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.
Has this been posted earlier?
I haven't been able to connect to a server for hours.
Dateline Update (Sort of)
April 8, 2005, 5:04 pm ET:
We just received this email from Dateline producer Sharon Hoffman:
Please post the following message on your site:
"All of Dateline's programming is subject to changing airdates, and things move on our schedule all the time. Our piece on short selling -- which we have not ever given an official airdate -- is currently in the works as we continue our reporting, and we will make an announcement about its airdate when we have one."
Thanks,
Sharon Hoffman
I still believe that Sharon Hoffman has done everything possible to move this story forward, but that doesn't mean I think we should let Dateline off the hook. She DID confirm the April 10 date by email to Dave Patch and others, I consider that confirmation of an "official airdate". I believe that the orders to postpone yet again "came from above". This is, as I said yesterday, politics as usual. Anyway, thanks to Sharon Hoffman for at least keeping us posted.
Keep up the pressure, just the fact that they are responding to us lets me know that this is working. Thank you all.
Mark Faulk, The Faulking Truth
Mark Faulk
info@FaulkingTruth.com
www.FaulkingTruth.com
April 8, 2005 (FinancialWire)
It has been suggested that the sudden cancellation of General Electric’s (NYSE: GE) “Dateline NBC” expose on naked short selling might make a nice script if Al Pacino and Russell Crowe could be induced to play the leads, as they did in “The Insider,” produced by Disney’s (NYSE: DIS) Touchstone Pictures and distributed by its Buena Vista unit.
Of course, that movie, about Viacom’s (NYSE: VIAb) CBS “60 Minutes” cancellation of a story about Big Tobacco and how the program was killed after its then-parent, Westinghouse, was leaned on by Brown and Williamson, an RJ Reynolds (NYSE: RJR) unit.
Many observers are alleging that General Electric may have been similarly leaned on by those with reputations and money at stake should the public become outraged over counterfeit shares, manipulative trading and illegal naked short sales that have been allowed by regulators in the name of what has now proven to have been a “disorderly market.”
Lawsuits that were believed to have been a part of the “postponed” show have even alleged that the NYSE, Nasdaq and perhaps even the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, through transaction fees associated with the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp.’s “Stock Borrow Program,” may have profited along with market makers and a motley crew of underworld characters, an offshore network, and U.S. hedge funds in keeping the practice relatively enforcement-free.
At least one website has sprung up to put pressure on NBC to reschedule the cancelled program. The website, http://www.faulkingtruth.com , has even published email addresses for various NBC officials, including its president, Bob Wright.
NBC is not the only media outlet that has apparently been tampered with.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. has received a letter from Marshal Shichtman, Esq., warning the DTCC not to destroy or tamper with evidence relating to its alleged successful plot to interfere with the media.
On February 7, Investors Business Daily asked MarketWatch, then co-owned by Viacom (NYSE: VIAb) but now owned by Dow Jones (NYSE: DJ) to shut off its FinancialWire feed that it also re-propogated to Yahoo (NASDAQ: YHOO).
An investigation by FinancialWire revealed that the newsfeed was shut down at the request of an official of the DTCC, who had complained to Investors Business Daily that FinancialWire publishes “opinions and not news.” FinancialWire learned that this is contained in emails sent by Investors Business Daily to the Dow Jones publication.
Shichtman demanded that the DTCC “preserve” all communications regarding the media’s disruption, since these are evidence that is “part of an ongoing investigation into the culpable conduct” related to the events.
“Lastly,” concluded Shichtman, “I am shocked and appalled that your organization, one of the cornerstones of an orderly market, that has done such tacit yeoman’s job, could engage in such cheap thuggery as utilizing strong-arm tactics more suitable to organized crime than an SRO. I would have thought that as a pre-eminent organization, and what should be a model to the world, the DTC would be above such acts.”
Despite the purported efforts by the DTCC, however, FinancialWire has since been provided to another 300 outlets.
The DTCC has been accused by many of acting with impunity, and is hardly a role model for unconflicted governance. Its 21 directors include Bradley Abelow, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS); Jonathan E. Beyman, Chief Information Officer, Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH); and Frank J. Bisignano, Chief Administrative Officer and Senior Executive Vice President, Citigroup / Solomon Smith Barney's Corporate Investment Bank (NYSE: C).
The largely unregulated DTC has become something of a defacto Czar presiding over the entire U.S. markets system, wielding more day-to-day influence and control than the SEC, the NASD and NASDAQ combined. Transparency is not of the DTCC’s strong suits. In the past it has stonewalled all requests for full and complete trading records.
The DTCC’s two preferred shareholders are the New York Stock Exchange and the NASD, a regulatory agency that also owns the Nasdaq and until recently, the American Stock Exchange.
Other DTCC board members include Michael C. Bodson, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MWD); Gary Bullock, Global Head of Logistics, Infrastructure, UBS Investment Bank (NYSE: UBS); Stephen P. Casper, Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer, Fischer Francis Trees & Watts, Inc.; Jill M. Considine,Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC);
Also, Paul F. Costello, President, Business Services Group, Wachovia Securities (NYSE: WB); John W. Cummings, Senior Vice President & Head of Global Technology & Services, Merrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER); Donald F. Donahue, Chief Operating Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC); Norman Eaker, General Partner, Edward Jones; George Hrabovsky, President, Alliance Global Investors Service; Catherine R. Kinney, President and Co-Chief Operating Officer, New York Stock Exchange; Thomas J. McCrossan, Executive Vice President, State Street Corporation (NYSE: STT); Eileen K. Murray, Managing Director, Credit Suisse First Boston (NYSE: CSR); James P. Palermo, Vice Chairman, Mellon Financial Corporation (NYSE: MEL); Thomas J. Perna, Senior Executive Vice President, Financial Companies Services Sector of The Bank of New York (NYSE: BNY); Ronald Purpora, Chief Executive Officer, Garban LLC; Douglas Shulman, President, Regulatory Services and Operations, NASD; and Thompson M. Swayne, Executive Vice President, JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM).
In their comments to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding Regulation SHO in January, the 50 state regulators, through their association, the North American Association of Securities Administrators (NASAA) issued what many consider to be a strong warning that if the DTCC is not dealt with in the final regulations, state regulators such as New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer may step to the plate.
In what many considered to have been explosive comments, Ralph Lambiase, then-NASAA president and Director of the Connecticut Division of Securities, warned "NASAA urges the Commission to reconsider its stance regarding the role of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (the DTC). As a threshold matter, NASAA believes that the Commission should explicitly prohibit the DTC from lending more shares of a security than it actually holds. The ability of the overall proposed rule would be severely impaired unless the Commission undertakes to implement such a prohibition.”
Many of the lawsuits believed to have been part of the program allege that the DTCC operates a “stock lending” program that aids and abets illegal naked short selling, and in doing so, admittedly takes in $1.67 million annually.
In a further rare display of transparency, however, while framing it in terms of a small percentage of daily transactions, Thompson has admitted in an interview posted at http://www.dtcc.com that some $4.9 billion, involving an estimated 20,000 daily transactions remain unresolved “fails to deliver and receive.”
“The markets check to see if the amount of fails to deliver is more than 1/2 of 1% of the total outstanding shares in that security,” said Thompson.
“If it is, then it goes on a ‘Threshold List.’ If it is then on the Threshold List for 13 consecutive settlement days, restrictions on short selling then apply. The “close-out” requirement forces a participant of a registered clearing agency to close out any “fail to deliver” position in a threshold security that has remained for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity. If the participant does not take action to close out the open fail to deliver position, the participant is prohibited from making further short sales in that security without first borrowing or arranging to borrow the security. Even market makers are not exempt from this requirement.”
In his questioning of SEC Chair Donaldson, Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah) suggested, however, that a loophole in the regulation allows market makers to “pass along” these “fails to deliver” from one to the other, leaving them “unclosed out” indefinitely. A video of that exchange is posted at http://www.investrendinformation.com
While in the overall scheme of the U.S. markets system, the fails to deliver of that magnitude represents the entire market caps of upwards of 500 smaller public companies every trading day, which if victimized in this admitted fashion, can find their survivals and the safety of the entire investments of their shareholders questionable indeed.
This comes hard on the heels of an ad in the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) from The Washington Legal Foundation, located at http://www.wlf.org , which has considerable clout in the Bush administration, with ten of its board members now serving in various capacities, including three, headed by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, in the Bush cabinet. Its “In All Fairness” advertorial, “What’s Up With The SEC?” may be seen at http://www.wlf.org/upload/032805IAFSEC.pdf
The advertorial alleges that class action lawyers are colluding with short sellers “right under the noses of SEC investigators,” whose abuses cause “investors, employees, pensioners and companies” to “lose millions of dollars in stock value each year.”
The WLF said that the SEC has been “sitting on several complaints of misconduct” that it and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed that detail “examples of questionable stock manipulation by short sellers and class action attorneys.”
The group says that the SEC is “looking the other way while class action attorneys enjoy a free-for-all, reaping millions in windfall fees to the detriment of shareholders,” and asks “why isn’t the SEC taking legal and regulatory action to prevent stock manipulation and to protect investors from the looting by plaintiffs’ lawyers? Shouldn’t there be rules and oversight to deter these trial lawyer abuses?”
For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on http://www.financialwire.net
FinancialWire is an independent, proprietary news service of Investrend Information, a division of Investrend Communications, Inc. It is not a press release service and receives no compensation for its news or opinions. Other divisions of Investrend, however, provide shareholder empowerment platforms such as forums, independent research and webcasting. For more information or to receive the FirstAlert daily summary of news, commentary, research reports, webcasts, events and conference calls, click on http://www.investrend.com/contact.asp
The FinancialWire NewsFeed is now available in multiple formats to your site or desktop, free. Click on: http://www.investrend.com/XmlFeeds?level=268
Bo
uninstall it, download a new copy then install again.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/default.mspx
I think that's BS ...
go back to yer golf board.
Good point -
Maybe it's just as well the Stockgate exposé is delayed ... the audience would have been too fragmented.
The majority of the viewing public wouldn't watch a another stock scandal program when major world events are unfolding and focused elsewhere. Even Charles and Camilla rescheduled their wedding for Saturday ... and a lot will be following that event too.
His Holiness the Pope dies ...
Largest crowds on record assembled in Vatican City ...
Security nightmare looms for Rome ...
Funeral on Friday ...
Monaco's Prince Rainier dies ...
State funeral date to be set ...
Dateline rescheduled ...
April 10th is just not a good time to air the counterfeiting of securities in the USA. I believe the only reason it was scheduled around this time is because Senator Bennett set the stage at the Senate Banking Committee hearing a month ago.
Form 8-K out for CMKX.
http://knobias.10kwizard.com/filing.php?repo=tenk&ipage=3385793&doc=1&total=&back=2&...
IMO Senator Bennett performed the opening act …
Dateline needed that as a catalyst.
The SEC must show America that it can get tough with more sinister villains thatn Martha Stewart.
April 5, 2005 (FinancialWire) It’s now only 5 days until the airing of the Dateline NBC expose on illegal manipulative shortselling, scheduled by the General Electric (NYSE: GE) network this coming Sunday night, April 10, and Carol Remond, reporter for Dow Jones (NYSE: DJ) Newswire, finished “out of the money” Friday and Monday when she posted a scathing article that seems to have inexplicably vanished into the ether.
The article, “In The Money – Global Links As ‘Get Shorty’ Poster Child,” had inaccurately portrayed FinancialWire as failing to report aspects of the StockGate story it broke that the newswire had in fact reported. Meanwhile, the company at the center of the controversy, Global Links (OTCBB: GLKCE) exploded 105.88% on volume of 985,689, despite purported holdings of 100% of its stock by Robert Simmons, CEO of Zann Corp. (OTCBB: ZANC), whose own shares rocketed 51.52% Monday.
The Dow Jones article suggested that FinancialWire was inaccurate, but not for what it published. Instead it described “inaccuracy” as being what it said FinancialWire had “failed” to publish, which observers say is an odd criteria in journalism, if not an odd definition.
As it turns out, however, the “missing facts,” such as that Simpson had not taken “delivery of his Global Link shares,” that the company’s business prospects consisted of questionable real estate properties, that Simpson and Global Links CEO Frank Dobrucki had never been in contact, that Simpson and Global Links shared professional representation, and that FinancialWire did not identify Simpson as CEO of a company that was suspended from research by a separate division of the parent company, were not missing at all in the FinancialWire ongoing and continuing coverages of the Global Links episode.
FinancialWire not only reported all of these matters, according to a “Site Search” at the http://www.financialwire.net , but it had, as in several previous instances, roundly “scooped” Dow Jones on just about every point claimed.
The Dow Jones said Simpson “had no idea why (FinancialWire) wrote about his purchase.” A spokesperson for FinancialWire expressed amusement, saying the news service wrote about it because it was an “interesting story,” and “we were once again in a position to scoop Dow Jones,” apparently by a month. “But we do appreciate the Dow Jones instructional journalism,” the spokesperson laughed.
Dow Jones said that “FinancialWire didn't identify Simpson as CEO of Zann in its March 4th article. FinancialWire also failed to note that ATNG Inc., the previous corporate incarnation of Zann, became one of Investrend's corporate clients in July 2002. Investrend articles about ATNG or Zann indicate that coverage has been suspended because the company failed to provide access to Investrend's analyst. It's unclear when the suspension occurred. According to Zann's website, Simpson agreed to take over ATNG operations in October 2002.”
The SEC filings did not identify Simpson’s employment, and that appeared irrelevant March 4. In its follow-up article, after Simpson’s identify was known, the record shows FinancialWire reported all the information that Dow Jones erroneously stated it “failed to publish,” and information as to “when” a suspension occurred is readily available on its site to any reporter who cared to look.
And, noted a FinancialWire spokesperson, “our articles didn’t vanish into thin air, as apparently did Remond’s.”
FinancialWire is a member of the Online News Association. A search of the organization’s rosters didn’t show anyone representing Dow Jones or the Wall Street Journal’s online sites as members.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. has also become defensive in advance of the upcoming Dateline broadcast. It says that the recent EuroMoney’s comprehensive series on “naked short selling” is just “sloppy journalism.”
“We will not accept silently this type of sloppy, one-sided journalism whether in print or broadcast,” said DTCC Deputy Counsel Larry Thompson, apparently in a warm-up to the expected onslaught of public opinion after the upcoming Dateline NBC network telecast.
The DTCC, which is run under the joint authority of the New York Stock Exchange and NASD, both government-sponsored SROs, may even have run afoul of serious laws against interference with the press, according to attorney Marshal Shichtman, Esq., who is investigating the organization’s purported collusion with Investors Business Daily in an attempt to censor or squelch further distribution of FinancialWire.
This comes hard on the heels of an ad in the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) from The Washington Legal Foundation, located at http://www.wlf.org , which has considerable clout in the Bush administration, with ten of its board members now serving in various capacities, including three, headed by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, in the Bush cabinet. Its “In All Fairness” advertorial, “What’s Up With The SEC?” may be seen at http://www.wlf.org/upload/032805IAFSEC.pdf
The advertorial alleges that class action lawyers are colluding with short sellers “right under the noses of SEC investigators,” whose abuses cause “investors, employees, pensioners and companies” to “lose millions of dollars in stock value each year.”
The WLF said that the SEC has been “sitting on several complaints of misconduct” that it and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed that detail “examples of questionable stock manipulation by short sellers and class action attorneys.”
The group says that the SEC is “looking the other way while class action attorneys enjoy a free-for-all, reaping millions in windfall fees to the detriment of shareholders,” and asks “why isn’t the SEC taking legal and regulatory action to prevent stock manipulation and to protect investors from the looting by plaintiffs’ lawyers? Shouldn’t there be rules and oversight to deter these trial lawyer abuses?”
It concludes that “the SEC must show America that it can get tough with more sinister villains thatn Martha Stewart.”
For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on http://www.financialwire.net
April 5, 2005 (FinancialWire) It’s now only 5 days until the airing of the Dateline NBC expose on illegal manipulative shortselling, scheduled by the General Electric (NYSE: GE) network this coming Sunday night, April 10, and Carol Remond, reporter for Dow Jones (NYSE: DJ) Newswire, finished “out of the money” Friday and Monday when she posted a scathing article that seems to have inexplicably vanished into the ether.
The article, “In The Money – Global Links As ‘Get Shorty’ Poster Child,” had inaccurately portrayed FinancialWire as failing to report aspects of the StockGate story it broke that the newswire had in fact reported. Meanwhile, the company at the center of the controversy, Global Links (OTCBB: GLKCE) exploded 105.88% on volume of 985,689, despite purported holdings of 100% of its stock by Robert Simmons, CEO of Zann Corp. (OTCBB: ZANC), whose own shares rocketed 51.52% Monday.
The Dow Jones article suggested that FinancialWire was inaccurate, but not for what it published. Instead it described “inaccuracy” as being what it said FinancialWire had “failed” to publish, which observers say is an odd criteria in journalism, if not an odd definition.
As it turns out, however, the “missing facts,” such as that Simpson had not taken “delivery of his Global Link shares,” that the company’s business prospects consisted of questionable real estate properties, that Simpson and Global Links CEO Frank Dobrucki had never been in contact, that Simpson and Global Links shared professional representation, and that FinancialWire did not identify Simpson as CEO of a company that was suspended from research by a separate division of the parent company, were not missing at all in the FinancialWire ongoing and continuing coverages of the Global Links episode.
FinancialWire not only reported all of these matters, according to a “Site Search” at the http://www.financialwire.net
, but it had, as in several previous instances, roundly “scooped” Dow Jones on just about every point claimed.
The Dow Jones said Simpson “had no idea why (FinancialWire) wrote about his purchase.” A spokesperson for FinancialWire expressed amusement, saying the news service wrote about it because it was an “interesting story,” and “we were once again in a position to scoop Dow Jones,” apparently by a month. “But we do appreciate the Dow Jones instructional journalism,” the spokesperson laughed.
Dow Jones said that “FinancialWire didn't identify Simpson as CEO of Zann in its March 4th article. FinancialWire also failed to note that ATNG Inc., the previous corporate incarnation of Zann, became one of Investrend's corporate clients in July 2002. Investrend articles about ATNG or Zann indicate that coverage has been suspended because the company failed to provide access to Investrend's analyst. It's unclear when the suspension occurred. According to Zann's website, Simpson agreed to take over ATNG operations in October 2002.”
The SEC filings did not identify Simpson’s employment, and that appeared irrelevant March 4. In its follow-up article, after Simpson’s identify was known, the record shows FinancialWire reported all the information that Dow Jones erroneously stated it “failed to publish,” and information as to “when” a suspension occurred is readily available on its site to any reporter who cared to look.
And, noted a FinancialWire spokesperson, “our articles didn’t vanish into thin air, as apparently did Remond’s.”
FinancialWire is a member of the Online News Association. A search of the organization’s rosters didn’t show anyone representing Dow Jones or the Wall Street Journal’s online sites as members.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. has also become defensive in advance of the upcoming Dateline broadcast. It says that the recent EuroMoney’s comprehensive series on “naked short selling” is just “sloppy journalism.”
“We will not accept silently this type of sloppy, one-sided journalism whether in print or broadcast,” said DTCC Deputy Counsel Larry Thompson, apparently in a warm-up to the expected onslaught of public opinion after the upcoming Dateline NBC network telecast.
The DTCC, which is run under the joint authority of the New York Stock Exchange and NASD, both government-sponsored SROs, may even have run afoul of serious laws against interference with the press, according to attorney Marshal Shichtman, Esq., who is investigating the organization’s purported collusion with Investors Business Daily in an attempt to censor or squelch further distribution of FinancialWire.
This comes hard on the heels of an ad in the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) from The Washington Legal Foundation, located at http://www.wlf.org , which has considerable clout in the Bush administration, with ten of its board members now serving in various capacities, including three, headed by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, in the Bush cabinet. Its “In All Fairness” advertorial, “What’s Up With The SEC?” may be seen at http://www.wlf.org/upload/032805IAFSEC.pdf
The advertorial alleges that class action lawyers are colluding with short sellers “right under the noses of SEC investigators,” whose abuses cause “investors, employees, pensioners and companies” to “lose millions of dollars in stock value each year.”
The WLF said that the SEC has been “sitting on several complaints of misconduct” that it and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed that detail “examples of questionable stock manipulation by short sellers and class action attorneys.”
The group says that the SEC is “looking the other way while class action attorneys enjoy a free-for-all, reaping millions in windfall fees to the detriment of shareholders,” and asks “why isn’t the SEC taking legal and regulatory action to prevent stock manipulation and to protect investors from the looting by plaintiffs’ lawyers? Shouldn’t there be rules and oversight to deter these trial lawyer abuses?”
It concludes that “the SEC must show America that it can get tough with more sinister villains thatn Martha Stewart.”
For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on http://www.financialwire.net
Universal Express' Lawsuit of $1.4 Billion USD to Move SEC to United States Appellate Court
Business Wire - April 04, 2005 10:34
NEW YORK, Apr 04, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Universal Express Inc. (OTCBB: USXP) today reports that compensatory damages in the Company's suit filed against the Security and Exchange Commission with respect to the "naked shorting" scandal is now estimated to exceed $1.4 Billion USD.
"Despite the fact that the SEC ignored, denied and attempted to cover-up the 'naked short selling' scandal, Universal Express and others have been courageously exposing this SEC issuance of trillions of counterfeit shares as a violation of criminal statutes and a destruction of public trading confidence," said Christopher G. Gunderson, General Counsel of Universal Express.
"Fortunately, the company's lawsuit will now be considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the second highest Court in America. We anticipate that this venue will be less expensive with a shorter deliberation outcome than a full Jury trail of such importance, which would have been appealed inevitably by either side. We enthusiastically welcome the high profile and more practical Court of Appeals," continued Mr. Gunderson.
"The Company filed suit in Florida against the SEC and its conflicted and unchecked agents for interference and harassment with its ongoing developing business relationships in obvious retaliation for the Company's high profile exposure of the agency's 'naked short selling' scandal.
"The SEC retaliated with a spurious and unproven press release and lawsuit in an attempt to 'venue' or 'forum' shop rather than to join the existing lawsuit in Florida or to simply solve the problem.
"The SEC's recent SHO list with a 'grand-fathered' clause to forgive the past illegalities of short selling American securities is an attempted cover-up of this ongoing scandal. Imagine that trillions of shares, questionable compensation to the SEC, billions of dollars of un-owned securities stolen from thousands of companies and hundreds of thousands of stockholders should all be 'grandfathered' simply because the SEC decreed it should, without financial settlement of these massive illegal short stock positions!" concluded Mr. Gunderson.
"Despite our timely and much discussed Luggage Express (www.usxpluggageexpress.com), our growing private postal trade association (www.universalpostnetwork.com), and our technologically advanced retail division (www.universalcashexpress.com), Universal Express finds itself, while it develops a new American public conglomerate, to be regrettably embroiled in a righteous legal proceeding on behalf of American shareholders against the same agency empowered to assist us in our development of jobs, revenues and stock valuation," said Richard A. Altomare, Chairman & CEO of Universal Express.
"The SEC was created by our Congress to fairly and professionally regulate our public trading systems, develop new companies, opportunities and jobs. Since 1997, Universal Express has been persistently requesting assistance from the Legislative and now Judicial branches of our government against an unchecked and all powerful agency that, in our opinion, has through electronic and computer trading lost its way and is either unable or unwilling to ask for help or directions. I believe that the Appellate Court may have the answers for the thousands of companies that Universal Express will represent as we now take the scandal of 'naked short selling' and abuse of power to the second highest Court in our Land," concluded Mr. Altomare.
About Universal Express
Universal Express, Inc. is a 22-year old logistics and transportation conglomerate with multiple developing subsidiaries and services. For more information please visit www.usxp.com
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: The statements contained herein, which are not historical, are forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements including, but not limited to, certain delays beyond the Company's control with respect to market acceptance of new technologies, products and services, delays in testing and evaluation of products and services, and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SOURCE: Universal Express Inc.
Equitilink L.L.C.
Ron Garner, 877-788-1940 (toll free)
858-824-1940 (International or local)
www.equitilinkpr.com
Copyright Business Wire 2005
lvlamb, notwithstanding your comments ....
I think you'll better grasp my point a week from today if you tune into the NBC documentary "DATELINE" on Sunday April 10, 2005 at 7:00 PM ET.
Mark it down in your daytimer to watch this program and incase you forget, program your VCR to record it.
It's going to be a classic.
lvlamb ... it's a matter of how they're practiced and upon whom ... much like rape.
" ... Calling "illegal" practices which are perfectly legal and conforming to prospectuses, exchange rules, and country legislation. ..."
Do I Seem Annoyed To You?
Do I seem a little testy? A little jittery? On edge? Maybe a tad out of sorts? Try this quote from the March 25 issue of Euromoney, a respected periodical from Europe that just released a stunningly complete assessment of the fail to deliver phenomena and the SEC's shocking lack of interest in enforcing any of the laws designed to protect investors, and hence deciding to grandfather in all fails prior to January of this year:
The SEC's Brigagliano says the commission made a choice. "We were concerned about generating volatility where there were large pre-existing open positions, and we wanted to start afresh with new regulation, not re-write history."
Come again? Huh? Let me get this straight. The SEC decided that they didn't want to "generate volatility" - a euphemism for not wanting to cause short squeezes for those who had systematically violated the law and created large slugs of counterfeit stock. Tut tut, we wouldn't want to inconvenience those that had robbed investors and companies by systematically printing bogus stock, abusing the DTCC and NSCC's borrow programs (which the DTCC conflictingly says doesn't occur) - no, wouldn't want them to have to experience the volatility that comes from having to buy in those profitable fail positions that had bankrupted investors and companies alike.
Of note is that the SEC acknowledges that there are large pre-existing failed positions. Doesn't dispute it, as people like Mark Cuban and Jeff Matthews do. They don't try to say there aren't large positions, nor that they aren't a huge problem. Nope. Just that they made an executive decision that they aren't empowered to make, namely to effectively grant a pardon to those who by their own admission broke the laws on the books. That's what it means, folks. No translation necessary, really.
So we go from the DTCC's position, which is "it's all in your head," to the SEC's admission that it isn't, that there are large positions of fails, but that instead of doing their duty and enforcing the law, they chose to hand out get out of jail free cards.
Two points.
1) Under what authority can the SEC decide to just allow a large, unauthorized float of unregistered securities to exist in perpetuity? And
2) Who at the SEC decided that the interests of the brokers and hedge funds that had systematically created those huge fail positions that the SEC isn't even disputing are real were more important than protecting the interests of the investors and companies they are chartered with protecting?
I’d love to understand that reasoning. As an investor who has lost a considerable sum of money in a Reg SHO list company - NFI - I would be very interested in what specific individual decided that my lost money was OK to leave lost, so that those that stole it wouldn't be troubled by volatility. I would bet that investors can find an attorney that would be willing to name them personally for dereliction of their duty - in fact, I'll bet that they can find several guys willing to file a class action naming the individual for deciding to protect the brokers, over doing their mandated duty.
Here’s another gem from the articles:
Susan Petersen, a special counsel in the SEC's division of market regulation, says that it does not make public the exact amount of fails-to-deliver, as it would potentially have negative effects on investors and broker/dealers by revealing trading strategies.
Huh? You mean it would reveal the illegal trading strategies that are creating large fail to deliver positions? Wow. Wouldn't want to do that, would we? Isn’t the charter of the SEC to protect those that are using illegal trading practices to profit, and to hide information that would reveal their illegal activities at all costs?
Did I miss that memo? Here is an SEC official, on record, stating that the exact reason that they won’t publish the number of fails is the reason I have publicly speculated: they don’t want the light of exposure to reveal illegal and manipulative trading techniques, and they are choosing to protect the investors (hedge funds) and broker/dealers employing those trading techniques rather than the companies and investors they are chartered with protecting. And they are now on record as stating as much.
So how badly broken does the system have to admit that it is before someone does something about it? These are just two quotes from our regulators that clearly, unequivocally articulate that the SEC is not doing its job, is in fact aiding and abetting those that are breaking the rules, and is covering up the info that would reveal how big the problem is. They don’t even bother to deny it - they just come right out and say it.
Do any of the apologists who deny the existence of the problem want to bite this one off? Perhaps help Senator Bennett and the Senate Banking committee understand how approving an unauthorized, unregistered float of unknown size is a good thing, how refusing to divulge information as to the extent of the problem (for the sole and admitted reason of protecting the bad guys from the consequences of their actions) is a good thing, how dismissing the chronic, acknowledged large fail problem that came about from failing to enforce the rules with a regal wave of the hand (we want to start off with a blank canvas, after all, and all those prior episodes of violating the rules on the books for 71 years are just so, well, messy and inconvenient) is a good thing, and how allowing people with this mindset (blame the victim, protect the criminals, dismiss investors as dispensable and unworthy of protection) to continue in their roles is a good thing?
This sickens me. I could go on. There are plenty of other examples of the SEC’s imperious disregard for our wellbeing in the articles. It becomes clear as you allow these people to talk that they view their job as maintaining the status quo and easing the way for Wall Street to screw us. Protecting us is of no concern. Protecting the entities who are destroying the markets and violating every rule they come across is the imperative.
If you aren’t furious, you are an idiot. Or one of the criminals. It’s that simple. And it took a European magazine that goes out to European CEO’s and CFO’s to capture the extent of the morbidity and corruption - not an American publication. Our reporters are far too busy reassuring everyone that there is no problem - that’s the popular bromide dujour of the American press, with few exceptions. Any of you high minded media wonks want to tackle these statements by our regulators? Or will we be treated to more "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" dross from an industry where comprehension of the problem, much less the honest reporting of it, is off-limits?
I am sickened. It is as bad as previously thought. Worse. Dateline will undoubtedly blow the lid off this, as will the outrage generated by quotes like the two I highlighted. The video at http://tinyurl.com/5vq8y
that many of the apologists for Wall Street have been busy trying to dismiss and undermine as being alarmist actually is moderate, and fails to reveal the full extent of the corruption of our system. Then again, it only has 3 minutes to get the point across. The text of two of the articles is an astounding indictment of a system run amuck.
You should be very, very worried. The message is clear - the equities markets are not safe, the regulators are uninterested in making them so, and there is so much money being made by the bad guys that they have been able to co-opt the system for their personal benefit. And that is the tame version. Anyone with the ability to read the articles will get the not so tame version. It is as ugly as anything I could conjure up in my most ugly, dark moments.
And that says a lot.
Gump, how's this for zip ...
To all fellow shareholders,
I have been reading these boards for the past two days and have been amazed at the number of people against someone standing up for us in the SEC hearing. I would like to address a few items of concern.
In no way is this intervention designed to attack our company. I have been long this stock for over a year. I have read a lot of your posts for that time period and respect many of you. Those of you who have spoken against it, I feel, think it is going to harm your interests and I totally understand your position. This action is merely a way of trying to make sure that the SEC keeps us in mind when they make a decision. Please consider that if indeed the SEC is threatened by a huge naked short, they are going to move swiftly to take us out, and they can, based solely on the filing issues. The company can say, "what about the 70k shareholders your honor?" "Well CMKX, you should have thought about that before you messed up your filings." Then what?
My intention here is not to try to make you change your mind, but to only explain why I have hired Bill Frizzell. No, Bill is not a Securities Lawyer, but he is an incredible trial attorney, and, take it or leave it, an honest one. I know there are other honest attorneys out there, but I don't personally know any like I do Bill. I can also tell you that Bill is one of the most kind individuals I know. I have never known him to cheat anyone. He works hard for the money he makes, and that's probably why he is not incredibly wealthy. Bill is not looking to make a lot of money here. He knew when he started this that there would probably not be more than 1000-1500 investors jump on board. Bill is excited about helping me, as well as others, by trying to protect our interest. Bill is in Washington interviewing attorneys today to take up the slack where he is less knowledgeable. He intends on being totally prepared to make our interests known.
What is my interest? Please compare them to your own. That CMKX continue to exist, and to have time to make the filings right, and to have the opportunity to show the world that they have the goods. That's it! I want to make my money off of the stock I own, not off of some class action lawsuit that makes us less than our investment.
Some have said why would I come into this at the last hour? Because it is the last hour! I have sat in front of my computer for a year hanging on to every prominent poster's words, hoping and praying that they were right. I listened to all the pumpers make predictions only to be let down like the rest of you. I was in a trance waiting for the day for our illustrious management to pull this through. Granted, they still might, and they are illustrious! But they are dealing with the most powerful force on earth, “WALLSTREET”
It has been very disappointing to see the response out there due to the fact that it will take a large shareholder base to have any effect on the decision by the Judge. She must see that we are a force to be reckoned with, otherwise it may end in vain. Sure, if we are made to go private, I think UC will do the right thing and keep us around, and we probably will one day make money, but IMHO I do not think this was the plan. I honestly feel the company has a problem that SHOULD be easily overcome, IF the SEC was not threatened by the problems that were caused by allowing a possible huge naked short problem to exist.
Two more things then I will stop. First, I personally believe the Green Baron feels that this action is of the greatest importance to shareholders, or he would have never supported the idea in the first place. I, along with Bill, explained all that we were going to try and accomplish to Ed. I asked him to please help. When I was done talking, he understood, and agreed that representation was indeed a good idea. I paid him nothing, I promised him nothing. The Green Baron did what they did, because they believe in this company like we all do. Thank you Ed, you did the right thing!!
Secondly, I am not a “big time” shareholder. I have an average number of shares. I do not have a lot of money. But, what I do have a lot of, is heart. I will fight to the end to protect my investment, because it is all that I have for the most part materialistically speaking. I am very wealthy when it comes to family. Four children, and an adoring wife who has put up with me for a year living this dream that you all have been living with me. We longs have got to pull together on this. We need to be represented at this hearing. There is NO agenda here other than standing up and telling the SEC we are watching, and we want to be dealt with fairly. If not, we are going to be a force like you have never dealt with before.
If you disagree I understand and will do my best with the shareholders that have, and will join me. I hold no hard feelings towards anyone because I understand you don't know me, and you really have no reason to trust anyone. I promise that if you will find a little trust, that Bill will work as hard as he possibly can to do his best, and I will be right beside him every step of the way.
Thank you for your time.
Please call me today if you wish. I will be helping again today at the law firm answering phones. All of you who have called so far, thank you for calling and asking the questions that you have. Thank you for placing trust in the effort so far.
John Martin
903-595-1921
jmartin@cmkxownersgroup.com
You're entitled to your opinion SEC 10, but I disagree.
CMKM Diamonds, Inc. and CEO Urban Casavant. The much loved CEO brings shareholders excitement and fun at NHRA Races even while facing the tribulations of running a public company.
CMKX Urban Warfare
Urban Warfare is warfare conducted in populated urban areas such as towns and cities. The U.S. military term is MOUT, or (Military Operations on Urban Terrain). The Canadian and British military term is FIBUA (Fighting in Built-Up Areas). In the case of CMKX it means UOOTS, (Urban Operations Other Than Saskatchewan).
Warfare inside a city is very different from a traditional open-field battle against a conventional army. A complicating factor of urban warfare is the presence of civilians, sometimes as combatants of various sorts, ranging from armed militias to people defending their homes against all comers, usually with many innocent non-combatants trying to stay out of the way of the battling forces. The military operations are also complicated by limited fields of view and fire, because of buildings, large amounts of cover and concealment for defenders, and the ease of placement of booby traps and snipers.
If that doesn't sound like the definition of CMKM Diamonds and CMKX Shareholders then nothing else does. The privilege of being a CMKX shareholder has turned into a seemingly innocuous battle. This battle has stirred up considerable emotion and rallied groups of unlikely comrades as to create communities of unarmed militia within the Internet.
In recent weeks much has happened to CMKM Diamonds. Everything from returning to reporting status and having their stock halted to Administrative Proceedings. All the result of the SEC's concern over the adequacy of publicly available information on CMKX's assets and liabilities, mining and other business activities, share structure and stock issuance, and corporate management. This and some issues associated with the improper use of a Form S-8 that was filed in May of 2003.
Through it all, CMKX shareholders wait patiently and loyaly as these events unfold. Occasionally you see them duck and cover around their virtual urban surroundings as the SEC lobs fragmentation grenades in the name of enforcement. The times are reminiscent of 2000 years ago when years of persecution and occupation by the Romans, began taking its toll on the people of Jerusalem. Today's CMKX shareholder is looking for deliverance; deliverance from the multitude of legal mumbo-jumbo and conjectures by the Securities and Exchange Commission, all in the name of protecting the shareholders. The SEC, comparable to the Pharisees of 1st century Jerusalem, made huge pronouncements in public forums to announce their actions and declare their special form of legalism. Like the people of Jerusalem, CMKX shareholders are quite confident of their beliefs and hold to the promise of their deliverer from this dilemma. The shareholders hold strong to their investment and many have established intimate relationships with CMKM Diamonds through the CMKXtreme races and NHRA events which seem to occur near every major city in the U.S.
The question that comes to our minds at Zoomingstocks.com is who is protecting who and why has the Federal Government (The SEC) still not made any progress towards correcting the naked shorting problems that steal money from the hardworking individuals who invest in Pink Sheet and other Small Cap companies. The long-awaited enforcement date for Regulation SHO has come and gone with little if any correction to Market Maker manipulation. However, the SEC continues to showboat their enforcement upon companies like CMKM Diamonds who are trying to correct past mistakes and build value for their shareholders.
Because of their ineffectiveness many movements have sprung to bring attention to the problem of naked shorting and the SEC's ineffectiveness in correcting these issues. It is time for reform within this arm of the government to provide real benefit to Americans who have invested in our stock markets to realize their dream of owning a home or putting their children through college. It is time for shareholders to speak up and be heard and if our readers have not made their voice heard, now is the time to find a place to voice your opinion on the issue of naked shorting and the abuse of the stock borrow program.
Meanwhile, CMKXer's are looking for their deliverer. Initially it was embodied in the form of D. Roger Glenn, the prominent SEC Attorney who recently departed company with CMKM Diamonds, and now the Stocklein Law Firm and Mr. Robert Maheu. I won't bore our readers with details of these individuals since enough has been written about them already and I am certain every shareholder knows who they are. These individuals however represent the deliverer that CMKX Shareholders are looking for to protect them and correct the reporting issues facing the company today. Mr. Maheu and Stocklein masterfully short-circuited the return to reporting status but at the same time left the safety of concealment to face the enemy head on. The reason for this in our humble opinion is to take responsibility for their actions and be forthright and honest by bringing these issues out in the open. As a result, the SEC Enforcement Division has initiated a hearing to present the case and allow CMKX to present evidence to support their actions.
According to reports and rumors, the hearing is set to take place in Washington, D.C. vice Los Angeles as previously thought. Because it is a public hearing, any and all shareholders can attend and view the proceedings as they occur. Shareholders in the Washington area should consider attending. The SEC Administrative hearing on CMKX will be held on April 25, 2005 at 9:30 AM EST, 450 Fifth Street NW Washington DC, 20549 (Room 1C-50). (Unconfirmed by the company, Attorneys, or the SEC)
So, where do we go from here? We wait once again, patiently hoping and praying for the deliverance we seek, deliverance from this tiresome ordeal and a return to those things that are important to investors such as the drilling results, valuation, financial reports, and profits.
The Urban warfare continues and CMKX Shareholders need to remain strong and not become a casualty of the SEC or any external influences aimed at destroying our dreams of seeing CMKM Diamonds become the STOCK PLAY OF THE CENTURY!
Join the Zoom Generation
Bo14172, did Urban also sell a home?
It's only the difference that's relevant anyway.
So what's your point?
Motley Fool News 3-30-05 on Naked Shorting
"Who's Behind Naked Shorting" news story out today.
Swamp
http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05033008.htm
Who's Behind Naked Shorting?
By Karl Thiel
March 30, 2005
Last week, I wrote about naked short sellers and Regulation SHO, suggesting none too subtly that the new rules seem to deal pretty lightly with any bad guys operating outside the law. If the SEC is acknowledging a problem, as it seems to be, then Reg SHO seems like a pretty weak tool for controlling it.
But that was last week's subject. Having gotten to that point, I was left wondering how extensive the problem really is. As I said then, I'm deeply skeptical of some conspiracy theories that suggest short selling is not only rampant, but also a part of a coordinated scheme involving brokers, media, and regulators trying to bring down targeted companies. In fact, let me say at the outset that after spending many hours looking at this issue, I remain unconvinced of the larger conspiracy theories and agnostic on how extensive naked short selling is or how exactly it happens. There is no shortage of theories -- some of which I'll discuss here -- but little in the way of concrete answers. So the first and most obvious question is, how much of this is going on?
Rare or everywhere?
Unfortunately, nobody seems to know. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), a holding company that clears and guarantees almost all trades in the U.S., very recently posted an interesting Q&A on naked short selling, which is well worth reading by anyone interested in the subject. "While naked short selling occurs," says DTCC First Deputy General Counsel Larry Thompson in the document, "the extent to which it occurs is in dispute." Ain't that the truth.
Nevertheless, the DTCC has a good reason to say something public about the issue. The subject of naked short selling has gained some momentum with the introduction of Reg SHO early this year and a rising tide of complaint from companies like Overstock.com (Nasdaq: OSTK) and others. But in addition to this general attention, 12 separate lawsuits have accused the DTCC itself of engineering naked short-selling schemes. Nine of these, according to Thompson, have been dismissed or withdrawn, while three are still pending.
The basic accusation is that the DTCC itself counterfeits shares through its stock borrow program. This program has been around for more than 20 years and is used to help guarantee transactions where one party fails to produce promised shares. While the DTCC itself doesn't own shares, a network of participating broker-dealers lists shares available for borrowing with the program, and these are called on to complete failed transactions.
Lawsuits have claimed that the DTCC loans out shares it never collects from participants. These in turn presumably show up as new "fails to settle" transactions, but from the point of view of the market, appear to be new shares floating around (in electronic form, that is, without stock certificates to back them up). These can then be re-listed, the theory goes, as available for borrowing, and the process repeats itself, allowing the folks manipulating the system to essentially manufacture any number of phantom shares.
Thompson calls these accusations "either an intentional misrepresentation of the SEC-approved system, or a profoundly ignorant characterization of this component of the process of clearing and settling transactions." I want to stress that I'm not supporting these accusations -- I mention them because they describe one popular theory of how naked short sellers operate.
Something's going on here
But if we rule this out, how does one explain the suspicious volumes and consistent, ongoing settlement failures experienced by companies like BioLase Technology (Nasdaq: BLTI), Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX), or Rule Breakers pick Taser (Nasdaq: TASR) on the Threshold Security lists? Thompson, while acknowledging that naked shorting does happen, suggests that many settlement failures are innocent. "An investor can get a physical certificate to his broker too late for settlement," he suggests. "An investor might not have signed the certificate, or signed in the wrong place. There may have been human error, in that the wrong stock (or CUSIP) was sold, so the delivery can't be made. Last year, 1.7 million physical certificates were lost," he continues, "and sometimes that isn't discovered until after an investor puts in an order to sell the security. There are literally dozens of reasons for a 'fail to deliver,' and most of them are legal. Reg SHO also allows market makers to legally 'naked short' shares in the course of their market making responsibilities, and those obviously result in fails," he concludes.
But can unsigned or lost certificates really explain why some companies have lingered on the list for weeks, meaning that more than 10,000 shares per day or over 0.5% of the company's entire float is subject to failed settlement on a daily basis? If that's the root cause, it would certainly seem to point to some pretty shoddy settlement practices among broker-dealers. If that's really all there is to this, then maybe Reg SHO will serve its greatest purpose in embarrassing some of brokers into improving their settlement procedures.
Who's making the market?
Yet, as I noted last week, it is the market-making exemption that still seems to me like a source of potential trouble. Market makers don't have to locate shares before executing short sales in most circumstances. The reason for this is that their role is to keep an inventory of readily available stock, to smooth volatility, and to manage their own risk, and this sometimes requires them to short shares. A prime example of why this is sometimes a valuable function and even protects investors can occasionally be seen with companies emerging from bankruptcy.
When US Airways (OTCBB: UAIRQ.OB) was planning to re-emerge from bankruptcy in 2003, for instance, its old common stock, trading on the OTCBB, rallied -- apparently because some investors mistakenly thought the news was somehow good for shareholders in the old common stock. But the plan called for the issuance of new stock, and the old shares were to become worthless. Market makers, by shorting the old common shares, could burst a speculative mini-bubble in the making and stop more ill-informed investors from losing their shirts. (Of course, one wonders why stocks are allowed to trade at all in these situations, but that's another matter). In any case, this is an extreme example of one function legitimate market makers serve by shorting stock and why they are given an exemption to the rules.
Its taken years for Shore Gold to convince the masses ... not themselves though. The masses still aren't convinced re SGF. Look at the bargain price you can pick it up for today!!! I have scooped up ALL the SGF I can afford.
Besides, CMKX feels confident it has considerable assets in Equador.
I remain a believer in CMKX.
I can't believe anyone can be quite that stupid and still keep Maheu and Roger on side. I gotta conclude CMKM Diamonds is holding 4 aces up its sleeve. With all that land they lay claim to they just could have some very rich kimberlite they've not yet told us about. And since they were on the Pinks, they weren't required to either.
CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (CMKX) Update
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
The Green Baron Report for the past few days has been speaking with John Martin, major CMKX shareholder, and his Attorney Bill Frizzell from The Frizzell Law Firm of Smith County, Texas, who Mr. Martin has retained to file a Motion to Intervene on behalf of CMKX shareholders regarding the current SEC hearing involving CMKM Diamonds, Inc. The Green Baron Report views this as a significant development for all CMKX shareholders.
In our ongoing effort to provide our members with the latest and most accurate information available we have scheduled a webcast for tomorrow afternoon, Wednesday, March 30th with Attorney Bill Frizzell which we will make available to the public shortly afterwards on our website www.TheGreenBaron.com
The Green Baron will be releasing a Special Update tomorrow afternoon that will include information about the webcast with Mr. Frizzell as well as information about how CMKX shareholders can join in the Motion to Intervene as formal participants. The Special Update will also include information and links to the Frizzell Law Firm's website where interested parties can download a Participation Agreement allowing shareholders to join in the Motion to Intervene. Our understanding is the cost per shareholder will be a $25 one-time filing fee.
Although The Green Baron is still confident that CMKM Diamonds could successfully resolve their current matters with the SEC before any legal proceedings may be necessary, we still view the representation of the shareholders by Mr. Frizzell and his law firm as an important safety net and very positive development for all CMKX shareholders.
There has been much speculation regarding tender offers involving CMKX. We here at The Green Baron have the utmost confidence in the SEC and CMKM Diamonds management to diligently protect the shareholders interests, we also remind our members that it would be very much in our best interest if any tender offers, or similar negotiations taking place, did so with the shareholders having our legal representation at the table looking out for our interests.
Evergreen Marketing, Inc. and The Green Baron Report would like to state that we have received no compensation from any of the parties involved in this matter. Including CMKM Diamonds, Inc., John Martin, or The Frizzell Law Firm. Our involvement is strictly as shareholders and in the best interests of our members.
CMKM Diamonds (PK: CMKX)
CMKM Diamonds Comments On SEC Administrative Proceeding
It appears there is a serious game of cat and mouse going on between the SEC and CMKM Diamonds. It seems the SEC is attempting to force CMKX to show their hand while CMKX has responded by saying if we are going to show our hand, we will show it to everyone at the same time. The Green Baron Report still believes CMKM Diamonds has mineral rights to some of the most mineral rich lands in the world. We still think the Company has “the goods” and we will wait patiently for this most interesting story to develop.
Last week, Ameritrade, Inc. (one of the most active internet based trading platforms to execute orders in CMKX), decided not to accept buy side orders for CMKM Diamonds stock any longer. Ameritrade does not usually restrict its customers from purchasing stocks because the decision to buy rests completely on the customer. The strange part of this story is that a representative from Ameritrade was telling inquiring customers that the reason for this change in accepting buy orders was because there was a pending bankruptcy filing coming from CMKM Diamonds.
When pressed further for a written statement, an Ameritrade supervisor answered that the customer service representative was wrong in verbally stating the bankruptcy issue, and that its decision to stop accepting buy orders was based more on issues regarding SEC inquiries. The Green Baron Report finds there have been several different verbal statements issued by Ameritrade representatives in regards to its decision to only accept sell orders on CMKM Diamonds, and we believe this whole debacle could play into our stance that a naked short position in CMKM Diamonds could be much larger than previously thought.
We have provided below a reprint of the press release issued by CMKM Diamonds last Thursday. The Green Baron Report would like to comment in more detail on this release, but once again it would be pure speculation to do so. We encourage our members to concentrate on trading opportunities in ImageXpres (IMJX) and Nicodrops (NCDP) this week, and we will alert you of any new details on CMKX as soon as we are made aware of them.
LAS VEGAS, Mar 24, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- On March 16, 2005, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deemed it in the public interest that a public administrative proceeding be instituted pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (Pink Sheets:CMKX) to determine:
-- Whether CMKX is required to file with the Commission current and accurate information in periodic reports under Section 12(g); and
-- Whether CMKX failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder by failing to file required periodic reports.
CMKX, pursuant to the Commission's order has been provided 20 days in which to respond to the allegations in the order. Upon CMKX's filing of a response, a public hearing will be convened at a time and place to be fixed for purposes of taking evidence on the issues set forth in the Commission's order. At the hearing, an administrative law judge will determine whether it is necessary for the "protection of investors" to suspend or revoke the registration of CMKX's securities from the Exchange Act.
In accordance with Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, a company that has total assets exceeding $1,000,0000 and a class of equity securities held of record by 500 or more persons must register the class of securities under the Exchange Act. CMKX (then known as Cyber Mark International Corp.) voluntarily registered its common stock under the Exchange Act in August 1999. Pursuant to Section 12g-4 of the Exchange Act, a company registered under 12g may terminate its registration requirements if the number of stockholders of record is reduced to less than 300. In July 2003, CMKX filed a Form 15 in an attempt to terminate its registration under the Exchange Act. However, this filing contained an error in the stated number of record stockholders, which was discovered by CMKX's new securities counsel in February 2005.
"When the error in the Form 15 was brought to the board's attention, it was incumbent upon us to take corrective action, regardless of CMKX's ability to file all delinquent reports within the stated 60-day timeframe. We could not continue to have a clearly inaccurate document filed with the Commission, when we knowingly had more stockholders of record than was stated in the Form 15 filing," stated Robert Maheu, co-chairman of CMKX. On February 17, 2005, CMKX filed an amended Form 15 to revoke the previous filing and reinstate its reporting obligations under the Exchange Act. Management does not believe the filing of the amended Form 15 had anything to do with the Commission's decision to institute the administrative proceeding.
CMKX believes that it is required to have its securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act as a result of the number of its stockholders, at least 698 in July 2003 and in excess of 2000 in February 2005. Under the current rule, the number of stockholders is determined by the number of stockholders of record. Although CMKX has securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, according to the Commission CMKX is delinquent in its filings.
"We only want to comply with federal regulations and do what is right for our stockholders. If the Commission deems it in our stockholders best interest to forbid us from providing information through filings with the Commission, we will comply," stated Urban Casavant, president of CMKX. Replying to the Commission's administrative proceeding is a high priority for CMKX's management, which plans to take the following actions.
First, CMKX will be providing a response to the Commission within the time set forth in the Commission's order.
Second, CMKX acknowledges that all of its stockholders have a right to access public information on CMKX and to that extent, is prepared to present CMKX's response via a public proceeding as ordered by the Commission.
http://www.thegreenbaron.com/Latest%20Update.htm
Gump, the problem cannot be with the decimals.
The four characters on my QWERTY keyboard relevant to todays market activity are . 0 1 2 none are anywhere close to the character 5
I don't think the 0.0055 was an error at all.
Letter to DTCC from a transfer agent:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/dtc200302/transfer030603.txt
From: Lori Livingston [lori@transferonline.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:44 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: FIle No. SR-DTC-2003-03
I am writing these comments to the Depository Trust Company’s (“DTC’s”) proposed rule change that appeared in the February 21st issue of the Federal Register. My comments represent several viewpoints but primarily I respond in the following capacities:
I am the President of Transfer Online, Inc, and act as the transfer agent for (Nutek, Inc.) one of the Issuers who expressed their desire to withdraw from the DTC system but were denied. Transfer Online also serves as the transfer agent to several other companies who have inquired about the possibility of withdrawing from the DTC system and finally, I am an experienced member of the financial services industry for the past 20 years where I have specialized in
transfer agent and back office services.
As a transfer agent involved in this process I have direct experience of the situation(s) leading to DTC’ s request. While acting on the behalf of Nutek, Inc. to notify DTC of their intent to withdraw, Transfer Online was initially told that the request was received and in process. No indication was given that this request to withdraw was a problem until approximately 6 weeks later when we were made aware that DTC’s position had changed. Transfer Online was told that if Nutek, Inc. shares were not transferred into their nominee name, "Cede & Co", Transfer Online would be in violation of the operational agreement between our two companies and that we would be held accountable.
This put Transfer Online between the Issuer’s request (on whose behalf we act) and DTC’s demand and so we inquired to the S.E.C as to what, or if, any legal or statutory obligations existed to either party which superceded our agreement to act as agent for the Issuer. The S.E.C was unable to issue guidance in this matter so having no idea what “being held accountable” would mean to Transfer Online, and having received several phone calls from DTC requesting to know my
position and what my intentions were, I suggested to the Issuer that until such time they were prepared to handle any potential legal issues with an entity as large as The Depository Trust Company that they let the shares be processed as usual.
Many Issuers have come forward with their opinions and interest in joining the exodus from DTC. They are frustrated by dramatic unexplained price movements, confounded when in a single day, in companies with a high percentage of shares held by insiders, more than the number of shares outstanding for their company are traded, and they are frustrated by their inability to access the information they need to determine the cause. The company is essentially cutoff from the majority of stock transactions that take place behind the closed doors of DTC in book entry movements of shares. Should the Issuer request information it is only available to them at the prices that are determined by DTC.
Transfer agents, while able to provide transaction history which happens when stock certificates are involved, cannot provide the information from DTC because we do not have access to the majority of the shareholder records as they sit on our books as one large position in the name of Cede & Co. that seldom changes. This leaves an Issuer powerless to research the trading of their own stock, communicate with the shareholders or take action against those
who might be harming their company with questionable even perhaps illegal trading practices.
In regard to DTC's proposed rule change that states, "DTC will only honor the requests of the participants", I feel compelled to point out that the participants of DTC are ultimately only holding shares for the benefit of their customers who are in fact the shareholders of the company. Almost daily, particularly when an Issuer is attempting to have their shareholders pull their shares from street name and obtain certificates, Transfer Online receives phone calls from shareholders who tell us that their broker told them they cannot have a stock certificate, or that the transfer agent will charge you $75 - $100 dollars for a certificate, or the transfer agent won't issue the shares. How can a shareholder get a stock certificate if their broker (or the participant) is the obstacle? If, as DTC states only the participant's request will be honored, and the participant will not honor the request of the beneficial owner, then ultimately the shareholder has no right to their own property nor the ability to do what the Issuer has determined is in the companies best interest.
My experience over the years suggests that shareholders are seldom fully advised of the different types of ownership they can have, or of the full implications of holding shares in street name. Requesting certificates is always riddled with obstacles to deter this form of ownership.
Like many of the Issuers seeking withdrawal from DTC, I have often been suspicious of oversold stock. When tabulating shares for a Proxy Vote oftentimes there will be more shares voted by the brokers than there are shares outstanding in the company. When the question is raised with ADP (another representative of participants) their response is that they simply report what the brokers tell them they have. Why are brokers reporting more shares than they could possibly hold and why is it the obligation of the company or its agent to research why the numbers are wrong at their expense?
DTC’s solution has been the development of the Direct Registration System (DRS). This allows a shareholder to hold their shares in their own name on the books of the corporation while still in the DTC system attached to a particular participant or brokerage account. This allows for direct ownership on the books of the company, while allowing the broker to retain control of the account by remaining attached to the account in case of sale.
There is a problem with this system as there are many Issuers, and some transfer agents, that cannot meet the requirements that are set by DTC nor can they afford to participate in the DTC FAST system because once an Issuer enters into the FAST system, DTC will no longer pay fees for any activity they request and the Issuer then becomes responsible for those fees. Since those very same fees were paid for services by DTC when stock is in physical form, it is difficult to comprehend why this is the case when there are no certificates. Ultimately, the result is that the Issuer is excluded from FAST and DRS, as are their investors. As in any case where a company holds a monopoly you have to play by their rules or you don’t play at all.
The financial burden on a small company is tremendous and very few small companies are able to participate. Those who do not are excluded from DRS and thus have no access to their shareholder records unless the shareholder holds the shares on the books of the company. The entire system has been designed for larger companies who do not think twice about spending great deals of money on their transfer agent fees, but smaller corporations who don't have the resources and consequently cannot afford to participate use withdrawing from DTC as their only method of having some control over their shareholder records.
What will happen as the industry moves toward immobilization and same day settlement? What will happen to those companies that cannot participate and have no access to their stock activity? DTC stated in their proposal that they have “discussed the substance for this proposed rule change with various DTC participants and industry groups and received favorable reaction.” I suggest that many were excluded from this conversation that have a great deal at stake. There is more than one way for the prompt and accurate settlement of securities transactions to occur and also preserve the integrity of the Issuers shareholders records. Presently, all solutions are based on a system where DTC is basically taking on the role of transfer agent as well as being an organization for and by the brokers. Over the years I have watched most companies move from majority of ownership held on their records toward a situation where over half the shares are held as registered to Cede & Co. and these shares usually represents 3-4 times the number of shareholders that appear on the records of the company.
I think the rule change should not be approved until a sufficient amount of time is put into investigating the complaints of the Issuers and time is spent looking at the existing system in general.
----------------------------------------------
Lori Livingston
President/CEO
Transfer Online, Inc.
P 503.227.2950 F 503.227.6874
Billy, can you honestly see the DTC fessing up to charges of fraudulent activities? There's going to be battle like none we've ever seen before.
Investing 101 - Mar 25, 2005
- The Old Shell Game
by Bob O'Brien
I’ve written a lot lately about the shenanigans that are part and parcel of our equity markets, and how the current ghost in the machine appears uniquely predisposed to favoring the companies that derive their income from handing our money. I’ve speculated about how the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation (DTCC) abuses the public trust in order to effectively counterfeit shares of publicly traded companies, and how our regulators appear happy to stand by doing absolutely nothing while the American public gets fleeced.
I was at dinner last night, and a friend of mine asked me how long I thought that the abuses had been going on, and how large I thought the problem really was, and why nobody is doing anything about it.
First, as to the question of how long.
In 1999, the Depository Trust Corporation (DTC) bought the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and created a new uber-entity – the current Depository Trust Clearing Corporation (DTCC) – entrusted with not only dematerializing every paper share and holding them all, but also now with clearing the trades and lending shares out to make the system run more efficiently. I believe that the real fail to deliver problem began in earnest then, when you had the same accounting firm doing both companies’ books, and you had like minds all thinking alike with the same imperative: how to make the maximum amount of money from the clearing and settlement and holding process. I believe that the real abuse began then, and has continued in an ever more ominous and dangerous manner, to this day.
The NSCC’s stock borrow program was set up to handle short term failure to delivers – like a day or two over the line. No problem there. But I believe that the system, and the avarice that is a natural lubricant for it, saw a way to create more trades, more commissions, more interest from the borrow, and more “liquidity.” Just abuse the short term system and convert it into a long term stock printing system – more commissions for the owners of the DTCC and NSCC (the brokerages) due to more shares available to trade every day, more fees from the borrow program, more fees from hedge funds who require a greater number of shares than the company ever authorized in order to achieve their goals of reducing prices to the point where their shorts were in the money. In short, everyone benefited from the practice financially, except of course the companies and their shareholders – but they are a fragmented lot, and the system, like most systems, is in place to perpetuate its own power and profitability, not be fair to the pawns in the game.
As to how large a problem it is, that is a little harder to pin down.
Overstock.com is one of my favorite cases, not just because I believe that Dr. Byrne is a man of genuine integrity and courage, but also because the timing of their manipulation is such that it provides us with a handy test case. OSTK showed up on the Reg SHO list on January 27. If SHO was working, it would have been off within 13 days. It is still on the list to this day. That tells us that any facile explanations involving prior grandfathered fails keeping the company on the list don’t apply. It also tells us that the rules are not being enforced, and that the system continues to fail us as investors, and as owners of companies we invest in.
The truly staggering part about all of this is the studied lack of any official response from the SEC. They are strangely silent on the matter. Not a peep out of them.
Now, where I come from, I would think that if the regulators have a pretty basic charter – keep the markets fair – and if they clearly aren’t doing so, well, that there would be a lynching at some point. Apparently that’s not the case with the SEC. They have allowed flagrant abuse of the system, as evidenced in my personal favorite case of the moment, the Compudyne matter, where a New York hedge fund sold over a third of the float of that company short in 975 separate transactions, EVERY ONE A FAIL TO DELIVER, and yet not one was flagged or stopped or caught by the system. Or another fun one, from Professor Leslie Boni’s paper, wherein she reviewed the trading of one market maker, where over 68,000 failed trades were put through for this one group, and a whopping total of 86 were bought in as the rules mandate. The rest were allowed to fail. And nobody did anything.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if I was allowed to break the rules in any business for profit 68,000 times, and only got penalized 86 times, I’d be thinking that I had a pretty good gig going.
Why are these noteworthy? Well, in the Compudyne case, because it is the NASD bringing the charges, not the SEC. The SEC is silent. And because the Boni paper was written while she was doing research for the SEC at the SEC.
So how big is the problem? As discussed many times before, the DTCC won’t tell us, or the companies. The SEC isn’t asking them (supposedly), although they haven’t really articulated why they aren’t asking them. And the exchanges aren’t telling, supposedly because the data is the DTCC’s and they aren’t allowed to disclose it.
So what it adds up to is a conspiracy of silence on what I believe will turn out to be the single biggest scandal to hit the regulatory environment as well as Wall Street in a century. I believe that the problem is pervasive, endemic to the system, and so widespread that the SEC is afraid to pull back the system and show the public what has occurred on their watch. I think they know it would horrify us, and drive capital out of the markets, and BK many of Wall Street’s finest. Now, all that might seem nutty at first blush, but in parting, consider this:
Not one person, not the SEC, nor the DTCC, nor the exchanges, is willing to just show us what the level of the failures are.
And that is the single most frightening aspect of it all. The silence is deafening.
Over the past few months, many articulate Americans have joined the battle against naked short selling, the stock market scandal known as Stockgate. It will not be one voice that wins this fight, or rights this wrong, it will be the collective voices of the thousands who are truly interested in doing the right thing for all of America. Thank you for adding your voice to the thousands.
We have just added a new commentary to our website. This is an excerpt from that article:
The Old Shell Game
By Bob O'Brien
"Where I come from, I would think that if the regulators have a pretty basic charter keep the markets fair and if they clearly aren¹t doing so, well, that there would be a lynching at some point. Apparently that¹s not the case with the SEC. They have allowed flagrant abuse of the system, as evidenced in my personal favorite case of the moment, the Compudyne matter, where a New York hedge fund sold over a third of the float of that company short in 975 separate transactions, EVERY ONE A FAIL TO DELIVER, and yet not one was flagged or stopped or caught by the system. Or another fun one, from Professor Leslie Boni¹s paper, wherein she reviewed the trading of one market maker, where over 68,000 failed trades were put through for this one group, and a whopping total of 86 were bought in as the rules mandate. The rest were allowed to fail. And nobody did anything.
Now, I don¹t know about you, but if I was allowed to break the rules in any business for profit 68,000 times, and only got penalized 86 times, I¹d be thinking that I had a pretty good gig going."
To read the rest of that article, go to:
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Investing101/1020.html
There is also an entertaining Q&A session on the DTCC website about the naked shorting issue linked at the bottom of the article. It is rife with misdirection and doublespeak, but at least they are squirming in their seats enough that they feel compelled to publicly address the issue, and they did once again acknowledge the existence of naked short selling. Hey, it's a start.
To add your name to our "StockGate Activist" list, email us at
info@faulkingtruth.com
Mark Faulk
info@FaulkingTruth.com
www.FaulkingTruth.com
atta boy ruff .. go tell 'im.
Catching the Con Artist
John A. Byrne
The case for change in the Pink Sheets and Bulletin Board is clear. In this era of more transparency, it is difficult to find a reason to keep the lights dimmed for one crucial component of trading. That's the total short positions in all customer and proprietary accounts. Now there is a campaign to have this information published. It would be accomplished if the NASD expands 3360 of the Rules of Fair Practice so that all publicly traded equity securities are covered. This is not the first attempt at reform. But there is a more compelling reason for reform than ever before. The markets are still recovering from a period of shocks and scandals, a difficult period that can be traced in part to a lack of proper public disclosure of material information. This included real and projected stock prices, earnings and phantom earnings as well as executive compensation. The non-Nasdaq OTC market is no different from the other markets in how it responds to information. If certain information is properly and fully disclosed, then investors are well served. A recent decision by NASD Regulation illustrates how a lack of transparency in short selling can lead to widespread investor fraud. The NASD found that, in 1995, John Fiero and a group of traders orchestrated a bear raid using massive naked short selling. The goal was to drive down the price of securities underwritten by Hanover Sterling and Company. The activities of Fiero and others were ultimately blamed for the shocking collapse of Hanover Sterling's clearing firm, Adler Coleman.
Now the Pink Sheets LLC, which sells pricing and financial data in OTC securities, has petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission to amend Rule 3360 [see Washington Watch]. Pink Sheets wants these total short positions reported in all publicly traded equities. The NASD would collect and gather the data. "The Commission's action is urgently needed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and protect investors and the public interest," according to Pink Sheets. The last serious attempt to persuade the SEC to amend the rule was in 1991. The SEC published for comment a rulemaking request submitted by the Association of Publicly Traded Companies. Since then, the proposal has gathered dust. To be sure, the non-Nasdaq OTC market is not heavily capitalized in contrast to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. However, trading activity has been swelling with dealers attracted by the opportunity to make a spread. The regulators, who are undoubtedly busy, should pay attention. As the Cover Story on algorithms demonstrates, there are always new areas for attention. Where does all this rulemaking begin and end? In the case of the OTC markets, an established body of evidence suggests that regulatory attention is required. Waiting any longer might end in more investor fraud.
John A. Byrne
Editor
E-mail: john.byrne@thomsonmedia.com
The works ...
CMKM Diamonds Inc.
Diamonds Hotline:
Monday - Friday: 7:00am - 1:00pm PST
Toll free in U.S./Canada: 877-752-3755
Andrew Hill
Phone: 306-752-3755
Email: cmkxir@mail.casavantmining.com
Phone: 306-752-3755
Zak ... give it up!!
There's no future for bashers now ... your job's about to become redundant.
The Vet's crusade continued ...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=715868
The Vet had similar problems with Ameritrade 3 years ago.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=679678
.... nothing new. It's called "Skrew the investor"
what were you bidding Zen?
Summary of our mineral claims - 3/21/05
from cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com
« Thread started on: Today at 02:58:25 »
For some time, I’ve been wondering just how "our" mineral claims play out, including how many of our original mineral claims are still part of CMKM’s assets. You may remember that a Mineral Rights Agreement was signed on November 25, 2002 which gave CMKM the rights to mineral claims held at that time by Urban and a few of his pals. Those claims were detailed in a report by Robertshaw Geophysics which was attached to the Rights Agreement. The claims totaled 247,708 hectares (~ 612,100 acres) and are included here for reference:
Buckshot/Commando - 318 claims - 78,177 hectares (~ 193,180 acres)
Morgain Minerals - 36 claims - 9,216 hectares (~ 22,773 acres)
101010307 Sask, Ltd. - 142 claims - 70,427 hectares (~ 174,029 acres)
101012190 Sask, Ltd. - 106 claims - 81,568 hectares (~ 201,558 acres)
101027101 Sask, Ltd. - 34 claims - 8,320 hectares (~ 20,559 acres)
All of these claims have since lapsed and are no longer assets of CMKM unless there’s a secret agreement we’re not aware of (anything's possible, but this one's unlikely IMHO). These lapsed claims were picked up by two entities: 101047025 Sask, Ltd. (in the name of Emerson Koch, an old friend of Urban’s) and Nevada Minerals (in which we have a 60% interest). The claims were recorded between August ’03 and January ’04 by 101047025 and in August ’04 by Nevada Minerals, respectively.
I have read the Fast Track Learning Center and Hall of Fame forums from front to back, and I couldn’t find any detail as far as the actual claims that were held by CMKM and those that are held by the five current numbered partnerships plus Nevada Minerals. I sorted the entire claims database from the Sask Web site and tracked it claim by claim on the claims map from that Web site. Everything matched perfectly, so I believe the following is accurate.
If this information has already been published, I apologize for the duplication. I've done the area calculations in both hectares and acres so it's easy to refer to previous mining reports (usually in hectares) and PR's (usually in acres). Here is the summary of what happened to the “old” claims originally held by CMKM as well as the current holdings of the five numbered partnerships with Nevada Minerals and United Carina noted in the last two columns:
Claimholder Nevada United
101012190 101023310 101047025 101050803 101053292 Total Minerals Carina
Hectares
101010307 (old):
70427 70427
101012190 (old):
81426 81426
101027101 (old):
8320
Buck/Comm (old):
77953 77953
Morgain (old):
9216
New:
17555 12062 155442 62274 88310 335643 114772 35800
Total:
17555 12062 385248 62274 88310 565449 132308 35800
Acres
101010307 (old):
174029 174029
101012190 (old):
201208 201208
101027101 (old):
20559
Buck/Comm (old):
192626 192626
Morgain (old):
22773
New:
43379 29806 384106 153882 218219 829392 283608 88464
Total:
43379 29806 951969 153882 218219 1397255 326940 88464
60% of Nevada Minerals:
196164
50% of United Carina:
44232
Grand Total:
1637651 acres
You’ll notice that the total acreage excluding our interests in Nevada Minerals and United Carina is approximately 1.4 million acres which correlates with the number that the CMKM Web site mentions. The grand total comes to about 1.6 million acres, and since the “old” claims account for 612,100 acres, that means that subsequent claims of approximately 1,000,000 acres have been recorded. This number is reasonably consistent with the PR’s of the last 18 months and includes two joint claims: 60% of 500,000 acres held by Nevada Minerals and 50% of 35,800 acres held by United Carina. The only inconsistency is that Nevada Minerals currently only holds claims on 327,000 (not 500,000) acres according to the Sask database which suggests that Nevada Minerals has either let some claims lapse or has sold them to another entity, possibly one or more of the numbered partnerships.
There seems to be a general feeling that all of the numbered partnerships held in Emerson Koch’s name are for the benefit of CMKM (or whatever entity emerges after the dust settles). It remains to be seen how/if Urban will live up to his perceived image as a “man for all shareholders”, especially if CMKM runs afoul of the SEC in the upcoming hearing. So, let’s hope that’s not the outcome.
Comments?
Not as much as you ... U ijut
I'm here to win, and I'm staying til I do.
Better slink away Zak, with your tail between your legs ...
You're making a big fool of yourself coming back here for more.