Dear fellow CMKM shareholders:
HIGHER-UPS AT THE SEC APPARENTLY FORCE CMKM TASK FORCE TO DISBAND WHICH CAUSES PREMATURE STOPPAGE OF THE CERTIFICATE PULL
Meeting prior to the SEC Administrative Hearing of 2005 against CMKM
The meeting consisted of Andrew Petillion (AP), Branch Chief of Enforcement at the Pacific Regional Office, Leslie Hakala (LH), SEC Enforcement Attorney, D. Roger Glenn (DRG), Robert Maheu (RM), Donald Stoecklein (DS), and Bill Frizzell (BF), Owners Group (OG) representive for CMKM shareholders.
Excerpt from BF's 9-30-05 email to OG members:
"...We proved a huge naked short position in this company a long time ago...By my estimates there are at least a trillion and a half shares that have been sold in CMKX stock. When all shares (including foreign and obo accounts) are added to the mix, the total could exceed two trillion shares.
Have a good weekend."
QUESTIONS
Why did Andrew Petillion, Branch Chief of Enforcement at the Pacific Regional Office, attend a meeting for CMKM, a little diamond company?
Why did Andrew Petillion inform Bill Frizzell that he views BF's attempt to provide at the pending Hearing evidence of the illegal NSS of CMKM stock as a short squeeze against the brokers?
Why did Andrew Petillion warn Bill Frizzell against doing a cert pull because that would be market manipulation?
END OF QUESTIONS
According to BF, LH asks: "What proof do you have of naked shorting?"
BF answers: "Well, I have a CD and these are 5,050 brokerage statements that represent 350 billion shares. This has just come within the last five days. We also have a December 2004 report from the transfer agent saying that 2,033 people hold certificates representing 326 billion shares. That’s 676 billion shares owned by only 7,083 shareholders. Since there over 50,000 total shareholders total, it’s obvious that the ones that haven’t been counted yet will far surpass the 703 billion shares issued."
According to BF, LH responds: "Well if you prove the naked short, we will investigate it."
QUESTIONS
Why should Bill Frizzell have to prove the naked short?
Is it not the prescribed duty of the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission to oversee the securities markets, to enforce the federal securities laws, and to protect investors?
Therefore would it not be the presecribed duty of the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission to prove the naked short?
END OF QUESTIONS
`
SEC Administrative Hearing of 2005 against CMKM
QUESTIONS
Why did Judge Murray rule that CMKM and the Owners Group cannot make illegal NSS of CMKM stock an issue in the SEC Administrative Hearing of 2005 against CMKM?
Why were members of the CMKM Task Force, Robert Maheu, Donald Stoecklein, and BIll Frizzell, deposed by the SEC?
Why did the Task Force disband, shortly after being deposed by the SEC, without publicly announcing its findings or distributing the 45 million share Entourage cert to the CMKM shareholders?
END OF QUESTIONS
LESLIE HAKALA, SEC ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY, FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR 362 BILLION UNREGISTERED/RESTRICTED SHARES AND FAILS TO INCLUDE D. ROGER GLENN IN CIVIL ACTION No. 08- CV 0437, 4-7-08, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SEC Enforcement Attorney, Leslie Hakala (LH), alleges in said civil action that from January 2003 to May 2005, CMKM improperly issues up to 622 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares.
From March 2003 through May 2005, using approximately 34 different brokerage accounts at NevWest Securities Corporation (NevWest), John Edwards (JE) sells almost 260 billion shares of the purportedly 622 billion registered/unrestricted CMKM shares.
That leaves approximately 362 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares that LH fails to account for in said civil action.
A source familiar with the civil action discloses that JE was the only defendant who utilized accounts at NevWest to sell his unregistered/restricted shares.
LH obviously can't account for those 362 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares without implicating the larger securities firms such as Knight Trading Group, Ameritrade, E*Trade, and Jeffries and Company.
Furthermore, NevWest is not a self-clearing firm. Instead, it must clear its certs through clearing firms such as Wells Fargo and Dain Rauscher that have a contractual relationship with DTC.
Although Brian Dvorak is the only attorney that the SEC mentions in the civil action as having written attorney opinion letters, the source discloses that he viewed attorney opinion letters pertaining to the issuing and selling of unregistered/restricted CMKM shares that were written by D. Roger Glenn, a former SEC attorney, and Sherwood N. Cook, a former Nevada Deputy Secretary of State for Securities.
The source discloses that the SEC was notified about the suspicious activities regarding CMKM but failed to respond.
QUESTIONS
Why did the SEC in general and Leslie Hakala in particular fail to account for the aforementioned 362 billion unregistered/restricted shares?
Why did the SEC in general and Leslie Hakala in particular fail to include D. Roger Glenn in said civil action?
Why has the SEC failed to refer any of the defendants to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution?
END OF QUESTIONS
SEC ALLOWS CMKM FOUNDER, URBAN CASAVANT, AND CMKM INSIDERS TO ILLEGALLY ISSUE AND SELL 662 BILLION UNREGISTERED/RESTRICTED CMKM SHARES
From August 2003 to April 2005, the average trading volume in CMKM was about 20xs more than it was the previous eight months.
A fax dated 5-26-03, from Lindsey S. McCarthy (LSM), staff attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to Transfer Agent, 1st Global Stock Transfer (1GST), that mentions James Kinney (JK), a Defendant in the subsequent Civil Action No. 08- CV 0437 of 4-7-08, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, proves that the SEC was aware of JK's suspicious activities pertaining to CMKM five years BEFORE filing said civil action against him.
QUESTIONS
Why did the SEC fail to investigate the huge increase in volume in CMKM stock?
Why did the SEC fail to follow up on James Kinney's' suspicious activities?
END OF QUESTIONS
SEC FOIA DEPARTMENT UNJUSTLT DENIES FOIA REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY CMKM SHAREHOLDERS, AND THEN WHEN IT IS FORCED TO RELEASE THE DEPOSITIONS, IT UNDERHANDEDLY AND PURPOSELY BLOTS OUT INFORMATION THAT MAKES THE DEPOSITIONS UNINTELLIGIBLE
In March, 2009, in a concerted effort to discover the truth, CMKM shareholders submit FOIA Requests for depositions of D. Roger Glenn, Donald Stoecklein, Robert Maheu, and Bill Frizzell.
The SEC unjustly denies the FOIA Requests under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A):
Compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.
The FOIA Requestors have filed Administrative Appeals.
The SEC Office of the General Counsel has subsequently determined the depositions can be released under the FOIA Request.
The honorable Senator John Ensign has contacted the SEC on behalf of a CMKM shareholder.
In a 6-11-09 letter to Senator Ensign, Ollie R. Wade, SEC FOIA/Privacy Act Research Specialist, writes that "We will send these records electronically directly..."
On 6-15-09, Ollie R. Wade emailed the two despositions of D. Roger Glenn except for attorney and third-party names, addresses, telephone and social security numbers, a date of birth, educational background, and other personal information, all of which is protected from release under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii). The release of the personal information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and release of the Commission staff named in the records could subject the employees to harassment from the public in the performance of their official duties.
In other words, the SEC blotted out all of the above.
Because the SEC's blotting out personal information such as "addresses, telephone and social security numbers, and a date of birth" does not normally cause a deposition to be unintelligible, it is reasonable under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii).
But the SEC underhandedly includes "attorney and third-party names," both of which causes a deposition to be unintelligible--and that of course is unconscionable and runs contrary to the very reason that the Freedom of Information Act was enacted.
Furthermore, the SEC underhandedly includes an entity for whom the FOIA Exemptions does not provide: "the Commission staff named in the records could subject the employees to harassment from the public in the performance of their official duties."
QUESTIONS
Are "attorney and third-party names" protected under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii)?
If so, give details.
Is "the Commission staff named in the records" protected under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii)?
If so, give details.
Why would the "Commission staff named in the records" be subject to "harassment from the public in the performance of their official duties" if said person was performing his/her prescribed duties which are to oversee the securities markets, to enforce the federal securities laws, and to protect investors?
Have all SEC employees read and are all SEC employees adhering to President Obama's instructions in his January 21, 2009, FOIA Memorandum?
"The Government should not keep information confidential merely because it might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."
END OF QUESTIONS
D. ROGER GLENN DEPOSITIONS, 7-19-06 AND 10-23-07.
In said depositions, D. Roger Glenn alleges that he was unaware of the pump and dump scam and that he relied on the information that Brian Dvorak presented him for writing his opinion letters.
Two possibilities exist:
1. D. Roger Glenn is telling the truth which means he was grossly negligent for failing to check out the information himself BEFORE writing his opinion letters. Of course that points toward his being completely incompetent;
or
2. D. Roger Glenn is lying and was part of the pump and dump scam.
QUESTION
Why did Leslie Hakala fail to include D. Roger Glenn in Civil Action No. 08- CV 0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court for the District of Nevada?
Thank you,
Robert
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
