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.
Perhaps you should read my post again while keeping this in mind;
The Javeco acquisition was valued at $2.5 million, 2.5 million shares were issued by JBII. Value of stock issued = $1 per share.
The Media Credits were valued at $10 million, 1 million shares were issued by JBII. Value of stock issued = $10 per share.
My post from 2/18/10 was pointing out the extremely inconsistent valuation placed on the shares issued for the two transactions that occurred on the exact same day, and my utter disbelief that anyone would try to argue that the accounting treatment was correct.
Absolutely correct Rawnoc. LOL, I wasn't even considering EPS yet, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the gaap theory that allows them to issue 2.5 million shares valued at $1 per share, and 1 million shares valued at almost $10 per share on the very same day. If you can help me out with that one, I'd appreciate it.
There was much debate about the media credits early in 2010, before the 2009 statements were issued. Many of the posters involved in the debate had JB's ear. Here's one of mine from February:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=46807599
I still stand by this post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=51590351
Yep, lots of heavy drinking and partying on the 4th. The other days we drink alone.
I agree completely Chas.
Baseball was slow to react to the players use of steroids. After all, Baseball benefited greatly from all the attention brought on by the home run records set during the steroid era. Their agenda is obvious.
With the Release of The Mitchell Report.... it all makes sense. Those who dismiss the report as not being true show their real agenda.
It's the "not yet figured out" kind of con that's induced by a combination of crystal meth and Cuervo Gold. It gave some of the Xers something to rally around though.
lol, Satterwhite was running some kind of con. I'm not sure the authorities have yet figured out what kind.
Pedro, that is one excellent question. Chas appears to be hip deep in this clusterfuk.
never mind
What's the alternative, needs?
What do we say? Are we tired of delco?
Who's that man in the white hat?
A. Clifton Hodges, nee Crazy Al.
jarta, is it still to be determined whether or not he goes to jail?
Or move into a gated community in north Scottsdale and never have to see the dirty little beggar?
Look, nobody is going to argue that the market is without crooks and thieves. If you've been in pennies since 1993, then you know that most of the crooks are on the inside.
CMKX was not naked shorted, instead they used the facade of naked shorting as an integral part of their deception. Facts are facts.
You invested in a non-reporting pinky that was issuing fraudulent press releases, while they printed and dumped shares at record numbers. Why? Did it not seem to good to be true? Did you not seek out advice from people who had been down that road before? For whatever reason, you ignored all of the BIG FLASHING WARNING SIGNS, and threw your money at a million to one long shot.
Your money is gone, stop blaming everyone else and get over it.
JUST WHAT PART OF THIS IS FANTASY????????
The part where you blame the government for your losses in CMKX.
Trade again? I guess it's feasible, with a 10,000 to 1 reverse split. Followed by a tenfold increase in the outstanding just to be able to fund the most meager of operations. I guess mathematically, that is better than nothing...barely.
Don't be silly BBJ, this just clears the way for Bill Gates!
Since we are looking for a new President
Wow, didn't see that coming. Get that resume together jimmy.
Looser - (n.) 1. Internet troll that calls others a loser on a public message board, but can't spell it. 2. (adj.) More loose.
Dude, you felt like you were immaculately inseminated?
Several times our first time there i had the feeling of incarnation
According to his attorney, the only reason deli agreed not to sell anymore, is because when he made the statement, it was impossible to buy and sell because of no T/A.
I'm confused, is the SEC's case against deli that he broke his promise not to sell anymore? I would think that the mere fact that he cranked his operation back up as soon as the new T/A was ready, suggests that he was acting as a broker. In which case, the additional time period should definitely be included in the amended complaint. But hey, what do I know?
Deli and his attorney have fired back. I copied this from another board, sorry about the readability.
http://cmkxunofficial.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=mofo&action=display&thread=8344
Robert H. Bretz, Esq.California Bar No. 55087578 Washington Blvd. #843Marina del Rey, California 90292(310) 578-1957
Attorney for Defendant
IN THE UNITIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION, Plaintiff,vs.MARCO GLISSON,Defendant.
))))))))))))
Case No.: 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF DEFENDANT GLISSON’S OPPOSITIONTO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORCONTINUANCE OF DATE FOR FILINGJOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER (First Request);DECLARATION OF GLISSON’SCOUNSEL,ROBERT H. BRETZ Date of Hearing: No Hearing Date SetTime of Hearin :
MARCO GLISSON, through his attorney of record, responds and objects to Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Motion For Continuance Of Date For FilingJoint Pre-Trial Order (First Request) dated and filed January 27, 2011 (the “Motion”), as follows.On January 13, 2011, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to extend the additionaldiscovery period previously permitted by the Court pertaining to Marco Glisson’s activities in2010. On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a subsequent motion to extend the discovery date(and/or for clarification of the Court’s October 29, 2010 Order permitting certain limited,additional discovery) which motion remains pending before the Court. The reason given by thePlaintiff for the approximately five month continuance in the preparation and filing of the jointpre-trial order sought by the instant Motion is the Plaintiff’s need to examine the additional bank account discovery to be obtained by the Plaintiff if the pending motion is granted by the Court so
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 1 of 11
212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
that Plaintiff can obtain information as a result of their defective, out-of-time subpoenas seekingbank account information for the 2010 time period.
1
to further extend the additional discovery cut-off date to accommodate the Plaintiff’s defective,out-of-time third party discovery requests, the instant Motion will be moot.If the Court denies the pending motion,The Court has previously denied the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. If theCourt denies the pending motion for an extension of the additional discovery cut-off date, theinstant Motion will be moot; and the parties would proceed to prepare and file the joint pre-trialorder followed by trial setting in this case. As explained in Glisson’s opposition to the pendingmotion, Glisson is opposed to any further delay in preparation for trial and trial of this case.Glisson recognizes that if there is any substantial delay in the Court’s ruling on the pendingmotion and the instant Motion, there may be a legitimate need to continue the date for the filingof the parties’ joint pre-trial order - - for 30-45 days - - to accommodate the Plaintiff’s need foradequate time to accomplish such preparation activity. If, the Court should nevertheless grantthe Plaintiff’s pending motion, extending the period for further, additional discovery to thePlaintiff’s requested February 21, 2011 cut-off date; then, in any event, the Plaintiff has not made
1
The Plaintiff’s reply to Glisson’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to further extend the discovery cut-off date orfor clarification, due February 3, 2011, was filed the following day (the “Reply”). Tellingly, there was no effort inthe Memorandum or the supporting Declaration to support the argument that Plaintiff was genuinely confused aboutthe need to complete discovery by January 26, 2011, seemingly rendering moot that aspect of the motion. The Courtpreviously denied the Plaintiff’s prior motion to extend the discovery cut-off date; and should likewise deny thislatest effort for “reconsideration”. Plaintiff admits in the Reply that they didn’t comply with the timely notice toopposing counsel requirement as to three of the subpoenas, but claims that they gave notice for the other threesubpoenas. However, no proof of service is provided by Plaintiff as to any of the subpoenas. The Plaintiff’s Replyfocuses on the absence of prejudice resulting from their mistake (citing a single Tennessee court decision) Glisson’sfocus is, rather, on the Court granting further special dispensation to the Plaintiff for subpoenas that failed to evenfollow the requirements of the FRCP as to notice to opposing counsel. The Court should not reward the Plaintiff,again extend the discovery cut-off date, in respect of subpoenas that do not comply with the Rules. The Plaintiff admits that there was no specific request for bank documents in their request for production and/or subpoena; butargue they were “diligent” because they get to pick and chose what type of discovery they use. The Plaintiff’s onlyargument for their delay in issuing the subpoenas beyond the applicable discovery cut-off date, is that because, afterthe deponents testified to bank accounts in existence in 2010, they had to wait five days to read such testimony inthe transcript of such testimony before they could issue the subpoenas. Does this make sense, is this “good cause”?
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 2 of 11
312345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
any showing as to why the continuance of the date for the filing of the joint pre-trial order shouldexceed 30-45 days following the Plaintiff’s requested February 21, 2011 discovery cut-off date.
2
THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED INLIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THEPLAINTIFF DID NOT REPORT TO THE COURT SO AS TO BETTERUNDERSTAND THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENTS SET FORTH INTHE MOTION In the Motion, the Plaintiff argues that, “Glisson’s conduct in 2010 is almost identical to the conduct alleged in theComplaint, and appears to contravene Glisson’s sworn declaration in oppositionto summary judgment [that in 2009 he had no intention to sell any more shares of CMKM stock in the future]”. Plaintiff’s Motion page 1/20-22. When the foregoing is considered in light of the facts and circumstances which thePlaintiff did not include or otherwise address in the Motion, the Court will hopefully concludethat the foregoing is no basis for determining that this case should be further delayed because thePlaintiff actually needs more time (let alone five months) to analyze any bank informationconcerning Glisson’s activities in 2010 and/or for the Plaintiff to decide, following such furtheranalysis, whether or not to seek to amend the Complaint in this action to include Glisson’sactivities in 2010.
The Plaintiff argues that Glisson’s sale of CMKM stock in 2010 “appears to contravene”his statement in his Declaration dated November 13, 2009 that he did not intend to sell anyCMKM stock in the future, including because CMKM was defunct and there was no way forCMKM shareholders to sell and transfer shares of CMKM stock (because there was no transfer)agent for CMKM stock). Motion, page 1/lines 20-26.CMKM has not been an operating company for years (and was not operating in 2009),and is, therefore, considered to be “defunct”. No one can argue with that fact. See Plaintiff’s
2
The Plaintiff’s argument that they need five (5) months to examine the bank information obtained as a result of the their defective, out-of-time subpoenas to three financial institutions and incorporate such information into theirpre-trial submission is not supported by any factual submission by Plaintiff and is, on its face, unreasonable.Setting aside the question as to whether such information is even relevant to the SEC’s case (See Glisson’sopposition to the pending motion, section III, page 5), there is only one bank that will produce any information inresponse to the subject defective out-of-time subpoenas showing the deposit of proceeds from the sale of CMKMstock in 2010. See the accompanying Bretz Declaration.
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 3 of 11
412345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Motion at page 1 referring to Glisson’s Declaration dated November 13, 2009, and suggestingthat Glisson’s “defunct” statement was not accurate. Glisson’s statement was then and continuesto be accurate.At the time of Glisson’s November 2009 statement, CMKM had no transfer agent, so itwas not possible for shareholders to purchase and sell CMKM stock and cause such change of ownership to be registered and consummated on the company’s books and records (and newcertificates issued reflecting such transactions) because there was no company performing suchstock registration and transfer services.Glisson’s statement in his November 2009 Declaration accurately reflected the status of matters, as it affected the ability of shareholders to sell and purchase CMKM stock, at the time.As the Plaintiff knows, having taken the testimony of Aaron White in Portland in January2011 as the designated representative for TransferOnline, Inc. and otherwise, TransferOnline wasappointed stock transfer agent for shares of CMKM by the company on April 1, 2010; and hasacted as independent transfer agent for CMKM stock from that date to the present. SeeTransferOnline’s web site at “http://www.transferonline.com/”. Upon the appointment of TransferOnline as transfer agent for CMKM stock (thereby permitting the shareholder’s to “winddown” their positions in the stock as they saw fit), stockholders like Glisson who werepreviously not able to purchase or sell CMKM stock, as a result of the lack of such appointedstock transfer agent, now had the opportunity and choice to do so starting in April 2010.Like any CMKM stockholder in November 2009 who did not contemplate or intend tosell CMKM, because they couldn’t, when the opportunity presented itself following theappointment of TransferOnline in April 2010, Glisson re-evaluated his options and what madesense for him at the time. This change of circumstances in April 2010 does not mean thatGlisson’s statement about his intentions in November 2009 was not truthful (or dictate furtherinvestigation by the Plaintiff in 2011 of events they have known about since April 2010 when
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 4 of 11
512345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
they started monitoring sales of CMKM stock including by Glisson [and his wife] through therecords of TransferOnline).At his deposition on January 11, 2011, Glisson testified that he had not purchased anyCMKM stock in 2010 (but that he had sold CMKM stock in 2010).The factual basis for the Plaintiff’s (civil injunction) claims against Glisson is that he wasmore than an “investor” - - that he was a “broker/dealer” - - that from 2005-2007 Glisson boughtand sold CMKM stock in such quantities and with such frequency during portions of suchextended period of time (much like a professional securities broker/dealer would do all the timeas part of their business activities) and should be found to be a securities “broker/dealer”requiring his offers and sales of CMKM stock to be registered under Section 5 of the SecuritiesAct of 1933 (because he was not entitled to the private “investor” exemption from suchregistration requirement). See the parties’ respective motion for summary judgmentsubmissions.It is certainly not clear from the Plaintiff’s Motion why they think that sales of CMKM stock byGlisson in 2010 requires an amendment to the existing Complaint and/or why they now need anextended period of time to analyze additional bank information concerning such 2010 activity(which Glisson has testified occurred) before making a decision about how to proceed in thiscase. (The Plaintiff’s complaint already asks for astronomical monetary damages in the form of fines, penalties and disgorgement).
If there was anything about Glisson’s sales of CMKM stock in 2010 that constituted aviolation of the registration provisions of Section 5, then such continued activity in 2010 isindicative of “reasonable likelihood” that, unless enjoined, such activity will continue in thefuture; and proof of such continued activity for purposes of justifying the injunction sought by. . .
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 5 of 11
612345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
the Plaintiff in this action would not seem to require amendment of the existing Complaint.
3
Finally, the Plaintiff’s argument, that the extended delay being sought by their motionwill not delay the trial of this case, does not pass the “straight face” test. See Plaintiff’s Motionon page 2/lines 19-20 (“Thus, extending the time for the final pretrial order to June 30, 2011,should not otherwise delay the trial of this matter”). The bottom line is that the Plaintiff’s Motion does not present any sufficient basis for theCourt to grant the (initial, further) delay the Plaintiff is seeking. This case should now proceedforward in the normal course.THIS CASE SHOULD PROCEED FORWARD TO TRIALIN THE NORMAL COURSE The Complaint in this case was filed on January 15, 2009 (the activities covered by theComplaint took place in 2005-2007). This case has been pending for more than two years. Thelast day to amend pleadings and add parties was June 11, 2009. The original discovery cut-off date for the case was September 9, 2009 which was more than 16 months ago (and wassubsequently extended to January 26, 2011). See the Court’s scheduling Order dated April 28,2009, and Order dated October 29, 2010.If and when the Plaintiff ever makes a semblance of a for “good cause” showing (which ithas not done so far with its “more discovery/investigation needed” and “possible amendment”
arguments), Glisson hopes the Court will reject any such request for delaying the trial of thiscase.. . .. . .
3
Plaintiff appears to agree with this analysis, Glisson’s trading in 2010 is part and parcel of the claims against himas set forth in the Complaint, in their Reply. See Reply to opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to again extend thediscovery date at page 4/lines 13-14.
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 6 of 11
712345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
CONCLUSIONThe Plaintiff should abide by the extended discovery cut-off date in this case (discoveryto be completed by January 26, 2011). The deadline for the submission of the parties’ joint pre-trial order in this case (30 days after the close of discovery) should have taken place byNovember 9, 2009; and should not now be further extended (to permit Plaintiff five more monthsto investigate its case and decide whether or not to seek to amend the Complaint (which, in anyevent, should not be permitted at this point of the proceedings). This case should proceed to trialin the normal course in accordance with the applicable rules of this Court and the Court’sScheduling Order.The Court is respectfully requested to deny the Plaintiff’s Motion.
DATED this 7
th
day of February, 2012.
Respectfully submitted, _/s/:
Robert H. Bretz, Esq.
Robert H. Bretz, Esq.California Bar No. 55087578 Washington Blvd. #843Marina del Rey, California 90292(310) 578-1957
Attorney for Defendant
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 7 of 11
812345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DECLARATION OF ROBERT BRETZ, ESQ.
I, ROBERT H. BRETZ, ESQ., hereby declare, as follows: 1. I am attorney of record for Marco Glisson and I am otherwise competent to providethe within testimony based on my own personal knowledge or upon information and belief asindicated herein.2. I am advised by the Glissons, that the only bank to which the Plaintiffs six defective,out-of-time subpoenas were directed where proceeds of the sale of CMK stock in 2010 wasdeposited is SunTrust Bank 3. It is estimated that the time the Plaintiff will need to analyze and consider thedocuments and information received as a result of the SunTrust Bank subpoenas, and incorporatesuch information into the Plaintiff’s portion of the joint pre-trial order, is 1-5 days at the most.4. From my reading of the Plaintiff’s Motion, the need to analyze, consider andincorporate such bank account information/documents into the Plaintiff’s portion of the joint pre-trial order, is the only reason proffered as to why the Plaintiff is seeking a continuance for thefiling of the parties’ joint pre-trial order. See Plaintiff’s Motion at page 2/lines 9-10 (“TheCommission needs additional time to analyze the bank records to include them in any pretrialorder”).5. CMKM has not been an operating company for years, and is, therefore, considered“defunct”. No one can argue with that fact. See Plaintiff’s Motion at page 1 referring toGlisson’s Declaration dated November 13, 2009, suggesting that Glisson’s “defunct” statementis not accurate - - it was then and is now accurate.6. At the time of Glisson’s November 2009 statement, CMKM had no transfer agent, soit was not possible for shareholders to purchase and sell CMKM stock and cause such change of
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 8 of 11
912345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ownership to be registered and consummated on the company’s books and records (and newcertificates issued reflecting such transactions) because there was no company performing suchregistration and transfer services.7. Glisson’s statement in his November 2009 Declaration accurately reflected the statusof matters, as it affected the ability of shareholders to sell and purchase CMKM stock, at thetime.8. As the Plaintiff knows, having recently taken the testimony of Allen White inPortland in January 2011 as the designated representative for TransferOnline, Inc. and otherwise,TransferOnline was appointed stock transfer agent for shares of CMKM by the company onApril 1, 2010; and has acted as independent transfer agent for CMKM from that date to thepresent.9. Upon the appointment of TransferOnline as transfer agent for CMKM stock,stockholders like Glisson who were previously not able to purchase or sell CMKM stock, as aresult of the lack of such appointed stock transfer agent, now had the opportunity and choice todo so starting in April 2010.10. At his deposition in on January 11, 2011, where I appeared on behalf of Mr. Glisson,Glisson testified that he had not purchased any CMKM stock in 2010 (but that he had soldCMKM stock in 2010).11. The factual basis for the Plaintiff’s argument in this case that Glisson is more thanan “investor” - - that he is a “broker/dealer” - - is that from 2005-2007 Glisson bought and soldCMKM stock in such quantities and with such frequency during portions of such extendedperiod of time (much like a professional securities broker/dealer would do as part of theirbusiness activities) that he should be found to be a securities “broker/dealer” requiring his
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 9 of 11
1012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
registration and such and requiring that his offers and sales of CMKM securities be registeredunder Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (because he was not entitled to the private“investor” exemption from such registration requirement). See the parties’ respective motion forsummary judgment submissions.12. It is certainly not clear from the Plaintiff’s Motion why they think that sales of CMKM stock by Glisson in 2010 requires an amendment to the existing Complaint and/or whythey need to wait to do so and/or why they need an extended period of time to analyze additionalbank information concerning such 2010 activity (which Glisson has testified took place) beforeproceeding to amend the Complaint.13. In the 2
nd
Quarter of 2010, shortly after the appointment of TransferOnline and theresumption of trading in CMKM stock, Paris Wynn, Esq. called and reported to me that thePlaintiff was monitoring the trading of CMKM stock including by Glisson (and his wife); and,accordingly, the Plaintiff’s argument that they need to delay the trial in this case because theyneed more time to investigate such 2010 trading activity strikes me as disingenuous.14. If there was anything about Glisson’s sales of CMKM stock in 2010 that constituteda violation of the registration provisions of Section 5, then such continued activity in 2010 isindicative of “reasonable likelihood” that, unless enjoined, such activity will continue in thefuture; and proof of such continued activity for purposes of justifying the injunction sought bythe Plaintiff in this action would not seem to require amendment of the existing Complaint.15. The Plaintiffs argument, that the extended delay being sought by their Motion willnot delay the trial of this case, does not, in my experience and opinion, pass the “straight face”test. See Plaintiff’s Motion at page 2/lines 19-20 (“Thus, extending the time for the final pretrialorder to June 30, 2011, should not otherwise delay the trial of this matter”).
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 59 Filed 02/07/11 Page 10 of 11
1112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
16. The Complaint in this case was filed on January 15, 2009. This case has beenpending for more than two years. The last day to amend the pleadings and add parties was June11, 2009. The original discovery cut-off date for the case (“last date to complete discovery”)was September 9, 2009 (which was more than 16 months ago). See the Court’s scheduling Orderdated April 28, 2009. It is now 2011.This Declaration is made and given under penalty of perjury under the laws of theUnited States. This Declaration is executed in Los Angeles County, California, on February 7,2011./s/:Robert H. Bretz, Esq.ROBERT H. BRETZ, ESQ.
R.I.P. Gary Moore
This isn't religion, jimmy. Not knowing the reason for something does not substantiate your beliefs.
Amazing ain't it.almost 2 years and they can't reel in urban when some on this board claim to know where he is..hmmmm
What if they're right? What a fascinating, mystical world you live in.
just as long as you believe in a total loss as well. Just sayin', if you're gonna be completely rational.
that said, i still believe in a ROI. afterall, it's not irrational nor delusional behavior to expect same in a fair market, no?
very true, but don't forget the gays.
Then Treffry will come back and tell us that it is all about the mob, jews and the Nazi's.
I agree, I think deli made between $400K and $500K. I ran some numbers when the new sales became public last October:
CHUNKY44
Friday, October 01, 2010 12:48:58 PM
Re: HndtoHnd post# 318323 Post # of 323649
According to my calculations (and assumptions), Deli & his agents moved 1,604,400,000 shares. At $50 profit per million that's $80,220. At $100 profit per million that's $160,440. (from 5/7/10 to 7/23/10)
EDIT: Probably another couple hundred million that were "brokered" by Deli where the cert didn't go through his or his agents names.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHUNKY44
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:39:06 PM
Re: bigbadjohn post# 318589 Post # of 323651
Quote:
It states he sold (transferred over 14 billion shares)
The numbers certainly don't support the SEC's claim that Deli sold 14 billion shares. There are 13 transactions on the TA's register that involve Marco Glisson, Allen Glisson, Thingamathong, Glisson kids' trusts, and the Golden Eagle Trust (same addy & phone # as Marco). The total shares cancelled were 15,421,400,000, the total shares reissued were 13,817,000,000. The difference would be the shares sold, 1,604,400,000.
The transaction # are 139-626, 139-930, 140-105, 140-347, 140-440, 140-803, 141-151, 141-384, 141-503, 141-782, 142-041, 142-483, and 141-783.
Witness for the prosecution.
Why do I have this crazy feeling that poor Urban is a rat.
Gabrielle Giffords shot in head in Tucson
by Three Sonorans on Jan. 08, 2011, under Headline news
US Congresswoman Gabby Giffords from Tucson has just been shot point blank in the head on the north side of Tucson. No word on if she survived.
More as it develops…
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-in-head-in-tucson/
Considering that CMKX is now officially the world's largest collection of megalomaniacs, who wouldn't be freaked out?
Well said Janice. Extremely well said.
Dear IBM, Peter and family?? Where the hell was this mailed to:
An open letter to Peter Maheu...
« Thread Started Yesterday at 8:34pm »
lt.kk
Dear IBM, Peter and family: We know you have been with us through these past years. It would be impossible to be a shareholder and not feel your presence. As we come to a signpost in this long journey we are prepared to make you a solemn promise that if we are to be the next wealthy people on this planet, that we will be sure to remember always the principles that led you to formulate this genius plan and for making us your companions on this journey to save our country and the world. We are ready to move forward and show you and our maker that there is a better way for us all to live. There is a more giving and caring way to spend our time on this Earth. We know that that is what your plan is all about and we readily accept the challenge.
We know that the seed of this plan was born in goodness and caring and we will not let you down.
There are some of us that do not believe that we have finally reached our destination. I understand their disbelief! After all IBM you are the master of deception and Peter, the Apple does not fall far from the tree. Please, we ask if we are not at the point where we are to take the reigns we would hope that you would find a way to let us know that we have to push on a bit farther. We are very strong and resilient from the journey and if there is more to accomplish, we are ready. Most of us know this is not about money. It is about getting back to God's plan.
Thank you and we respectfully send our gratitude to you and your family. It was hard for us, but it was much more to you and yours. We send our love and respect to you Peter and to IBM as he sits at the right hand of the lord. We are ready...CMKX shareholders. Lt.KK
bikinipro
"Please, we ask if we are not at the point where we are to take the reigns we would hope that you would find a way to let us know that we have to push on a bit farther."
So Kenny, this being said, do you think that the payment for F&P went out like Chicky and PJ confirmed....and that we're still waiting for the trust to be released and announcement of ER?
lt.kk
I concur with Chucky!
Read the whole page, it's hilarious and scary all at the same time.
http://cmkxunofficial.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=mofo&action=display&thread=7909
I love that "Mistress Janice" head shot. I was going to elaborate, but maybe I should just stop there.
Because, silly, this is the world's longest snipe hunt. Hopefully you have a firm grip on your gunny sack.
Brilliant.
Rawnoc, if you're gonna say I was wrong, at least point out what it is that I was wrong about. Management stated that the valuation of the media credits could not be relied upon. They restated the value to what? Management came clean, I think everyone else should do likewise.
That's quite a bit of revisionist history...at best. It was a sleazy transaction from the beginning. The media credits were NEVER worth $10 million, and it is STILL dishonest to claim that they are. Your attempt to portray the situation as merely a difference of opinion between accountants is just a reminder of the true character of Mr. Bordynuik.
Have any of you junior mining followers ever heard of Pinetree Capital? http://www.pinetreecapital.com
look here at posts made yesterday.
http://www.atomicbobs.com/index.php?board=276