|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 17:54:25 GMT -5
Sandy: Is there anyone watching the number of shares being traded on a daily basis? BF: I’m watching it…checking several times a day. Sandy: Any range in shareholder or number of accounts that can be shared with us? BF: Not sure he understands the question. The NOBO list will be part of the answer to that as well as information from the TA. Sandy: Why is it taking so long to get a filing? BF: That’s the question of the day and is probably one of the reasons why BF has come on board for everyone. That’s why this hearing is taking place and the answers will be public. The court will demand those answers. If we had the filings it would definitely help things. Sandy: Do you believe CMKX enemies are in the audience tonight? BF: I believe that they are everywhere…I say that in jest, but I have read a lot of documentation from several sources that shows that we have people on the boards posting as friends that have an agenda to see the company not do well. Sandy: Do you believe that we are undervalued? BF: Can’t answer that because we haven’t spent a lot of time talking about valuation, it is not critical to this hearing. Sandy: Can the judge tell counsel what exhibits will not be permissible during the hearing, before the hearing? BF: Yes, the judge can do whatever she wants when it comes to marshalling the evidence. In most cases you set out a list of exhibits, the court asks each side if they object and then the evidence is admitted or debated. He thinks there may be a phone conference with the judge to discuss this. Sandy: Why is Urban on the SEC witness list? BF: I would be speaking for the SEC if I answer this, and I really don't know. Sometimes people do this to get the person to bring documents with him. They know UC will take the 5th amendment, so it may be they want his documents as much as they want him. Sandy: Could the reason why CMKX doesn’t file be because of the NS? BF: I think this is one of the problems that we will hear about. Look at the PR’s. if you’re asking me if the whole problem is the NSS, I’m going to say no…it is part of the problem, but not the whole problem. Sandy: Is the SEC stopping the company from releasing information? BF: Through all the conversations of the company and the SEC, he is not privy to what there agreements with each other are, so he is not comfortable trying to answer this question. Sandy: Why does he think it was shareholders that wrote threatening letters to the SEC and SEC lawyers? BF: He doesn’t know who did it or why. Interesting question…he knows a lot of shareholders are angry and it is possible some aren’t handling things the way they should. Is it possible some of our enemies did that? Sure. It did make it uncomfortable for him when the SEC thought he was organizing it. DD: Who do we contact for updating the O/G record once we have already singed up but have bought more shares? BF: Email to admin@cmkxownersgroup.com and write in what you want changed and someone will verify with you. DD: Do you think the 2300 shareholders represented by the O/G is just the tip of the iceberg? BF: Yes, it is a relatively small representative of the total shareholders, but it is a significant number. There’s a lot more who could help get this number up. DD: When you were first contacted to represent the CMKX O/G, what were your initial thoughts and how have they changed since then? BF: It has evolved over time. Originally it felt like he was watching a battle but he couldn’t help them...especially sine the stock was at the bottom. You rarely see shareholders come in to help a company, most of the times they come in to hurt the company. They knew the NSS was looming but no one was truing to prove it… and he felt this was something he could also help to do. BF: Folks the lawyers the SEC has are very good lawyers and very competition, so you will never catch me saying that these folks are less than very good. Be assured that the SEC will bring their top guns in on this case. Appreciates everyone supporting this effort we are mounting. DD: How legitimate that the shares reported in the O/G are? BF: Yes they have ways to confirm them, and yes he feels confident the shares shown are accurate. If someone sends in a fraudulent amount, they will see in the agreement that there are serious criminal charges that can be brought if this is knowingly done. If they are off somewhat it might be that they missed an update but they are taking steps to make sure they updates are done regularly. end. Whew! portrush
|
|
|
Post by bluediamonds on Apr 28, 2005 22:02:11 GMT -5
CMKX OG Update 04.28.05 (Read 1749 times) CDLIC Global Moderator member is online "All That Sparkles Is Not Only Gold!" Gender: Posts: 3399 CMKX OG Update 04.28.05 « Thread started on: Today at 4:48pm » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Below is Mr. Frizzell's motion to Judge Murray requesting a larger courtroom be secured so that more CMKX shareholders and the general public may attend. He is waiting for the Judge's reply. Also, is included is a note regarding some Owners Group Members not receiving updates. CDLIC ********************************************************************** 4/28/05 To All CMKX Owners Group Members, On behalf of the CMKX Owners Group, I have filed a motion for the purpose of requesting the court to consider finding another courtroom location in the Los Angeles area for the Administrative Hearing. The content of this motion is self-explanatory. Due to the anticipated number of CMKX shareholders expected to attend—the present courtroom seats forty only-- and the witnesses are expected to number at lease twenty, I believe this motion to be reasonable and necessary to provide increased seating, thus better transparency for CMKX shareholders, and the general public. I am not requesting a change in the date of the hearing, only the location; when and if Judge Murray responds will be up to her. CMKM’s attorney, Mr. Stocklein, does not oppose the change of location motion on behalf of the company. The SEC received a copy of the motion just moments ago—they have not responded. I will continue to update CMKX Owners Group Members as events develop. To read the change of courtroom motion, go to the CMKX Owners Group web site at www.cmkxownersgroup.com. Bill Frizzell Note: It has come to my attention that some CMKX Owners Group members with Hotmail e-mail addresses are not receiving e-mail updates. It appears the Hotmail “Spam” filter being turned on may cause this. Therefore, we recommend the “Spam” filter be turned off, or add the following e-mail address to your Hotmail address book of bfrizzell@tyler.net. If you know of anyone who is not receiving the updates, please inform them of the possible cause, as it may apply to other e-mail sites other than Hotmail users. ------ IdeaDirect Dr. Of Diamonds member is online Posts: 165 Re: CMKX OG Update 04.28.05 « Reply #5 on: Today at 5:13pm » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone notice that his motion states: "The company has in excess of 50,000 shareholders." I don't think he would state that if he was unaware. ------- This is the first time that I have seen in writing that we have in excess of 50,000 shareholders. There is no way that Frizzel would include that if it was not the case. If we have 50,000 shareholders, then IMO, or at least for me, that confirms the NSS...Of course, I am assuming that UC and company own at least 51% of the company........... Briwadd ------- Suggest Events: Submit a public event that you think C-SPAN should cover - events@c-span.org www.c-span.org/about/contact.asp?code=Aboutold man ------- DiamondDaze member is online Posts: 827 Re: CMKX OG Update 04.28.05 « Reply #18 on: Today at 6:15pm » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.cmkxownersgroup.com/MotiontoChangePlaceofHearing.pdfso far 173,804,541,551 shares from 2386 shareholders.... and directly from the motion... "Movant's group members now include 2252 shareholders. The company has in excess of 50,000 shareholders." Key word here, "HAS", not "speculated to have", etc. Wow. cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1114728521
|
|
|
Post by bluediamonds on Apr 28, 2005 22:23:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2005 23:10:43 GMT -5
4/28/05 To All CMKX Owners Group Members, On behalf of the CMKX Owners Group, I have filed a motion for the purpose of requesting the court to consider finding another courtroom location in the Los Angeles area for the Administrative Hearing. The content of this motion is self-explanatory. Due to the anticipated number of CMKX shareholders expected to attend—the present courtroom seats forty only-- and the witnesses are expected to number at lease twenty, I believe this motion to be reasonable and necessary to provide increased seating, thus better transparency for CMKX shareholders, and the general public. I am not requesting a change in the date of the hearing, only the location; when and if Judge Murray responds will be up to her. CMKM’s attorney, Mr. Stocklein, does not oppose the change of location motion on behalf of the company. The SEC received a copy of the motion just moments ago—they have not responded. I will continue to update CMKX Owners Group Members as events develop. To read the change of courtroom motion, go to the CMKX Owners Group web site at www.cmkxownersgroup.com. Bill Frizzell
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 29, 2005 9:15:09 GMT -5
The company has in excess of 50,000 shareholders. « Thread started on: Today at 06:20am » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The company has in excess of 50,000 shareholders." If your happy and you know it... (Read 172 times) Bo14172 Diamond Finder member is offline Posts: 53 If your happy and you know it... « Thread started on: Apr 28th, 2005, 10:36pm » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's probably for a different reason than why I am. Guys and gals, to prove the naked short they need to collect as much evidence as necessary to prove their case. In any effort of legal defense, discovery is as common as breathing, so today's subpoena is very important but standard practice to gather evidence. A subpoena by itself can be approved, quashed or amended by the judge. So, discovery filings to me were expected and will continue. Which leads me to the source of why should spike our Kool-Aid this weekend. Today were 2 filings with a purpose, each intertwined and supporting the other. The one most eyeopening was Atty Frizzell's motion. From Atty Frizzell's Motion to Change Place of Hearing, it states: "The company has in excess of 50,000 shareholders." cmkxownersgroup.com/Currently 4.8% of the shareholders own 25% of the O/S, thus very likely 4.8% of the shareholders own 40%-50% of the float. There is strength in numbers. WE ARE PROVING THE NAKED SHORT POSITION. Our numbers add weight and relevance to the subpoena. The 8 words in statement within the filing are the best 8 words I have read since investing in this stock. Who's job is it to spike the Kook-Aid this week? Tell them to make it a double, this is only the tip of the iceberg my friends. Bo cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1114749397 source/bluediamonds
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 29, 2005 12:08:36 GMT -5
4/28/05 To All CMKX Owners Group Members, On behalf of the CMKX Owners Group, I have filed a motion for the purpose of requesting the court to consider finding another courtroom location in the Los Angeles area for the Administrative Hearing. The content of this motion is self-explanatory. Due to the anticipated number of CMKX shareholders expected to attend—the present courtroom seats forty only-- and the witnesses are expected to number at lease twenty, I believe this motion to be reasonable and necessary to provide increased seating, thus better transparency for CMKX shareholders, and the general public. I am not requesting a change in the date of the hearing, only the location; when and if Judge Murray responds will be up to her. CMKM’s attorney, Mr. Stocklein, does not oppose the change of location motion on behalf of the company. The SEC received a copy of the motion just moments ago—they have not responded. I will continue to update CMKX Owners Group Members as events develop. To read the change of courtroom motion, go to the CMKX Owners Group web site at www.cmkxownersgroup.com. Bill Frizzell Note: It has come to my attention that some CMKX Owners Group members with Hotmail e-mail addresses are not receiving e-mail updates. It appears the Hotmail “Spam” filter being turned on may cause this. Therefore, we recommend the “Spam” filter be turned off, or add the following e-mail address to your Hotmail address book of bfrizzell@tyler.net. If you know of anyone who is not receiving the updates, please inform them of the possible cause, as it may apply to other e-mail sites other than Hotmail users.
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 29, 2005 12:09:20 GMT -5
Below, the link to the CMKX Owners Group web page. There are two new documents posted: the first is Don Stoecklein's response to Mr. Frizzell's motion for request of room change, the second is the SEC's response to Mr. Frizzell's motion for request to room change. CMKM has no objection to the room change, as it believes it is in the public interest, as well as the shareholders for such a change to be granted. Then, note SEC's reasons for not wanting a room change--IMHO....LOL. It really appears the SEC does NOT want transparancy. By the way, the SEC attorney was responsible for picking the small, 40-seat room. To read new pages, go to: www.cmkxownersgroup.com
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 29, 2005 12:10:14 GMT -5
"SEC says...." They are totally against it! claiming there is no larger courtroom available on that date. (read the letter on the OG board.) I hope they don't influence a change of date to stall!
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 29, 2005 12:27:22 GMT -5
Well since the judge turned down the change of room, and since there aren't any larger rooms, we'll only have about 20 free seats after the 20 witnesses, since the room holds about 40. Rich, pack a breakfast in your backpack and camp out. Too bad... I hear the bigger room has A/C, TV monitors, vending machine in the back with snicker bars (for those who like to snicker), and plush seats, plus a microphone at the judge's pulpit and the witness stand so all can hear clearly. But our room, has no ammenties except a fire extinquisher in the corner, in case the SEC and DTC catch fire. JMHO. (RB)
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on Apr 30, 2005 7:49:09 GMT -5
Interesting dialogue….. houston.....humor me....what has the shareholders group accomplished that stoeklin is not able to get done?........ By: bxtlbxtl reply…. By: houstontex1110 bxtbxt I could write pages and pages on this...really. The most conspicuous. and most important is the fact that our numbers affected the judge and she SAID THAT. She appears to be a fair judge, and upon seeing how much money just 400 shareholders had at stake, she allowed the OG to be part of the proceedings, and that implies she will be much much more impressed with 5000 shareholders representing 250 billion shares worth perhaps $100 million invested. In short, the group is bringing out the judge's caring side. She will be less inclined to revoke a company with 5000 highly interested shareholders as proven by their willingness to pay $25 in comparison to a true scam where there are only 400 shareholders and not one of them spent a penny to be represented by a group. Our group shows the judge CMKX is very important to us, and therefore she will show us concern in return and not just quickly revoke a company that apparently means little to its shareholders. Why do you assume Frizzle is not accomplishing goals? He was allowed to participate at the Las Vegas meeting, and that was by no means implies an automatic decision by IBM, UC, and Stocklein. By having him sign the non disclosure agreement, that is shouting he is now trusted and part of the legal team. If they viewed him as some quack with a big mouth who might reveal damaging items to the media, you think they would reveal inside info to him? They were under NO compulsion to allow him in and yet they did. Why? Surely not because of us shareholders! They have demonstrated we can not force them to answer our constant demand for answers. They permitted this man to enter because they saw him as a positive force, not a negative force. Positive force? He can get things done, and they likely delegated to him tasks to work on. You think they just allowed him in to be nice to him or US? No way. Because they researched the man, and if you will do likewise, it is clear the man knows his way around the securities world. He mentioned in a pr to the OG that he and STocklein consult on a daily business. They are likely discussing Frizzel's activities and how he is faring. From early on, Frizzel mentioned the word nss. He evidently started researching this matter last year, and it appears that is at least part of his role in the legal team. Now look how the nss is suddenly the MAIN thrust to our defense...2 subpoenas. And Frizzel is at least contributing in this area, and you claim he is irrlevant? Well, Stocklein, UC, and IBM appear they need his assistance. From just a common sense perspective, have you ever seen a fortune 300 company's legal team on tv. Rarely do you just see one att? On the contrary, they have 2 or even 3 atts sitting there conferring with one another...2 heads are better than one. The SEC will have 2 att's confronting Stocklein. The mere fact that FRizzle will be sitting there next to him will pshchologically support Stocklein, and to some degree intimidate the SEC team. You ever walk up and confront 3 enemies alone? You know what happens? YOu don't because you realize you will lose. Now, have your best friend walk beside you and man you are ready to at least confront them. He gives you moral support, and he can verbally assist your arguments...well, Frizzle is there to assist Stocklein in spirit and in whisperings and perhaps notes on a note pad that STocklein looks down and reads. The mere fact that Frizzle is working at this situation, at breakneck speed and even on weekends implies that he has a basketfull of things to do that evidently Stocklein is glad for him to shoulder some of the work load. Do you really think that STocklein can output the work of 2 legal minds? No way. By the way I am 52, and I learned just a few things over the last 26 years. If you are younger than me, show some respect for my experience. If you are older, than believe me, that will have a profound effect upon me and I will assume you know some things that I have not experienced. I am not requesting anything I will not extend to you. Winning at anything requires self confidence, and once your confidence is shaken, the mental processes are at least slowed down and at times such as stage fright, they just shut down. I will bet you money, the SEC team has researched Frizzle, and they were impressed with his background, and just might have had deep down inside a feeling of uneasiness. They are really up against a team of lawyers, not just Stocklein. The intimidating effect upon the SEC team is worth dividends to our team in court. I am sure that I could come up with 5 more points, but the above should demonstrate that Frizzle is an asset of value and not a liability to our cause, and without the group, there would be no FRIZZLE. Oh, I am having trouble with computer and will not risk losing this post so no spell check, grammar or sentence structure changes...will just post.. houston....i sincerely thank you for a well thought out and polite response...although i don't agree with everything you listed....i agree with many points....the biggest plus regarding the frizzle situation is the fact that the judge has allowed him to participate....that alone made me sit up and think....unheard of....at any rate, those are my last words or questions on this subject...but i truly thank you for taking the time to politely respond.... by the way....i'm 52 as well....what a drag The entire conversation...from houstex
|
|
|
Post by DLAWRENCE on May 2, 2005 11:09:36 GMT -5
JMO ;D – I think it would be great to have a stockholder rep (like Frizzele) on the company board of directors. It could be done if the stockholders of each company demanded it. If anybody bought stock in the company they could be given a chance to join a group in which the company could share some of the cost and he could help direct stockholders in what is going on and organize the stockholders demands and actions.
I hope next monday will be good for us.
JMO.
|
|
|
Post by saturn48021 on May 3, 2005 19:12:29 GMT -5
Now why didn't we hear about this before:by Janice Shell
On April 27, 2005, CMKX Diamonds filed two motions. The Motion for Inspection and Copying of Documents and Witness Statemens Pursuant to Rule 230 and Rule 231 asserts that the Division of Enforcement (Division) has gathered extensive materials in U.S. Canadian Minerals, Inc., LA-2937, a separate, ongoing investigation, and these materials were not made available to CMKX Diamonds. CMKM Diamonds claims it is being treated unfairly because the Division has subpoenaed witnesses it has already deposed in the U.S. Canadian Minerals, Inc., LA-2937, investigation and that the materials that these people will bring to the hearing will be new to CMKM Diamonds but not new to the Division. CMKM Diamonds requests that I order the division to make available: (1) copies of all documents and witness statements that it will tender into evidence; and (2) any documents it has in its files that it intends to use in this proceeding.
In the Motion for Discovery of Exculpatory Evidence (Motion), CMKM Diamonds requests that I order the Division to produce any evidence the Commission has that is favorable to CMKM Diamonds. Specifically, CMKM Diamonds seeks documents filed with the Commission that show the daily list of failed deliveries in CMKM Diamonds stock since January 5, 2005, and "any other evidence in the [Commission's] files which indicate there have been sales of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock that exceed the known authorized and issued common stock." (Motion at 2.) CMKM Diamonds wants the Commission to review all its files and provide it with any evidence that is exculpatory or favorable.
How did Judge Murray rule on this?
There's a lengthy explanation, but I'll cut to the chase:
I DENY CMKM Diamonds's request that I require the Division to search through all the Commission's files for exculpatory evidence because it is excessive and impractical.
Now why didn't Frizzell tell his clients about all this?
And I wonder how Frizzy's clients will feel about that.
Here's the text:
3. On April 28, 2005, the Securities Law Institute (Institute) moved to quash the subpoenas I issued to the Institute's Custodian of Records and Kristen M. Buck (Buck). The Institute argues that the subpoenas are not related to the issues in the proceeding and are burdensome.
Now ain't that interesting? For any who've forgotten, the "Securities Law Institute" is Maheu's creature. So this is a subpoena that the judge DID sign; why is this the first we've heard of it?
How did she rule?
On May 2, 2005, the Division submitted a Notice of Stipulation informing me that it had reached an agreement with the Institute and Buck.
And of course most interesting of all:
5. On May 2, I received a motion to quash the subpoena I issued to Robert A. Maheu (Maheu) to attend and testify and produce documents on grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. According to the Division, Maheu is a consultant to CMKM Diamonds and co-chair of the board who could addressy why CMKM Diamonds failed to file the required reports in the past and the status of its efforts to prepare and file reports in the future.
Goldarnit!! Yet another subpoena we didn't know about!!
I DENY the motion to quash the subpoena, however, I modify the terms of the subpoena so that Maheu need not produce any requested material already provided by another person or that CMKM Diamonds has produced in any Division investigation. Production must be accomplished by the close of business on May 6, 2005.
I guess Janice Shell is going at it again.These were her thoughts in print.
Saturn
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on May 3, 2005 21:42:39 GMT -5
OWNERS GROUP (Frizzell) UPDATE May 3/05 « Thread started on: Today at 9:00pm » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OWNERS GROUP (Frizzell) UPDATE May 3/05 www.cmkxownersgroup.com/-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRIZZELL LAW FIRM 305 S. Broadway, Suite 302 Tyler, Texas 75702 (903)595-1921 Fax (903)595-4383 E-Mail jmartin@cmkxownersgroup.com Dear Group Members, One of the most difficult things about representing a large group is the inability to maintain personal communication with the members. When this group was small, I was able to return emails to most of you individually when I received mail from you. Due to the required legal work and large number of emails of late, I have not been able to return most of your messages for several days. I plan on returning each email but some responses may not come to you before the hearing. I regret that sincerely. There a quite a few tasks remaining before the hearing. As of today, I have been provided over 4,000 pages of documents and exhibits. The company has received an updated NOBO list. The hard copy is voluminous. There have been many motions and responses from all parties. There have been subpoenas and witness lists and amendments to most of them. I have prepared trial briefs on several critical legal issues that may come up. I have discussions with at least four different lawyers on a daily basis. I have posted ONLY those items that I felt might be of interest to you. I will continue to do so. I remain committed to a confidentiality agreement as to certain items. The Response to the Motion In Limine has been filed with the Court. I will advise you if we receive a response to the Motion. You may view it at www.cmkxownersgroup.com/ I look forward to the next few days. Onward. Bill « Last Edit: Today at 7:15pm by doubleplatinum » <br> cmkxdiamond.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1115169284
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on May 3, 2005 21:43:27 GMT -5
Not one word on the judges ruling. Bart
|
|
|
Post by fastwalker on May 3, 2005 21:44:59 GMT -5
Frizzell and NSS = Non-issue at hearing « Thread started on: Today at 7:36pm » <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My last post on any board.......The NSS was a non-issue in the hearing when Frizzell appeared......and it is a non-issue now. Frizzell's point all along was to organize a group of angry shareholders........as present and potential clients........He lured them with the NSS issue-which he KNEW was not an issue in the hearing......now he's really got a group to choose from for the final chapter. As for myself and the approximately 40,000 other shareholders who didn't join the owner's group.......we told you so...........let CMKX's QUALIFIED lawyers handle CMKX issues....... juanphordimoni
|
|