|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:43:30 GMT -5
DrD & BILL FRIZZELL Q&A MP3 (Apr 27) « Thread started on: Today at 01:36am » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DrD & BILL FRIZZELL Q&A MP3 (Apr 27) cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1114663978Please spread the above URL and MP3 to other CMKX boards, especially Raging Bull and I-Hub. IMO, it is one of the best MP3s yet and is chalk full of great information regarding CMKX, the upcoming hearing, the shareholders group and Bill Frizzell. We are being confronted with an historic situation and we can really make a difference as shareholders through the CMKX OWNERS GROUP (Frizzell) -- and this MP3 gives many reasons why. It will also help to stop and/or refute a lot of the misinformation that is being disseminated regarding the CMKX OWNERS GROUP and Mr. Frizzell. The sign up agreement is at www.cmkxownersgroup.com/agreement.phpThe running share count is at www.cmkxownersgroup.com/ (which as of this post includes 2294 shareholders and 168,001,919,825 shares.) Thanks! Blue please create a written summary for those with little time to read, and those who cant get the feed. T Is there a written version any where? Yes....will get here...fw *** FULL WRITTEN SUMMARY for this MP3, by portrush, is now at: cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1114663978
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:44:16 GMT -5
NEW pre-Frizzell DrD MP3 (from Apr. 26) cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1114643905&start=0On this MP3 DrD mentions that he has joined the CMKX Owners Group (Frizzell, www.cmkxownersgroup.com/ ) and gives some reasons why he did so. It also contains a lot of other very interesting information about CMKX in general and the upcoming hearing. This is not the Bill Frizzell Q&A MP3, but does contain information leading up to this Paltalk session tonight. Mr. Frizzell has given permission for an MP3 to be made of the Q&A session tonight and Cancuk and I will try to have that MP3 to you ASAP (after the session is done). Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:45:01 GMT -5
OG (FRIZZELL) Update: The Gloves Are Off-Games Afoot!!!! (Apr.25/05) CDLIC Global Moderator member is online "All That Sparkles Is Not Only Gold!" Gender: Posts: 3381 OG Update: The Gloves Are Off--Games Afoot!!!! « Thread started on: Today at 7:36pm » <br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, first off, after reading the below update, make sure you go to the Frizzell/Martin CMKX Owners Group web site www.cmkxownersgroup.com and read the new page postings witness/exhibit lists; it will blow your socks off on what is happening. The SEC must be running for cover. It appears that Mr. Frizzell's push to expose possible naked shorting has paid off; naked shorting is on the agenda...yeh! Go get 'em... CDLIC PS. And look who was at the meeting!!!!!!!!! ******************************************************************* 4/25/05 Greetings Group, I would like to report on my meetings in Las Vegas last week. I met with Don Stoecklein and others in his office. Don is representing CMKM Diamonds, Inc. in the SEC proceeding. I had the pleasure of meeting Urban Casavant, Carolyn Casavant, Ron Casavant, Mike Williams, and Ed Dhonau. Anthony Demint, with Mr. Stoecklein’s office, was present during most of the meetings. There were other individuals present at different times during the day. Mr. Maheu was out of town and unavailable. Don Stoecklein is spending long hours preparing for the hearing and guiding the work being done to have the proper financials filed. We have reviewed over 1200 pages of documents which were contained in the SEC’s administrative file. Witness lists and exhibit lists have been exchanged. We mutually agreed upon the terms of a confidentiality agreement. There is certain information which could only be disclosed to me with this confidentiality agreement in place. This was discussed prior to my visit to Las Vegas and was not unexpected. I must be privy to certain information to be able to be an effective advocate for our shareholders. The company is (and has been) concerned about possible naked shorting of company stock. A plan for assessing the naked short position has been discussed. I cannot go into detail about the plan at this point. I can confirm that actions are contemplated which will identify the naked short position which may exist. We will be continuing this investigation as we prepare for the 12(j) hearing. I share any frustration you may have in my inability to disclose to you more specifically our plan at this point. I am trusting that as investors and business people you can understand why I might not be able to lay out in detail how we plan to document any abuses that may have occurred in this stock. I am convinced there are certain people dedicated to seeing this company fail. Some are members of your boards and pose as friends. They have even joined this group and call and email with innocent questions to see our progress. It would not be helpful to you as shareholders to disclose certain things to these people through this forum. Questions about the float will be answered as we gather information in this investigation. I have received requests for reserved seating at the hearing and I simply do not have any control over the seating problem. We again ask for patience if you get this information from some source other than your chosen email. We have switched to a dedicated server that will allow us to handle a virtual unlimited number of emails. The numbers of our group were discussed on several occasions during our meetings. There was discussion concerning some other companies that are currently battling the naked short issue. It was pointed out to me that we had one thing the other companies do not have-an educated and organized shareholder group. Of course I knew that but I was proud for you folks when I heard others make that comment. Our recent verified numbers are 1,948 shareholders owning 152 billion shares. I look forward to a visit with you on Wednesday or Thursday. Bill Frizzell P.S. Many of you will enjoy viewing the witness/exhibit lists which have been posted on the group’s website. cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1114479403 « Last Edit: Apr 25th, 2005, 8:58pm by bluediamonds » <br>
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:45:19 GMT -5
Franko10 DIAMOND ADMIRAL member is online "Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." Gender: Posts: 8937 Re: Frizzel's Update « Reply #8 on: Today at 21:20:38 » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- List of Witnesses 1. Ed Dhonau, President of Nevada Minerals, Inc. 4955 South Durango Drive, Suite 218 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 Mr. Dhonau will testify to the CMKM's Mineral claims and the business transactions of CMKM 2. Suzanne M. Herring, President of Opus Pointe 770 East Warm Springs Road, Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Ms. Herring will testify to the status of CMKM's preparation of financial statements. 3. Neil Levine, Auditor at Bagell, Joesphs & Company, L.L.C. High Ridge Commons, Suites 400-403 200 Haddonfield Berlin Road Gibbsboro, New Jersey 08026 Mr. Levine will testify to the status of CMKM's audit. 4. Kristen M. Buck, Esq., Attorney at Securities Law Institute 770 East Warm Springs Road, Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Ms. Buck will testify to the status of CMKM's preperation of the SEC reports. 5. Mr Robert Maheu, Co_Chairman of the CMKM Board of Directors and Consultant to CMKM C/O Securities Law Institute 770 East Warm Springs Road, Suite 250 Mr. Maheu will testify to the board's position on the reporting status. List of Exhibits 1. Form 15 filed by Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc. on July 22, 2003; 2. Form 15/A filed by Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc. on February 17, 2005; 3. Form 8-k filed by Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc. on March 14, 2005 and exhibits thereto; 4. Form 8-k filed by Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc. on April 12, 2005 and exhibits thereto; 5. Master Shareholder List of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. as of July 22, 2003; 6. Master Shareholder List of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. as of December 31, 2004. 7. The Securities Act of 1933, as amended. (available at www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf). 8. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (available at www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf). 9. The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. (available at www.sec.gov/about/laws/soa2002.pdf). 10. Regulation S-B. (available at www.sec.gov/about/forms/regs-b.pdf). 11. Form 10-KSB. (available at www.sec.gov/about/forms/form10-ksb.pdf). 12. Form 10-QSB. (available at www.sec.gov/about/forms/form10-qsb.pdf). 13. Form 8-K. (available at www.sec.gov/about/forms/form8-k.pdf). 14. OBO/NOBO List for CMKM Diamonds Inc. dated 04/25/2005. 15.Regulation SHO. (available at www.law.uc.edu/CCL/regSHO/index.html). 16. Strategic Delivery Failures in U.S. Equity Markets by Leslie Boni (Nov. 13, 2004). 17. Short Selling, Death Spiral Convertibles, and the Profitability of Stock Manipulation by John D. Finnerty (March 2005).
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:45:44 GMT -5
National Instrument 54-101 Overview The principal piece of governing legislation is National Instrument 54-101 (NI 54-101) Communication with Beneficial Owners of Securities of a Reporting Issuer. NI 54-101, which replaced National Policy 41, came into effect on July 1, 2002. It introduced the concept of NOBOs (Non Objecting Beneficial Owners) and OBOs (Objecting Beneficial Owners). NOBOs are beneficial owners who do not object to disclosure of their name, address, security holding, language preference and e-mail consent. OBOs do object to such disclosure. As required by the legislation, RBC Global Services requested OBO/NOBO instructions from the party who directs voting instructions. Should you wish to change your instructions at any time, please contact your client service representative. Source: www.rbcglobalservices.com/iis/client/ii_communication.html
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:46:11 GMT -5
sec Potential Witnesses 1. Urban Casavant 2. Brian Dvorak 3. Ramy Kassabgui 4. Chris Wall 5. Custodian of Records, 1st Global Stock Transfer, LLC Professional Risk Management ... Brian Dvorak Ramy Kassabgui works for the SEC. He is a Surveillance Specialist with the Internet Enforcement Branch Chris Wall Legal IT Specialist from the Los Angeles office of the SEC
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:46:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:47:06 GMT -5
Zen: Hunter (SEC) Has Become the HUNTED Posted by: zeninvestor32 In reply to: None Date:4/25/2005 9:55:19 PM Post #of 39931 GAME ON Naked shorting on the exhibit list. Good update by Frizzell. See the court exhibit list, specifically exhibits 5,6,14,15, and 16. www.cmkxownersgroup.com good luck shorty. imo the hunter has become the hunted. Z As always, these are my personal opinions. Hopefully nobody in here is investing anything but "fun" money that they can afford to gamble with. www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6150092
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:47:29 GMT -5
Intro and conclusion from the document which is #17 on CMKX's list of exhibits:"Short Selling, Death Spiral Convertibles, and the Profitability of Stock Manipulation" by John D. Finnerty (March 2005) at www.rgm.com/articles/Finnerty-ShortSelling.pdf . THE PROFITABILITY OF STOCK MANIPULATION 1. Introduction Manipulative short selling has a long and colorful history that dates back to the origins of organized stock markets (Allen and Gale, 1992). Bernheim and Schneider (1935) describe how bear pools operated on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange during the late seventeenth century. Stock manipulators carefully timed their aggressive ‘bear raids’ to exert maximum selling pressure. The price declines attracted free riders, and the combined pressure on the prices of the targeted stocks produced virtually assured profits. The manipulators found that they could defeat any opposition by employing “tricks that only sly and astute speculators invent and introduce,”<br>such as planting false rumors about the target firm’s precarious condition in the press (Bernstein and Schneider, 1935). When similar manipulation occurred on the London Stock Exchange in the early eighteenth century, the British parliament passed a law prohibiting short selling in 1734. The law was not repealed until 1860, and short selling was not specifically authorized under English law until 1893 (Bernstein and Schneider, 1935). Numerous histories document how these and other manipulative short selling techniques have been woven into the fabric of the stock market.1 And the conclusion: Conclusion The SEC’s recent adoption of Regulation SHO has drawn attention to the potentially disruptive impact of manipulative short selling, and in particular, naked short sales masquerading as routine fails to deliver. An interesting empirical question concerns the impact of manipulative short selling on the capital market in the United States. Some recent evidence suggests that strategic fails to deliver are pervasive and are not confined to the over-the-counter market. The impact of these fails to deliver has never been investigated, however. A related question concerns the impact of Regulation SHO, which became effective January 3, 2005, and in particular, whether this regulation has had the intended effect of curbing abusive short sales. Analyzing both questions requires a model of stock market behavior. This paper models market equilibrium and describes the market impact of manipulative short selling. Naked short selling is shown to be a particularly effective and damaging manipulative device. It is difficult to control because of the market-maker exceptions to the normal restrictions on short selling, including permitting naked short selling in the course of bona-fide market-making activity. A recent securities innovation called floating-price convertible securities removes an important constraint on short selling by resolving the unraveling problem. I conclude that the current capital market environment and regulatory regime, Regulation SHO notwithstanding, are conducive to manipulative short selling. I will leave it to future research to test this conclusion empirically and measure the impact of the manipulation. A recent study of FPCs by Hillion and Vermaelen finds that FPC issuers experience large negative returns following the issue, which the authors partly attribute to flaws in the FPC contract. The SEC’s concerns about the impact of naked shorting, as reflected in its adoption of Regulation SHO, coupled with the implications of my model that FPCs can intensify the adverse impact of naked shorting suggest that further study of Hillion and Vermaelen’s faulty contract.design hypothesis is warranted. This research should investigate whether FPC investors short the issuer’s stock, for example, in anticipation of submitting conversion notices. Such a strategy is unnecessary because of the natural price hedge built into the floating-price structure. Evidence of significant shorting would imply that the FPC’s faulty contract design may play a more important role in the share price decreases Hillion and Vermaelen document. Full article at: www.rgm.com/articles/Finnerty-ShortSelling.pdf From: cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1114487847&start=0
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:48:01 GMT -5
I like the clock counting down to the hearing. It like watching the Space Suttle BLAST OFF clock. JMO Good luck to all.
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:52:16 GMT -5
SUMMARY: Dr.D, Bill Frizzell Q&A CMKX 4/27/05 (144 minutes)
For purposes of brevity, I have taken the liberty of editing the comments as needed. To keep the flow of the Q&A session, I have noted the respondents but abbreviated the player’s names as follows:
DD (Dr. Diamond) BF (Bill Frizzell) O/G (Owners Group)
Hope this helps you. Thanks for all YOU do to help each one of us learn more about this investment and others along the way.
portrush ____________
Dan: Interesting that BusinessWire refusing to print Hugo’s PR. Hugo said that there were two Eagletech company heads that were killed (hit by garbage trucks) as well as an associate of Eagletech who died of a drug overdose…although he was never known to take drugs. All of them were deeply involved in the NSS issue.
Says he has been greatly angered over the whole NSS issue. Seeing people at the top taking pay-offs, and such. When he looks at the list of Eagletech’s proof of who the big shorters are, hedge funds and the like (owned by King Fassl of Saudi Arabia and/or Citibank). Citibank was involved in helping to finance them…and then double dipped.
Dave is in the room. The room will be “red dotted”, meaning no one was able to post or talk…and Dr.D will do all the talking. ____________
Bill Frizzell has been a shareholder since June. He got into it by way of helping John (Martin) with his particular stock holdings…it piqued his interest.
Dan: asked him to address the issue that there were a number of accusations that certain individuals (admins and such) were somehow getting kickbacks from Frizzell and what he is doing. Can you address that?
BF: It’s a bunch of hogwash and hopes people will consider that. Didn’t happen and will not happen. ____________
DD: Hopefully this will help to unite this incredible group of shareholders. We have become a force to be reckoned with. Bill be representing the owners group and DD has a list of questions compiled form the shareholders who sent them to him earlier. He hopes to help shareholders understand what is going on with the owners group…those that support the group, those that don’t and those sitting on the fence.
DD: Was contacted by Hugo…asking him for support for his project of exposing the NSS issue. Someone suggested that shareholders might pre-buy the DVD in order to fund the project. They will post more information on this at a later time.
DD: A lot of people are familiar with what has been going on with CMKX. He wants everyone to know that this is BF’s opinion and he is not giving legal advice during this conference.
DD: In your opinion, what kind of pressure has the differing views of CMKX shareholders thrown into the mix…what would you say to those who are afraid to hook up…they are on the ropes wondering if supporting the owners group will lead to others things?
BF: The best way to answer it is to tell you that never, ever in the history of SEC enforcement proceedings has a group of shareholders been allowed in the courtroom, and have ANY influence on a proceeding where the SEC is trying to deregister a company for not filing financial reports. It is just a very unique proceeding…allowed by the rules evidently because the court is allowing us to come in. It is a valuable resource for the company to have the shareholders sitting there at the counsel table. And when the court is posing questions to the layers, there is lawyer there on behalf of the shareholders and the court will want to know that. He thinks this will be helpful for the court as well. Bill does not view the shareholder base as a mixed group…sees the division on some of the boards, but the common thread is that they want the company to survive and the value to go up and that is the goal of everyone involved. To those that are against the O/G, he would say the bigger the group is and the more shares that he is able to represent the stronger the voice he will have on behalf of the shareholders. If you are neutral, he is available to answer any particular question that might be bothering you. He is proud to be representing any of the shareholders that join the group…it is an honor for him to represent us and he feels a burden to make certain the right decision is made on behalf of the shareholders.
DD: A lot of people are wondering how you have been received by the company. We know that you spent some time working with them…how would you describe the way the company and their attorneys have received you and what progress has been made?
BF: Before the O/G agreement was ever written up, he called Stocklein first. He has followed the company for a long time and when he saw the actions of the SEC he saw that there were legal issues that were brewing, so he called the company’s attorneys. He knew that the first call might have seemed awkward, having a lawyer call the company saying he represented the shareholders…but after several conversations and having discussed legal issues, Stocklein saw where we were coming from and became comfortable. He could tell that Stocklein would be cooperative with the O/G as long as it was in fact helping the company. more....
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:52:28 GMT -5
continued...
He made it clear that the O/G had the right thoughts and could be of some help to the company and that is the premise that they began the group with. He talks with Stocklein on a daily basis and they work on legal issues and motions that are being filed…a bunch filed (today) and basically they are on the same team at this point. It is a happy marriage.
DD: That’s good news. To know that there is harmony working with the O/G and Stocklein is a good thing. Thinks that will benefit the shareholders in the long run as well as the short term. Do you feel that Casavant, Mahue, Williams and others are in agreement with the position that the O/G is taking and the effectiveness it (is having) on the hearing?
BF: Yes I do. Most of the shareholders listening to this are fairly sophisticated business people. It will not be difficult to see (in the next few weeks) what is going on with this group. You will see by way of motions and legal proceedings how this is working with the hearing. He had a long day at Stocklein’s office and met many of the execs, Urban, Ron, Carolyn, Mike Williams…and it was a warm reception to say the least and they had a healthy exchange of ideas. It was a real good meeting. Mike Williams is brilliant…a real good businessman.
DD: In your opinion, why is it important that the shareholders have the intervention at this stage of the game (by the O/G) and not possibly later on? Why is it vital we are in there right now?
BF: As he and John (Martin) had this thought that they could wake up after the hearing only to learn the court suspended and de-listed the company…at that point it would be too late to have any input or be any help to the company. Stocklein has his hands full right now, he has the SEC that wants to deregister the company and we need to be helping them if and where we can. But all of a sudden it has become very important to know the number of shares being held by this group as well as the number of shareholders. He cannot elaborate here (on legal research he has brought to the table) because it involves trial strategy and he doesn’t want to show their hand to the SEC (who might be monitoring the boards) at this time.
DD: Says he appreciates his honesty on that and understands the need to be silent at this time on some issues. In your opinion…we know that the SEC is supposed to be representing the shareholders…but do you feel the best interest of the shareholders is being respected by the proposed actions of the SEC, and do you feel the SEC has been working towards a construction resolution or a destructive resolution as it pertains to the CMKX situation.
BF: There’s no question that the SEC has been working towards the de-registering of the company at this point. If you look at the exhibit list and the subpoena list, they are going tell the judge that because of the evidence and the lack of filings they are asking for the revocation of the company. He will say this about the SEC…while we don’t like what they are doing to CMKX they are supposed to be protecting the market and we all feel that the company deserves different treatment. This is just one non-reporting company. We do have a company that should have been reporting and was not…they may have excuses for that, but it doesn’t change the fact. But he doesn’t feel that the SEC should deregister a company who is working to provide the necessary reports and prove value for the shareholders.
DD: Thinks that there are tens of thousands who agree with him on that point. You said that the SEC is just looking at the complete revocation of CMKX…what does that mean to the average shareholder and to the company, if the SEC should prevail and manage to have the company deregistered—and possibly some of the options that would be available to the shareholder and to the company should that happen?
BF: This probably falls in an area of giving legal advice and so he cannot answer this as complete as you might like. He can say this…if the company is deregistered the stock is pulled off the exchange and no one can buy or sell it and that’s not good. We’re already at the bottom of the trading pit, so nothing really good can come of it. You don’t lose the shares; the company still is obligated to you. The company can take some of these assets and do something to create value, or do some of the things we have read about on the boards over the last few months. Deregistering just impacts the trading of the stock. This would not be cause for you to take your shares and throw them away. There is a possibility of an appeal… there are a lot of possibilities. If they are deregistered, it is not the end of the world and the company will be there to continue on in the event of a deregistration but they would have to change they way they do things. more.....
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:52:51 GMT -5
DD: Thanks for the clarification…some have heard from brokers that the shares would be worthless and blotted out. Does that sound like a normal practice for a broker to do…blot out the shares if the revocation takes place?
BF: There are lots of legal implications in that question. They may do that, but there are some legal implications if they did. They can’t make the declaration that the stock is worthless, they might not trade it…but that’s all. There are legal implications for what they do following a delisting. Let’s just hope that they don’t do that.
DD: Some have said that the Commission can actually over turn what the judge decides at the hearing…if that is so, can we take this to the US Court of Appeals?
BF: Yes, there is a lengthy appeals process that one could get on. Again, we go back to basis…why are we going through this? Because the company didn’t file financials. It would have to come to the point where there aren’t going to be any financials filed…but he doesn’t see that on the horizon. You could probably take this all the way to the US Supreme Court. We have a very unique situation given the number of shares and shareholders that this would get attention at every level of the appeal process. You’ll see in the next few weeks some of the things that we’re doing to insure that the company is afforded all the rights in the proceeding and you will see what Stocklein and I are doing.
DD: How do you feel about this judge? The reason I am asking this is that a lot of individuals feel that this judge is in the back pocket of the SEC and it will be very hard to get a fair trial…but so many precedents have been set with allowing the O/G to be present?
BF: It violates the ethics of lawyers to talk about judges and their ability…but he can say this; this shareholders group has been given a very rare opportunity to participate. That alone should tell the shareholders that the judge is concerned that the shareholders are taken care of. The SEC’s mission is to take consideration for the shareholder base, but this judge is allowing the O/G to be there. Maybe it is because of the volume of shares/shareholders…but this is highly unusual. No question in his mind that the shareholders are getting all the fairness they can, because she didn’t have to let this happen. This is a benefit, perhaps, of the Enron (and others) mess…and things shouldn’t necessarily take place behind closed doors. She seems to want all things to be transparent. We’re lucky to have Judge Murray to hear this case.
DD: There is a question that the shareholders signing up for the O/G are worried that their information would be used for another lawsuit after the hearing…against the company or a class-action suit, or something more. Can you elaborate on that?
BF: I have tried to make it clear what the responsibilities are in this agreement. He has a law license for 27 years and he wants to keep it. So he is obligated to keep confidentiality…and he takes that same obligation in this case. It is in the agreement and he doesn’t want to risk his way of life over this. If you believe he has ulterior motive, then you don't believe he is in this to help the shareholders (and company) with this hearing process. He assures that he will NOT take your name and information and give it to someone else. If it ever came to the point where he would need to release your information he would ASK YOU FIRST and only AFTER you have given your permission IN WRITING would he release it. If you have any questions about the contract…drop him an email and he will respond to you. It might take a couple days, but he will respond.
DD: Your words speak for themselves and hopefully others hear your sincerity. We appreciate and support you. We do know that you had to sign a non-disclosure after viewing the company’s records…is there anything that you feel you could share that would update us (without disclosing anything about strategy) or that you think we could do to help the company (writing congressman, etc) over the next few weeks?
BF: You can only imagine if I am sitting in the room talking with the BOD of the company, there are a lot of questions I could ask but they could not answer to a shareholder representative. There is proprietary information that could not be shared. To get over the humps of “I can’t tell you this…we can’t share that”…the confidentiality agreement allows them to talk freely, helps me to have a better understanding of what is there and what is going on and ultimately helps me to be a better lawyer for the shareholders and help the company. Had to do it to get us into a posture to help the company. He didn’t see financials or other pertinent asset data…but they are working on issues where they can work together, like NSS. He is glad they came to the agreement (on confidentiality) because it ultimately helps him help us help the company.
DD: Looking at the growth of the O/G we have a reasonable idea of the O/S…how close do you think that they shareholders are to assisting in proving the NSS issue?
BF: Not an answer a lot of people will want to hear. The NSS isn’t something you can simply prove…it is very complicated. There are a lot of reports you need to have to prove it has been naked shorted. The PR’s from the company are accurate (as far as he can tell)…the best way to answer this, is that the investigation is being worked on together (O/G and company). They are on a gathering information track. You have to know, if there is a company that has sold a large amount of NSS, they would be very nervous to see an O/G coming together to report the shares that they have. At this point the shareholders sticking together is the best thing…get your numbers posted to the O/G so we know what is owned. We don't have the answer that we want, but we are getting to it real fast.
DD: (USXP and Eagletech) With what these two companies have gone through with the SEC…are these options that we have as well when it comes to the NSS issue, or are these rare cases?
BF: We’re all sharing information and the paper trail is becoming ever more easy to follow. These are isolated cases, yes, but people are learning from everyone them. But we as a group of CMKX shareholders have an advantage…we are unique because we have power amongst our numbers. They have shareholders, but we have far more and bigger numbers and therefore more power.
DD: One of the big questions out there…we would love to see the NSS be introduced into this hearing. Will this be something that can take place at the hearing, or will this have to take place afterward?
BF: The judge will have to decide what information will be heard. We may have documentation showing that we can’t validate the share count so how can we validate an audit. We’re prepared, but we have to see if the judge will let it in. He doesn’t think the SEC will want to hear anything about it. He can’t elaborate, but you will see in the next couple weeks how much work is being done behind the scenes on this. He doesn’t not think all of the CMKX problems will be resolved on May the 10th, but we will make progress. The bigger the group, the stronger the group, the more we can accomplish.
DD: Does the SEC have a copy of what is going on in the company. Do they have access to those records and know what is going on and where the company is right now...what they can bring forward?
BF: Can’t speak to that, but by looking at the PR’s we know a lot of what is taking place with the company. You know that some of the officials of the company have been deposed or interrogated and has a lot of information about this company. There should be no mystery that the SEC knows a lot about this company. How that benefits them no one knows, but they will bring it up as they see fit. But Stocklein is very smart and will also tell the judge what he thinks is best for the company.
DD: If the SEC saw enough info to see that they couldn’t win this…is there a possibility that they would back off?
more...
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:53:34 GMT -5
BF: Frankly the SEC has a leg up right now…they are in the lead. The company has not filed its financials…the company has not done what it should have done. There are reasons why this wasn’t done and those will be heard at the hearing. The SEC is ahead as we enter the hearing…but the company is prepared to answer. It will be an interesting hearing. The SEC is going to take the position that because we haven’t filed (and go into the facts that Urban has promised to files so many times then didn’t) and the judge will assess all of that. Could they come up with a deal at the last minute? Some ties the more that is at stake the easier things are to get resolved. There could be a deal at any time. The company could do some things to make this go away at any time…so keep an opened mind. This is not a gloom and doom scenario at this time. DD: When they filed the 15A and revoked the original form 15…they were given 60 days to turn in all the late filings…the quick actions by the SEC seem to have communicated that they waved CMKX’s right to the filing rule, especially since it was just a couple weeks when they suspended the company and a couple more when they announced the hearing. Is that common, or is that an option that they have or is it something the SEC will have to justify?
BF: Good question, but the SEC could say you haven’t filed in two years so why do we have to wait to find out what’s going on? The company has the position that we found an error and we are the ones reporting it. You would think they would give some grace for that, but they didn’t. If we would have got the 60 days that means we would have had to file by April 17th and that is long past, so it really is moot at this point. If it is determined that the SEC brought their action prematurely, then we would be in the early stages of the order instituting the proceedings.
DD: What effects did Roger Glenn do for the company? We are still behind with all the filings…the 8k’s, etc. Are these things we still need to be filing? Is this something you can answer?
BF: Some of these I cannot answer. There are some reason as why we do not have reports at this time, or they simply would be filed. There isn’t a conspiracy within the company for why we do not file. He would like to see the reports filed too, but he doubts they will be filed by the hearing date.
DD: (Sarbanes Oxley) Do you feel SO has been the reason for the delay in some of these filings?
BF: This is an impact for many companies filings. If you’re asking me if this is one of the problems for CMKX, yes…it is a problem for them just like it is for all companies, but it is not the only problem.
DD yields to the other admins at this point. Sandy and DD will be reading questions from other shareholders.
Sandy: Is it your belief that UC owns 51% or more of CMKX
BF: He doesn’t know and it has not come up in his conversations with Stocklein.
Sandy: I have signed up with the O/G but have family members who will not sign up. Can I add their shares into my number?
BF: Contact John Martin and tell him what you want to do. The problem is that they are wanting to set up a verification system so they can verify things for the court if needed. And it would be difficult to verify this if several family members want their shares counted together. We do want your support and we do want your shares to be counted. Contact John Martin.
Sandy: In your opinion do you think this hearing will go two days and if so, will they continue to the next day, or reschedule?
BF: He would have thought it possible to do this in one day…we have discussed it with the judge about that. Then he saw the list of witnesses and materials subpoenaed and would be surprised now if that is the case. He believes at the end of the second day the judge will be on her way back to Washington.
Sandy: How can a shareholder best protect their holdings in case we get de-listed...should they get certificates?
BF: He has been hoping to avoid that question like the plague. There could be some potential legal implications if people went out to get Certs, something happens and you lost your ability to trade quickly—or vice versa—then here’s that crazy lawyer who messed you up! He doesn’t want to be on that firing line. There’s an advantage to both ways of owning your stock…it is a decision that is best made by you. But, he doesn’t believe there is a difference in terms of ownership of the stock. It may be that different people with be responsible for producing that stock in the event of a NSS issue and if someone sold counterfeit stock. He is not advising anyone, just offering his opinion so you have something to think about.
BF: We’re all in this together and we all have the same objective…if you have any questions whatsoever, please just let us know so we can answer them.
DD: Since the company wants to present the OBO and the NOBO lists as evidence, does this mean they currently have these lists?
BF: I don't know how I can answer this….the company, by the PR’s, obviously have a OBO/NOBO lists because they have shared some numbers. We have an ongoing investigation, so they will have to have accurate information when they can.
more....
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:54:03 GMT -5
DD: What do you think the float may be?
BF: I am not privy to any information along those lines so I need to stay away from that. We are requesting some information and doing some investigation to have an answer at some point and when we do we will share that with the O/G.
DD: Do you think CMKX will have a real filing prior to or at the hearing?
BF: the auditor has been paid a fee, but it is not his understanding that any particular filings will be done prior t the hearing…if one is, we will know it at the same time.
DD: The trial is historical, is there any possibility to setting up a live broadcast or an mp3?
BF: It is a possibility…and you will hear about some motions that have been filed in the next few days that address the courtroom situation and the public’s ability to hear what’s going on. He know that sounds like a tease…but I don't think this proceeding should take place in a small cramped courtroom, there are a lot of parties involved. He is not happy with that selection of the courtroom…but doesn’t know if there is anything that can be done about that. Loves the idea of a remote set-up of this somehow.
DD: Will there be any more teleconferences before May 10th that you know of?
BF: There may be…I would be surprised if there wasn’t. There are some discovery issues about what needs to be produced. Nothing scheduled but it is likely in his opinion.
DD: If the SEC drops the charges in the 11th hour, will the CMKX attorneys ask that THEY be heard, if they wanted to discuss the NSS issue, by using the SEC’s own forum in the court?
BF: He understands the question and wishes he had hope that was on the SEC’s radar to drop the charges, but we’re in a dogfight here. The company has not reported. Maybe some concessions should be made because of the problems…but he has a hard time going down the trail that the SEC will apologize for this proceeding. Based on the facts, he is not prepared to prove we have a NSS issue. Would they take the opportunity to say so to the judge? They would scream it form the highest housetop—once they can prove that. There are other avenues to say it.
Sandy: Some brokerage firms have in the fine print that they have the right to loan shares in our accounts. Would you advise shareholders to put their brokers on notice for not loaning their own shares in this company?
BF: That’s a wonderful question and he wishes that he could answer that, but cannot. You have a contractual relationship with your broker, so what you decide to do with that relationship with your call.
Sandy: Will the information presented in the haring be public information and acceptable to the shareholders?
BF: The SEC rules provide that this is a public hearing and everything is open to the public.
Sandy: Who is the accounting firm performing our audit? And when will the numbers be publicly released?
BF: I can’t answer that—I don’t know it. The auditor was listed in the names of the witnesses, I think Neil Levine. I just don't know the name of the accounting firm.
Sandy: Do you have a range of what you expect the float will be in?
BF: Nope, sorry I don’t…can’t help you there.
Sandy: How will the OBO/NOBO lit be helpful to us in the hearing?
BF: This probably gets into the area of trial strategy so I cannot speak to that. I will say that there would just be few reasons why you would ever want that to be in evidence.
Sandy: Will Brian Foreman be with you at the hearing?
BF: He will come when called, but he is not presently planning to be there?
Sandy: Will the hearing be moved again from Amy 10th.
BF: There’s no indication that the hearing will be moved to another date (beyond holding to the 11th) or another place. Anything is possible. more...
|
|