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.
I totally agree that we would have never seen Maheu involved with CMKX unless this was a sting.
Stop playing with Barbies and just get a real woman. LOL
Its true if you sold at the right time you could have made money.
In my case I feel like I lost a half a million dollars because that is what my statement was showing at the time.
If the SEC had enough authority they would have put a stop to Urb selling unregistered shares but the fact is they could not do anything.
Can you imagine dozens of police officers seeing a robbery in progress and they can't do anything to stop it because the government has not given them enough authority to actually take any action.
This is what we the shareholders feel like right now!!!!!!!
Robbery with no action because of lack of authority....... its bs
If you believe you owned Cyber Mark International Corp shares prior to Urban please explain how thats possible but read the below first.....
"At the threshold, the scheme required that the conspirators control a publicly traded corporation," according to the indictment. "The conspirators found a corporate shell suited to their needs in Cyber Mark International Corp."
Cyber Mark had been incorporated in Delaware in 1998, according to the indictment, and had been defunct since 2001.
The document alleges that Edwards used the name "Ian McIntyre" to acquire control over the Cyber Mark corporate shell around September 2001 and that he incorporated a Nevada company with the same name in April 2002.
Casavant later gained control of Cyber Mark, according to the indictment, and the company changed its name in December 2002 to Casavant Mining Kimberlite International.
I would hold my breath when driving that Toyota thing...... lol
Its probably safer going down an icy hill.
You are wrong!
Thirty years ago, victims had few legal rights to be informed, present and heard within the criminal justice system. Victims did not have to be notified of court proceedings or of the arrest or release of the defendant, they had no right to attend the trial or other proceedings, and they had no right to make a statement to the court at sentencing or at other hearings. Moreover, victim assistance programs were virtually non-existent.
Since then, there have been tremendous strides in the creation of legal rights and assistance programs for victims of crime. Today, every state has an extensive body of basic rights and protections for victims of crime within its statutory code. Victims' rights statutes have significantly influenced the manner in which victims are treated within the federal, state, and local criminal justice systems.
The core rights for victims of crime include:
The right to attend criminal justice proceedings;
The right to apply for compensation;
The right to be heard and participate in criminal justice proceedings;
The right to be informed of proceedings and events in the criminal justice process, of legal rights and remedies, and of available services;
The right to protection from intimidation and harassment;
The right to restitution from the offender;
The right to prompt return of personal property seized as evidence;
The right to a speedy trial; and
The right to enforcement of these rights.
Victims’ Rights Constitutional Amendments
In addition to statutory victims’ rights, nearly two-thirds of the states have adopted amendments to their state constitutions guaranteeing rights to victims of crime. Including crime victims’ rights in state constitutions increases the strength, permanence, and enforceability of victims’ rights.
Rights that are guaranteed by a constitution are stronger than rights that are set out only in statutes. No state law is valid if it violates a provision of a state’s constitution; no state law or state constitutional provision, and no federal law, can violate a provision of the United States Constitution.
Incorporating victims’ rights into constitutions also gives those rights a degree of permanence. Ordinary statutes can be changed at any time by the legislature. In contrast, it is relatively difficult to change the constitution of a state or that of the United States. In most states, a constitutional amendment must be passed by each house of the legislature by a two-thirds majority. This must usually be done at least twice, often with a legislative election between votes. Identical language must be passed each time. The amendment is then presented to the voters at a general election for ratification. Therefore, in most states the process of adopting a constitutional amendment takes several years. As a result, once crime victims’ rights are incorporated into a state’s constitution, they are likely to remain there indefinitely.
In addition, giving victims’ rights constitutional protections generally makes those rights enforceable. If an official or a state agency violates a constitutional right, a court usually has the power to order that official or agency to comply with the constitution.
The first state to adopt a constitutional amendment providing rights to crime victims was California, in 1982. While modest in scope, the Victims’ Bill of Rights amendment provided California victims a right to restitution from the offender, and specifically recognized the importance of enacting “comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a bill of rights for victims of crime.” To date, 32 states have incorporated crime victims’ rights in their constitutions.
We have a right to let every single witness speak and there are thousands! Are you saying they would decline this request?
Perhaps but how do you have a trial with this many thousands of individuals at the same time, who all have a right to be heard!
Even 500 shareholders at a time is a huge number and the rest would be standing outside the court room.
Thats 100 trials.....
We can easily make it last much longer by having people request doctors notes ........ that would be 200 trials.......
Then on top of that....... we have a right to challange their decision....... hence double that to 400 trials.......
Do you think this will get their attetion ???
Almost forgot about an appeal after the fact....
It is our constitutional right!
If the SEC could protect the shareholders I would not have invested in this stock and would be driving a rather nice BMW!
So yes you are correct!
That is only your assumption.
Many shareholders had no idea that unregistered shares were being offered to us. The SEC just watched and did nothing because they could not. They admitted this in their own statements.
Yes the SEC admitted to being unable to do anything because they don't have any authority!
Hey the Canadian exchange rate is rather great!
I'll take either. LOL
1.00 USD = 1.05894 CAD
http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=1&From=USD&To=CAD&image.x=27&image.y=19
Ya Wazzzz-up with picking on your neighbours. Eyyy
Lets give him a ride on our Moose eyy LOL
Ha ha ha this is why I come here when I have some free time :)
The SEC must take full responsibility for their inactions and since they claim they could not do anything further, then it is the SECs responsibility to request a meeting with congress because they have not given them sufficient authority to deal with this type of situation.
Someone will have to deal with our current situation.
Its no joke if you invested $50,000 and it was worth a half a million dollars and the SEC could not protect investors due to their lack of authority!
You better stop eating those Magic Mushrooms...
I heard a few too many will leave a permanent smile LOL
$13K is just as much as $100
If as an example a stranger came up to you and just pulled it out of your hands as you're about to pay for the lunch you ate.
Would you not stand up for yourself if that stranger was holding your money ??? and pissed on you!
It is insignificant what the U.S. Government or the Canadian Government did because we have not seen a single penny.
Its similar to the thousands of organizations that collect donations, yet out of every $1,000,000 the actual amount that reaches those in need is $100 to $1000 if you're lucky.
Why because they claim that it costs a lot of money to advertise, market, and the management. There was a front page article on this sort of thing a few years back in the Toronto Star!
The world is not a fair place!
If the court doesn't deal with this in a manner that we all agree is reasonable and fair I will personally ask everyone to screw the court system by blocking it for years to come!
I'm fed up with how something involving thousands of people is not getting the courts full cooperation! This is going to get out of hand at some point in the future.......
Sounds like somebody with a lot of money has been rubbed the wrong way..... When I say a lot of money I mean over
$1billion
These days $2 million is nothing considering that I personally have many friends who own over four houses each worth over $500,000 and that doesn't include their cars or cottages....
We agree this is true "The SEC allowed this fraud and aided and abetted this fraud by their actions and inactions. The SEC concealed from the general public the fact that trillions of dollars in counterfeit shares were on the market. The SEC created rules that not only violated their constitutional mandate, they made rules that ensured that thousands of victim companies and hundreds of thousands of individual investors worldwide would never receive relief. In particular, the SEC aided in the cover up of this fraud by creating the Grandfather Clause in concert with the perpetrators in a closed door meeting with SIFMA. They knowingly violated their constitutional mandate by protecting the perpetrators instead of the investors they are mandated to protect, and they covered-up a multi-trillion dollar fraud."
It no wonder they had to perform some major restructuring after da fact ;)
Trust me I know dozens of people who invested over $10,000 in CMKX which supports the theory that we have a very large NSS on our hands. I for one invested $50,000 and at some point remember holding a half a million dollars in my account.
This was the first time I must say I heard people at TD Waterhouse wispering to each other while I was on the phone.
We intend to get justice!
When... will depend entirely on the outcome of the courts.
It does prove there is money we don't know about out there.
Do you really think the government doesn't have something like that in case there is an emergency? They would be foolish not to.
Here's ITALIAN GRANDMA'S ADVICE:
A young Italian girl was going on a date. Her Nonna said: "Sita Here Ana letame tella you about those-a younga boys. He's agonna try Ana kiss you, you are agonna likea dat, but don't let him do that. He's agonna try Ana kiss your breasts, you are agonna likea dat too, but don'ta let him do that. But most important, he's agonna try Ana lay on topa you, you are agonna likea dat, but don'ta let him do that. Doing thata willa disgraca the family.
With that bit of advice, the granddaughter went on her date. The Next day she told grandma that her date went just like she had predicted: "Nonna, I didn't let him disgrace the family. When he tried, I just turned over, got on top of him, and disgraced HIS family!"
Nonna fainted.
ha ha ha
We know they do! Some people who claims to be so well educated you should be more informed. LOL
Nothing is black and white! Why else would people be beating a dead horse as some call it? hmmm LOL
We do have an ACE and its a gona hurt a lot a.... ey from Canada
By DAVID SEIFMAN
Last Updated: 2:51 PM, December 18, 2009
Posted: 4:20 AM, December 18, 2009
Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau wasn't the only government official who maintained bank accounts that the city didn't know about.
A review by the Finance Department has turned up a total of 2,261 accounts -- including 48 held by the DA -- holding more than $226 million as of last January, officials said yesterday.
There's good reason that Mayor Bloomberg zeroed in on the DA, though.
Morgenthau's office bank balances at the time were close to $174 million, more than 10 times as much as No. 2 on the list, City University, with almost $17 million.
The battle that ensued between the DA and the mayor over how his cash should be dispersed isn't likely to be repeated at the nine other agencies cited.
The 781 accounts in the school system are almost all PTAs, with an average of $11,094 socked away.
Officials weren't about to come down hard on school parents for not registering the PTAs with the Finance Department.
The DAs in The Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island also made the list with a total of about $7 million.
Just think back to Brian Mulroney and how he had no idea money was just appearing in his accounts...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/thousands_of_secret_funds_uncovered_msZ0Es9uDfQBsXRKe8fGLM
We will see!!!
I know one thing for sure this Globalization is bull Sht!!!
The large organizations are who is running the world and no wonder the stock market is in such trouble!!! in a few more years the USA is screwedin dept!!!
They are the ones who decide who gets elected...
If you throw enough money at "Ed the Sock" and advertise this crazy sock on every channel. Tell everyone he is the man that we need to elect because and throw tons of money to make him a celebrity on every channel, radio station, newspaper and local church group... do you think Ed would not win!!!
Now we pick someone who is worthy of the position but this individual is locked in a room and told to yell out the window to make himeself known...
Who do you think is elected?????????? This is how politics works in every country across the world.
My point is the world is corrupted but soon you can only go so far when it comes to putting dept on a country and spread bull because in the real world people do notice !!!
So the debt the USA has is only going to get worse and CMKX is going to be a prime example of how the public have been screwed and how the governing bodies did nothing because they were told to look the other way.
The numbers will speak for themselves and they will be sufficient to provide doubt in the courts!!!
It is clear that something is very wrong and we demand to know why!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why??? The ACE is coming!
CMKX to DA Moon!!!!!!!!!!!
Why not take the challange???
hmmm
If they don't let this one air it will just prove how all the media is controlled... Why not challange them in public ?
Make a mockery of them ???
(3:27 PM) wyatt11_11: Let me say that yes four of us Plaintiffs are tentativly scheduled to do a interview with NBC.
(3:28 PM) wyatt11_11: We are in the process of reviewing questions provided by NBC and will advise as things progress
(3:35 PM) wyatt11_11: The interview has not been done yet and it is still a work in progress. Just know that we all are working on this together to keep up the pressure. Have a great weekend
---------------
(9:01 PM) SYGY1: wyatt in your opinion,,will the dateline interview be televised? will it actually make the tv ,are they sincere in wanting to get the truth out
(9:01 PM) wyatt11_11: YES SYGY
-------------------
How about we get back to CMKX which is why we're here? Hmmmmm
Although you made me hungry... he he he
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/aJdcqc
CMKM/CMKX LAWSUIT AGAINST THE S.E.C.
CASE NUMBER CV10-00031-JVS (MLGX): SEE REPORT DATED 7TH JANUARY 2010
Saturday 9 January 2010 03:15
THE SUMMONS CIVIL COVER SHEET DISPLAYS:
'MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $3.87 TRILLION'
A. CLIFTON HODGES, State Bar No. 046803
HODGES AND ASSOCIATES
4 East Holly Street, Suite 202
Pasadena, California 91103
Telephone: (626) 564-9797
Facsimile: (626) 564-9111
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID ANDERSON, LT. COL.; NELSON L. REYNOLDS, LT. COL.; SHEILA MORRIS; PATRICK CLUNEY; ROBERT HOLLENEGG; ALLAN TREFFRY; and REECE HAMILTON, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.:
CHRISTOPHER COX, an individual; MARY L. SCHAPIRO, an individual; CYNTHIA A. GLASSMAN,
an individual; PAUL S. ATKINS, an individual; ROEL C. CAMPOS, an individual; ANNETTE L. NAZARETH, an individual; TROY A. PAREDES, an individual; LUIS A. AGUILAR, an individual; ELISSE B. WALTER, an individual; KATHLEEN L. CASEY, an individual;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No.: CV10-00031-JVS (MLGx)
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
AND FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
COME NOW Plaintiffs DAVID ANDERSON, LT. COL.; NELSON L. REYNOLDS, LT. COL.; SHEILA MORRIS; PATRICK CLUNEY; ROBERT HOLLENEGG; ALLAN TREFFRY; and REECE HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, who, for causes of action herein allege:
INTRODUCTION:
1. This action for declaratory judgment and for damages for violations of the Plaintiffs’ civil rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the F.B.I., 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, arises out of actions and failures to act occurring over the period from January 1, 2006 to date by Defendants CHRISTOPHER COX, an individual; MARY L. SCHAPIRO, an individual; CYNTHIA A. GLASSMAN, an individual; PAUL S. ATKINS, an individual; ROEL C. CAMPOS, an individual; ANNETTE L. NAZARETH, an individual; TROY A. PAREDES, an individual; LUIS A. AGUILAR, an individual; ELISSE B. WALTER, an individual; KATHLEEN L. CASEY, an individual; and other government agents whose names are not now known to the Plaintiffs.
2. These Defendants, acting in the course and scope of their employment by the United States of America as duly authorized Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a federal agency, through their acts and omissions knowingly, consciously, wrongly, without compensation and without due process of law have effected a taking of property from each of the named Plaintiffs and all who are similarly situated.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE:
3. This action for declaratory relief and damages is predicated on the provisions of the Constitution and Statutes of the United States, the legal and equitable jurisdiction of this Court, the principles of common law, and this Court’s concurrent and pendant jurisdiction.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims under Article III of the United States Constitution and the Fifth Amendment thereto. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ property rights under the foregoing citations and, in addition, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1331 and the case law precedent of Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the F.B.I., 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
5. Venue is proper in this Court under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1391(e)(1)/(2). Defendants are all past or current Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission and therefore agents of the United States Government, and a substantial part of the property, and the acts related to such property subject to Plaintiffs’ claims, occurred or was situated in this Central District of California at all times relevant.
THE PARTIES:
6. Plaintiff DAVID ANDERSON, LT. COL., U.S. Air Force pilot, resides in the State of Missouri, owns more than 280,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
7. Plaintiff NELSON L. REYNOLDS, LT. COL., U.S. Air Force pilot, resides in the State of Texas, owns more than 15,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
8. Plaintiff SHEILA MORRIS, a company owner/CEO resides in the State of North Carolina, owns
more than 400,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
9. Plaintiff PATRICK CLUNEY, a retired professional athlete resides in the State of Florida, owns more than 680,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
10. Plaintiff ROBERT HOLLENEGG resides in the State of North Carolina, owns more than 85,000,000 shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
11. Plaintiff ALLAN TREFFRY, a licensed State of California Attorney, resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, owns more than One Billion shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
12. Plaintiff REECE HAMILTON, a business owner/partner resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, owns more than One Billion shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, was a citizen of the United States.
13. Defendants CHRISTOPHER COX, Chairman 2005-2009, MARY L. SCHAPIRO, Chairman 2009-2010, CYNTHIA A. GLASSMAN Commissioner 2002-2006, PAUL S. ATKINS, Commissioner 2002-2008, ROEL C. CAMPOS, Commissioner 2002-2007, ANNETTE L. NAZARETH, Commissioner 2005-2008, TROY A. PAREDES, Commissioner 2008-2010, LUIS A. AGUILAR Commissioner 2008-2010, ELISSE B. WALTER Commissioner 2008-2010 and KATHLEEN L. CASEY, Commissioner 2008-2010: are and, at all referenced times mentioned herein were, acting as individuals and as Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, an agency of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and acting within the course and scope of their employment. These Defendants are the real parties in interest in the claims set forth herein.
14. Other employees and servants of the Securities and Exchange Commission are also liable for damages under the causes of action set out in this Complaint. However, the names of these employees and servants are not now known to Plaintiffs, who thereby names them herein as DOES 1 through 10. When the names of these employees and servants become known, Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint to add the names of these DOE Defendants.
FACTUAL CONTENTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION:
15. In November and December, 2002, CYBER MARK INTERNATIONAL INC., a public company domiciled in Nevada, reverse-merged with Casavant Mineral Claims, which then held mineral claims to more than 600,000 acres within Saskatchewan, Canada, increased authorized capital from 500,000,000 to 10,000,000,000 common shares, cancelled all preferred shares, and changed its name to CASAVANT MINING KIMBERLITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (CMKI); as of February 3, 2003, 7,241,653,404 shares were issued and outstanding.
16. During the succeeding months CMKI declared a 2 for 1 stock split and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission: Form 15 exemption claim, July, 2003; Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation changing its name to CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. (CMKM), February 5, 2004; Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation raising its authorized capital to 500,000,000,000 common shares @ $0.001 par value, March 1, 2004; Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation correcting the par value of common shares as of December 26, 2002 to $0.0001 par value, July 13, 2004; Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation raising its authorized capital to 800,000,000,000 common shares @ $0.0001 par value, July 13, 2004.
17. During the summer and fall of 2004: New York Attorney Roger Glenn was retained by the company; the number of acres upon which CMKM held claims increased to over 1.2 Million acres; claims development activity was pursued by the company; and a shareholders appreciation party was planned to be celebrated in Las Vegas, Nevada to thank the shareholders, to give them an opportunity to meet company personnel, and to announce an agreed upon merger with another public company, U.S. CANADIAN MINERALS INC. On the eve of the party celebration, the Securities and Exchange Commission placed an order on CMKM preventing any public disclosure of anticipated mergers or other development information.
18. In early 2005, CMKM announced the addition of Robert A. Maheu to the Board of Directors who shortly thereafter became the co-chairman of the Board; CMKM announced a new “corporate strategy plan to dramatically and comprehensively transform” the company for generation of consistent, long-term growth and profitability for the shareholders; CMKM filed an amended Form 15 on February 17, 2005 reinstating the company to a public reporting status; and on March 3, 2005 was notified by the Securities and Exchange Commission of a temporary suspension of trading of the company’s stock (Pink Sheets-CMKX) based upon, inter alia, concerns over the “adequacy” of publicly available information.
19. On March 16, 2005 the Securities and Exchange Commission instituted a public administrative proceeding pursuant to Section 12 (j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against CMKM to determine whether the company was required to file periodic reports under Section 12(g) and whether CMKM failed to comply with Section 13(a), and rules there-under, by failing to so file. CMKM responded on April 11, 2005 admitting that CMKM had a duty to file public reports and alleging various grounds of mistake, malpractice and other affirmative defenses to the factual allegations.
20. From March 17, 2005 through April 29, 2005 CMKM traded publicly in the US under the trading symbol “CMKX,” a total of 551,756,751,833 shares, an average share volume of more than 17 billion shares per day, reaching a maximum on April 21, 2005 of 94,654,588,201 shares. These figures do not include foreign trades nor trades made on an ex-clearing basis such as those disclosed by Jefferies & Company , Inc. on May 6, 2005: between March 25, 2004 and September 21, 2004 Jefferies traded 111,780,681,204 shares of CMKX stock on an ex-clearing basis.
21. On May 10, 2005 the Section 12 (j) administrative proceeding was conducted in a United States Central District of California courtroom; the Administrative Law Judge, Honorable Brenda P. Murray entered her decision on July 12, 2005 finding the facts to be as alleged by the Securities and Exchange Commission. CMKM then filed a Petition for Review which was granted, and a briefing schedule set.
22. On October 20, 2005: Robert A. Maheu resigned as a member and co-chairman of the CMKM Board of Directors; Urban Casavant agreed to remain as the sole officer and Director of CMKM until the affairs of CMKM were wound up to ensure all shares and other assets of CMKM were properly distributed to its stockholders; CMKM entered into an agreement with Entourage Mining Ltd. pursuant to which CMKM assigned its 50% interest in United Carina Resources Corp. to Entourage for 15,000,000 shares of stock, sold its 36% interest in Nevada Minerals, Inc. claims to Entourage for 5,000,000 shares of stock, and made a joint agreement with 101047025 Saskatchewan Inc. and Entourage whereby certain claims were transferred and CMKM became entitled to receive 30,000,000 shares of stock; CMKM’s other agreements with United Carina Resources Corp. and Nevada Minerals Inc. were terminated.
23. On October 21, 2005 CMKM approved formation of a Task Force consisting of Robert A.
Maheu, Donald J. Stoecklein and Bill Frizzell for the purpose of assisting CMKM and Mr. Maheu, as “designated Trustee, to conduct an orderly and verifiable pro rata liquidating distribution of any Entourage Mining Ltd. shares…and any other available assets of CMKM;” the SEC Petition for Review was withdrawn by CMKM on October 21, 2005 and a Securities and Exchange Commission Order de-registering CMKM subsequently was formally entered on October 28, 2005. CMKM had 703,518,875,000 shares of common stock issued and outstanding on that date.
24. On November 4, 2005 CMKM established a web site (CMKMTaskForce.com) for the purpose, inter alia, of advising all shareholders to request physical share certificates evidencing their ownership interest in CMKM as one means of establishing that they were bona fide shareholders of the company. The company intended at that time to wind up its affairs and distribute the 50 million shares of Entourage Mining Ltd. stock and any other assets, including previously unpaid dividends, to the bona fide shareholders. The web site set forth procedures to be followed and established a means of registering all bona fide shareholder certificates prior to December 31, 2005; certificates evidencing 43,309,298,585, shares had been registered at that time.
25. A frequently asked question (FAQ) page was added to the web site on the evening of November 4, 2005 and in response to a question about the degree of naked shorting of CMKM stock, the Task Force indicated that “Credible information indicates the number of naked short shares is potentially as high as 2 Trillion shares”.
26. The Task Force issued a press release on January 19, 2006 discussing a reduction in total shares of Entourage Mining Ltd. stock to be distributed to CMKM shareholders from 50 Million shares to 45 Million shares as a result of a reduction in mining claims involved.
The Task Force also discussed issues involving difficulties obtaining physical share certificates being experienced by shareholders; accordingly the deadline date for registration of shares was extended to March 15, 2006.
The Task Force was provided a new “cert list” by First Global Stock Transfer showing certs issued “and active” on January 13, 2006; ADP Services also provided information to the Task Force. This data reflected a sample of 25,021 certificates representing 350,000,000,000 plus shares of stock and a total of more than 67,000 additional certificates to be counted.
27. On March 16, 2006 the Task Force issued a public release that “…we received a visit in our office [in Tyler, Texas] by an E-Trade rep today. This rep personally hand delivered copies of approximately 4000” certificates. Further information regarding on-going discussions with the DTCC and other brokerage houses was also provided.
28. The Task Force provided additional information on March 20, 2006, extending the time for registration of certificates to May 15, 2006, advising the shareholders that Urban Casavant and his immediate family would not participate in the share distribution, and advising that a printed notice to stock holders would be published in at least one nationally circulated United States newspaper.
29. On May 25, 2006 the Task Force received a second batch of 1,200 share certificates from AmeriTrade, having received some 1,000 share certificates a week earlier. AmeriTrade’s cover letter indicated that several hundred more certificates would be delivered within “the next few days.” The deadline for registering certificates of May 15, 2006 had not been extended, although the Task Force continued to advise shareholders that they should obtain their certificates and that the Task Force would honor any bona fide shareholder at the time of asset distribution. By late Fall, 2006, the Task Force had received and counted copies of certificates from more than 39,000 shareholders, evidencing more than 635 Billion shares.
30. Kevin West was hired pursuant to a written agreement by CMKM during the summer of 2006
to assist in winding up the affairs of the company and, more specifically, coordinating the share certificate pull. After serving nearly a year as Interim CEO, Kevin West was appointed Chairman of the Board on March 29, 2007 after which Urban Casavant stepped down as sole director, president, secretary and treasurer of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Mr. West soon thereafter appointed Bill Frizzell as CMKM General Counsel and provided instructions for the filing of a number of lawsuits to attempt to recover moneys and other assets which had been wrongfully taken from the company.
31. During the period of June 1, 2004 through October 28, 2005 a total of 2.25 Trillion “phantom” shares of CMKM Diamonds Inc, was sold into the public market through legitimate brokers, illegitimate brokers and dealers, market makers, hedge funds, ex-clearing transactions and private transactions. The sales of the majority of such shares were at all times known to the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Defendants herein.
32. At some date prior to June 1, 2004 the Securities and Exchange Commission in concert with the Department of Justice of the United States, together combined with Robert A. Maheu and others to utilize CMKM Diamonds, Inc. for the purpose of trapping a number of widely disbursed entities and persons who were believed to be engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice, with assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, believed and developed evidence that said short sellers were utilizing their activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment of taxes, and to support foreign terrorist operations. To fulfill the plan to criminally trap such wrongdoers, the Securities and Exchange Commission, with assistance from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security:
(a) Assisted in and approved the retention of Roger Glenn, an ex-SEC trial attorney and drafter of Sarbanes-Oxley, to join CMKM Diamonds Inc. for the purpose of verifying claims value, increasing authorized shares of stock to 800,000,000,000, and supervising from the inside of the company;
(b) Encouraged the company to expand its promotional activities, assisted in the set up of the “racing activities” of the company, and underwrote a substantial portion of the cost of such activities;
(c) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the sale of certain company claims to several foreign corporations;
(d) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the conferences between Robert A. Maheu and his associates on the one hand, and the wrongdoing short sellers on the other, all for the purpose of settling the potential liability of said wrongdoers with consent of the U. S. Government and a representation of no criminal prosecution for such illegal sales;
(e) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the declaration of dividends payable by the company to each common shareholder of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.
(f) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the distribution of shares of CIM, a private company owned by Urban Casavant, as a stock dividend, including consent and approval of distribution of said shares to holders of more than 1.4 Trillion shares of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. common stock.
33. During the period from November, 2004 through April, 2005, CMKM Diamonds, Inc. negotiated the sale of some of its Saskatchewan, Canada, mineral claims to three Chinese domiciled corporations with the advice and consent, inter alia, of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Proceeds from the consummation of such sales were placed into a frozen trust for disbursal at a later time.
34. During the period from March, 2004 through August, 2006, on behalf of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Robert A. Maheu, with assistance from others, negotiated a settlement with the illegitimate brokers, dealers, market makers, hedge funds, and other persons and entities that had engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company. In exchange for a U. S. Government promise of no prosecution for such sales, the wrongdoers each promised to pay negotiated amounts to a frozen trust for disbursal at a later time.
35. Plaintiffs herein are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that other moneys have been collected for the benefit of the shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. from the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, from the United States Government, and from the sale of additional assets including consent to enter into joint venture agreements with other companies holding mineral claims in Saskatchewan, Canada. Plaintiffs herein are further informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that said moneys, collected for the benefit of shareholders have also been placed in a trust or are otherwise now held in trust by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation and the United States Treasury.
36. Plaintiffs herein are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all times mentioned, the Securities and Exchange Commission reserved unto itself the sole and absolute discretion to determine when moneys collected pursuant to the scheme set forth above would and could be released for distribution.
37. Demand for release of said moneys has been repeatedly presented to the Securities and Exchange Commission without result. Agents and employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice have represented repeatedly that the release of moneys for distribution was imminent, and/or would occur within several weeks, and/or would occur within less than a month. Each of said representations have been made knowing them
to be false, and at the specific direction of the named Defendants. These actions of withholding distribution of said moneys, without compensation and without due process of law, amount to a taking of the property of the individual Plaintiffs and of all similarly situated.
38. At all times mentioned herein, the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for the Constitutional and other rights of all Plaintiffs, or with the intention and knowledge that they were violating Plaintiffs’ Constitutional or other rights or to cause them other injuries, losses and damage.
39. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct, each of the named Plaintiffs and all of those similarly situated, have been denied their Constitutional rights, including, but not limited to, their Fifth Amendment right to be secure in their property, free from taking without just compensation and without due process of law, and have suffered injuries and property loss in excess of Three Trillion Dollars.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS:
40. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and in the public interest.
41. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of persons who were and are bona fide shareholders in CMKM Diamonds, Inc., a public company directly supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
42. Plaintiffs are members of said class, have a claim typical of the claims of all members of said class, and will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the members of said class.
43. The members of said class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
44. All of the class members are wholly identifiable from documents known to be in the possession of Defendants and of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
45. The claims of the members of said class present common issues of fact and law which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class.
46. The defenses available to defendants to the claims of the members of the class present common issues of fact and law which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class.
47. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants.
48. Adjudications with respect to individual members of said class would, as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede the right and/or ability to protect their interest.
49. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to said class thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
50. Unless ordered by this court, Defendants will continue their illegal and wrongful conduct, and repeated actions by individual class members will be required to obtain relief; and thereby the remedies available at law are inadequate.
51. For all of the above reasons, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims alleged herein.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS):
52. Plaintiffs incorporate as though fully set forth herein, all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 39 above.
53. Plaintiffs allege that an actual controversy exists in this jurisdiction, in that it is the Plaintiffs’ contention that:
(a) The Defendants are, or in the past were, Commissioners of the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, an agency of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. At all relevant times herein, said Defendants were acting as individuals and in their official capacity as agents of the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
(b) On and after January 1, 2006, the Defendants, acting alone and acting in concert with each other, and acting without just cause, did consciously, knowingly, intentionally and wrongfully cause certain acts and omissions to proceed in such manner as to hinder, delay, and ultimately prevent the distribution of moneys held for the benefit of Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated, said moneys being payable to each said person on a per share basis.
(c) The Defendants, and each of them, acted in their individual and their official capacities with deliberate or reckless disregard for the Constitutional and other rights of Plaintiffs and all similarly situated or with malicious intent and with the knowledge that their acts and omissions violated and denied the Constitutional and other rights of Plaintiffs and all similarly situated, or that their acts would cause said Plaintiffs and all similarly situated other injuries.
(d) The Defendants, and each of them, did unlawfully and wrongfully cause certain acts and omissions to proceed in such manner as to hinder, delay, and ultimately prevent the distribution of moneys held for the benefit of Plaintiffs and all similarly situated, even though the Defendants knew that said persons had a vested interest and Constitutional right to receive said moneys in a timely, unfettered and unconstrained manner.
(e) The Defendants, and each of them, knew that Plaintiffs and all similarly situated had a vested interest and Constitutional right to receive said moneys in a timely, unfettered and unconstrained manner when they committed the acts and omissions set forth above, causing each said person to be deprived of property without just compensation and without due process of law.
54. The Defendants, and each of them, contend to the contrary. Therefore, it is necessary and proper for this Court at this time to determine and declare the validity of the contentions of the parties as set forth above.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(FOR VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS COX, SHAPIRO, GLASSMAN, ATKINS, CAMPOS, NAZARETH, PAREDES,AGUILAR, WALTER, and CASEY):
55. Plaintiffs incorporate as though fully set forth herein all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 51, above.
56. Defendants, by committing the above-mentioned acts and omissions, violated and denied the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights, and those of all similarly situated, including, but not limited to, their Fifth Amendment right to be secure in their property, free from taking without just compensation and without due process of law.
57. Defendants, and each of them, acted and failed to act with the intent to deny the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and of all those similarly situated, or with the intentional or callous disregard or deliberate indifference to those rights. The above described acts of the Defendants, all charged with securities law enforcement as Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and of all those similarly situated, were not intended to be exempt from liability.
58. As a result of the Defendants’ acts, Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated have suffered injuries and property loss in excess of 3.87 Trillion Dollars in an exact amount to be determined at the time of Trial. Because Defendants’ actions were intentional or done with callous disregard or deliberate indifference to the Constitutional and other rights of all Plaintiffs, this Court should award punitive damages against each individually named Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:
1. For a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C., Sections 2201 and 2202, which determines and declares the validity of the contentions of the parties set forth in Paragraphs 52 to 54, above;
2. For a judgment for compensatory, general and special damages in the amounts prayed for in the Second Cause of action set forth above;
3. For a judgment for punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and to make examples of these Defendants, and to deter these Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct;
4. For an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs of suit incurred herein; and:
5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: January 10, 2010.
HODGES AND ASSOCIATE
By: [Signed]
A. CLIFTON HODGES
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Any male who likes a female that is more of a man then he is is GAY! ShT
I agree completely with what you said!
LOL
Here's the "official" posting.......
Mona Lisa Smiles: Mona Lisa Smiles: Rumor from an unofficial source: 1) Commotion today 2) At Midnight (no time zone said) there will be news 3) Tomorrow the bomb drops ALL RUMOR!!!
Are you guys gonna stay up and wait on this?....I know I am....Ive already called everyone I know and told them that this is it! We get paid tomorow. I have even took the liberty of calling my bank and telling them that I will be expecting a nomination for their board of directors this weekend, since I will be the largest depositor there.
According to our "attorneys" and our fellow paltalkers, I figured out that my cut of the deal should be somewhere around $350 million dollars.....thats chump change.....I, like most paltalkers, want twice that, since I was damaged so much by naked shorting of this poor stock.
Janice what exactly are you celebrating?
trust me you don't have all the facts yet...
Since some people want to burn them anyway why not give all of them to someone for $1 ? Consider it a donation in good faith.
There is not enough money to go around if everyone tried to take some money out of their accounts and we all know its just digital. I guess in a way it is a smaller duplication of the real stock market.
It will be interesting to see how far they will let this go on, just one word come to mind inflation and china is going to collect at some point in the future :)
You obviously are not a cmkx shareholder if you're implying burning your cmkx certs. Certainly there are a few people who have gone a little overboard but they have a right with the huge amounts of $$$ they invested into this stock affecting these individuals beyond your comprehension...becuase if you had to invested money that affected your entire family... money that affected your retirement... money that affected your kids future... money that you have earned very hard for years... maybe you would understand what thousands of us are going through.
What has taken place with CMKX was suppose to be impossible and we have all these great organizations to thank for in assisting to make it possible to rob millions from us.
So next time you feel like burning cmkx certs why not burn these families future with them!
2011 will put CMKX on the map that I can promise you!
Thank you Sir for summarizing the real Problem at hand!
"That means that for every one legitimate share that exists, 14 naked short shares exist, which in turn means that numerous naked short sellers exist.
In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that they obtained a NOBO list and the number of CMKM shares on that NOBO list exceeded the number of CMKM shares on the list of 1st Global Stock Transfer, which in turn means that naked short sellers exist. "
This is what we want to know:
Who is the naked short seller?
Secondly: Why has the SEC not attempted to investigate this matter further ? It is their function to ensure that a naked short seller is exposed!
Once enough evidence is provided the SEC will suffer greatly as this matter will be brought to congress. It is in their best interest to blame a computer glitch and acknowledge that we have a situation requiring urgent attention!
I'm sure its nothing more then those darn computers again :)))
This trial should include the Organizations that are ment to protect the public and should be accountable for failing in their obligations. If they ensured this was not possible and done their job we would not be having any trials today.
Lets face it they had ZERO ZERO ZERO security!!! even a jail guard managed to outsmart them!!!
Counterfeiting money is illegal and has been protected by ...
making them difficult to counterfeit or reproduce.
They now have Touch raised ink.
A ghost image and puzzle number.
Tilt. Colour shifts in metallic stripe and dashes.
Anything representing money should have been ensured there is enough security.
Its not the fault of the crook for robbing a bank if the doors are open and there is no security system or any guards!
I think Janice tries but its just a limitation :)
She ok tho!
Can't wait 2011.
We'll get all the cards on da table and we'll get to da bottom of this entire mess...............
Happy New Year!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sometimes Janice makes up her own facts to make data fit her angle.
Either way we have people going over everthing with a fine comb.
Soon! 2010 today and 2011 Kaboom
Yes very strange. LOL
The Fact is that there was a security breach in the entire system to get this far!!! Happy New Year! :)