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.
The source is Ihub. Click on the JBII chart, then click on "Trades", bingo-presto-changeo there's the source.
how very revealing it's never been *sourced* even when directly asked
If they're selling in the 11's, they've got 10's up their sleeve. Call it a reset or whatever.
IMO the MM's have a pocket full of 34's that they have been selling for the last three days. Let's see if they show up later today.
9th Circ. Finds Middle Man Not Liable In $64M Stock Scam
By Kat Greene
Law360, Los Angeles (September 10, 2013, 5:09 PM ET) -- The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday partially reversed a district court’s decision to hold 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC and its owner responsible for a scam that lost investors in CMKM Diamonds Inc. $64 million.
The three-judge panel found there was material evidence to suggest that 1st Global and its owner, Helen Bagley, hadn’t participated in the scam — which sold billions of fake securities backed by fake diamond mining, buying and selling — when they transferred hundreds of billions of shares of stock.
The panel affirmed the district court's ruling against CMKM attorney Brian Dvorak, ordering him to pay more than $400,000 in disgorgement and rejecting his request for a stay until criminal proceedings are completed.
The stock transfer company had done its due diligence in asking two attorneys, including Dvorak, for their opinions about the legality of the stock, the panel found, and had acted only in their roles as transfer agents rather than masterminds of the scheme.
“The undisputed facts do not establish that Global and Bagley were substantial participants in the CMKM distribution as a matter of law,” the panel wrote in Tuesday’s published decision.
Beginning in 2003, CMKM issued and sold nearly 800 billion shares in its company, which purportedly mined gold and diamonds. It sent fake maps and fake reports to investors, who bought the stock on the OTC exchange known as “pink slips.”
Only there was no mining company, according to the criminal charges against CMKM, its owners and the other agents wrapped up in the scam. According to federal investigators, the owners and their cohorts simply collected the money for themselves.
Bagley and her company, 1st Global, were accused of participating in the scheme for their role in transferring the stock from restricted status — which alerts investors that a security has not been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission — to unrestricted.
But Bagley argued that she and her company had relied on letters from two separate CMKM attorneys that assured her the transfers were legal.
The three-judge panel agreed that no evidence presented suggested Bagley had substantially participated in the scheme, overturning U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks’ finding that the scam wouldn’t have been possible without Bagley’s seemingly unquestioning act of transferring hundreds of billions of shares.
The panel noted that while this particular decision is published, not every middle man or transfer agent can be found free of liability in such cases. Those decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis based on the evidence, the panel wrote Tuesday.
“Whether a defendant is a substantial factor in the distribution of unregistered securities is a question of fact requiring a case-by-case analysis of the nature of the securities scheme and the defendant’s participation in it,” the panel wrote.
U.S. Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and Morgan Christen and U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim sat on the panel that reached Tuesday’s decision.
1st Global and Bagley were represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski of Gordan & Silver Ltd.
The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds Inc. et al., case number 11-17021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Not hard to imagine at all. Lots of bodies been strewn by the wayside. The guy makes enemies faster than Heisenberg. Are you suggesting it's somebody with the ability to hold down the share price in the face of this week's volume? Do tell.
You're joking, right? They've been covering the following day during this whole downward step from .47.
Every time the brokers sell at the bid, you better know that they have a pocket full of cheaper shares they are methodically moving. Seriously, I have to wonder if the stuck on stupid dolts who are claiming naked shorts actually work for the brokers, or the big block seller. Just wow.
Wow, who would have believed that you were a paid tout Chuck, shocking.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp1-pr2013-143.pdf
Bottom of page 13:
On August 7, 2009, Wilding transferred a total of 11 million shares to compensate Baeten (3 million), Bennett (2 million), and Website Owner(6 million) for touting Zenergy. On August 30, 2009, Wilding transferred $15,000 to a fifth
touter, Martino.
Page 28:
Trading Activity
159. Aggregated over both time periods, the Gasich assignees and their transferees
obtained total trading profits of at least $4.4 million from their sales of the assigned shares into
the public market in the following manner:
Assignee\ Transaction Dates\ Number of Shares\ Trading Profits
Jovanovich July 2009-Mar. 2010 49 million $1.3 million
Nelson Aug. 2009-Dec. 2009 35 million $0.8 million
Wilding July 2009-Aug. 2009 27 million $1.3 million
Website Owner Sept. 2009-Dec. 2009 24 million $0.5 million
Paradigm Associates A,
B, and C
July 2009-July 2010 36 million $0.5 million
Baeten Mar. 2010 6 million $40,751
Bennett Dec. 2009 2 million $28,486
Dalmy Aug. 2009 1 million $43,995
160. In addition, J. Gasic and Bozovic transferred the majority of shares assigned to
them to Biofuel Company stockholders and to promoters, for which they received from Gasich
payments totaling approximately $25,575, and $12,500, respectively.
161. No registration statement was filed or in effect for any of the transactions
described below.
Um no, the brokers had a pocketful of 40's that they were selling the last couple of days. Shorts covered. That is how the game is played. (Thanks for playing)
That was some low hanging fruit. All that was missing was a rim shot.
I have little doubt that he's any less trustworthy than John Bordynuik.
No divy. Everyone knows the pps was damaged by the stuck on stupid hedgies, not the company.
Looks to me more like someone got thrown under the bus.
Credibility?
Is JBII the only alternative energy stock not yet profitable and what do other trade based on?
TSLA $10 billion market cap
SCTY $4 billion market cap
KIOR $600 million market cap
All three losing their asses.
JBII $40 million market cap
The question may be simple, but the answer is not. Cost accounting is based on estimates and assumptions. At this point there are no "established standards", only honest John's theories.
I really can't argue the point any further.
Depreciation expense for a manufacturing concern consists of product costs as well as period costs. While the entire amount of depreciation is based on a number of years, the allocation of depreciation to product cost would reasonably use some type of unit of production model (uptime of the machinery used for production).
Not sure I follow you on this one. What portion of the 2012Q4 inventory consisted of finished goods? I don't think the cost per gallon is relevant for the raw materials.
Allocated based on processor uptime?
How can the millions of dollars in P2O processor assets (to be depreciated over a useful life of 3-15 years according to the 10-Q) result in just a $7,646 charge to Cost of Sales for Depreciation in the quarter?
I think you are mixing up the straw men.
Elsley has 50 shares of JBII that were a gift and thus she has no investment out of pocket.
He invented a Blest machine? Nah.
So now we know
3 sets of 2500's = insider dumping
Thanks for the tip.
As long as JB remains the Chief Truth Obfuscator, it is what it is.
Completely wrong. Unless you're saying that it was a coincidence that Javaco was valued at $2.5 million and JBI paid $2.5 million in stock.
Please explain why the company used your "shell accounting theory" on the media credits, but not on the Javaco purchase on the same exact date? Or, was it just a coincidence that Javaco was worth exactly $1 per share that was paid for it?
Nobody will be able to deny my "shell accounting story" because a simple Google search into shell accounting rules supports it.
Arizona is keeping their end of the bargain on stupidity.
http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/ejmontini/2013/03/02/not-high-but-still-dui/
Posted on March 2, 2013 5:23 pm by EJ Montini
Not high but still DUI
What if you could get a DUI in Arizona for having had a few drinks two weeks ago?
Crazy, right?
Except it’s happening. Not with alcohol, but with marijuana.
Arizona drivers are going to jail, paying big fines and losing their licenses after having gotten DUI citations when blood tests prove they were not high.
“It makes no sense,” said attorney Michael Alarid III, who is representing a man charged under current law. “But this is how prosecutors and the courts are interpreting the law. And the legislature doesn’t appear to want to change it. So we’re hoping we can get the issue before the state Supreme Court.”
How could a person who is not high get busted for DUI?
It happens when science meets politics.
Blood tests now can detect two important chemical compounds in marijuana. One of them makes a person high and lasts for hours. The other is inactive but can linger in a person’s system for up to a month.
In Arizona, state law says if you have either of these compounds in your blood you are guilty of a DUI.
“As things stand a person from Arizona could go on a snowboarding trip to Colorado or Washington State, where marijuana is legal for recreational use,” Alarid said. “And then a month later he could be driving in Arizona, get stopped and be convicted of DUI.”
Not long ago, the state Court of Appeals upheld Arizona’s law, which says if any “metabolite” of a drug like marijuana is found in a person’s blood he is guilty of DUI. There are about a dozen states with the same standard.
Alarid got a lower court to dismiss the original charges against his client after it was shown that the marijuana chemicals found in his client’s blood were inactive. The appeals court overturned it.
In it’s ruling on the case (Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan) the Appeals Court said, “We determined that the legislative ban extends to all substances, whether capable of causing impairment or not.”
Apparently, there is no statute in Arizona outlawing impaired logic.
(And yes, I’m aware that my continued employment proves it.)
The case is being prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney’s office. I asked County Attorney Bill Montgomery if he believed it was appropriate to convict people for DUI when the only marijuana metabolite in their blood did not cause impairment.
He responded, “The Court of Appeals decision is unremarkable in light of consistent case law on the issue of proscribing driving with a prohibited drug or its metabolite in a driver’s system.”
Since that didn’t answer my question I tried again, asking if Montgomery would favor amending state law to differentiate between metabolites that cause impairment and those that do not.
He responded, “No. We do not want to create an incentive to ‘game’ how long it takes for any given metabolite to leave a driver’s system. Nice try, Ed.”
It isn’t a game. It’s chemistry.
Some states at least try to acknowledge the science. In Washington, for example, a person is considered impaired if a blood test shows 5.0 nanograms of marijuana’s active ingredient. That level has been compared to a .08 limit for alcohol.
“An alcohol DUI in Arizona gets your license suspended for 90 days,” Alarid said. “After 30 days you can drive to work and school. On the other hand, a drug-related DUI, like marijuana, gets you the same fines and jail time but revokes your license for a year. That means a person who wasn’t impaired could be punished more harshly than someone who was.”
Alarid is hoping the Arizona Supreme Court will take his case.
“In addition to the fairness issue, this doesn’t seem right in a state where citizens passed a medical marijuana law,” Alarid said. “It really puts an unfair burden on those patients.”
The risk of getting busted for a DUI charge when they are not impaired might cause some medical marijuana patients not to use the drug, no matter how much it helps them.
Or course, it’s probably just a coincidence that the politicians who could revise the DUI statute hate the medical marijuana law. As does the county attorney.
Coincidence. Yeah, that must be it.
(Column for Mar. 3, 2013, Arizona Republic)
Why do you consistently refer to the daily reg sho percentages as some sort of indicator? It merely shows which side of the transaction the brokers put through first. Even short positions that are closed later the same day are included in the percentage to which you refer.
All it really indicates is that when the brokers get a large block of shares to sell, they can be fairly sneaky in how they go about it.
Also, I would love to see your list of *legit* co.s that were NSSed to hell and back. Care to share?
Matters not what they were carried on the books of the seller. It's their FMV on the date they were purchased by JBI. If FMV is not readily determinable, they should have been valued at the FMV of what was paid for them. 1 million shares at $1 per share is what they paid.
It's called Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
That's a good point. So there are other problems that affect Q1 2013. Any idea what those might be?
From Honest John to Teflon John. Sounds about right.
Ho Hum, different day, different side of his mouth.
"The Company regrets that its attempts to negotiate settlement of this dispute failed, and, in consultation with its litigation counsel and Board of Directors, looks forward to vigorously defending itself in court, where the Company believes it will prevail on the merits."
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=50620295
From the same PR:
"Contrary to the allegations made by the SEC, the Company believes that its officers acted in good faith in valuing the media credits discussed in the complaint, based on the information available at the time. The Company further maintains that after learning of potential problems relating to these credits, it took appropriate steps in compliance with its obligations to shareholders and the public markets at large."
Looks like they relied on someone's posts from 2/17/10. At least we know Wes did.
You say hypocritical, I say ironic.
You could be correct, and maybe just not see the irony of hypocrisy.
I'm not saying it's not true. Just commenting on the irony of calling out a person with ethical standards that border on moral turpitude for something like racial profiling.
Do you get my point? I'm sure many here do.
You thought a sleazeball lawyer who helps penny stock promoters swindle the life savings from unsuspecting first time investors wouldn't lower himself to a little racial profiling?
Really?
I think JB did a similar analysis back when he decided to falsify the financial statements.
I see a number of "ABERATIONS" or possibly just sloppy accounting. Just curious, was the "one-time expense" you refer to for the purchase of feedstock? Is this the same feedstock that was used for record numbers in October?
Q32011 P2O GROSS PROFIT MARGIN 83.6%
Q42011 P2O GROSS PROFIT MARGIN ZERO, COGS MORE THAN 2 X SALES?
2011K P2O GROSS PROFIT MARGIN 22.7%
Q12012 P2O GROSS PROFIT MARGIN 21.5%
Q22012 P2O GROSS PROFIT MARGIN 29.6%
Q32012 P2O GROSS PROFIT MARGIN 0.35%
2012K P2O GROSS PROFIT MARGIN 20.8%
Damn, I miss her.
I feel your pain, brother, and I know it's real. I just found out this morning, and I am devastated.
Oh the games that are played...
By: blackfriday2011
20 Jul 2012, 01:06 PM CDT
Rating: Rate this post: Msg. 1111014 of 1111029
Jump to msg. #
Time for the silence to end, below I will give a small bit of info regarding our price per share along with fines and penalties.
Because we have been put on hold since the last update the fines and penalties
has grown from $0.80 PPS to $4.00 PPS. In the package it will contain information on how you want to precede with the company. If you choose to keep your RR/shares
You will be given $5.00 - $6.00 PPS. If you decide to leave and completely give up your
Shareholder rights and shares, you will be paid out at $8.00 - $10.00 PPS
And for those that do not know, Al and Peter have been in contact with each other and are in fact working together. Everything is in place and the trustees are awaiting the go ahead. Almost there, what a show this has been across the world!
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKI&read=1111014
By: Mona Lisa Smiles
20 Jul 2012, 01:24 PM CDT
Rating: Rate this post: Msg. 1111022 of 1111029
Jump to msg. #
PJ came in and had this to say:
PJ was in Grape Vine reporting on a discussion she had with her contacts and AH called her. She cleared everything he said for repeating. He was pretty fed up with everything - they have tapped his phone, hacked his computer and emails and he's had it. He's had it with those who have filed complaints with the court as well. Sounded like he was venting to me. She asked if he was venting and if she should repeat what he said and he said to tell everyone, he didn't care. He said he will receive no money from Cottrell when Cottrell gets paid, just what he has in legal expenses...and that he has "lost everything". He said it could happen any moment now, even tomorrow (today). Then she spoke about her contacts. She had been up all night from the evening before and had not eaten. Was on a conference call last night with several people who said...the Chinese plans have changed 3 or 4 times - Tiers 1 and 2 have been paid - Tier 2 finalized last Saturday morning. Current plans call for everyone in Tier 3 (Cottrell, Bonney, CMKX and PP) to all be paid at once, at the exact same time. Could happen as early as tomorrow (today). Contact 2 whom she relies most heavily on I think, said he is in touch with the people who will make it happen on a daily basis. Another contact is in touch with Cottrell constantly and will know within 5 minutes when Cottrell gets paid. Contact 2 said, "chill out - there is no one you can call to make this happen any sooner...we're close, and the worst is behind us. Everything is in place, give it 3 or 4 days and all will be paid".
And finally, based on her conversation, she said it seems like the window is between now and the end of summer (mid-Sept).
Thanks PJ
Mona
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKI&read=1111022