CMKM Diamonds Inc. (fka CMKX)

[Stockdung]

But CMKX is different, because it appears to have value and lots of it!

Could it be those pesky counterfeit shares that are held by many thousands of shareholders? OHHHHHHH now I see a reason to get rid of CMKX!

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB01219&read=195114

By: kevinw777
14 Apr 2005, 05:06 PM EDT
Msg. 195114 of 346247
Jump to msg. #
My response from the SEC last night...

America wants to Know!

The SEC s refusal to answer a Yes or No question, gets even better!

by: Kevin M. West

Yesterday I wrote an article about sending a simple one sentence question to the SEC. The email in question:

I am a shareholder in CMKM Diamonds, is the SEC going to protect my rights as a shareholder in this hearing on April 25th?

Keep in mind, the SEC mission statement reads like this: The primary mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the securities markets.

Ok, you guessed it . If the question basically asks for a confirmation of the mission statement, then the answer would have to be a Yes. I agree. But, why wouldn t the SEC want to answer this?

Well, first you must know that Leslie Hakala actually did send me a personal response within approximately 30 minutes of the CMKM Diamonds conference call with Judge Brenda Murray, Leslie Hakala, John Bulgozdy, Donald Stoecklein and Bill Frizzell. Now, why would she write me so quickly after this call?

Well, Leslie wrote me the following email, it states:

Dear Mr. West,

I apologize for the delay in replying to your email - I have been out of the office, and today is my first day back.

I understand your frustration. Please be assured that the Commission staff takes very seriously its responsibility to represent investor interests in all matters, including

administrative proceedings. Please understand, however, that the Commission staff does not and cannot act as legal counsel for any particular individual or shareholder.

I hope this helps resolve your concerns. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions I may be able to answer.

Sincerely,

Leslie Hakala

Now, my email again:

I am a shareholder in CMKM Diamonds, is the SEC going to protect my rights as a shareholder in this hearing on April 25th?

And the SEC s mission statement again:

The primary mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the securities markets.

How many people can see anywhere in that question that I ask for legal advice or ask anyone to act as legal council or even ask any question that pertains to the case matter? Maybe the SEC is stating that because I am a particular individual or shareholder, they can t tell me that they intend to abide by their mission statement. Maybe I am missing something here, but I don t think so.

Here is what I do see:

I see the SEC trying to keep shareholder s eyes out of this case as evidenced by the SEC not wanting a shareholder s representative included in the hearing.

I see that the SEC urged the Court to consider summary disposition (rule in favor of the SEC without a hearing)

I see the SEC not wanting to tell shareholders that they will protect their investment rights. The rights that we as taxpayers and citizens of the United States pay them to do.

How can they do all of this and still protect our rights as shareholders and investors? Because they cannot accomplish their mission, that s why. If the SEC revokes a company that has considerable assets and leaves thousands of shareholders stuck with shares that are worthless on the market, then how can anyone consider that to be protecting us? I know I sure won t feel protected if the SEC takes away my investment, would you?

The Biggest question is the question WHY? Why would the SEC want to do away with a company that appears to have considerable assets? Especially when some other type of enforcement action could make the company file by a certain date, slap a fine (SEC gets money) on them and let the company s new and extremely proven and able Co-Chairman, Bob Maheu, get the company reporting again?

That question really bothers me. The SEC would rather take money away from thousands of investor s portfolios than fix the problem and PROTECT the investors!

They can t use that same old line that they are looking out for the possible would be new investors. That line only works for companies that are scams and have no assets. The current shareholder s shares wouldn t have any value in that case anyway. But CMKX is different, because it appears to have value and lots of it!

Could it be those pesky counterfeit shares that are held by many thousands of shareholders? OHHHHHHH now I see a reason to get rid of CMKX!

Stand up America , and TAKE YOUR COUNTRY BACK!

Sincerely,

Kevin M. West

http://www.ahandup.us/america_wants_to_know_3.htm