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.
Because it clues you and those supporting NSS of CMKX
of how to respond.
Then it might clue others not to post stradegy.
Because CMKX, Maheu, Stocklein and Frizzle are onto something, and those that are on these message boards work for MM's (and who knows who else) and could pass DD and stradegy on to others to respond.
It's best for those who have DD or stradegy thoughts to withhold them until after the hearing.
703,000,000,000....oops sorry.
Is that bigger than 100?? It's the only number that came to mind. : )
LOL
Still long and strong and believes we have to get through this and oust UC and friends, and keep IBM and associates manning the helm and we'll be ok.
Later all,
Bo
Who pays you fung?
What business or organization(s) pays you for your opinions?
Do you have a site or a newsletter that you publish your opinions other than the opinions you post here?
Just honestly curious.
Bo
Joye & Diamondintheruff...
Both nice. Took a much needed board break here. 75 degrees and nothing but sun does that to a guy. : ) Sincerely hope April is a sign of things to come weather wise. Last year was a total wash.
I'm starting to believe you about NEOM Joye. Some money may be going into good longterm promising plays I mentioned before. NEOM may well be one of them.
Diamondintheruff...I know SMTR was mentioned before. Even before I was fully introduced to the smaller market, SMTR and I crossed paths. It traded in the low .30's and high .20's then with the same promises you read about now.
Don't get me wrong, the technology itself is very impressive but one thing has hurt SMTR to date: Passive detection systems. When I invested in them 2 1/2 years ago or so, there was a question which way manufacturers would go, passive systems or component systems (ie Smartire). From then until now, auto manufacturers chose their own passive technology to determine whether tire pressure is low.
An example of what I mean by a passive system, is one where the vehicle's ICU (computer) would detect if one wheel is travelling at a different revolution per minute than the others. Over a period of time if this difference was still showing or increased, the warning for low tire pressure will come on. For now many manufacturers chose this route for tire pressure. They simply integrated this into the computer systems of the vehicle rather than use an external component specific for that task.
If the government mandates auto manufacturers have a separate component tire pressure sensor, then SMTR has a very bright future. If not, they still may grow within the "afternarket" arena and use in motorcycles and RV's. I haven't followed them much lately. Since the trend down from the high .20's I haven't looked at them much.
Hey, but who knows??
As for CMKX, not really much to add. Today in my mind was an important day. I felt filings should have occurred Friday or today whether they were good, bad or ugly. If they got a verbal agreement from the judge that they didn't have to file until the hearing on May 10th (don't be surprised if there is a continuance beyond that date as well) then I understand. But if I was the one making the call, the filings would have been in Friday that way there can be no argument and they will not get blindsided. Wouldn't it suck if they received an adverse decision partially because the reports due April 17, 2005 were not filed.
How many times in our personal or work lives has someone assured you of something verbally, only to somehow have the worst case of amnesia days or weeks later?
We've all been there.
I did of bit of DD on Mr. Meheu last night. To say that he was a close source to the power brokers of the WORLD is an understatement. It goes well beyond Mr. Hughes which is impressive enough. I even hesitate posting the few links I was reading the information was that sensitive and powerful.
If you do a search by putting in his name, take some time and read through some of the links. I'll try to bring some of his work in the business world to the board as time allows this week.
There has been something on my calender in stone for Wedneday (4-20) or I would have taken the short trek to NYC to meet Mr. Meheu as he is the guest speaker for DKE's annual meeting.
As for racing, I was routing for Bartone. Dunn can tune the hell out of a car. I saw Urban hug him. I saw the massive trailer, motorhome, cars, parts and couldn't get out of my head that we paid for everything on the screen.
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he is the reason we are sitting BELOW .0001 right now and sitting around looking at each other waiting for SEC revocation hearings to occur. I invested in a diamond and mineral exploration company. I never meant my money to be the personal lottery to a small group of people and finance and NHRA team.
Where would we and CMKX be now if Mr. Meheu and Atty Stocklein didn't come on board in February?
Don't answer I already know. (Titanic theme song is playing in the background).
Bo : )
Interesting reponse you got eviltweety. eom
hundred to one,
The entire bid/ask spread since .0004 and lower has been set up in such a way that 95-98% of the buys are at the ask and 95-98% of the sell are at the bid.
Because MM's are allowed to trade their own funds and those of their friends, they have created a short seller's dream come true with CMKX because of it's daily high drama, chatter and volume. It plays right into their hands whether they are illegally naked short selling, or simply using illegal trading practice by not allowing trades to go through above these levels even though they only allow buys through at the ask. It has only been the past 3 months when anyone has mentioned getting filled at bid when it was .0001. This was very rare and this was only after the issue was being pounded heavy on the boards for a couple of days.
When is the last time in market history has a broker opened the market up so investors can trade 5 digits (sub .0001)??
I'm not being sarcastic. I honestly don't know. In my experience I have never seen this happen. It's safe to say this is either unprecedented or one of the very rare occasions in market history that this has occurred.
Why??
My answer is for the MM's to double cover.
1) They cover their naked short positions. (With people now only being able to sell at below .0001 levels)
2) They cover their tracks, or at least scramble by using 5th digit trading in attempt to hide what has been occurring. (NSS)
Because they decide who lives and dies (meaning what trades actually go through and at what price), they can further their profits and cover their tracks all day long.
If this involves legal shorting, the illegal strong arm trading tactics are even more in place for their benefit by allowing 5th digit trading.
Trust me, even with only 4 days of seeing 5th digit trading in the books, there is no doubt MM's and their friends booked their weekend schedule for warm and sand drenched places by no later than yesterday afternoon.
Bo
zen, scanning yesterday some were saying
Ameritrade was placing 5 digit trades (under .0001).
I have a mini-novel on why I think they are doing that I'll save for another time. Yesterday however I was thinking the same thoughts about a below .0001 entry.
Today I wasn't around at all to be checking in, but yesterday others were posting they were getting filled below .0001. I'm not sure of the brokerage they used.
Nite,
Bo
longtimeTWVN, I note your impressive experience
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=5910684
I'm trying to get a handle on this process at this point. It is clear the overreactions today are from those with an agenda or without detailed knowledge of this type of science.
I also note msmag's post: http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6037621
which brings up excellent points.
In your opinion based on your observations and discussions yesterday, do you see this as a viable global technology? Also do you see GTEL as the leader in this field and why?
Strongly considering this stock as a long term play, especially after the over reaction today. I saw something very promising and exhibited in such a way that would not reveal key technology if start up competition was trying to do more than just peek.
Thanks for your insight to come. I have to step out, but will be back later this evening to check in on your answer.
Bo
Jim,
I have to head out, but just wanted to respond quick.
Your post is good, but your figures are based on 2032 shareholders and 6365 shareholders.
I thought it was established by the company itself that the 2032 shareholder figure wasn't an individual shareholder count, but a number which counted any given brokerage as (1) even though there were hundreds or thousands of investors under a certain brokerage.
With the confidence you and other like minded posters (obviously profiting from short selling CMKX) have that there is no naked short, then you should have no problem with CMKX counsel and CMKX shareholder counsel continuing their effort to count the shares. According to you we're not going to uncover a naked short problem anyway, so you should have no problem with the count expanding to include all (or most) of the shareholders.
Later all,
Bo
More On e-Smart & Case Law Research.
Credit goes to 4C's. Absolutely excellent DD. This would make excellent reference for our counsel in the case law cited in the e-Smart ruling. Bo
_________________________________________________________________
4C's
Diamondologist
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 336
e-Smart ruling: what Judge Brenda knows!
« Thread started on: Apr 12th, 2005, 11:11pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Judge Brenda has referenced e-Smart Technologies as a precedent for our current situation, I thought I’d compile a chronicle of what happened to e-Smart so we’d have a road map of what may be in store for us. Administrative law Judge Lillian McEwen presided over the e-Smart proceedings. Here goes:
12/13/02 - SEC suspends trading of e-Smart (ESMT) and asks for hearing.
12/16/02 - Just three days later, proceedings are instituted against e-Smart based on two violations: (1) materially false and misleading statements made directly to investors and potential investors concerning results of operations, contractual relationships, ownership of technology assets, and projected revenues and profits; and (2) materially false and misleading reports filed with the SEC as a result of registration requirements. Much of this content paralleled a fraud case being brought against e-Smart in Federal court in the Southern District of New York.
12/9/03 - After nearly a year goes by, the Order is modified because the Federal court found the fraud charges baseless, so a fraud finding is not required anymore.
3/4/04 - The Judge’s initial decision is rendered. She references Steadman vs. SEC as representative of the preponderance of evidence, but finds e-Smart’s violations were recurrent and egregious, and she revokes e-Smart’s registration.
7/16/04 - An Order on motions is made in which the SEC’s request for a summary affirmation of the previous Order is denied. e-Smart gets a chance to present their case for reduced sanctions.
10/14/04 - The Judge’s original decision to revoke is remanded to her for further consideration since e-Smart has filed all delinquent reports and seems capable of meeting filing deadlines in the future.
2/3/05 - In her initial decision release, the Judge concludes that no sanctions need be imposed as e-Smart has complied with all filing requirements and shows intent to continue to do so. She denies the SEC’s motion to continue revocation with the quote shown below which I believe is the touchstone for our hearing.
3/5/05 - No petition for review is received from the SEC, so the Judge’s initial decision release becomes final: no sanctions are imposed on e-Smart.
Here’s the language the judge used in deciding that revocation was uncalled for, and if this doesn’t sum up our situation, I don’t know what does (and our violations, although recurrent, are certainly not egregious as were e-Smart's):
“In view of the foregoing, despite the egregiousness and recurrent nature of e-Smart's violations, I find the likelihood of future violations absent and the need for a strong sanction no longer necessary. The Division's request for revocation of the registration of e-Smart's common stock must therefore be denied. See 4 Louis Loss & Joel Seligman, Securities Regulation 1891-92 (3d ed., rev. vol. 2000) (describing involuntary revocation of a security's registration as a draconian remedy and unnecessarily harmful to innocent security holders in view of the availability of other regulatory tools that ensure the filing of adequate reports); 3 Thomas L. Hazen, Treatise on the Law of Securities Regulation § 9.2[1] (4th ed 2002). I also conclude that suspension of e-Smart's registration of its common stock (a remedy not pursued by the Division, but available) is equally inappropriate. The effect of any suspension, as with revocation, would be to harm investors unfairly, rather than to serve any deterrent or remedial function now that the company has filed, albeit untimely, all its delinquent reports. Both remedies, in light of e-Smart's later compliance efforts, would also deprive investors unnecessarily of a public market for the trading of their securities. See Loss & Seligman at 1897 (citing legislative history for Exchange Act Section 15(c)(4), a parallel provision to Section 12(j) for persons who cause a company's violations of the reporting requirements).
Having reconsidered the Steadman factors in light of e-Smart's subsequent filings and recent compliance, I deny the Division's renewed request for revocation of the registration of e-Smart's common stock and conclude, under the circumstances, that no sanction should be imposed for e-Smart's violations.”
I love that phrase "describing involuntary revocation of a security's registration as a draconian remedy and unnecessarily harmful to innocent security holders", don't you? A perfect description of our feelings, I'd say.
Now, I don't think we're in for a two-year bout like e-Smart went through because there is no parallel Federal court case to muddy the water for us. Absent that distraction, Judge Brenda could come to a decision in a week or two unless there's some factor we're not aware of that the SEC springs in the conference call tomorrow.
If Judge Brenda agrees with judge Lillian’s decision (and I think she will), we should come out of this with minor embarassment and no impediments to further trading on the Pinks (or higher, once we qualify). Let’s hope so.
Morning Jim. Then all the more reason for
the Frizzle count to continue. If by your post you are saying the T/A would be clueless if there is a massive naked shorting problem, (You're saying only issued shares and legends are all they have), then the Frizzle count is a must.
Mind you, I don't buy your argument because how else is the T/A going to have a list of shareholders unless it comes from the DTC or brokers? I believe the T/A knows without a doubt of any NSS problem. All I'm saying is, "Fine, let's continue the Frizzle count and compare that number with the T/A's. I bet it's higher than even the T/A is showing."
62,255,787,908 shares with only 662 signed agreements currently.
If you take this number times 12, you have in excess of the ENTIRE OUTSTANDING SHARE TOTAL. The 62 billion IS 1/83 OF THE LIKELY SHAREHOLDER BASE!! This count is simply a new revelation we cannot ignore and must continue to the fullest extent possible!
http://www.cmkxownersgroup.com/
If we assume 55,000 shareholders, then there is 54,338 to go. : )
Currently the 62,255,787,908 represents only 1/83 of the shareholders (assuming a 55,000 shareholder base).
If I'm wrong on how the T/A in this case confirms their numbers, then fine. But I believe there has to be some form of reporting from the DTC, brokers, etc back to the T/A of the executed trades and balances. If there is such a report given back to the T/A, all I'm saying is match that number with the Frizzle count.
Given the above count so far, it would seem possible that the Frizzle count will exceed the float by a very large amount.
That's the bottom line of my interest and enthusiasm of this effort.
The number itself is what is important. Comparisons with any DTC numbers (or T/A's numbers) only shed a more glaring light on any type of cover up.
62 billion with only 662 shareholders counted is an amazing statistic. Someone close to Frizzle needs to persuade him to consider reducing his price dramatically for the sole reason of including a large number of shareholders in this count, or offer some way that IS VERIFIABLE that shareholders own in excess to the float.
I would not be interested in Frizzle at all if he was not formally conducting this share count AND THE NUMBERS WEREN'T THIS IMPRESSIVE. If he was showing 5-10 billion shares for the 662 shareholders, I wouldn't even be posting about this. The 62 Billion/662 Shareholder ratio is eye opening to say the least. The fact that he has a limited role under the lead counsel of Stocklein is also a plus.
With time a factor (14 days until the scheduled hearing), that is the reason for a sense of urgency to accelerate this count.
Bo
Does it ever stop? AZTEC Mining Announces Interest in Kimberlite Pipe
I swear this is the stock that refuses to be boring. Cedar Point should consider the next thrill ride be named after CMKX. lol
Bo
Tuesday , April 12, 2005 22:35 ET
INDIANAPOLIS, Apr 12, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) --AZTEC Mining Corp. (Pink Sheets:AZTM) is pleased to announce it has acquired a 100% interest in four mineral claims in the Southern Mining District of Saskatchewan, Canada. These claims contain the kimberlite pipe formerly known as the Carolyn. This diamondiferous kimberlite, based on past diamond results by the previous operator, warrants further exploration. The surrounding ground hosts multiple bulls-eye magnetic targets that commonly represent above basement intrusive rocks. A new ground geophysical survey on the claims is to commence shortly.
A number of scientific studies (http://www.mgls.org/95Sym/Papers/Mwenifumbo/) as well as Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 109, No. 8, pp. 1000-1020 have indicated that the Carolyn, also referred to as the Smeaton Pipe, has undergone multiple eruptive phases. This is similar to the Star Pipe which is located about 20 miles southeast of the Carolyn. The Star Pipe, owned by Shore Gold, has yielded a 19.71 carat diamond as well as more than 30 diamonds over 1 carat in size.
AZTEC hopes to delineate kimberlite within the Carolyn which would correlate to the enriched Early Joli Fou kimberlite phase within the giant Star Pipe. After ground geophysics, a drilling program is planned that will focus on any enriched kimberlite phases that are identified in the Carolyn Pipe.
United Carina Resources Corp. and United Pine Channel Gold have launched a legal action to stop the transfer of the kimberlite pipe formerly known as the Carolyn to Aztec Mining Corp. This injunction was rejected by a Saskatchewan judge. Both parties are making further claims that will be dealt with by Seagrove Capital Corporation on behalf of Aztec Mining Corp. Aztec Mining Corp. feels the legal action is without merit.
This press release contains "forward-looking" statements as that term is defined by Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as amended. All statements that are included in this press release other than statements of historical fact are "forward-looking" statements. Although management believes that the expectations reflecting in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to have been correct. Important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations as disclosed herein, including without limitation, in conjunction with these forward-looking statements contained in this press release.
SOURCE: AZTEC Mining Corp.
AZTEC Mining Corp.
Scott Tobia, 317-566-2169
fax: 317-566-2169
http://www.aztecmining.com
Ruling, Frizzle, NSS and other stuff.
I'm beat here, but the Kool Aid drip is still kicking in at least until tomorrow when something entirely different will come up and change the whole picture again. lol
I commented on the ruling earlier. Janice's post actually summed the ruling up nicely. All I wanted to add was that Judge Murray mentioned the 400 shareholders which Frizzle stated in his motion that he represents. The higher that number goes, the more influence can be placed by shareholders in this trial. She would have to see the protection of so many is paramount here. Her ruling today shows this to be true.
Next....here's a copy of a post I made over on proboards which in light of the last 31 hours of events has made me do a 180 on Atty Frizzle's motion:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TBone and JJ,
Respectfully, It's not what you guys are saying anymore, which is basically "let the T/A and or attornies figure it out on their own.
It's way beyond that guys. If you read my posts on IHUB over the last few weeks, and especially as recent as 30 hours ago regarding Frizzle you would have found the strongest voice echo'ing your feelings. I was also shouting from the porch roof different issues on litigation management and the posts regarding the applicable law in this case which were unique to the boards.
Here's where I'm coming from when I say there needs to be an independent accounting done by shareholders under the coordination of counsel:
NSS is illegal. Many suspect CMKX has a large naked short position but it would be hard to prove. I respectfully suggest that the T/A's numbers may not be accurate as to the actual float. If the MM's have naked shorted CMKX bigtime, then it is very possible the numbers being sent to the T/A via the DTC, brokers and MM's may not be accurate. If the DTC, brokers and MM's have played a part in this by turning a blind eye or aided in naked shorting my belief is the numbers from the T/A may also be skewed to cover up the extent of the problem. This skewing stems from bogus numbers or transactions which may be reported back to the T/A by the DTC, brokers and MM's.
How to determine the actual float is for counsel to expand this share verification process for all shareholders. Then match this number with what the T/A has. The difference could be profound in itself further confirming the NSS problem.
It is to counsel's benefit to keep this momentum going by coming up with a solid share verification campaign like they have started.
I know 550 have sent $25.00 but lets be realistic, if there are 50,000-60,000 of us all they would have to do is reduce the sign in cost to $1 or 2$ per shareholder.
Before you get on me about the low entry, remember $2 x 60000 = $120,000 which is more than enough money for any defense costs. Way more. Is this fair to the 550 that have already signed up?
Let me put it this way, at a much reduced lowered cost like I suggest:
1) More than enough money will be available for defense.
2) The actual float can be confirmed. It would take less than 1 week in which we would know if the float exceeds the number the T/A has on the books with likely many more shareholders to still be accounted for. Many would sign up for $1 or $2 in a heartbeat.
3) At this much reduced lower cost, Atty Frizzle could make the decision of refunding those who have sent $25 in the difference, especially if a flood of money comes in AND he now has rock solid evidence of NSS.
No one was more skeptical of this effort yesterday before 4pm than I was. But in business, sports or life you have to adapt to change quickly or you'll be on the outside looking in no matter what your endeavor.
The events of the last 2 days were watershed moments of change. The information regarding the 550 shareholders comprising 80 billion shares already is the fuel that has sparked me to look at this differently like I've outlined above.
We need a sparkplug among the shareholders to share this thread with counsel so they can respond accordingly to let us know how to best proceed. I suggest Kevin because he obviously has a close relationship in some way with Frizzle.
Game on guys. We can do this. : )
Bo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The main reasons I am fine with Frizzle being on-board now are twofold.
First, Atty Stocklein is still lead defense counsel with respect to this action. Any cross examination that Atty Frizzle or his co-counsel will be doing will most likely be in direct consultation and recommendation from Stocklein. That sits well with me. In my experience a well coordinated (but not arrogant or pushy) effort by 2 or more defense teams is always a plus to have.
Next, see my proboards post above. The NSS issue can be confirmed by Atty Frizzle lowering his entry cost ($1 or $2) so to entice the vast majority of shareholders to participate and confirm their holdings to him. Through a verification process, they can then calculate the float in comparison to the T/A's numbers.
So in light of this new information, I'm sorry I grizzled at Frizzle. My posts which drizzled on Frizzle have fizzled in the shadow of yesterday's and today's events. The NSS can be confirmed by a party which can present this information himself, or pass it to Atty Stocklein to present if it is Atty Stocklein who will only be allowed to speak beyond cross-examination.
Just think, we'll have tons more to discuss after tomorrow's pre-hearing conference.
In my experience, a pre-hearing conference or pre-trial conference is set by the judge to determine if there is any way this matter can be worked out without having to go to a hearing or trial. I would think that would be the case here. Further Atty Frizzle will likely be questioned on issues regarding his involvement. If the Judge was unaware of the large shareholder base (50,000-60,000) tomorrow would be a good day for Atty Frizzle to mention that although his number states 400 in his motion, there are 50 to 60 thousand shareholders who are also affected by what happens at the hearing.
The case I just posted regarding e-Smart Technologies awhile ago shows a precedent for what may occur here. As I said before, CMKX must report by 4-17-05 to maintain the integrity of their argument. It would also play right into the hands of my second desired outcome which I posted earlier today.
My 2 desired outcomes have not changed at all. It's just we suddenly have an opportunity that wasn't there before yesterday afternoon.
Nite all,
Bo
CMKX & E-Smart Ruling Cited By The Judge
« Thread started on: Today at 5:45pm »
Posted by PPS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if this was mentioned, I didn't see it brought up.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20050207/NYM08807022005-1.html
SEC ALJ Rules Out Sanction Against e-Smart
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- e-Smart Technologies, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: ESMT)("e-SMART" or the "Company") announced today that, in a regulatory action initiated in December 2002 by the Division of Enforcement of the Securities & Exchange Commission, the administrative law judge has denied the Division's request for the imposition of a sanction against e-Smart.
In a decision issued on February 3, 2005, the administrative law judge stated that the Company has "hired staff that has undertaken extensive compliance efforts to cure past reporting deficiencies and keep current with ongoing reporting requirements." The law judge further concluded that "based on the company's recent infusion of working capital, signed business contracts, and diligent and expensive efforts to file past due reports, ... I find the likelihood of future violations absent ... " and denied the Division's request for the imposition of a sanction. The Division had proposed revoking the registration of e-Smart's common stock.
Both parties have twenty-one days to appeal this order.
This looks very similar to what CMKX attorney laid out.
It is the case mentioned in the ruling by the Judge.
PPS
[Changed the title to "CMKX & E-Smart Ruling Cited By The Judge" as this is more descriptive. - bluediamonds]
Did Someone Slip Kool Aid In My Drink??
Janice, I actually agree with you totally and completely. lol
I am acutally shocked like you are (pleasantly) about this ruling.
What's funnier is that in your post you are actually admitting today's events was a rather good one for shareholders. Maybe our batches of Kool Aid got mixed today and we're drinking from the same punchbowl. lol
I'll write a full post later but nothing I post this evening, which will be rather long, will say it any better than you did. A few things I'll be adding, but most of my main points can be found in your succinct post.
My quick read of it a couple hours ago has had me FILLED with thoughts 180 degrees from what I've been posting. I'm so shocked (in a good way) at today's events, especially in light of the fact that in my post of last week, I cited the very statute that should have precluded Frizzle from the hearing.
To my knowledge mine was the only post across any boards to bring the relevant statute (Rule 210 (a),(b),and (c)).
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=5974658
Judge Murray cited this very statute, yet still ruled in favor of the motion to intervene.
With how this ruling affects us, I am actually going to post later why it is crucial that shareholders become sizzled for Frizzle.
Draw an IV line in me and tap it to the Kool Aid pitcher. Tonight's post will have rasberry Kool Aid dripping out of it fo' shizzle.
Couldn't resist.
Bo : )
onyx, if you read the book you will have
noticed 3/4ths of his book is about his life and the actual work he did on behalf of Mr. Hughes, which was very impressive.
I'm certainly not going to knock Mr. Hughes, but many close to him including Mr. Meheu, stated that Mr. Hughes was suffering from some problems which affected his judgement and decisions about his business and his quality of life in his later years.
In reading the book you will have also read that through Mr. Meheu's persistance in knowing what was right, Mr. Maheu was successful in the suit which involved committing slander and libel against his name. After his firing by Hughes, he filed suit against Mr. Hughes which was a bold move given how deeply connected Mr. Hughes was. Through that suit it was clear he was making a point even though because of Mr. Hughes connections, that suit was not going to be successful. As a result he lost that case. However Mr. Meheu proved his point and persistance was exactly correct in the suit clearing his name, WHICH HE WON after the death of Mr. Hughes.
Later Gators,
Bo
Voodooman,
The current issues of the hearing rightfully have brought about a lot of discussion. This will continue to be the case as it should.
For me, I've been consistant in posting that I desire 2 things from this hearing:
1) CMKX gets through this. Like I said in the past, it will be tough but it's 'doable'. After seeing yesterday's Answer and the specific proactive discussion and CYA letter by Atty Stocklein to Special Counsel O'Neill, I see it as very possible.
Leadership under Maheu has impressed me. His trust in Donald Stocklein, Esq. is simply another correct decision in my opinion.
So let's through this WITH CURRENT LEADERSHIP IN PLACE, and simply become a company which works hard to use it's resources and potential to grow company value while improving share structure.
When I say "WITH CURRENT LEADERSHIP IN PLACE", that means: (onto point #2 on what I desire from this hearing)
2) Have the SEC judge punish and or oust the entire leadership team prior to Mr. Maheu.
I've posted many times on the failings and the very questionable practices of prior leadership, and I fully expect this to be under scrutiny at the hearing. The Action filed by the SEC and Answer filed by CMKX will lend itself to this discussion by SEC counsel and certainly the judge at the time of the hearing. It won't be pretty. The Answer certainly shows current leadership as dilligent and acting in good faith, giving every argument for the judge to leave CMKX (the company) in place and deny the SEC action. However, when the judge fills in the gap on how the entire group of UC & friends ABUSED their leadership roles and squandered the potential of the claims CMKX owns, and instead dilute the market with shares to the sky and back 703 billion times over, I predict she will act swiftly and with impunity against UC & friends.
Discussion will eventually get around to what my crystal ball was showing me last month:
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=5642467
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=5642753
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=5645060
Discussion will get to this point likely after the hearing occurs.
After this dust clears, then it will be sweet to focus on real efforts by the company to grow the potential they have.
Then, and only then will it be an appropriate time to address any NSS issue if such is in play.
The 2 hammers that have pounded on each side of investors has been dilution (fault of prior management) and cellar boxing (fauly of MM's et al).
They are 2 big trees to topple. I believe the judge is going to take out one of those trees at the hearing. My earlier posts provide an out of the box theory why I believe this had to occur.
Bo
janice, you typed:
"Think they'll do that? I don't. They've already said they can't."
We'll know within 1 week. I don't know if they will. I certainly hope they do. All I'm saying is that they have to. By them filing Form 15 in February and bringing it up in their Answer, they are saying they will, or their entire point is moot.
Again, it's simply a matter to be seen but it would be to their benefit to do so.
Bo
Bo's .02...
I'll comment on the response a bit later. It's actually suprisingly good and I'll tell you why. For now I want to sweep something under the rug that frankly I'm sick of seeing and commenting on it.
NSS will NOT be part of this hearing. I'm open to any debate, but with this I simply do not see the Frizzle motion carrying weight or acceptance with the judge. Even if his motion is accepted, in reading the Answer I think it would be a huge distraction given the goals of his effort.
If denied, those that paid their $25 cover charge at the door will need to demand to see his billing records and EACH be reimbursed if his expenses are much less than the Frizzle fund.
Preperation time to file a simple motion would not equal the monies received, unless they show a bill that is questionable.
_________________________________________________________________
THE FILING
.......................
The filing was what I expected for the most part, but 2 things pleasantly surprised me:
1) Maheu and Attorney Stocklein showed prompt action and required dilligence in February...and Attorney Stocklein did THE MOST IMPORTANT thing anyone in business or law can do: A CYA (Cover Your A**) letter confirming a VERY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION. It may not seem like much, but as you can see from the exhibits being submitted to the record, that Atty Stocklein's confirming letter to SEC Special Counsel, Kevin O'Neill on February 16th regarding filing Form 15 and following the reporting protocol of Rule 12g-4(b)!!
This is CRUCIAL, because it was on that same day (2-16-05) that Attorney Stocklein then prepared Form 15 and Urban signed it AGAIN ON THATt SAME DAY! It was filed on 2-17-05.
This letter is KEY evidence because Attorney Stocklein is 100% correct when he goes on to contend that under Rule 12g-4(b), CMKX had SIXTY DAYS (60) from the time of the Form 15 filing on 2-17-05 to report!!
Here is Rule 12g-4(b) for everyone to see what I mean:
~~"The issuer's duty to file any reports required under section 13(a) shall be suspended immediately upon filing a certification on Form 15; Provided, however, That if the certification on Form 15 is subsequently withdrawn or denied, the issuer shall, within 60 days after the date of such withdrawal or denial, file with the Commission all reports which would have been required had the certification on Form 15 not been filed. If the suspension resulted from the issuer's merger into, or consolidation with, another issuer or issuers, the certification shall be filed by the successor issuer."~~
Excellent CYA letter. Excellent argument. The SEC jumped the gun B..I..G.....T..I..M..E in filing their action against CMKX. CMKX still has until April 17, 2005 to report.
WHAT CMKX ABSOLULTEY HAS TO DO NOW IS FILE THEIR REQUIRED REPORTS PRIOR TO APRIL 17, 2005 TO STAY TRUE TO THIS VERY GOOD ARGUMENT!!!! THEY MUST, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO MAY THIS ARGUMENT STICK. IF THEY DO, IMO THEY HAVE DONE EVERYTHING IN GOOD FAITH AFTER ATTY STOCKLEIN SPOKE TO SPECIAL COUNSEL O'NEILL ON 2-15-05.
2) The second thing that surprised me is the one small sentence that could prove to be a very effective defense. They prayed this matter should be barred by laches.
I've posted about this many times, and now this is front and center.
Let's face it, the SEC said nothing, did nothing and contacted no one for almost 2 years. CMKX believed that their Form 15 filing in 2003 was correct at that time. It wasn't until February of 2005 that this error was discovered, and discovered by CMKX SIMPLY WANTING TO BECOME A REPORTING COMPANY AGAIN!!
Atty Stocklein in his conversation and letter to Special Counsel O'Neill showed GOOD FAITH. This discussion invloved filing matters and the 2003 Form 15. Atty Stocklein then took Immediate appropriate action to correct this after his discussion with Special Counsel O'Neill.
In reponse the SEC filed their action premature (prior than the 60 days allowed by Rule 12g-(b). But further, they FILED NOTHING against CMKX prior to this time.
If this action is barred, it could very well be barred by laches.
"Laches" are:
Undue delays in asserting a right or privilege compare statute of limitations.
A doctrine permitting dismissal of a suit because a plaintiff's unreasonable delay in asserting a right or privilege has been detrimental to the defendant's ability to make a defense (as by resulting in the unavailability of witnesses or evidence) (a suit barred by laches)
Affirmative defenses are based on this doctrine.
I've said all along, the SEC complied with their filing because they did nothing to say it was in error prior to March of 2005, WHEN CMKX WAS ACTUALLY IN COMPLIANCE ACCORDING TO THE LAW BECAUSE OF THEIR FEB 2005 FORM 15 FILING.....AND THE CYA LETTER.
These 2 points are points are very good ones which have sound legal basis. They are certainly still within 60 days of February 17th. They need to report by February 17th and stay focused on this hearing and not get caught up in the issues trying to be raised by John Martin in his motion to intervene.
Bo
What to look for in the Answer.
It's very simple. If CMKX responds in kind to the points raised in the SEC's suit against them and nothing more, then it is simply going to be a pissing match at the hearing. In this case however the SEC will be holding a fire hose vs CMKX holding a squirt gun.
The key section or filing to look for from CMKX is titled 'New Matter'.
New Matter are issues that are brought up new to the case as part of a defendant's defense. The newly claimed facts go beyond denying the complaint's allegations that were filed by the plaintiff.
I am not 100% certain if such a filing is part of the protocol of the SEC hearing, but such issues and information are part of MANY civil and criminal law cases. It may be termed differently in a securities case, but this type of filing in addition to the direct answers to the suit are what to look for if CMKX plans to allege any NSS or trading issues.
Without it, the first paragraph applies and one of the SEC's responses will likey be the filing of a request in opposition to the Frizzle motion.
If CMKX does not file New Matter, the Frizzle motion will likely be rejected prior to the hearing date.
If CMKX files new matter with issues of NSS being raised, the SEC will have to respond to the New Matter before the hearing takes place. Such filings may push the hearing date back a few weeks. The judge has to rule on the New Matter filing before proceding to the hearing. There may even need to be a hearing (Oral Argument) on the merits of the New Matter itself prior to the final hearing concerning the lawsuit itself.
If your routing for CMKX, you need to see some form of New Matter filing in their response this week!
If CMKX files New Matter and the judge allows it to become part of the argument and evidence presented at the hearing, then it's a whole new ballgame. The Frizzle motion may be considered at that time, and actually add some weight to the argument. The real challenge though for CMKX/Frizzle will be to provide ROCK SOLID proof of NSS or other trading irregularities.
A lot of 'if's" I know...lol, but I'm just trying to filter the possibilities for everyone as we await CMKX's answer to the lawsuit.
Remember if it is just a declaratory answer to the points of the suit and nothing more is filed by CMKX, the first paragraph applies and at the time of the hearing the fire hoses will be turned on high, and Frizzle will have Fizzled before even getting a chance to sizzle.
Have a good Monday,
Bo : )
Buzz, You are 100% right.
My suspicion about this $25 a head shareholder counsel does not sit right with me at all as each day passes. I've explained the reasons in prior posts of why legally they will not succeed.
But beyond that I have stated how I question the motive of this effort and those so called respected posters in pumping others to send their $25.00 in. I'll take the gloves off a bit and translate what I have been trying to tactfully say:
It reeks of a potential scam in itself....BAD.
No matter how many uninformed people eventually send $25.00, the effort is fruitless. So far their $25.00 has got them a filing which may well be denied prior to the hearing. I believe it will. But, I'll take it one step further, just say the judge does allow John Martin to intervene (represented by Frizzle) at the hearing. Nothing I have read in his motion is relevant to the case of the SEC vs CMKX. I'm open to anyone to show me the proof and evidence submitted by Frizzle that is relevant to the case.
So let's talk about money for a bit.
Frizzle states in his motion likely crafted last week and early this week a number of at least 400 shareholders in his filing. I'll go out on a limb and say thay since that time with all of the pied piper posters telling their flock to sign on (even though these same pied pipers weren't thrilled about this at first...ahem) I'm guessing between 1000-1500 have now unbelievably sent $25 bucks in.
Let's assume the number now is 1,250 shareholders.
1250 x $25 = $31,250.00!
Being in litigation management, that means I've seen 18 years worth of billings from defense counsel from firms over a wide geographic area, including big cities. The cases have ranged from matters heard at the Court of Common Pleas, Court of Appeals and Federal Civil Court.
Plaintiff counsel represents a party or parties that sue another party (or parties) for money damages. In EVERY case that I have ever been aware of, plaintiff counsel works on a contingency. Ususally this contingency is 25% of damamges awarded in Workers' Compensation cases, 33% in civil cases settled without court appearances, 40% for cases in suit where court appearances such as hearings and trials. Some may even charge up to 50% for more complex cases which go to trial.
Defense counsel (similar to what we have here where Frizzle is claiming to defend the interests of CMKX shareholders) charge on a per hour basis. Their billed hours are submitted for review, approval and adjustment if required.
Very simply, they are paid for the time and expenses incurred based on an agreed upon per/hour rate. Usually $80 - $200 per hour is what I have seen regardless is that attorney is from a big city.
It would take YEARS of a messy case to even come to 80% of $31,250.00!!!!
In this case he has phone calls and the time and expense to prepare and file the motion and establish a website. Hopefully this is not his only case, so he is not sitting in his office praying or daydreaming about this case while scratching doodles and consider this work. God I hope not. The document was prepared and now he awaits a response.
30 billable hours tops to date. If it's coming in any more than that, those $25 donators better see a verified breakdown to see the inefficiency or padding of the bill that's going on here.
30 x $150/hr = $4,500 + $500 estimated costs = $5,000.00
Again, I am being generous in estimating hours. He filed a simple motion to intervene. This is not a complex pleading here.
So...what if the motion is denied? Will Frizzle account for his hours and send the money back to the shareholders??
What if he appears...he is not going to have $26,000 of expenses to appear. By then many more (possibly double the current number) will have sent their $25 in to him, (or them....ahem). Sorry, I had a non-securities attorney sized frog in my throat followed by a pied piper poster hairball.
Why suddenly have the pied piper posters 'come around' and are suddenly using influence to persuade people to keep sending their $25.00, even though the costs will not come close to the current total received??
The motion is denied....then what? Does he go away? What is the plan after that?? Not one person I've seen has discussed this.
The motion is accepted and he appears on behalf of John Martin...I ask again, then what? Does he go away? What is the plan after that?? Not one person I've seen has discussed this.
Last, if any pleading or argument serves to jeopardize my investment, Attorney Frizzle and those pied pipers who encouraged this effort to grow will go by another name soon:
Defendant.
Bo
GTEL is certainly on watch.
I'm waiting possibly like many to see the report of test launch results.
It's been so busy this week, I've have such little time to scan anything.
Does anyone know how to refresh or recover (not sure what the correct term is) Microsoft Internet Explorer only?
I don't have a windows recovery disc, but it's not the entire system I need refreshed. It works fine except there is a glitch in my Microsoft IE.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Bo
What does $25 get you?
A motion praying (legal term) the SEC grant leave to John Martin via Attorney Frizzle to become a party or non-party participant inthis matter. I read the entire motion (which wasn't long) and wasn't specific in their relevance to this hearing. It was a motion without focus in my humble opinon.
You know how I feel about this. I have many opinons about the motion. For now, the only part that matters is the part of the motion which refers to Rule 210 of the SEC's Rules of Practice. He mentions it only in passing, and only in a way that he understands a denial may be issued based on Rule 210.
Of course a denial will occur.
In #(1) below, no person shall be granted leave to become a party or a non-party participanton a limited basis in an enforcement or disciplinary proceding. They mention the only exception is found in section (c).
Here's what section (c) says:
"In any proceeding, other than an enforcement proceeding, a disciplinary proceeding, a proceeding to review a self-regulatory determination, or a proceeding to review a Board determination, any person may seek leave to participate on a limited basis as a non-party participant as to any matter affecting the person's interests:"
So even in exception to the rule (section c), enforcement procedings and disciplinary procedings are types of procedings which DO NOT allow parties to be granted leave to become participants.
Further, I saw no court stamp on his document to determine when this was filed. I've seen some say there is no time limit on this filing. Those posters are WRONG. As you can read from Rule 210 itself, the party filing the motion must do so no later than 20 days before the hearing takes place. Thus if Mr. Frizzle filed this yesterday, he just made the threshold. if he filed it today (4-6-05) he is within the 20 day threshold which may be another basis for denial without the SEC judge to even have to consider the motion itself.
CMKX's last pr is a full admittance to their delinqincy. Nothing other than evidence to the matter of the suit will be considered relevant.
I still question the motive of those so called respected posters encouraging others to submit $25. This intervention is way premature, not done in the right way with an attorney who does not practice securites law.
Last if representation is needed on behalf of the shareholders, this is not the way counsel is selected. A shareholder's meeting with a choice of QUALIFIED COUNSEL IN SECURITIES LAW AND SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATION making presentations to the group is the way to select counsel. If it came to that someday, I would humbly offer to lead such a selection process and decision.
Below is SEC's rule 210, link and language.
Bo
________________________________________________________________
Link: http://www.sec.gov/about/rulesprac060304.htm
Language:
Rule 210. Parties, Limited Participants and Amici Curiae.
(a) Parties in an Enforcement or Disciplinary Proceeding, a Proceeding to Review a Self-Regulatory Organization Determination, or a Proceeding to Review a Board Determination.
(1) Generally. No person shall be granted leave to become a party or a non-party participant on a limited basis in an enforcement or disciplinary proceeding, a proceeding to review a determination by a self-regulatory organization pursuant to Rules 420 and 421, or a proceeding to review a determination by the Board pursuant to Rules 440 and 441, except as authorized by paragraph (c) of this rule.
(2) Disgorgement Proceedings. In an enforcement proceeding, a person may state his or her views with respect to a proposed plan of disgorgement or file a proof of claim pursuant to Rule 612.
(b) Intervention as a Party.
(1) Generally. In any proceeding, other than an enforcement proceeding, a disciplinary proceeding, a proceeding to review a self-regulatory determination, or a proceeding to review a Board determination, any person may seek leave to intervene as a party by filing a motion setting forth the person's interest in the proceeding:
(i) in a proceeding under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, any representative of interested consumers or security holders, or any other person whose participation in the proceeding may be in the public interest or for the protection of investors or consumers, may be admitted as a party upon the filing of a written motion setting forth the person's interest in the proceeding.
(ii) in a proceeding under the Investment Company Act of 1940, any representative of interested security holders, or any other person whose participation in the proceeding may be in the public interest or for the protection of investors, may be admitted as a party upon the filing of a written motion setting forth the person's interest in the proceeding.
(2) Intervention as of Right.
(i) in proceedings under the Public Utility Holding CompanyAct of 1935, any interested representative, agency, authority or instrumentality of the United States or any interested State, State commission, municipality or other political subdivision of a state shall be admitted as a party to any proceeding upon the filing of a written motion requesting leave to be admitted.
(ii) in proceedings under the Investment Company Act of 1940, any interested State or State agency shall be admitted as a party to any proceeding upon the filing of a written motion requesting leave to be admitted.
(c) Leave to Participate on a Limited Basis. In any proceeding, other than an enforcement proceeding, a disciplinary proceeding, a proceeding to review a self-regulatory determination, or a proceeding to review a Board determination, any person may seek leave to participate on a limited basis as a non-party participant as to any matter affecting the person's interests:
(1) Procedure. Motions for leave to participate shall be in writing, shall set forth the nature and extent of the movant's interest in the proceeding, and, except where good cause for late filing is shown, shall be filed not later than 20 days prior to the date fixed for the commencement of the hearing. Leave to participate pursuant to this paragraph (c) may include such rights of a party as the hearing officer may deem appropriate. Persons granted leave to participate shall be served in accordance with Rule 150; provided, however, that a party to the proceeding may move that the extent of notice of filings or other papers to be provided to persons granted leave to participate be limited, or may move that the persons granted leave to participate bear the cost of being provided copies of any or all filings or other papers. Persons granted leave to participate shall be bound, except as may be otherwise determined by the hearing officer, by any stipulation between the parties to the proceeding with respect to procedure, including submission of evidence, substitution of exhibits, corrections of the record, the time within which briefs or exceptions may be filed or proposed findings and conclusions may be submitted, the filing of initial decisions, the procedure to be followed in the preparation of decisions and the effective date of the Commission's order in the case. Where the filing of briefs or exceptions or the submission of proposed findings andconclusions are waived by the parties to the proceedings, a person granted leave to participate pursuant to this paragraph (c) shall not be permitted to file a brief or exceptions or submit proposed findings and conclusions except by leave of the Commission or of the hearing officer.
(2) Certain Persons Entitled to Leave to Participate. The hearing officer is directed to grant leave to participate under this paragraph (c) to any person to whom it is proposed to issue any security in exchange for one or more bona fide outstanding securities, claims or property interests, or partly in such exchange and partly for cash, where the Commission is authorized to approve the terms and conditions of such issuance and exchange after a hearing upon the fairness of such terms and conditions.
(3) Leave to Participate in Certain Commission Proceedings by a Representative of the United States Department of Justice, a United States Attorney's Office, or a Criminal Prosecutorial Authority of any State or any Other Political Subdivision of a State. The Commission or the hearing officer may grant leave to participate on a limited basis to an authorized representative of the United States Department of Justice, an authorized representative of a United States Attorney, or an authorized representative of any criminal prosecutorial authority of any State or any other political subdivision of a State for the purpose of requesting a stay during the pendency of a criminal investigation or prosecution arising out of the same or similar facts that are at issue in the pending Commission enforcement or disciplinary proceeding. Upon a showing that such a stay is in the public interest or for the protection of investors, the motion for stay shall be favored. A stay granted under this paragraph (c)(3) may be granted for such a period and upon such conditions as the Commission or the hearing officer deems appropriate.
(d) Amicus Participation.
(1) Availability. An amicus brief may be filed only if:
(i) a motion for leave to file the brief has been granted;
(ii) the brief is accompanied by written consent of all parties;
(iii) the brief is filed at the request of the Commission or the hearing officer; or
(iv) the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth.
(2) Procedure. An amicus brief may be filed conditionally with the motion for leave. The motion for leave shall identify the interest of the movant and shall state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable. Except as all parties otherwise consent, any amicus curiae shall file its brief within the time allowed the party whose position the amicus will support, unless the Commission or hearing officer, for cause shown, grants leave for a later filing. In the event that a later filing is allowed, the order granting leave to file shall specify when an opposing party may reply to the brief. A motion of an amicus curiae to participate in oral argument will be granted only for extraordinary reasons.
(e) Permission to State Views. Any person may make a motion seeking leave to file a memorandum or make an oral statement of his or her views. Any such communication may be included in the record; provided, however, that unless offered and admitted as evidence of the truth of the statements therein made, any assertions of fact submitted pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph (e) will be considered only to the extent that the statements therein made are otherwise supported by the record.
(f) Modification of Participation Provisions. The Commission or the hearing officer may, by order, modify the provisions of this rule which would otherwise be applicable, and may impose such terms and conditions on the participation of any person in any proceeding as it may deem necessary or appropriate in the public interest.
Euthydemus, all I can say is
Thank You. The quote from your post only make the practices that your friend stated all the more glaring.
There is nothing new to what you posted, but compiles a good parital reference post to some very important trading regulations. I already knew the basis of most of these as do many others within the market.
Of course it has always been true that legal short selling is used partially as a balance to the market. No where in your quoted material does it say that illegal strong armed trading practices are legal or allowed to occur. In fact it states just the opposite.
("A market maker would be deemed in violation of the Rule if it entered into an arrangement with a member or a customer whereby it used its exemption from the rule to sell short at the bid at successively lower prices, accumulating a short position, and subsequently offsetting those sales through a transaction at a prearranged price, for the purpose of avoiding compliance with the Rule, and with the understanding that the market maker would be guaranteed by the member or customer against losses on the trades.")
As I said, nss is used in rare situations where the book balance has to be met. No where in any SEC or DTCC regulation will you find NSS as a means to abuse and profit. Further, no where will you find a regulation stated that naked short selling can be used at times when demand for a stock is high.
Part 1 and Part 2 of my posts are telling because of the transparancy of your friend's post. It is as transparant as the clearest glass.
Fair trading is a threat to many I know. But for those who seek nothing more than a fair market, the fate your profit interests and those of your friends who admit to possible crimes are of litte concern to me and countless others.
Later gators,
Bo
Exactly TigerCat.
Nice post and good point.
Bo
My comments (PART 2)
I'm going to stop here after this paragraph. I read his entire response again. It is simply ripe of eye-opening admissions and contridictions of truth even from within his own post.
Patterson's original post and my posts which included a complete copy of his response need to get to Dateline today somehow. Those who have a contact point at Dateline may wish to do so. They certainly have the permission to include my posts in answer to his response. (admissions of wrongdoing).
_______________________________________________________________
He states:
"Most of the illegal activity I've seen has been when a market maker is working in concert with a promoter."
~~Promotor?? Define promotor. So you are saying in your previous paragraphs you make billions of dollars each day NAKED SHORTING STOCKS WITH HIGH DEMAND (which you say is legal), but you also work with people who are hoping to make an unwarranted windfall by fraudulently pumping up a stock price that has no business of rising??
So, we as investors are being hurt by your bad faith practices both ways (long and short)??
_______________________________________________________________
He states:
"The joke in our office is that, if another market maker calls you and begins the conversation with, "Hey, buddy", what follows will not be a legal suggestion. I have yet to see an exception to this rule."
As investors acting in good faith, there is nothing funny or no joke to the form of manipulation that we have seen at the hand of MM's. Thanks to the information age, the light of truth will bring these practices to an end.
_______________________________________________________________
I'll close with one final statement of his outside of these paragraphs:
He states:
"It is true that we will try to utilize retail traders' stop-losses to maximize our profits."
~~An unequivocal admittance to what I have long stated: - They play in the hand, deal the cards, name each bet and peek at the next card. -
MM's CREATE stop losses and selloffs by your illegal strong armed trading practices and NAKED SHORT SELLING WHICH YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED DOING ON STOCKS WITH HIGH DEMAND!! Your artifical manipulation of the price of the stock with high demand creates the reversal and establishment of stop losses. And you admit to making bank by doing this??? Amazing.
..."maximize our profits"??????
The only thing MM's engaged in illegal trading practices deserve is maximized jail time.
Bo
Euthydemus, (My comments PART 1)
This "response" you brought to the board was very revealing.
The most inconsequetial point was the usual message board responses from those who profit by shorting stocks legally or illegally, or are paid or connected in some form with MM's/Brokers/Dealer etc who profit by legally or illegally short stocks. They're a broken record and only serve to lay a larger evidence trail if any investigation focuses on their message board posts. As I've posted it before, I pray they keep doing it.
As for the post itself, I could offer a mini-novel ripping to shreds almost every point this market maker friend of yours makes. To save time, including mine in responding to it, I'll just focus on 3 paragraphs he wrote.
I cannot believe this person typed this:
_______________________________________________________________
"First, market makers are not angels. I have seen a fair number of illegal things. Naked shorting is what we are SUPPOSED to be doing in the face of great demand. Naked shorting in the absence of substantial demand--in other words, to kill a stock, would be market manipulation, and this IS illegal. I have never seen it happen.
Most of the illegal activity I've seen has been when a market maker is working in concert with a promoter. The joke in our office is that, if another market maker calls you and begins the conversation with, "Hey, buddy", what follows will not be a legal suggestion. I have yet to see an exception to this rule.
The notion that stocks are being killed by rampant naked shorting is ludicrous except where there is a floorless or near-floorless convertible debenture. In any event, some firms do not even consider this naked shorting anyway. However, floorless or near-floorless convertible debentures are the source of a lot of selling pressure. But even here the shorting has to be timed so that fails and consequent buy-ins don't occur."
_______________________________________________________________
Ok, like so many like to do, let's go down the list:
He stated:
"First, market makers are not angels. I have seen a fair number of illegal things."
~~Admitting guilt...Confession...Statement made on truth serum...Damning evidence. I don't care how you chose to label these sentences, this person's statement provides just cause AS CLEAR AS I HAVE EVER SEEN to warrant an investigation or inquiry into MM's practices!! The authorities or Dateline would love to talk to this guy.~~
_______________________________________________________________
He stated:
"Naked shorting is what we are SUPPOSED to be doing in the face of great demand."
~~He's on a death-wish right?? Show me the link on the SEC website which states this as a regulatory statute for fair trading. So when a company has great news and buys are coming in at the ask, this Market Maker ADMITS TO NAKED SHORTING as opposed to raising the price in response to the supply and demand of the security (stock). My jaw is dropping to the floor reading his admissions.~~
It gets better...
_______________________________________________________________
He states:
"Naked shorting in the absence of substantial demand--in other words, to kill a stock, would be market manipulation, and this IS illegal. I have never seen it happen."
~~So let's see, he has seen and ADMITS to NAKED SHORTING STOCKS THAT HAVE HIGH DEMAND. Yet so many say that the practice doesn't even exist!! HA
In this statement he unequivolcally admits that naked shorting
IS ILLEGAL, but only in the absense of demand and never happens.
Sir....sir....Let's use your own admission above to go through the EXACT scenerio which happens every day, ALL THE TIME.
First, before I get to the scenerio, I totally and completetly disagree with your ADMISSION AND REVELATION THAT IT IS LEGAL FOR MM'S TO NAKED SHORT STOCKS THAT HAVE HIGH BUYING DEMAND!! NSS is only legal to balance the end of the day books. Yet by the admission of the DTCC's First Deputy General Counsel, Larry Thompson, the fail to deliver is A PROBLEM TALLYING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS...... E..A..C..H.......D..A..Y !!!!!!!!!
Quoting Mr. Thompson from a March 5th interview with the DTCC:
"@dtcc: Just how big is the fail to delivers, and how much of those fails does the Stock Borrow program address?
Thompson: Currently, fails to deliver are running about 24,000 transactions daily, and that includes both new and aged fails, out of an average of 23 million new transactions processed daily by NSCC, or about one-tenth of one percent. In dollar terms, fails to deliver and receive amount to about $6 billion daily, again including both new fails and aged fails, out of just under $400 billion in trades processed daily by NSCC, or about 1.5% of the dollar volume. The Stock Borrow program is able to resolve about $1.1 billion of the “fails to receive,” or about 20% of the total fail obligation."
$$$SIX BILLION DAILY!!!!!!! AND ONLY 20% ARE RESOLVED???????!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS A MAMMOUTH DAILY MONEY MAKING MACHINE FOR SOMEBODY ON THE BACKS OF US WHO ARE PEOPLE INVESTING IN GOOD FAITH!
Anyway....about the scenerio I promised:
So, you admit MM's NAKED SHORT STOCKS THAT HAVE A HIGH BUYING DEMAND, but further admit that naked shorting IS ILLEGAL when demand is low. Sir, what in the hell do you think creates a low demand?? By naked shorting a stock when it demand is strong the MM's have entered into a financial trade in which they will profit by the price falling. The MM's themselves HAVE ARTIFICALLY CREATED A DYNAMIC WHICH WILL STALL THE PPS RISE, WHICH IN TURN THWARTS THE DEMAND AND CREATES AN UNWARRANTED SELLOFF!! So now demand is low, and there the MM's sit with admitted naked short positions profited off of this. Wait a minute, I thought MM's having a NSS position in times of low demand was illegal according to you??
The only thing that happens day in and day out is that MM's take illegal naked short positions, and engage in illegal strong armed trading practices to make a freaking HUGE profit day in and day out on our backs whether the demand for any given stock is high or not. Period.
(to be continued)
fishing4diamonds, great post and good to see you here.
B. Patterson gets a cookie.
ELTK is one I called early last month. When they announced their annual earnings is when the stock took off. I've traded in and out three times since their news announcement, doing well on each trade.
I didn't call them knowing there was such a naked short position out there. They simply had great fundementals and had been overlooked and undervalued. When I called them, their volume was low. After their earnings, volume went nuts. Patteron's assessment of their trading pattern is the best I've seen about an 'excess shares' issue with ELTK.
ELTK certainly can be thrown on the pile along with GLKCE as obvious proof of excess share being traded even though the o/s and float have been confirmed by the companies and their transfer agents!!
Speaking of GLKCE, as long as the company holds their share structure in place, they remain an example of the "excess shares" problem in which manipulation is occurring day in and day out. If a cover was ordered by the SEC of the excess shares, GLKCE has the potential to trade multiples higher than even current levels. We see how fast and high it rises even after appearing to lay dormant. Imagine what enforcement of trading rules would do for their stock price in the short term.
I've begun telling some people about Dateline's upcoming piece. It's simply a must watch.
Fair trading on all securities would provide the biggest boom for corporate and personal economic prosperity seen in many years. Possibly ever.
Excellent stuff and glad you brought it to the boards.
Bo
Downunder, re: MYNG
I give them an A for effort and gold production given some tough situations in 2004. Some of those tough situations have past now. Even though on April 1st they filed for an extention to file their 10K, their revenue from mining operations will be between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000. They are obviously focusing on the Buen Futuro mine and have secured the #3.5 million in financing to set up operations for the remainder of the year.
Their balance sheet is a D+, C-,but may improve as their high initial start up costs for some of these mines evolve.
Because of the dilligence and real effort in mining production in the past, their concentration in many ways to Buen Futuro tells me they see bang for the buck here. Between their Cangalli and Buen Futuro mine they estimated 97,860 troy ounces of gold and 82,000,000 pounds of copper as the probable reserves from these mines.
Their Cangalli mining operation ran into a snag when citizens formed a roadbloack in opposition to government policies. Good news for them is that the road block is no longer in place. However there is still a snag in pension issues between the government and mining companies. In August progress was made when Bolivia established a Ministry of Mining and Metalurgy to help deal with these and other issues. It will be interesting to seein their 10-K how this matter at the Cangalli mining operation has progressed.
Their o/s has remained fairly stable. Any current financing efforts (including their most recent $3.5 million) appears to coming from debt and not equity financing which helps to keep the pps stable and keeps open the oppotunityfor a run up if good news hits. This $3.5 million is being target to establishing their mining equipment at the Buen Futuro mine for production.
It's not a get rich quick company, but at .033 if their share structure remains stable and the Buen Futuro mine is as good as they think it will be in 2005 and beyond, it could be a decent buy and hold for a year if you are not interested in trying to trade in and out of the stock during peaks and valleys during that time.
Good luck Downunder!
Bo
ski, did you see?
Illinois and NC, just like I called it. (cough) LOL
After seeing Lousiville rolling on GTech and Washington,then coming back from being 20 down from WVU and bury them, I thought they had the coaching and overall game to take it all. I got in after the game and didn't see it but no argument that Illi is flat out awesome, especially their guards.
Friends came over later, but I kept peeking at the 2nd half of the MSU-NC game. MSU was up, then paniced when they went 4 down and fell into the trap to run and push the ball with NC. That played into NC's game big time. It kind of hurts too when NC shot 70% in the second half and they were shooting 25%...lol. When MSU decided to push the ball however is when it became game over.
Illi vs NC, don't ask me who's going to take it. My Final Four crystal ball is in the shop after tonight. : )
Bo
Hey ski...Final 4 picks:
...Louisville and MSU.
On MSU, if they can contain May down low which I think they can, they'll win it. If May gets control then the nod goes to NC.
With the Pope's passing, I'm feel hollowed out a bit so will be spending some time at the Cathedral likely missing some of the games. I am so fortunate to have a rosary blessed by him in front of a private audience 5 years ago. It stays close with me always.
Deep down in all of the hearts of men and women in the most quiet place of who we are, those who rationalize this culture's selfish ways, lifestyles, beliefs, and "personal freedom" excuses know they are wrong in the eyes of God, but continue their ways and rationalizations anyway. They try to live their lives trying to hide that deepest part of them in every way possible, but the truths of life common in all of us are never extinguished no matter how we try to mask them or rationalize our wrong behavior and opinions. Even in the face of failings within the church itself (especially in the US), JPII was the "rock" much like nickname of the first pope, St. Peter. He stood above all in decency, holiness and truth.
JPII spoke the purest truths and embraced every man, woman and child from every corner of this globe. He held those who wept, and openly wept himself in 1999 when he was leaving his homeland of Poland, knowing it would be for the last time.
One person I saw speak about him today echos exactly how I feel. No matter what moral issue he spoke about, he was profound in being exactly right on the human issues in the eyes of God.
I screw up everyday of my life, and it times it feels like it's more than most. Far, far from a perfect soul here. But I'm drawn to a man who is from the homeland of my grandparents on my mother's side, and who by his words and life are a living example of what to believe and how to draw closer to the power above.
All his books are worth reading. They are an entirely different way of thinking about life than anything I have ever read. Further, the snippets over the years you see on TV of him simply celebrating Mass DO NOT come close to touching any part of the topics in his books and his heart. They are all amazing, but I would suggest "Crossing The Threshold of Hope" (Published by ALfred A. Knopf, Inc in 1994) & Covenant Of Love (Published 1985 & 1992 by Ignatius Press), to see exactly what I mean.
I'm sorry to be way off topic and don't mean this as preaching or trying to offend anyone. His is simply a remarkable life that has touched mine deeply. Hundreds of millions share in this same loss that had to come because of his poor health, but will never be replaced.
Anyone under 20, in the week to come please check out his life as pope in his younger days. See how he reached out to the youth and understood them like no one before. See how the youth gathered in the tens and hundreds of thousands and how they responded to him, then you'll have just a small taste of who he was.
Bo
Thanks wbjl. Take the time to read
and copy/paste for others the Bob O'Brien piece.
That is simply a must read.
Copying O'Brien's piece for your friends, co-workers and congressmen plus asking each (including the congressman) to watch Dateline will make an impact far beyond anything else we can do right now.
GTG...Have a good Saturday WBJaimelee! : )
Bo
Without a doubt or hesitation.
Bob O'Brien: "Do I Seem Annoyed to You?"
(This isn't a CMKX post, but applies if such criminal trading has occurred with their stock. It applies to what we see and believe to be occurring day in and day out with many stocks. It is simply a GREAT post and shares a lot of the anger we all feel. Bo)
_________________________________________________________________
« Thread started on: Mar 31st, 2005, 6:13pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the NCANS News page for several new items:
http://ncans.net/news.htm
One is an article in EuroMoney; subscription required, but here's the home page with the teaser right up top:
http://www.euromoney.com/
Bob O'Brien's latest Sanity Check installment,
http://bobosrevenge.blogspot.com/2005/03/do-i-seem-annoyed-to-you.html
addresses the EuroMoney article:
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 du jour 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 conjur up in my most ugly, dark moments.
And that says a lot.
Jim,
A plaintiff trial lawyer will not have the experience to be effective, if this is the route some shareholders chose.
To be quite honest, as a shareholder I am not on board with this at all and will be pissed off big-time if this effort results in mistakes made which will backlash on the entire shareholder base.
I always question the financial motives of the people behind the efforts such as these as well.
Bo
dusty, thanks for bringing this to the board.
My opinion differs 100%.
I'll add to the discussion only as food for thought. People are going to do whatever they want to do anyway, but in this issue adding my .02 may help some because litigation management has been part of my job for 18 years.
When deciding on counsel whether it be plaintiff representation or defense representation chosing the right counsel is vital. Matters like the one certain CMKX shareholders are talking about are matters outside of the the direct plaintiff (SEC) vs defendant (CMKX) action.
In my humble opinion, regarding the specific contentions of the SEC's suit, they could well have a prima facie case. A prima facie case is a latin a expression which means presenting the minimum threshold amount of evidence or proof sufficient for the accuser or plaintiff to win the case if there were no defenses or additional evidence presented by the defendant.
In CMKX's last pr, they readily admitted their mistake in not filing. Thus other than them saying "I'm sorry, we goofed", they have shown no affirmative defense or weighted evidence to defend this action against them.
Of course it will be up to the judge to determine if this is such a case, but I see them offering no defense other than showing the good faith and vast contrast in current leadership versus leadership prior to Mr. Meheu. Because this action focuses around the deficiencies during a time period of prior leadership, that is where I hope the punishment which WILL BE HANDED DOWN fall, and not affect the company's ability to trade or continue under current leadership.
As for shareholders seeking representation, would you go to a brake specialist to fix your transmission? Would you go to an orthopedic surgeon to address serious issues involving cancer or high blood pressure? Of course you wouldn't.
Even though it seems obvious for those of us involved in litigation in our jobs, if as a shareholder (or group of shareholders) you chose to seek representation, then doesn't it make sense to interview and hire a top attorney or law firm specializing in shareholder representation or securities law?
I simply believe it is too early for any such action.
I'm certainly not on board with sending an attorney I have never met or know anything about their practice to speak for me.
Do you know how many attorney's I have seen lose in court filings or oral arguements at a hearing simply because they didn't know what to do in terms of proper filings or lack of knowledge in the applicable law when presenting their arguements?? The answer is more than you realize. And these are attorneys who claim that certain type of case as their speciality. How much more deficient would a common trial lawyer be in front of any Federal court trying to argue securities law?? They will do endless research only to likely be very off-point because they are not up on the true and proper protocol and procedures, and certainly not up to date in the applicable court cases which determines the strength of any arguement.
Next, regarding the intention of representation itself. The SEC filed a matter showing CMKX delinquent in their filings. CMKX admits this is true. No where, anywhere have I seen any counter-claim, affirmative defense or New Matter filed by CMKX suggesting any NSS issue or any problems with the DTC or SEC itself. So....because this is simply a matter regarding the filings, we as shareholders have no interjection that the judge will deem relevant in this case. She is fully aware of the large shareholder base. Involvement of a non-experienced attorney into this hearing will simply have no role in the evidence or hearing.
Legal representation will be needed for shareholders if 2 scenerios arise:
1) It is somehow revealed in the wake of the Dateline story of April 10th that CMKX HAS PROOF of illegal trading practices against the MM's and other authorities. Then yes, we shareholders should absolutely pick the best team of securities attorney's and with 50,000 of us behind them, let's go kick some serious ass starting with the MM's and working from there.
or
2) Against UC and company directly if this turns even uglier than it already is. If there is further investigation beyond these issues by the SEC inquiring where all the money went and we find out it went to secret accounts, trusts, mansions and race car teams, with only a small fraction going to simply drill 2 inch holes just to keep the promotion going and nothing more...then the majority of shareholders are simply going to have to wake up and smell the kimberlite and take action against those responsible if our investments are lost.
To blindly chose your counsel without knowing who they are is a mistake. As it pertains to the issues of this hearing, such representation will simply have no relevance.
Bo
Janice,
At work so can't post much beyond this, but there are many groups, such as firms that trade through foreign exchanges, off shore firms, specialists, options players, who are not NASD members, and therefore don't have to comply with the NASD rules that require members to assure delivery of stock by the settlement date.
For example, if you open a brokerage account at an off shore firm, they are allowed to keep open "fail to deliver" orders on their books. A US short selling group trading through these firms literally can get away without delivering their shares.
Shorts were able to get away with this practice because only those firms that were NASD members were required to comply with delivery rules. They most easily manipulate the OTC Market and Pinksheet stocks. There is no greater target than CMKX for cellar boxing using these illegal trading methods.
GLKCE continues to be a glaring example of this. They were obviously trading shares beyond the stated float for weeks on end. GLKCE is still a play as long as management holds firm and uses their situation as an example of possible illegal trading practices. It seems GLKCE management will hold this share structure in place until after the Dateline piece on April 10th, and possibly beyond depending on any follow up to their story.
I bet that will be one of Dateline's highest rated shows ever, and could be a watershed segment that will lead to real change.
Does fair trading disappoint you?
gtg
Bo
Look what Casvant bought last week:
A $3.5 million home.
http://dsnet.co.clark.nv.us/assessor/redirect.asp?docNum=20050325:04480
Can the picture get any clearer??
I don't think Chief Administrative Judge Murray will let these matters over the last 2 years go quietly.
Bo
WillP,
A couple of nights ago I DD'ed their claims they reported in 2003 by bringing the link and pasted a copy of their holdings at that time also within that post.
Further, I provided a link to current active Sask mineral claims which includes a large one reportedly owned by CMKX which was not included in their 2003 filing.
Next would be their uranium claims in the northern region and gold mine claims in Ecuador.
Next would be their minority interest in GEMM who reports excellent bulk sampling results and commencement of mining operations last month.
Next is the Jade holdings they have as outlined in early 2003.
Next would be their vested interet in the claims of USCA.
That plus a .0001/.0002 entry = potential
The people behind this operation in the past had a 2 choices:
1) Diligently work to grow the company by concentrated drilling and exploration efforts and aquisition, keeping share structure at a reasonable level so to grow shareholder value.
or
2) Use this opportunity to take the easy (but unethical) path. That being to promote to the max with empty promises and create rumors, all the while diluting the snot out of the stock for their own profit, filtering money to different accounts or trusts. Oh yea, and to run up a multi-million dollar tab sponsering NHRA teams and build or buy themselves mansions.
I posted a while back why I thought Mr. Meheu is on board. There is no doubt that discussion will be front and center once more is out in the open here.
In reviewing judge Murray's decisions, it is crystal clear she punishes wrongdoers. However, she has shown fairness and has dismissed those that show good faith and are in compliance.
Again, Meheu and company are there for a reason. I explained in those posts last month what those reasons are.
Let CMKX, Inc. get through this in tact with his team in charge and oust prior leadership, and that to me equals potential that will finally be put to work with the resources and effort it deserved but sorely lacked in 2003 and 2004.
I'm not one to think that value will be realized overnight. But at .0001/.0002 and a hopefully improving share structure, any REAL leadership and progress toward building value will be reflected in a rising pps over time.
Bo