and time, unauditable because they are incomplete, and the records that exist have been improperly maintained. The volume of transactions via wire transfer and cashiers checks render the banking records inadequate for obtaining competent evidential matter necessary to render an audit opinion letter, in Mr. Stoecklein's letter, he admits that CMKM was able to provide us less than 25% of the information that we requested at the commencement of the audit "despite everyone's best efforts." The unavailability of corporate records appears to be a violation of the 1934 Act,
including Section 13(a)(2) of the 1934 Act (added in 1977). Mr. Stoecklein raises the disingenuous argument that if the records are unauditable, how can we be aware of any illegal acts. First of all, having records that are not auditable is itself an illegal act under Section 13(a)(2) and other provisions of the 1934 Act. Secondly, the other information set forth herein was obtained from the records that were available.
In addition to completing what appear to be related party transactions without proper authority to do so, it appears that CMKM management may also have failed to disclose related-party transactions as required under the 1934 Act. Among the possible related party transactions which we believe may have been inadequately disclosed are:
Transactions with US Canadian Minerals, Inc.;
The personal use of corporate assets discussed above;
The loans to the officers and directors discussed above; and
Significant monetary and stock transactions with individuals and entities who appear to be CMKM shareholders and/or prior officers and directors of the Company.
Mr. Stoecklein makes the argument that there was no need to disclose these related party transactions because (as a result of filing a Form 15 improperly in July 2003) CMKM was not subject to the reporting requirements of the 1934 Act and, therefore, not obligated to disclose related party transactions, While this is an interesting argument, that is not our understanding of the situation. Once again, however, we will review an unqualified legal opinion from Mr. Stoecklein to that effect.
We have notified management, including the president and chief executive officer, of our concerns, and we met with CMKM's counsel as management's representative on July 20, 2005 to discuss these matters. We received no information to alleviate our concerns, and in fact obtained further information that enhanced our concerns. In his letter, Mr. Stoecklein makes note of the fact that we were invited to a subsequent meeting at CMKM's offices and chose not to appear. That is correct, but we also asked CMKM to provide us a written response to our concerns. We believed that a written response was appropriate in the circumstances and would have been significantly more
valuable than an oral response at a meeting. We believe that Mr. Stoecklein's letter constitutes a written response, and this letter is our response to Mr. Stoecklein's letter.
In accordance with the requirements of Section 10A(b)(A) of the 1934 Act, we hereby advise you that the actions we have identified (including those set forth above) may have a material adverse impact on CMKM's financial statements for at least the following reasons, although we are not able to quantify the amounts at the present time:
The related party transactions may or may not be recoverable assets on CMKM's balance sheet and, to the extent they are not recoverable, the reserve for recoverability will impact CMKM's statement of operations and other financial statements;
The apparent loans to officers and directors may or may not be recoverable assets on CMKM's balance sheet and, to the extent they are not recoverable, the reserve for recoverability will impact CMKM's statement of operations and other financial statements;
We do not have sufficient information to determine whether the apparent improper use of corporate assets should be classified as an expense or an asset;
The apparent violations of the securities laws described above may result in SEC enforcement action against CMKM which could result in a significant expenditure of corporate assets in defense, and may result in fines, penalties, and damages;
The apparent violations may result in civil litigation or criminal enforcement, which may also result in fines, penalties, and damages.
We are unable to quantify the amounts involved because we have not been provided sufficient information to do so, and because CMKM's books and records are, in their current state, inadequate and unauditable.
You should consider this letter to be a report under Section 10A(b)(2) of the 1934 Act.
Your receipt of this letter requires that you consider the requirements of Section 10A(b)(3) of the 1934 Act. For your convenience, Section 10A(b)(3) provides as follows:
Notice to commission; response to failure to notify, - An issuer whose board of directors receives a report under paragraph (2) shall inform the Commission by notice not later than 1 business day after the receipt of such report and shall furnish the registered public accounting firm making such report with a copy of the notice furnished to the Commission."
Section 10A(b)(3) (b) further states that "If the registered public accounting firm falls to receive a copy of the notice before the expiration of the required 1-business day period, the registered public accounting firm shall;
Resign from the engagement; or
Furnish to the Commission a copy of its report (or the documentation of any oral report given) not later than one business day following such failure to receive notice."
We would also point out the requirements of Form 8-K - that CMKM is obligated to file, within four business days of our dismissal, a Form 8-K responding to the Information in item 304 of Regulation SB. We were dismissed on Friday, July 22. The Form 8-K was due to be filed with the SEC not later than 5:00 pm Washington time today - and it has not been filed. Consequently CMKM is delinquent in its reporting obligations and, therefore, appears to have committed further acts in violation of the 1934 Act.
Should CMKM determine to file a Form 8-K, this letter should be attached thereto unless CMKM can provide an acceptable explanation to any of the issues raised and the requested legal opinion on the effect of an improperly filed Form 15. In your response to item 304 of Regulation SB, we point out:
Item 304(a)(1)(iv): We believe that there are disagreements of the sort that need to be mentioned in response to this item, as set forth in the foregoing.
We also point out to you that' Section 10A(b)(3) has a one business day requirement for notification to the Commission. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the foregoing.
Sincerely,
/s/ Beckstead and Watts, LLP
Beckstead and Watts, LLP
co: Donald J. Stoecklein, Esq.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
i'd say somebody opened a hornets nest just to satisfy the OG. it has to be the only reason UC did any of this audit chit. he knew if he didn't the OG would look for his blood. IN BLACK & WHITE URBAN CASAVANT WAS PART OF IT!!!! it wasn't insiders doing others bidding it was UC all along. notice the term criminal enforcement add to it stockliens upset the the SEC was calling beckstead, what was the term legal used???... reasonable opinion???... i'd say the investigation is on going & somebody better head to S.A. soon or big bubba will be his new buddy.
[ August 01, 2005, 18:32: Message edited by: bill1352 ]
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
Significant monetary and stock transactions with individuals and entities who appear to be CMKM shareholders and/or prior officers and directors of the Company.
how many times have we heard about bashers being chased down for comments about UC being a crook. i was banned from a site because i said UC cheated shareholders & would not delete that statement as i was asked to do in a PM. well i won't say for sure but a few certain pumpers might have a few questions to answer about statements made on boards. the last 2 yrs of CMKX math & joining this company to that company because so & so knew somebody once in another life could have serious meaning if they got shares from UC. adding IMO or do your own dd doesn't cut it because anyone that questioned these foolish statements was cut down quick or banned from boards by these same ppl thus removing any other IMO's or dd. just because they suckered, as Will calls it second tier pumpers like legal & wwjd in to do the same thing doesn't let them off the hook, it sets the hook. karma has a funny way of getting even.
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty damning stuff. Someone's gonna fry unless of course, it's all part of the plan. Urban raped the company and the shareholders for personal gain, period. That's all there is to it. There's no roll up or Euro trading or any of the other b/s that's being spread around. It's another scam pink sheet that they took to unprecendeted levels and they're now caught in a tight net and I for one hope the lot of them go down for it.
IP: Logged |
Wait, I'm sure legal has a a perfectly reasonable explanation or an apology to give, one or the other, and I think I know which it will be. Theory number 1001 being thought out by Dr. D and other winbag gurus, ready for legals repukefication.
-------------------- A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.
IP: Logged |
posted
you have got to be kidding legal. you aren't going to try & say they are in this together, that it was set up to catch whoever for doing what UC did?
-------------------- "keep your stick on the ice & your cup firmly in place"
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
