News Focus
News Focus
icon url

madamson

04/12/05 12:48 PM

#158440 RE: gump90 #158435

They could ask that question but they might also ask why CMKM doesn't appear to own any claims. Then what would the answer be?
It's possible to buy into the potential presence of diamonds but talk about an opaque business structure.
icon url

TSXminer

04/12/05 12:54 PM

#158445 RE: gump90 #158435

LOL. glad you appreciated my ittle joke. Now, if only Mary will cooperate...

Regarding the chance CMKX's claims may have a diamond mine on them: That is indeed possible, but that's not what the hearing is about. It's quite specific.

Anyway, even if it mattered, what if the judge asked to see the claim certs for the claims? None of the certs list CMKX as a claim holder. Case closed.
icon url

Sec 10

04/12/05 1:02 PM

#158450 RE: gump90 #158435

Actually, gump, the geologist witness would be irrelevant to the narrow scope of the hearing.

And, as you know, if CMKX claims had any real value they would have accessed private funding sources, rather than use the pink sheets as an access to capital.

Then there are all those unregistered shares they sold, which will be part of the hearing.