Replies to post #162124 on CMKM Diamonds Inc (fka CMKX)

[Sec 10]

Of course the judge can deny it, gump. Frizzy has no standing to introduce an exhibit, and CMKX does not list his share count in their proposed exhibits.

Revocation is coming; count on it.

[Investorman]

Frizzell isn't allowed to present any evidence or ask any questions at the hearing.

Even if he were, the judge would not allow speculation into evidence particulary since it isn't relevant to the case.

[hundred to one]

I think more than the sharecount which is suspect the number of shareholders signed up would be a better motivator for the Judge...IMO...kaos

[arete]

gump90- you are saying that Frizzell is going to get a better share count than CMKX? Doesn't that say something about how CMKX is run? If you will check with the PRs, the reason for CMKX de-registering itself was because they "had under 300 share holder" and not because they lost count of the shares. There are many PRs after that 7/23/03 PR that refer to business deals which required an accurate share count and no mention is made that that can't be done due to NNS issues.

Their last K filing was 5/9/02 and their last Q filing was 11/18/02. That is quite a long time before the 7/23/03 PR in deciding not to file at all. And never officially did CMKX say it was because of NNS issues.

I think the Frizzell "side bar" is just a side show.