Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
fung, just this one post concerning the money World Reports is writing about.
Sandy, you said: "Where was the reporter's <and yours> concern for the injusties done by the lack of action by the SEC in looking into the trillions of NSS shares of CMKM." It's in your post here. Don't you find it odd that thousands of people haven't come forward saying the T/A won't cert their shares? If there are trillions short, then there has to be trillions of electronic shares that can't get certed. For every sell, there has to be a buy. It's simple logic. The trillions of NSS shares of cmkm never happened.
Now that is funny.
translation per google:
A couple on age, Margaret and Bert, live in California. Bert always wanted like a couple of real cowboy boots. So when he saw a pair in the sales, he bought them immediately, put them on and went home proud. He walked into the house and told his wife: "You see something different to me?" Margaret looked at him carefully and replied: "No.." And grumbled some more. Total frustration Bert rushes into the bathroom, takes off his clothes and walks back into the room, naked except for boots. Again, this time a little louder, he asks his wife: "You see something different to me?" Margaret looks up and says, 'Bert, what's different? Today, it is down, it was hanging down yesterday and tomorrow will hang down. " Furious, Bert yells: "You know why it hangs down Margaret?" "No," replied Margaret. "It is down because it looks for my new boots." To which Margaret replies: "You had to buy Bert a hat, a hat '
Mexico auto insurance and the last chance for American ice?
What's going on in Ajo?
Sandlizzard, you didn't respond to my post. Is it gibberish? It's a perfectly logical and honest question. A trillion shares short (as you claim) would mean that approximately 70,000 shareholders could not get their shares certed. Do you think Frizzell or Hodges is sitting on this information? Lets discuss.
Posted by: CHUNKY44 Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010 3:39:16 PM
In reply to: Sandlizzard123 who wrote msg# 297956 Post # of 298707
If you're going to the bank, you better take a gun. The proof of no NSS is that somebody (if it's trillions short then a lot of somebodies)has to be holding the other side. Where are these trillions of shares that can't be certed? Have you seen them? I didn't think so. Maybe you should just forget about the bank.
Daddy sounds like a grifter.
Daddy said never show you are nervous.
This whole surreal affair has the stench of IBAFT emanating from it.
Christopher Story, Michael Cottrell, Alan Treffry?
And they would be who, exactly? And why would they be dealing with Crazy Al?
If you're going to the bank, you better take a gun. The proof of no NSS is that somebody (if it's trillions short then a lot of somebodies)has to be holding the other side. Where are these trillions of shares that can't be certed? Have you seen them? I didn't think so. Maybe you should just forget about the bank.
Prove to me there was no NSS.
Or put an "as of" date.
Ladies and Gentlemen, exhibit A:
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN'S DIRTY LAUNDRY ABOUT HIS SON, WILL MORE THAN LIKELY COME OUT IN THE DISCOVERY OF THE LAWSUIT IF THIS GOES TO TRIAL, THATS FOR SURE, THEY WILL NEED ANSWERS! IMO
google McCain Silver State Bank - check out the time lines - realize that nothing but misinformation and innuendo from said misinformation comes from the millionaire board. Rinse & repeat.
I think they were Urban's "gophers".
Ginger would gopher the hookers, James would gopher the booze.
Jim E. McFall was quoting Bob Hollenegg, I guess that makes it indisputable. Come on IQ1, do you really expect us to believe that SGGM didn't revoke themselves?
Take a look at this from Jim E. McFall: "Jonathan Katz, Secretary of the S. E. C., revoked St. Georges (SGGM) registration and granted CMKM Diamonds request to be revoked on the same day"
LOL, I stopped reading after the part about the Oregon expert claiming a 14 to 1 short. That would be 9,842,000,000,000 shares in the hands of at least 500,000 shareholders unable to get certs. Now that's what I call a silent majority.
I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend what you are reading.
Meticulous enough to save a copy of the cert request for 4 years, but yet unable to discern that they sent him the wrong cert? Bless his heart.
How I know is he saved his request to them see he only had
438 shares of GEMM and 3200000 shares of CMKX and he clearly stated in his request the CMKX shares..
h24ever, on behalf of my fellow scum, I'd just like to say good morning to you sir. Hope the rest of your day gets better.
That's because the longs like it.
This follow-on JB comment is interesting...
John Bordynuik Not skeptics. People hiding behind anonymous (well, had anonymous identities but more on that shortly) with really bad motives who are targeting our shareholders' investment. We have approx 2000 shareholders and I take that responsibility very seriously.
54 minutes ago
Uh oh.
Posted by: techisbest Date: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:54:01 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 31365
Rut Raw, somebody has the eraser working on the JBII board.
If the company gave a cash dividend, I missed it.
Best of seven?
ohmygod, patrick kane!!!!!!
Raw, that's an impressive list. I wonder how many of them show inflated Media Credits on their balance sheets?
M4E is not a stock promotion company? They do promotion work in exchange for stock. Is this really a point of contention?
The following is from their website:
Case Study
The following is an example of a transaction recently executed between M4E and a client company that is publicly traded. Of course, all transactions are unique and will be negotiated on an individual basis.
This outline will give you some idea as to the many benefi ts of a relationship with M4E.
1. A potential client had recently completed a reverse merger. When M4E looked at the proposed capital structure and the last 30 days of trading, we agreed that the opportunity warranted an investment.
2. The capital structure was approximately 10,000,000 shares outstanding at the time that the company was reviewed. The stock was trading around $5.00 a share.
3. M4E and the client agreed that M4E would provide $6,000,000 in guaranteed media value in exchange for $3,000,000 of restricted shares with certain registration rights.
For a Client such as this, M4E’s $6 million in guaranteed media value provides several major benefits:
1. When the client receives our $6 million media credit (think of it as a “gift certifi cate”), it is considered an asset and carried on the books as a pre-paid expense (corporate advertising) until it is utilized. (Please consult with your accountant for exact details.)
2. Our client’s current and potential investors often follow our media commitment with additional cash infusions into the company.
3. M4E’s investment of media further validates the company in the eyes of employees, customers, partners and current and future investors.
4. M4E confi rms the strong position of the products in the marketplace to outside parties such as distributors, suppliers and other interested parties.
5. The media drives shareholder value through additional sales, strategic partnerships and market awareness.
I'm sure we're all aware of the "mercy" rule in little league. I always thought it was an important lesson for my kids to learn. I believe it to be wisdom, not altruism.
jb, you're right, and I can't offer a rebuttal. I feel like I'm arguing from my gut, not my head. Ever so often, I question some of my long held, core beliefs. Not sure whether that's healthy, or not. But, I can't help but wonder, as circumstances change, if what seems to be the right decision now, can become the wrong decision in the long run. I think it's best for me to wash my conflictions off of my sleeve, and get back to work. Cheers.
Because, jb, you don't want to acknowledge that the vast majority of those suffering the most because of those "poor decisions", were never willingly in the game to begin with. Some speculators made good decisions, other speculators made bad decisions. All the rest of us are now paying for it.
I merely expect people to be accountable for their poor decisions. I'm not sure why you would equate that with Marie Antoinette.
Or, as said in French - "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche."
And I count on people like you to generate alpha.
Incredible? Maybe the best money can buy.
You are admitting that our defense is incredible?
But if you guys are as confident in your investment as you say you are, why are you playing defense like the '85 Chicago Bears?
I thought it was a total load of bullshit and only started to do my DD on it to prove it. Estimated_Profit thought it was a load of shit at first too by the way.
Ah, that must explain all of the "something for nothing" that permeates jbii down to it's core.
To know the truth, one must get rid of knowledge, as nothing is more powerful and creative than emptiness.
I tend to agree with you on a purely free market basis. But, the next time the "big stacks" take all of the mom & pop's chips, there very well could be volatility and irrationality, and it won't have anything to do with price.
I thrive on price volatility and price irrationality. Without it, you might as well buy an index fund.
Here is a live feed for
USA V. Switzerland
I don't understand his point. It's not their money that she is being paid. And frankly, I don't see any correlation between the money the Xers lost, and the money Janice is paid.
To argue that their is a correlation, would be to argue that a> the Xers lost their money because of shorty, and b> Janice is being paid by shorty. If that's not the point he was making, then I don't know what was. Nobody else here was demanding to know if she was getting paid, because it doesn't really matter.
Although I understand Need's point that others continue to profit off of CMKX while shareholders lost their money,
The only point you've made is that you still hold Janice responsible for you losing your money on cmkx. Amazing.
Uh no, that was posted by zeninvestor as something he thought Neil Levine should say on the stand. Instead, a few days later, Levine resigned as auditor because he didn't want to be associated with the corrupt insiders of cmkx.
I don't think that's a direct quote, now is it?
Yep, nothing but goofy Xer crap on google. Tiger, your consistency is admirable.
So either Canada or Russia goes home without a medal. Ouch.
jimmy, the ftd data is public, and has been posted here. You called it lies from the SEC.
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?