Frizzell Law Firm

[Bart]

;D ;D

From another board:

FRIZZELL LAW FIRM
305 S. Broadway, Suite 302
Tyler, Texas 75702
[phone]
Fax [phone]
E-Mail [e-mail]

To The Shareholder Owners Group:

Bill has requested that everyone refrain from listening to rumors. The conference call just ended about 20 minutes ago. He is busy writing his update to you, and it will be out shortly.

Than you for being patient.

For Bill,

John Martin


;D ;D

[ToddCT]

How are we going to see it, I don't think he can post on the wire can he?

T

[Bart]

;D ;D

Todd: They are saying he is going to e-mail it. Then Martin supposedly will have it posted on the RB chat room. Will let all know as soon as I know something. Maybe someone will get it before me. I will be in and out for the next few hours.
I hope for either of two things. The hearing has been cancelled or the hearing go's as scheduled on the 25th of April. For sure I do not want a delay. Lets get it over one way or the other.

;D ;D

[ToddCT]

I totally agree with that statement, a delay would be the least desirable outcome.

I do believe that the outcome of these hearings will be this. (either today or the 25th)

CMKX will most likely be given another 120 days to finish the audits and release all statements, if they do, then they are off the hook. (maybe with a fine, if they do that) If not then they will be revoked and UC will have to start over again with a new Reverse merger.

I do believe that that is the most likely outcome. Any comments from the peanut gallery,


T

[Bart]

;D ;D

I hope this is not right. Unless it is to give us, as you said Todd. time to file and then it is all over. This is from someone reliable:

Drymouth is saying the hearing is still on but delayed per Frizzell. Should be out shortly with more info.

;D ;D

Will keep you all posted when and if I find out more.

[Bart]

Letter from Frizzell:

FRIZZELL LAW FIRM
305 S. Broadway, Suite 302
Tyler, Texas 75702
[phone]
Fax [phone]
E-Mail [e-mail]












To: CMKX Owners Group 4-13-05

The prehearing conference was just concluded. The SEC was represented by Leslie Hakala and John Bulgozdy. Your company was represented by Donald Stoecklein. Judge Brenda Murray presided over the conference. I entered an appearance on your behalf. There was much discussion over re-scheduling of the hearing date. The rescheduling was required because of the many matters that need to be accomplished before the hearing. The Judge wanted to make the hearing convenient to the parties and suggested two alternative sites All parties agreed to Los Angeles as the city for the hearing. The site of the hearing is undetermined at this point. I expect the hearing to convene in a Federal Courtroom in Los Angeles.

The new hearing date is May 10, 2005. We will receive an order from the judge regarding the place and time the hearing will convene. The judge discussed the issues presented by the SEC?s order and CMKM?s response. Mr. Stoecklein elaborated on the defenses he raised in the company?s response. In summary, the Judge seemed inclined to view the issues narrowly meaning the most critical issue is whether or not the required reports have been filed.

There were discussions about depositions and subpoenas that may or may not be requested as the parties prepare for the hearing. This hearing has the potential for numerous witnesses and the judge will include a deadline for the parties to tell each other and the court who the witnesses will be at the hearing. The Court agreed to consider any requests from the parties if subpoenas were necessary by either the company or the SEC. The SEC urged the Court to consider summary disposition (rule in favor of the SEC without a hearing) but the Court did not agree to do that at this time.

The Court ruled that if either party wished to present experts at the hearing, the party presenting such expert testimony would have to follow her procedure of having certain parts of that expert?s testimony ?pre-circulated?. The judge has said very emphatically that this hearing is a fact finding hearing and she will consider all the evidence and hand down a ruling within the 120 days from the date the order was filed by the SEC. This judge is very dedicated to seeing that there is ?transparency? in these proceedings. She used this word in the order allowing us to intervene and she mentioned it again. This is a good thin g for the shareholders. Transparency in this sense means there should be no hidden agendas or evidence that is secreted or kept from the parties and the public.

There are complications in preparing for this hearing due to the UCAD investigation. It would not be appropriate for me to go into the details of the problems presented by the UCAD investigation. I will direct you back to the press releases which discussed subpoenas to certain company officials as a result of that investigation. I am pleased with how the Judge has agreed to handle any disputes between the parties over this separate investigation. My suggestions to the Court on how to handle the disputes over the UCAD investigation were not well received by the SEC attorneys.

This hearing went as good as could be expected for the shareholders. The company can use the additional time as they work through the problems presented by this SEC action. Donald Stoecklein is doing an excellent job representing the company. The SEC enforcement attorneys are representing their agency in earnest as well. There have been no discussions about resolving this proceeding in any fashion other than asking the Court to deregister the company. I am very impressed with the efforts of Judge Murray to remain an independent jurist befor e hearing any evidence in this case.

Many people are wondering about discussions of naked shorting and there was not a discussion of naked shorting during this prehearing conference. That is not surprising to me. Our investigation in this area is ongoing. The investigation we are conducting is separate and apart from the things I am working on to prepare for this hearing. I will continue our investigation with the company?s assistance while I prepare for the hearing.

We are discussing a meeting with the SEC in the next few days for a review of the file. The Respondents to this type of proceeding are typically allowed to view the administrative hearing file and obtain copies of certain parts of the file. If I attend that meeting I will report to you the results of this meeting when it occurs.



Sincerely,

Bill Frizzell

[Bart]

;D ;D

This judge is very dedicated to seeing that there is ?transparency? in these proceedings. She used this word in the order allowing us to intervene and she mentioned it again. This is a good thin g for the shareholders. Transparency in this sense means there should be no hidden agendas or evidence that is secreted or kept from the parties and the public.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this statement from Frizzell. I feel this part is very important. The word transparency. I feel that the judge was saying. If you get all your filings in by the 10th and they are correct. All will be ok. This would free us from looking like we are trying to hide anything IMO.

free from pretense or deceit : FRANK b : easily detected or seen through : OBVIOUS



TRANSPARENCY:


Main Entry: transžparžent
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin transparent-, transparens, present participle of transparEre to show through, from Latin trans- + parEre to show oneself
1 a (1) : having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : PELLUCID (2) : allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (as X rays or ultraviolet light) b : fine or sheer enough to be seen through : DIAPHANOUS
2 a : free from pretense or deceit : FRANK b : easily detected or seen through : OBVIOUS c : readily understood
synonym see CLEAR
- transžparžentžly adverb
- transžparžentžness noun

;D ;D