Deep Capture Forums

July 20th, 2011 | Tags: BCIT, casey anthony, CMKX, cmkxshareholder, cnbc, cnn, crisis, debt, dtcc, kingofalltrades, media, msnbc, News, NY Post, NY Times, patrick byrne, President Obama, Radio wars, SEC, Siri, siriusnews, Stock Shock, stocks, wall street, WSJ | Category: Uncategorized | Leave a comment
Naked Short Selling of America and the World. Will Rupert Murdoch and the News Media continue to cover it up
Florida OFR presentation dated April 22nd, 2011 COALITION COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FBI/SEC/DOJ

This complaint is for all shareholders and covers all views, it has been passed by many shareholders before going in and all have agreed to file it for themslves with the Las Vegas FBI and other authorities as a show of unity. Enough is enough, it is time to demand the authorities get investigated for their role in this fraud and its cover up, or just pay us!

July 17, 2011

Assistant Special Agent in Charge – William C. Woerner
1787 West Lake Mead Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89106-2135
Phone: (702) 385-1281
Fax: (702) 584-5460
E-mail: Lasvegas@ic.fbi.gov

Dear Sir,

My name is Dave Nelson and I represent the CMKX Shareholders for Justice, a group of shareholders who demand an independent investigation into the many Authorities involved in the CMKM Diamonds Inc (CMKX) fraud case. We have entered evidence which clearly shows that the SEC and other authorities aided and abetted corrupt insiders of CMKX currently indicted by the DOJ and covered up the fraud committed by countless Wall Street firms, and/or this was a DOJ sting operation, in which case the Authorities are illegally withholding the victims’ restitution collected in that operation so perpetrators could avoid criminal prosecution. In either case the facts call for an independent investigation into the Authorities role in this fraud and its cover up, a fraud which has directly cost the shareholder of CMKX hundreds of millions of dollars. Authorities involved include: the SEC/DOJ/FBI/IRS/RCMP. We demand accountability!

We have shown that fraud and manipulation is the modus operandi of the SEC in particular and other Authorities hereby mentioned in evidence submitted to the Las Vegas FBI and many other regulatory agencies. A brief history of corruption of the aforementioned authorities in the form of a pdf file was delivered to Jerald Burkin of the FBI and to various Authorities in Canada who have taken no action. This evidence outlines the timeline of the largest fraud in history, the counterfeiting of the stock market, which occurred prior to 1996 when FBI Special Agent Robert Wright launched Operation Vulgar Betrayal, through Operation Uptick in 1999-2000, and continues unabated to the present. Former Special Agent Wright said, in essence, that the U.S. Department of Justice had been captured by Al Qaeda’s most important financiers, and given the crimes he talked about continue until today it is clear the agencies involved are still captured. The proceeds of these crimes went to organized crime families, to terrorists, and the major Wall Street brokers who aided them. This evidence was entered to Burkin in early 2009, along with the evidence in the CMKX case in particular which followed the same pattern of the SEC aiding massive counterfeiting:

http://cmkx.info/CMKM-BRIEF-HISTORY-OF-SEC-CORRUPTION-2010-06-08.pdf

Additional evidence implicating the Authorities in directly aiding the corrupt insiders of CMKX and others who defrauded shareholders is included in a letter by Mark Faulk, CEO of CMKX. He outlines the fraud that was allowed to occur by the SEC and other Authorities; all of whom stood by silently as the fraud happened after they had subpoenaed the records that were used in the indictments:

http://www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/letter-m_index.html.

In the CMKM Diamonds Inc. case, specific evidence was given to Mr. Burkin which clearly showed the SEC, FBI, DOJ, and IRS were complicit in the crimes which took place and the cover up of the fraud by all of the Wall Street firms involved, a mirror image of Operation Uptick and Operation Vulgar Betrayal. Here is a list of the crimes alleged to have been committed by the SEC, FBI, DOJ, and IRS, further known as The Authorities in the CMKM Diamonds Inc. case. This list either shows the Authorities allowed this crime to take place and aided and abetted the fraud committed against CMKX shareholders, or they allowed this fraud to take place to run a sting operation as outlined in Al Hodges bivens case and have harmed all victims by withholding illegally their restitution for over five years. There clearly there needs to be an independent investigation into these points:

1. The Authorities investigation (into CMKX) was well under way by May 2004, before hundreds of billions of shares were sold to investors in a publicly traded company and the money laundered. Corporate insiders were aided and abetted in their crimes by high-powered attorneys, accountants, transfer agents, major banking institutions, brokerage houses, and clearing firms. It occurred right under the noses of the SEC and NASD (now FINRA); both agencies ignoring dozens of blatant warning signs, allowing the scam to go on for years. The Coalition asks for an investigation into why the Authorities just allowed these crimes to happen and the money laundered over years when it was their duty to stop these crimes when they detected them in 2004, costing the company and its shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars.

2. The Coalition alleges and has provided evidence that Leslie Hakala conspired with ex-SEC attorney D. Roger Glenn (who wrote opinion letters allowing over 300 billion shares of stock to be dumped into the market) to facilitate the sale of hundreds of billions of shares of CMKX stock, all proceeds from those sales were apparently stolen right under the nose of The Authorities while they watched. D. Roger Glenn escape and indictment by the DOJ for his role in this fraud. PR person for CMKX, Andrew Hill, has publicly stated Leslie Hakala was fully aware of what was happening inside CMKX and had been in contact with D. Roger Glenn in 2004. Furthermore, the FBI never questioned Andrew Hill, even though he had pertinent, incriminating first-hand information in this case. The Coalition asks for Andrew Hill to be deposed and Leslie Hakala and other SEC enforcement attorneys investigated for their role in this fraud and its cover up.

3. When Leslie Hakala met with CMKX management and shareholders lawyer Bill Frizzell on May 11th 2005, she was fully aware of the fraud inside CMKX at this time. Bill Frizzell presented her with indisputable evidence of massive counterfeiting of CMKX stock, a fact that later proved to be true as 622 billion unregistered shares were sold in CMKX stock out of 703 issued and outstanding shares in total. Mr. Frizzell had direct evidence of hundreds of billions of unregistered share sales by brokers such as Etrade, Ameritrade, TD Waterhouse, and others. None of those brokers were ever indicted and no civil action has ever taken place despite the indisputable evidence of their crimes. Not only did Leslie Hakala not stop these crimes from happening, and saving shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars, but she allowed the fraud to continue. These corrupt brokers were allowed to sell hundreds of billions of additional counterfeit shares, steal the illegal proceeds, and then have their crimes completely covered up. Hakala allowed corrupt management to launder their proceeds from their crimes for years. The Coalition asks for an immediate investigation into the evidence presented at that meeting and to the SEC actions and inactions after that meeting.

4. Co-conspirators John Edward Dohnau, Michael Williams, and Rendal Williams, plus a cast of numerous other associates have not been charged for their part in this massive fraud. Why?

5. The phone records from NevWest, which show that they contacted the SEC each time Edwards came in with CMKX certs to sell, many of which were clearly forged and fraudulent, some even “signed” by an individual who had been deceased for months. Instead of taking action to halt the obvious fraud against innocent shareholders, the SEC and NASD (FINRA) ignored the evidence and dozens of other red flags, allowing the scheme to continue unabated, costing unsuspecting buyers of CMKX stock hundreds of millions of dollars. The Coalition wants access to those phone records and an investigation into why the SEC allowed those certs to be sold after they had already subpoenaed the fraud records used in the indictments and SEC civil action.

6. Clearing firm Computer Clearing Services (now owned by Penson Worldwide, Inc.) helped John Edwards trade over 250 billion shares of CMKX stock totaling over $53 million. Clearing firms and brokers weren’t the only ones who ignored red flags that should have triggered the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports. Several Nevada banks, most prominently Silver State Bank and Wells Fargo Bank, allowed CMKM Diamonds and related fraudulent companies to run hundreds of millions of dollars through dozens of accounts. Penson is mentioned in the article, which documents the counterfeiting of the stock market by Wall Street, organized crime and terrorists; a crime which all Authorities were fully aware of before the year 2000 and did nothing to stop although trillions of counterfeit shares were sold into the market and trillions of dollars stolen from the general public: http://www.marketrap.com/article/view_ar….shor t-selling. The Coalition asks for an investigation into Penson Worldwide’s history of covering up the crimes of Wall Street, organized crime, and terrorist naked short sales, and those of John Edwards in particular.

7. The Authorities subpoenaed the Silver State Bank regarding suspicious activities on September 5th 2004 (the Silver State Bank had no action taken against it for its role in this fraud) BEFORE hundreds of billions of shares were sold in CMKX stock. The evidence gathered from that subpoena showed 64 million dollars went through the Silver State Bank. Among the transactions executed by Silver State Bank after those subpoenas include:

• Wire transfers totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars were executed with only the notation “transferring to Personal Acct. per cust. Transfer via phone”.

• Checks from various accounts set up as shell companies and controlled by Casavant and Edwards written out only to “CASH”…including one for $350,000.

• Multi-million dollar wire transfers between Edwards and Casavant run through dozens of accounts they controlled there.

• Millions of dollars written out of company accounts to Casavant, his wife Carolyn, and several family members; often on temporary checks.

The Coalition asks for an investigation into why the Silver State Bank continued to allow money laundering into the millions of dollars when the Authorities had already subpoenaed the fraud records used in the indictments and civil actions. We also ask for an investigation into why the DOJ and SEC allowed these crimes to continue unabated when they already had the evidence of the crimes.

8. The Authorities allowed Robert Maheu, Urban Casavant, and other management to continue to promote the sale of CMKX stock through various means, including a drag racing team, after they were fully aware of the fraud inside CMKM Diamonds Inc. Robert Maheu, Roger Glenn and Don Stoecklein were not indicted for his role in this fraud although six hundred billion shares were sold while they ran CMKX. The Coalition wants an investigation into why these individuals were not indicted; why the DOJ and SEC continued to allow them to promote this fraud after they had subpoenaed the fraud records; and why they allowed these masterminds the time to launder their proceeds from their crimes.

9. In letters to other brokers in mid-2005, shareholders lawyer Bill Frizzell not only identified the brokers who sold over 300 billion shares of CMKX stock, but those brokers continued to sell unregistered shares for months while The Authorities watched. The money from the sale of hundreds of billions of shares (approximately 190 million dollars) was stolen by these brokers, with none of those known brokers being indicted, and none of that money recovered. Why were these brokers not indicted, and why were their crimes covered up? Why did the Authorities continue to allow them to sell unregistered securities in CMKX stock when the fraud was clearly detected?

10. In Bill Frizzell’s letter to TD Waterhouse in Canada, he explains that none of the shares sold by them were even on the NOBO list, meaning they were sold unregistered. TD Waterhouse continued to sell unregistered shares of CMKX stock for months, as did all other Canadian brokers. In his letters, Mr. Frizzell also stated that the SEC was watching this very closely. Mr. Frizzell stated in his deposition to the SEC that none of the Canadian brokers had shares on the NOBO list, indicating all shares sold in Canada were sold unregistered. There has been no action against any Canadian brokers from The Authorities and since all illegal shares sold by Canadian brokers were grandfathered, they would not have to cover their fraud. The Coalition asks that there be a public inquiry (by an outside agency) into the grandfathering of trillions of counterfeit shares by Wall Street, organized crime, and by terrorists. The crimes could have been stopped well over a decade ago, but were allowed to happen, and then the fraud covered up. Why?

11. According to Bill Frizzell, Andrew Petillion (Branch Chief of Enforcement at the Pacific Regional Office for the SEC) issued this warning with regards to his evidence of the naked short in CMKX stock:

“By the way, if this is an orchestrated short squeeze against the brokerage houses to make the stock price go up, we will come after those who are responsible. We would not look kindly on a cert pull because it would cause market manipulation.”

The Authorities allowed CMKX stock to be manipulated down, but would not allow the natural correction for this: a short squeeze. This mirrors what the SEC said to David Patch regarding the Grandfather Clause: it was supposed to stop runs in stocks which had been manipulated by Wall Street firms, which in-turn counterfeited trillions of shares of stock in hundreds if not thousands of publicly traded companies. An example of this is Eagle Tech Communications. Authorities knew Eagle Tech was the victim of counterfeiting by Wall Street firms and crime families, but grandfathered those counterfeit shares so they would never have to be covered, while protecting the criminal firms at the same time. The Coalition wants to know why the DOJ and SEC allowed Wall Street firms to create the Grandfather Clause (with the help of the SEC) as this allowed felonies to be covered up; felonies committed by terrorists and organized crime families.

12. The Authorities and alleged corrupt Judge, Brenda Murray (see the modus operandi of Brenda Murray in evidence presented regarding the Gary Aguirre cover up), would not allow evidence of massive naked shorting in CMKX stock in the administrative hearing (October 5, 2005) that eventually ended up in the revocation of CMKX stock. Financial expert Jim DeCosta analyzed the naked short in CMKX stock and found it to be 14-1. No evidence of any other broker’s fraud or the fraud already detected by The Authorities was entered into the hearing, and billions of shares of CMKX stock traded afterwards; all monies stolen from shareholders. The Coalition asks for an investigation into the cover up of the largest naked short in history by Judge Brenda Murray and the SEC enforcement attorneys. The Coalition asks for an investigation into why the Authorities allowed this crime to continue when clearly they were aware of it, and why did they allow all of the money to be stolen from the victims in this case when they could have stopped it in 2004?

13. In Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Leslie Hakala alleges that “To divert attention from their own dumping of CMK shares, Casavant persuaded CMKM’s investors that the reported high trading volume in CMKM stock reflected extensive “naked short selling” rather than ordinary stock dilution.”
Leslie Hakala was fully aware that there was massive naked shorting in CMKX stock by Wall Street firms (evidence entered to the FBI in this case), and that she concealed the fact that there were other perpetrators besides the insiders of CMKM Diamonds Inc. This is a mirror image of the victims of Operation Uptick. From March 2003 through May 2005 John Edwards sold almost 260 billion shares of the purportedly 622 billion registered/unrestricted CMKM shares. That leaves approximately 362 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares that Leslie Hakala fails to account for in said civil action. The Authorities try and make it look like all shares and money stolen was by the corrupt insiders. The Coalition asks for an investigation into Leslie Hakala’s actions which appear to be nothing short of criminal and follow the modus operandi of covering up the crimes of Wall Street firms.

14. In its Grand Jury Superseding Indictment 2-09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ, 5-27-09, United States District Court, District of Nevada, the Grand Jury charges that:
“…To create the appearance of an active and established market for CMKM stock, and to disguise the fact that the conspirators were virtually the only sellers of CMKM stock…”
DONALD STOECKLEIN DEPOSITION, 1-24-06
In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that naked short expert Jim Decosta, with 25 years of experience, told both Bill Frizzell and him that a 14 to 1 short position exists in CMKM stock.

That means that for every one legitimate share that exists, 14 naked short shares exist, which in turn means that numerous naked short sellers exist. In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that they obtained a NOBO list and the number of CMKM shares on that NOBO list exceeded the number of CMKM shares on the list of 1st Global Stock Transfer, which in turn means that naked short sellers exist. The Coalition demands that Jim DeCosta’s report be made public along with the cert pull deposition which shows the Authorities made false statements in this case to cover up the crimes of many Wall Street brokers by making it look like corrupt insiders were the only sellers of unregistered shares of CMKX stock.

15. On 6-24-09, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant John Edwards (#991), Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Daryl Anderson (#102), and Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso pursuant to Civil Action No. 08- CV 0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. In said Motion for Summary Judgment, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleges, “CMKM provided investors with phony maps and fabricated videos of alleged mineral claims in North and South America.”

The following was left out of the Administrative hearing. The following are excerpts from Regional Triaxial Aeromagnetic Survey Assessment Work Report by N. Ralph Newson, William Jarvis on the Fort a la Corne Diamond Project:

“Drilling results and additional ground magnetic and gravity surveys have shown the best known kimberlite bodies to be bedded, and to have a very different shape from most known kimberlite bodies. In most of the well-known diamond mines in Africa, for example, and in those in the NWT in Canada, the upper portions of the kimberlite bodies have been eroded, leaving only the feeder pipe, which has a “carrot” shape, getting smaller in diameter with depth. However, in the Fort à la Corne swarm, the tops of the kimberlitic volcanic edifices are COMPLETELY PRESERVED [emphasis added by author], and they are shaped more or less like a soup bowl, with two larger horizontal dimensions, and one smaller vertical dimension. Several of these have an inferred geological resource (based on a few holes and on geophysical modeling) in excess of 100 million tonnes, one has nearly a billion tons, and one group of five which are close together, or perhaps coalescing, contain about 2 billion tons of kimberlite. There are thus HUGE VOLUMES OF KIMBERLINE WITHIN A FEW HUNDRED METRES OF THE SURFACE.” [Emphasis added by author].

The Coalition asks for an independent investigation into all claims held by CMKX past and present, including the warehouse full of core samples currently held in a warehouse in Saskatchewan, not mentioned in the hearing, under the control of Emerson Koch, Urban Casavant’s partner. We ask for an investigation into all land lost during the era where the DOJ and SEC allowed the masterminds in CMKX management to commit fraud against the shareholders or when the DOJ sting operation was on.

16. If this was purely a fraud, then the DOJ/FBI should have already extradited Urban Casavant since the evidence they used against him was from late 2004. It is unacceptable that the Authorities allowed Urban to sell hundreds of billions of shares after they knew he was committing fraud, it is unacceptable the Authorities gave him time to launder that money, and it is unacceptable they have not arrested the largest penny stock swindler ever. He is free to do what he wants and spend the money he stole from shareholders while we lost everything and our company was destroyed. The Coalition demands to know why Urban Casavant has not been arrested for his crimes.

17. The SEC revoked CMKM Diamonds Inc on October 28th 2005, knowing that would prevent the perpetrators from ever having to cover their naked short positions in CMKX stock and in turn ensuring that the shareholders would never recover the damages they suffered. Thousands of victims in other companies of the exact same crime also received no compensation from this massive naked shorting fraud. This tactic was used in concert with the perpetrators who counterfeited the stock market into the trillions to cover-up the fraud and allow the criminals to escape from having to cover their counterfeit shares. The perpetrators in concert with the SEC and DTCC grandfathered trillions of dollars in felony counterfeit stock sales to hide the largest crime in history. The Coalition asks for a full investigation into the Grandfather Clause and the hundreds to thousands of companies who were victims of the illegal clause and in particular all firms who had their shares Grandfathered that sold illegal CMKX stock.

The evidence above is just the tip of the iceberg on the damage caused to the victims in this case by the Authorities. If this was just purely a fraud there is more than enough evidence to call for an independent investigation into the Authorities’ role in this fraud and its cover-up. If this was a sting operation, then there is clear, insurmountable evidence that crimes are still happening, preventing the restitution for all bona fide CMKX shareholders from being released. The Victims have been and continue to be harmed- either way.

Here is evidence entered to SA Burkin, the DOJ Victims’ Rights official in Nevada, and to Gayle Jacobs of the Las Vegas FBI, which indicates the Authorities allowed this fraud to continue as they were using CMKX as a vehicle in a DOJ sting operation run in concert with Robert Maheu. This operation resulted in perpetrators secretly paying into a fund for the victims in this case to avoid criminal prosecution. I asked Debra Waite of the Victims Rights office to investigate the evidence below, and she refused, but referred me to the Las Vegas FBI where I already had asked Jerald Burkin to investigate this evidence and corroborate Al Hodges allegations. This evidence clearly affects the indictments Jerald Burkin is working on in the CMKX case and it is his duty to investigate this evidence. He refused. The Coalition demand that an independent investigation into the Nevada DOJ/FBI’s handling of this case. Also, the shareholders request that an immediate investigation take place into Al Hodges June 17th letter to a representative of China where he claims President Obama is committing extortion which is preventing the release of our restitution and all other allegations put forth by Mr. Hodges. This letter is included in this complaint and on its own merit should be the basis of an immediate criminal investigation.

Below are the second set of questions and requests that the Coalition feels needs to be answered legally by the FBI and SEC.

1. Why is the DOJ/FBI in Nevada refusing to corroborate Al Hodges allegations and investigate his evidence which clearly contradicts the Nevada DOJ and FBI, fully-knowing that pertinent information would affect the indictments in this case? It is the legal duty of the FBI in this case to investigate this information as it comes from a credible source who is directly involved in this matter.

2. Why has the FBI refused to investigate the allegations that extortion is taking place which prevents the release of the restitution illegally held from victims in this case? Why have they not questioned Al Hodges and Michael Cottrell regarding this matter when they can corroborate the allegations put forth? The FBI apparently is doing nothing to stop the crimes currently being committed, further harming the victims in this matter.

3. Mr. Hodges says he has an eye witness to the fact that the restitution should have been released over five years ago. It is the legal duty of the DOJ/FBI to depose Al Hodges’ witness to the facts as it has dramatic impact on their current indictments in this case, if necessary he should be subpoenaed.

4. The DOJ/SEC subpoenaed the fraud records used in the indictments and civil actions in 2004, then allowed the fraud to continue for well over a year. Was the DOJ/SEC allowed to use CMKX and its shareholders as a vehicle in a sting operation and hide that fact from them? I talked to officials at the SEC, but didn’t mention CMKX; those officials said that it is the SEC’s legal duty to stop the fraud when detected, to halt the stock. In CMKX’s case, they not only didn’t stop the fraud they allowed it to continue unabated costing shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars in loses.

5. Was it the legal duty of the DOJ/SEC to include the fraud records they had subpoenaed in the SEC file given to company officials and lawyers in June 2005? Those records ended up being the basis for most of the actions by the DOJ and SEC against Urban Casavant and John Edwards. I personally spoke to John Martin of the Owner’s Group (which hired Bill Frizzell to represent the shareholders) and according to Martin they were fully aware of the Silver State Bank fraud records, as were all shareholders as it was on the internet in Feb. 2005. The fact that the management and shareholders’ lawyer had access to these confidential records and then worked with Urban Casavant proves this was either a sting operation, or they aided this fraud and its cover up. The Coalition demands to know exactly what confidential banking records management and Bill Frizzell were privy to and when to prove if this was a sting operation.

6. Mr. Hodges claims in his bivens case that the DOJ/SEC told CMKX officials that the release of funds was imminent on many occasions, but this was not true. Is it legal to have secret negotiations to take place regarding our restitution, and is it legal for the DOJ/SEC to lie to company officials about the release of their money? Does that not violate the rights of the victims and should the DOJ/FBI be required by law to investigate the facts surrounding these negotiations? Exactly who were these officials?

7. Reece Hamilton, plaintiff in Mr. Hodges bivens case, claimed that Mr. Hodges trustee received the codes from the authorities to release our restitution on or about DEC 30/31 2009, and that the taxes were taken out at that time. This was later confirmed by Mr. Hodges, and the tax issue confirmed in a complaint to AG of New York Andrew Cuomo, which is in the evidence package. Did giving our trustee the codes and having them not work violate our victim’s rights, and should it be the duty of the DOJ/FBI to investigate the officials who gave those codes and why they didn’t work? Who exactly gave the codes to our trustee?

8. Mr. Hodges filed a complaint with the AG of New York stating taxes were taken out of the settlement funds, which has now violated several banking laws, why is there no investigation into these crimes?

9. Mr. Hodges, in an update to his plaintiffs, said that he hears that the DOJ signed off on the distribution of our money, and says that his trustee is in constructive control of that money. He said he has three independent eye witnesses who have seen the packages coming to all shareholders with their restitution in it. It is the legal duty of the DOJ/FBI to investigate these eye witnesses who have seen these packages as they contain the restitution for the victims in this case?

10. Plaintiff Robert Hollenegg contacted the London FBI, and has contacted the Las Vegas FBI to give his statement of the facts as he knows them. He will corroborate public statements he made including the fact he was on the phone with Al Hodges when the funds were transferred to our trustee; funds which have still not been distributed to the victims in this case. Gayle Jacobs of the Las Vegas asked for Mr. Hollenegg’s contact information but did not contact him as of yet. Why has Robert Hollenegg not been interviewed and the facts in question, substantiated?

11. Mr. Hodges claims to have first-hand knowledge that the fund containing the restitution for all CMKX bona fide shareholders was not released BECAUSE it was attached to the World Global Settlements. It is the legal duty of the DOJ/FBI to investigate CMKX being attached to the World Global Settlements and to confirm or deny Al Hodges direct knowledge of this? Mr. Hodges supposedly has direct knowledge that Senators were briefed on the situation and the pending release of the World Global Settlements, which includes the restitution of funds for all bona fide CMKX shareholders. Hodges can corroborate this fact made public by plaintiffs in his bivens case. It is the FBI’s duty to corroborate with Al Hodges the public comments made by the plaintiffs in his case; public comments which were updates directly from Mr. Hodges and entered into the FBI?

12. Mr. Hodges has an eye witness to the deals made by the DOJ and Robert Maheu in Las Vegas; he claims these deals were videotaped. The Coalition wants these tapes made public immediately if our restitution is not released.

13. Work was done to identify the brokers, who counterfeited CMKX stock that includes Jim DeCosta’s report; Susanne Trimbath’s report; and the Cert Pull work product in possession of the SEC; all of which were hidden from the public. Is this not clear evidence of a cover up of the crimes committed by Wall Street brokers? The Coalition wants all those records made public immediately and those experts deposed, or our restitution released. These records will show which brokers stole 190 million dollars from CMKX shareholders, and will allow us to take legal actions against them if Mr. Hodges is lying and there were no deals made in secret by the DOJ and Robert Maheu.

14. The Coalition asks for a complete list of what documents were given to CMKX management in the SEC file, and exactly what confidential banking records CMKX management and Bill Frizzell were privy to and when. This will immediately prove whether this was a sting operation, or whether these individuals aided Urban Casavant to commit fraud.

15. Several letters were written and made public by Al Hodges to different world leaders that allege crimes were or are being committed by high ranking officials in the United States, including the board of the Federal Reserve. These crimes affect the release of our restitution and the Coalition would like an immediate investigation into these allegations. A list of names and contact information from all letters is available to corroborate their authenticity.

16. In file no. S7-19-07, Bud Burrell, consultant in the John O’Quinn multi trillion dollar lawsuit against Wall Street brokers for naked shorting, states the following regarding CMKX: “No fewer than three federal criminal confidential informants were involved in the deal before the stock ever started trading”. The Coalition would like this investigated and Bud Burrell deposed as he has information regarding the sting operation that took place. He can also comment on the size of the overall fraud that was covered up over the past decade and the Authorities role in that cover up.

If the above isn’t proof enough that a thorough immediate investigation be conducted of the DOJ, the SEC and the FBI, then perhaps what is written below will convince you from deepcapture.com. This is one of the Authorities own admitting the truth over a decade ago, the Authorities were and are completely captured. This is evidenced by the fact the crimes talked about below continue unabated to today:

“In 1996, FBI Special Agent Robert Wright launched Operation Vulgar Betrayal, the FBI’s first major effort to crack down on what would later be termed the “SAAR Network” of financial entities with links to Hamas, Al Qaeda, and other jihadi outfits. Among Agent Wright’s principal targets were the billionaire hedge fund manager Yasin al Qadi (who, as I say, was Osama bin Laden’s favorite financier) and his U.S.-based bagman, Yaqub Mirza. But Wright (who referred to Yasin al Qadi as “Al Qaeda’s banker”) was removed from the investigation in 1999. Operation Vulgar Betrayal was shut down in 2000. According to Wright, his team’s efforts were foiled by U.S. politicians and FBI higher-ups who were unnerved by the fact that he was investigating powerful people who had considerable influence in both Washington and Saudi Arabia (ostensibly a key U.S. ally). Former Special Agent Wright said, in essence, that the U.S. Department of Justice had been captured by Al Qaeda’s most important financiers. The capture apparently extends to the SEC, which has shown no signs of investigating the trading of people like the billionaires who comprise Al Qaeda’s Golden Chain and who funded the SAAR Network. (In fact, in the view of Deep Capture, the capture of the SEC by criminal financial operators is essentially total, unlike the DOJ.)
When Agent Wright blew the whistle on the political interference with his FBI investigation, he literally broke down in tears as he publicly apologized for the FBI’s failure to complete its mission.”

In conclusion, the Coalition demands our restitution be released immediately, or a thorough independent investigation into the evidence entered in this complaint. We demand an outside agency investigate on our behalf as we have clearly shown that the Authorities are not capable of being unbiased as Former Special Agent Wright said, in essence, that the U.S. Department of Justice had been captured, he should have included the SEC.

Read more: http://camrhon.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=safe&thread=6828&page=52#51571#ixzz1SVTi97Zj

July 18th, 2011 | Tags: Al Hodges, bloomberg, CMKX, Counterfeit, Dinar, FBI, fox news, Goldman Sachs, homeland security, JP Morgan, media, Naked, News, News Corp, NY Post, NY Times, President Obama, Radio wars, Robert Maheu. CIA, Rupert Murdoch, RV, SEC, Siri, sirius, Stock Shock, stocks, wall street, washington post, WSJ | Category: Uncategorized | One comment
Wall Street Revolution May 4th - May 6th, 2011 @ Goldman Sachs Building
Wall Street Revolution May 4th – 6th, 2011 @ Goldman Sachs Building <<<   click on link to see the 4 minute Video about the Revolution.  see you in NYC

Come Join us on the anniversary of Goldman Sachs being fined $450,000 for Counterfeiting Stocks on Wall Street on 385 separate times during the two month period of December 2008 and January 2009 towards the end of the financial meltdown. We will be  Wall Street Revolution May 4th – 6th, 2011 @ Goldman Sachs Building at the Goldman Sachs building on May 4th, 2011 – May 6th, 2011 showing Wall Street videos and facts about Goldman Sachs crimes that have gone unreported by the news media.

We will be there until May 6th, 2011 to protest also the 1 year anniversary of the Flash Crash and how 1 year later there are still no answers and still no arrests for the Flash Crash.

please spread the word and come Join me.      Wall Street Revolution May 4th – 6th, 2011 @ Goldman Sachs Building

Richard Keane

BMFL<OD

next week(s) is here

IQD and CMKX:

Is there any connection She may be getting news from Dinar Gurus!!! Rate Topic:  #1    Diamond4me 

Senior Member

Group: Members Posts: 246 Joined: 09-April 11 Posted Today, 06:55 PM

Re: ***Rumor Discussion Thread***
Reply #68 Today at 9:18am

Mona Lisa Smiles: DinarReXXXX.com
Mona Lisa Smiles: The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is implementing Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, which terminated the national emergency declared with respect to Iraq in Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990, and revoked that and subsequent Executive orders, by removing the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Mona Lisa Smiles: klonopin2mg
thank you c5steve...That's what i wanted exactly!
still, i think the IQD has about been or has been "cleared"
we'll know in short order...

Mona Lisa Smiles: my focus is on cmkx, but i am enjoying the "connection" whether directly or indirectly
yup! just waiting for the BOMB to drop, last arial survey/recon has been completed in my book. bwthdik

Mona Lisa Smiles: : did you see that the US TREASURY TODAY TOOK IRAQ OFF THE SDC (CANNOT TRANSACT BUSINESS LIST)....is it just me or does this mean iraq is finally a soveriegn nation...and their currency to be tradable with US Treasury and on forex etc...in other words IQD has been "cleared for RV"??? i say yes. just saying!!!! HOPE IS VERY MUCH ALIVE!

Mona Lisa Smiles: i have NOT checked this out...to busy at work and i'm more of a PRO-CMKX SHAREHOLDER...and i'm liking our odds.
klon

Mona Lisa Smiles: Geithner: "As we look at the world today, the IMF has very substantial, uncommitted, financial resources."


Mona Lisa Smiles: well scrap this post i did yesterday cause the G20 are meeting starting today not the G7 as previously told...something big is about to go down...congratulations cmkxer's

Mona Lisa Smiles: US to Play 'Very Major Role' In Helping Europe: Geithner

Mona Lisa Smiles: http://www.cnbc.com/id/44902075

Mona Lisa Smiles: WASHINGTON: U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Friday that the current financial resources of the International Monetary Fund and the European Union are enough to deal with the eurozone debt crisis. [1] PARIS (AP

Mona Lisa Smiles: U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says Europe and the Internationl Monetary Fund both have ample resources to deal with Europe's sovereign debt crisis. There have recently been calls for authorities to boost their financial firepower to face down the threat of economic collapse.

Mona Lisa Smiles: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the U.S. has a "huge interest" in Europe solving its sovereign-debt crisis.

Mona Lisa Smiles: could this be the mass arrests we were waiting for

Mona Lisa Smiles:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geither: 'Dramatic enforcement' actions against Wall Street comingby Joan McCarterFollow .

Mona Lisa Smiles: Yeah, OWS is all about bringing down our long-term deficits. Yeesh. Someone get him a primer on the last three and a half years for the 99 percent and a new set of talking points, stat.

Mona Lisa Smiles: At any rate, if it's really going to happen, hurrah and about d*mned time. We will definitely stay tuned, and be there to clap as hard as the administration could ask when the indictments start coming down.
.
Mona Lisa Smiles: Tramp:he just may be right, or its one day 'this week'
the unveiling about europe is at the WTO, next sunday, the 23thd....
could it be
the world global settlements'?
as timmy said...'stay tuned'
http://cmkxunofficia...ead=9160&page=5

This post has been edited by Diamond4me: Today, 06:58 PM

1   


Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/87858-iqd-and-cmkx-is-there-any-connection/#ixzz1azlGSMeO

BMFL<OD

next week(s) is here

No. 11-55169
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID ANDERSON et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
CHRISTOPHER COX, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
AFFIRMANCE AND STAY OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
APPEAL FROM
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. SACV 10-00031 JVS (MLGx)
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
LEON W. WEIDMAN
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
KEITH M. STAUB [SBN: 137909]
Assistant United States Attorney
Federal Building, Room 7516
300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-7423
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 1 of 10 (1 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE
AND STAY OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 3-6, Defendants-Appellees CHRISTOPHER COX,
MARY L. SCHAPIRO, CYNTHIA A. GLASSMAN, PAUL S. ATKINS, ROEL
C. CAMPOS, ANNETTE L. NAZARETH, TROY A. PAREDES, LUIS A.
AGUILAR, ELISSE B. WALTER, and KATHLEEN L. CASEY, all of whom are
current and former Chairmen and/or Commissioners of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (hereinafter referred to as “SEC”), hereby move the Court
to summarily affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs-Appellants David
Anderson, Nelson L. Reynolds, Sheila Morris, Patrick Cluney, Robert Hollenegg,
Allan Treffry and Reece Hamilton’s (hereinafter referred to as “Appellants”) First
Amended Complaint and to stay the briefing schedule until the motion for
summary affirmance is resolved.
Appellants are shareholders in CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (“CMKM”). The
action arises out of the sale of stock from CMKM to Appellants, the corporation’s
On October 2 1 7, 2011, this Court denied the SEC’s motion for summary
affirmance, without prejudice to renewal following the filing of the opening brief.
Dkt. Entry 15.
1
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 2 of 10 (2 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
subsequent resolution to self-liquidate, and the alleged involvement of the SEC in
that process. Appellants contend that during the liquidation of CMKM’s assets,
the SEC repeatedly delayed distribution of money recovered and held in trust for
Appellants. Appellants’ First Amended Complaint asserts claims for declaratory
judgment and deprivation of their Fifth Amendment rights under the Takings
Clause and Due Process Clause.
On appeal, Appellants argue that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution protects their property interest in receiving distribution of assets that
were allegedly collected upon liquidation of CMKM’s assets, pursuant to Bivens
v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bur. of Narc., 403 U.S. 388, 297 (1971). AOB 2.2
This Court should summarily affirm the district court’s dismissal of the
action for the following reasons: (1) Appellants’ Takings Claim is not cognizable
because they do not have a proprietary interest in the funds sought; Broad v.
Sealaska Corp., 85 F.3d 422, 430 (9th Cir. 1996); (2) Appellants’ Due Process
Claim fails because they have no legitimate claim of entitlement to the funds
[Board of Regents of State Coll. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)] and because
they do not have a property interest in the funds when the SEC retains discretion
2 “AOB” refers to Appellant’s opening brief followed by the applicable page
number.
2
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 3 of 10 (3 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
to disburse those funds [Erickson v. United States, 67 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir.
1995)]; and (3) Appellants’ claims against the SEC Commissioners in their official
capacities are barred by sovereign immunity; Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 707
(9th Cir. 1997).
Because this appeal is clearly controlled by precedent, this Court should
summarily affirm the district court’s dismissal. See United States v. Hooton, 693
F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982)(per curiam).
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
A. Appellants’ Factual Allegations
Appellants owned shares of CMKM stock. (ER 34.)3 In 2005, the SEC
imposed a temporary suspension of trading of CMKM stock based on concerns
over the adequacy of publicly available information, and then brought an
administrative proceeding alleging CMKM had failed to file required reports. (ER
39-40.)
In July 2005, an SEC administrative law judge found the facts to be as
alleged by the SEC in the administrative proceeding. (ER 41-42.) The SEC de-
3 “ER” refers to Appellant’s Excerpts of Record followed by the applicable
page number.
3
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 4 of 10 (4 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
registered the CMKM stock in October 2005. (ER 42.) CMKM then started to
wind up its affairs by selling its assets. (Id.)
Appellants allege that SEC Appellees Glassman, Atkins, Campos and the
United States Department of Justice (with alleged assistance from the Department
of Homeland Security) operated a “sting operation” and used CMKM to “trap[] a
number of widely-disbursed [sic] persons who were believed to be engaged in
naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock.”4 (ER 45-47.) In a settlement
between CMKM and the short sellers, the short sellers allegedly “promised to pay
negotiated amounts to a frozen trust for disbursal [sic] at a later time” in return for
a promise that the United States government would not prosecute them. (ER 48.)
Appellants further allege that money was “collected for the benefit of the
shareholders of CMKM... [and] have been placed in a trust, or are otherwise now
held in trust, by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation [“DTCC”], a
privately-owned clearing house for all secured financial transactions which take
place in the United States, and the United States Treasury, pursuant to a Trust
Agreement on behalf of the shareholders.” (Emphasis added) (ER 49.)
4 The FAC does not define or explain naked short selling, and resolution of
this motion does not require definition of that practice. However, some general
information on naked short selling is available at http://www.sec.gov/ spotlight/
keyregshoissues.htm.
4
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 5 of 10 (5 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
Appellants further allege that SEC Appellees “held and hold the sole and
absolute discretion to determine when moneys collected pursuant to the scheme
set forth above would and could be released for distribution.” (ER 49-50.)
Appellants allege that “[d]emand for release of said moneys has been repeatedly
presented to [SEC Appellees], and each of them, without result.” (ER 50.)
Appellants contend that the SEC’s repeated failure to distribute money
collected in the trust constitutes a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. (ER 54-55.) Based on these alleged events,
Appellants assert claims for deprivation of their civil rights against current and
former Chairmen and/or SEC Commissioners, in their individual and official
capacities, under Bivens.
B. Procedural Background
On August 2, 2010, the district court dismissed the original complaint, with
leave to amend, because Appellants failed to identify a viable property interest,
which is a necessary predicate to claims under the Takings Clause and Due
Process Clause.5 (ER 78; Clerk’s Record 15.)
On September 21, 2010, Appellants filed a First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) for declaratory judgment and deprivation of their Fifth Amendment
5 See, e.g., Broad v. Sealaska Corp., 85 F.3d 422, 430 (9th Cir.
1996)(Takings Clause); Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of the Lynwood Unified Sch.
Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998)(Due Process Clause).
5
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 6 of 10 (6 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
Rights under the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clause. (ER 24.) Pursuant
to the SEC’s motion to dismiss, on December 6, 2010, the district court dismissed
the FAC, with prejudice. (ER 3.)6
III.
ARGUMENT
A. The Court Should Grant Summary Affirmance
Summary affirmance of the district court’s dismissal is appropriate when “it
is clear from the face of the appellant’s pleadings that . . . the appeal is patently
insubstantial or clearly controlled by precedent . . . .” In re Keith, 508 F.3d 1225,
1227 (9th Cir. 2007); See also United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.
1982) (per curiam).
1. The district court properly dismissed Appellants’ Takings
Claim
As the district court noted, Appellants’ Takings Claim fails because such a
claim is not cognizable under the alleged facts. Broad, 85 F.3d at 430. In Broad,
this Court considered the Takings Claim of a number of shareholders who
challenged the creation of a trust that favored one group of shareholders over
6 In light of the district court’s disposition of the Takings Clause and Due
Process Clause claims, the court did not consider SEC Appellees’ argument that
their conduct was protected by qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194,
200 (2001). (ER 3.)
6
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 7 of 10 (7 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
another. Id. at 425-426. In rejecting the Takings Claim, this Court noted that,
“almost universally,” Takings Claims involve rights to real property, and plaintiffs
cited no cases suggesting that the Takings Clause applied to their personal
property. Id. at 430. This Court further noted that shareholders did not “directly
own any part of a corporation’s property or assets,” and that shareholders merely
held a “proportionate interest in the corporate equity remaining after a corporation
meets all its other debts and obligations.” Id. Accordingly, this Court concluded
that “the plaintiff shareholders have no proprietary interest that could have been
taken.” Id.
Here, Appellants claim they are entitled to recover their interest in CMKM
stock that was placed in a trust. As in Broad, Appellants do not have a proprietary
interest in the funds that could have been taken under the Takings Clause. Thus,
the district court properly held that Appellants’ Takings Claim fails to state a
claim, and this Court should summarily affirm dismissal of that claim.
2. The district court properly dismissed Appellant’s Due Process
Claim
The district court properly dismissed Appellants’ Due Process Claim as
well. In asserting a procedural Due Process Claim, Appellants must establish:
(1) the deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest; and
(2) a denial of adequate procedural protection. Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of the
7
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 8 of 10 (8 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
Lynwood Unified School Dist., 149 F.3d at 982. Property rights are not created by
the Constitution, but are defined by independent sources such as state law,
statutes, ordinances, regulations or express and implied contracts. Board of
Regents of State Coll. v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577 (“To have a property interest in a
benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He
must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a
legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”).
Indeed, Appellants concede that they have found no case authority
supporting the notion that a shareholder’s property right is Constitutionally
protected. AOB 32-33. Moreover, as the district court stated, Appellants have
asserted nothing more than a “unilateral expectation” of receiving funds but have
not demonstrated a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to such funds. (ER 3.)
Finally, to the extent Appellants claim that the SEC, in its discretion, wrongfully
denied release of the alleged trust funds, such a claim does not lie. An individual
has no property interest in a particular benefit where a government agency retains
discretion to grant or deny the benefit. See, e.g., Erickson v. United States, 67
F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1995); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir.
1994); Swanson v. Babbit, 3 F.3d 1348, 1353-54 (9th Cir. 1993).
8
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 9 of 10 (9 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
Therefore, this Court should summarily affirm the district court’s decision
to dismiss Appellants’ Due Process Claim because they have failed to establish a
legitimate claim of entitlement to, or a property interest in, the funds at issue.
3. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for other
reasons
Appellants asserted claims against the SEC Commissioners in their official
capacities; such claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Hodge v. Dalton, 107
F.3d at 707. Accordingly, there is no jurisdiction over those claims.
B. Request to Stay Briefing
SEC Appellees seek a stay in the briefing schedule until this motion is
decided. Appellants’ brief was filed on December 5, 2011 and SEC Appellees’
answering brief is due January 4, 2012.
Dated: January 3, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
/s/ Keith M. Staub
KEITH M. STAUB
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants-SEC Appellees
9
Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-1 Page: 10 of 10 (10 of 11)
Courtesy of Fishes Board
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate
CM/ECF system.
I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I
have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it
to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following
non-CM/ECF participants:
Signature (use "s/" format)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
9th Circuit Case Number(s)

Case: 11-55169 01/03/2012 ID: 8017505 DktEntry: 20-2 Page: 1 of 1 (11 of 11)
"s/" Francis Vargas
11-55169
Jan 3, 2012

December 26, 2011

To All CMKM Shareholders:

I hope all of you had a very Merry Christmas yesterday, with plenty of family time, gifts, and good food! We have much to be thankful for, and the Holidays give many of us time to fellowship, enjoy special memories, and rest (hopefully)!

Since I posted my initial letter to you on December 12, 2011, I have had the privilege of talking with several shareholders by phone or through e-mails. I appreciate the messages of support that many have expressed. I hope to help develop a great sense of unity among all shareholders over time.

The New Year is almost upon us, and with it the many challenges and opportunities we face both individually and as a company come back into focus.   CMKM has many ongoing efforts to move the company into a better financial position – that is job #1. If that task can be accomplished, then the dominoes should begin to fall our way for a change.

Let me reiterate that I fully intend to bring a new level of communication and transparency to the shareholders. I hope you will support that effort, and welcome it.

I hope that each of you enjoy the remainder of the holidays to the fullest! Let’s all hope and pray that 2012 is the year that the tide turns for CMKM Diamonds, Inc. I assure you that we will be working diligently on your behalf to make that happen. Happy New Year, and God bless!

Steve Kirkpatrick

December 12, 2011

To All CMKM Shareholders:

It is with a tremendous amount of excitement that I introduce myself to you, the shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.  My name is Steve Kirkpatrick, and I am thankful and proud to serve you as the new President and Chairman of the Board of CMKM. I, too, am a shareholder of CMKM, and it is my strong desire to bring to you a well-deserved return on your investment in this company.

I want to express a heartfelt “thank you” to Mr. Jim Lowden, Mr. Kevin West, and Mr. Bill Frizzell for the diligent efforts these men have made to move the company forward under difficult circumstances. These are men of integrity, and I can assure you that, without each one of their contributions, it is doubtful that CMKM would have survived to this point. They all have been instrumental in helping me get “up to speed” with the many details involved in this transition. They are truly “unsung heroes” in ways that may come to light in the days ahead.

I do not personally know any of the former Board members, but want to thank them for their time of service to CMKM. I wish them well with their future endeavors.

Please allow me to address some of the issues that may be on your minds:

COMMUNICATION FROM MANAGEMENT
I will make a diligent effort to keep the shareholders informed and updated on a regular basis from this day forward. I will use the company website for written updates. However, I believe the shareholders want and deserve a forum that will allow you to ask legitimate questions, and get answers. Over the next few days, I will make contact with one or two of the Pal Talk rooms in an effort to set up a live forum for me to talk with shareholders. I hope to have the session recorded so that shareholders will be able to listen at a later date. If this medium proves to be effective, perhaps it can be used on a regular basis as important events occur.

As company finances improve, I will host webinar events online that will be recorded and archived on the company website. Also, I have had calls from owners/moderators of various boards offering communication options. I will research these opportunities as well.

Please be aware that I do not and never have posted on any of the “boards”.
It is important for shareholders to understand that I will not have the answers to every question. Public discussion of certain topics could compromise our position with regard to ongoing litigation or collection efforts. Some topics serve no value in moving the company forward. I will, however, provide honest feedback on subjects that are open to discussion.

SHAREHOLDER MEETING PLANS
As has been stated before by CMKM management, the only reason that a shareholder meeting has not been planned or held is the sheer lack of the funds needed to host such a meeting. I hope to provide enough feedback to the shareholders to fill the “void” until such time that funds to hold a meeting are available.

NEW BOARD OF DIRECTORS
As you know, all previous Board members have resigned. I am in the process of assembling a group to sit on the Board of CMKM. Unfortunately, in order to get quality professionals to sit on a corporate board, the company needs to be able to cover the Board with liability insurance. Many of the people I have in mind for the Board have significant assets, and will not join the Board without the insurance coverage. The Board will be selected, and will be on “standby” until the funds are available to insure them.

I have discussed the Board positions with several highly qualified individuals, and have commitments from two so far. I want a diverse group with the business and life experience to truly help me move this company forward. I will keep you informed on this process.

AL HODGES AND THE BIVENS LAWSUIT
I spoke with Mr. Al Hodges recently. I assured Mr. Hodges that I would help any way possible if he needs anything from company management to move his case forward. However, the Hodges case is a totally separate issue from the operation of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

I believe Al Hodges is an honorable man and a very good attorney. From what I can gather, he has put his entire law practice and professional reputation on the line for this lawsuit. I am convinced Mr. Hodges truly believes he will prevail. I wish him the best.

However, the position of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. is neutral with regard to the Hodges effort. I can assure you that company management has no “inside” information to share.

COMPANY HEADQUARTERS
The company headquarters will be moved from Tyler, Texas in the near future. When the relocation is complete, I will update you with all the facts.

2010 TAX RETURN
As you have seen, the 2010 tax return has been released on the company website for your review. I am sure many of you have questions about the return. I will discuss the return with our accounting firm, and will be as prepared as possible to answer questions during the first Pal Talk session.
If you are not familiar with how to “read” a corporate tax return, then you may become confused or make incorrect judgments about the “numbers”. I hope each shareholder will get the real facts before making incorrect assumptions.

SHORT-TERM PLANS
There is much work to be done. However, a quick look at the 2010 tax return will help you understand my most pressing priority. The company has assets, but no operating cash at the present time. We have significant liabilities that need to be paid soon. The task of converting real estate assets into cash is underway. I was in Clayton, Georgia on Friday, 12/9/11 interviewing agents to list and sell the land we own there. I hope to sell the land rapidly for enough cash to pay all current liabilities in full.
There are several parcels of land that can be acquired through judgments – it will take time to convert those to cash. We have many millions of dollars judgments in favor of CMKM against several individuals, but many, if not most of those judgments are uncollectable.

There are other potential sources of cash on the horizon, but to discuss them in this forum could compromise our position and ability to collect funds.

LONG TERM GOALS
The following list outlines goals I hope to accomplish over the next two or three years:
1. Test 1010 core samples.
2. Return CMKX stock to trading status.
3. Form “New Corp” to work or sell off 1010 claims, giving CMKM shareholders a pro-rata stake in the “New Corp”.
4. Ultimately, provide a good and well-deserved return on investment to all bona-fide CMKM shareholders.
These goals are realistic and attainable, but not guaranteed.

SUMMARY
As I stated in my opening paragraph, I am truly excited about the potential CMKM holds. I believe in the potential enough to spend my time and energy without cash compensation at this time. I know what needs to be done, and I know how to do what needs to be done. However, I am not a “miracle worker”. I will put the work into the company that is necessary, but the company needs some good things to happen for a change.
The negative verdict in the Glenn case was a major setback for CMKM. We had a very good case, but, as we have seen in recent years – a good case doesn’t always insure a positive verdict in court.

What we have as CMKM shareholders is a company that has been damaged severely by many illegal activities in years past, but is still alive and has a good chance of becoming a profitable venture.

There are many misconceptions about CMKM due to its past history. However, let me assure each of you that I know of no conspiracies, mystery “money men”, or anything else of that nature. I hope to address these issues in more detail in the near future.

We have a much better chance for success if we are unified as shareholders. I ask for your support, and if you believe in prayer – pray for this company and for me as I lead the effort. I assure you that I will conduct business honorably and diligently. I look forward to working on your behalf in the days ahead.

God bless!
Steve Kirkpatrick

Shareholder update 12.9.2011

To all CMKM shareholders,

The management team of CMKM has changed. The company&rsquo;s statement earlier this year read as follows:

&ldquo;The goal of this management is to build a company one step at a time. It is of the opinion of the company that a round table team of shareholders be assembled with approximately 7 individuals. These individuals will assist the company in their past knowledge and their ideas moving forward. It is important that these individuals have a good standing with our shareholders&rdquo;

Please be advised that the company received several responses to the quest for the round table group and for the CEO position.

October 31, 2011 Tom Stevenson and Stan Polsom resigned their positions as Directors of the Company leaving Roger Summers as the sole remaining Director.

November 17,  2011, Mr. Summers signed a resolution to bring new management onboard to bring in a fresh new perspective.

November 18,  2011 Mr. Steve Kirkpatrick accepted the position as the new President and Chairman of the Board. Please join the Company in welcoming Mr. Steve Kirkpatrick.  Mr. Kirkpatrick was one of the people who applied for the position of CEO earlier this year and brings with him a wealth of business contacts and experience that he will utilize in moving the Company forward.

December 6,  2011, Mr. Summers tendered his resignation as a Director of CMKM.

The Company would like to sincerely thank Mr. Tom Stevenson; Mr. Stan Polsom, and Mr. Roger Summers who unselfishly and freely gave of their time to CMKM. It is because of these Men and the Company&rsquo;s management that CMKM is prepared to move forward.

The Shareholders of CMKM Diamonds will be happy to know that Mr. Kirkpatrick is motivated to continue the growth of the company, the communication between company and shareholders will be better than it has ever been using the new technologies and social media.
Mr. Kirkpatrick will be personally addressing the shareholders through an update on this website by early next week.

The Company's 2010 Tax Return can be found HERE

The SEC Appears to Be Colluding with the Management of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.


The pa rticipation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in political cronyism and crony capitalism and its practice of covering up for its indisputable gross negligence and seeming criminal complicity (hereinafter collectively referred to as "business as usual") creates an environment in which perpetrators are able to perpetrate their wrongdoing with impunity.

Pertaining to CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (CMKM), business as usual of the SEC and its SEC Enforcement Division Attorneys, John M. McCoy, Molly M. White, and Leslie Hakala (hereinafter collectively referred to as "malfeasant SEC Attorneys"), allows Kevin West, off-and-on COB/CEO/President of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., (CMKM) , Mark Faulk, former CEO/President of CMKM, all other subsequent illegally-appointed officers of CMKM, and Bill Frizzell , current attorney for CMKM (hereinafter collectively referred to as "CMKM management") to operate CMKM without calling an annual shareholder meeting. By failing to call an annual shareholder meeting, the CMKM management breaches CMKM's bylaws, violates Texas Business Corporation Act, Article 2.24(B), and therefore is liable for mismanagement (hereinafter collectively referred to as "wrongdoing").

Even if CMKM management's wrongdoing does not fall within the purview of the SEC and its malfeasant SEC Attorneys, they are still conducting business as usual for failing to refer CMKM management's wrongdoing to the appropriate governmental enforcement agencies.

What is even more disturbing is that the business as usual of the SEC and its malfeasant SEC Attorneys indicates they are colluding with the CMKM management by agreeing not to file a complaint against it for its wrongdoing.
Thus, the CMKM management is now able to illegally operate CMKM without calling an annual shareholder meeting, which includes, but is not limited to, pursuing the following expedient goals: filing complaints against the previous CMKM management for the pump and dump fraud it perpetrated against CMKM investors, appointing their cronies as officers of CMKM, obtaining default judgments (potentially tens of millions of dollars), hopefully collecting on those default judgments, and ultimately splitting Bill Frizzell's contingency fees if those default judgments are collectible (potentially tens of millions of dollars).

In return, the CMKM management agrees not to expose the business as usual of the SEC and its malfeasant SEC Attorneys pertaining to the illegal naked short selling of CMKM's stock and numerous other issues.
Read my articles on OpEdNews -- "The SEC Learned Nothing from Madoff -- Check Out CMKM Diamonds, Inc., for Proof" and "Can the Office of the Inspector General Be Trusted to Perform its Mandated Duties and Hold the SEC Accountable?" -- for the gamut of the business as usual of the SEC and its malfeasant employees.

The following flip-flop of the CMKM management pertaining to the illegal naked short selling of CMKM's stock points toward said collusion:

Before being appointed or hired to their respective positions with CMKM, the CMKM management advocates stock market reform in general and questions the business as usual of the SEC and its malfeasant SEC Attorneys in particular regarding the illegal naked short selling of CMKM's stock.

Excerpts from three of Bill Frizzell's emails:
"I can confirm that actions are contemplated which will identify the naked short position which may exist."

"We proved a huge naked short position in this company a long time ago."

"Our investigation reveals a potentially huge naked short position in at least two of the very companies that have sent us certs."

In his 1-6-06 SEC Deposition, Bill Frizzell testifies repeatedly under oath that CMKM was illegally naked shorted, pages 123, 149-151, 155, 164, and 167;

In his 6-1-06 article, "The CMKX Story: When Too Much Isn't Enough," Mark Faulk points out that brokerages give phony excuses for their failing to deliver stock certificates to CMKM shareholders.
After being illegally appointed or illegally hired to their respective positions with CMKM , the CMKM management flip-flops its position pertaining to the illegal naked short selling of CMKM's stock as evidenced by the following:

In FAQ Session #s 1-4, 6, and 13-14 (8-10-07 to 6-1-08), the CMKM management pronounces that CMKM's being illegally naked shorted is no longer a primary concern; and furthermore, they cover up the illegal status of CMKM's naked short sales which denotes fraud, RICO, and punitive damages and replace it with the legal status of failures to deliver which merely denotes bookkeeping errors and the mere recovering of one's investment.
Mark Faulk constantly disrespects and belittles CMKM shareholders on his show, "The Faulking Truth Show," on Toginet when they broach the subject of their being victimized by the illegal naked short selling of CMKM's stock.

Because the flip-flop is so transparent, many CMKM shareholders are able to interpret it to mean that the CMKM management is colluding with the SEC and its malfeasant SEC Attorneys as evidenced by the following posts of CMKM shareholders in CMKM forums:

"It appears that the Tyler gang has been bought off...... could that be the case, Kevin?

"It is clear that you have signed some sort of settlement agreement in which you promised not to sue the bankers and brokers""

"So Mssrs Faulk, West, and Frizzell, you will all be guilty of criminal negligence if you do not get shareholders the compensation they deserve, for being victimized by the largest naked short in the history of Wall Street."

"Kevin, Mark" if you two turned to the darkside, we will be united in the things we do to the 2 of you....think you can't sleep at night now think about the nights after the truth comes out......"

In response to the business as usual of the SEC and its malfeasant SEC Attorneys, I file the following complaints with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) against the SEC and its malfeasant employees:

On 9-1-11, I file Complaint, Report #115612564 against the SEC and a malfeasant employee for their stonewalling my SEC Complaint, Case Number HO102219.

On 11-15-11, the OIG confirms that it has opened a preliminary inquiry into possible SEC staff misconduct pertaining to Complaint, Report #115612564.

On 9-2-11, I file Complaint, Report #115613986 against SEC and the SEC malfeasant Attorneys for their failure to comply with the demands listed in my 8-18-11 Petition Letter that I start on Change.org.

On 9-19-11, the OIG confirms that it has opened a preliminary inquiry into possible SEC staff misconduct pertaining to Complaint, Report #115613986.

On 1-5-12, I file with the OIG, Complaint, Report #116066995, against the SEC and its malfeasant SEC Attorneys for their supra business as usual .

As of the date I submit this article, the OIG has not yet confirmed that it has opened a preliminary inquiry into possible SEC staff misconduct pertaining to Complaint, Report # 116066995.

Because CMKM shareholders are fed up with the business as usual of the SEC and its malfeasant SEC Attorneys, seven CMKM shareholders take matters into their own hands on 12-14-11 and file a Petition for Shareholder Meeting and Order for Inspection of Corporate Records, Cause No. 11-3417-A, against the CMKM management in the District Court of Smith County, Texas, 7th Judicial District, for its failure to call an annual shareholder meeting and for its failure to investigate a trust fund that has allegedly been set aside for CMKM shareholders; and then on 12-19-11, they file a Motion for Summary Judgment against the CMKM management.

My articles on OpEdNews point toward a disturbing truism: The SEC is not a solution to the problem -- the SEC is the problem.

Now it is up to the OIG to hold the SEC and its malfeasant employees accountable for their business as usual.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-SEC-Appears-to-Be-Coll-by-Robert-Lightworker-120110-576.html?show=votes

Glad to see the site back online, well done Gentlemen.

Subject: File No. S7-08-08 From: al ho Affiliation: Injured Shareholder of NSS

March 24, 2008

Mr. Cox, you may like reading this: CMKX Shareholders Coalition for Market Reform unites against systemic problem create market wide awareness

On 31May2006, Mr. Bill Frizzell, a member of the CMKM Task Force and CMKM Diamonds shareholder attorney, submitted an extensive letter of complaint to the NASD Investor Complaint Center. Coupled with 10 stated complaints, and additional pages available, this letter specifically called for an investigation of brokerage conduct involving an upcoming CMKM distribution. Prior to revocation, CMKM Diamonds Inc. traded on the Pink Sheets with ticker symbol CMKX.

According to the latest CMKM Task Force shareholder count, there are currently over 38,900 CMKX shareholders worldwide of whom this ordeal has affected. With a united front of this size, great responsibility is carried in moving forward against the evils that continue to erode confidence in our securities markets, as apparent in Mr. Bill Frizzell?s letter of complaint. Beyond CMKX, this complaint should elicit sentiments of deep, market wide concern amongst all shareholders participating daily in market activities.

We, the CMKX Shareholders Coalition for Market Reform, are justifiably concerned that naked short selling, the electronic counterfeiting of securities, has became a menace of epidemic proportions, plaguing many viable developmental stage companies, as well as larger, prominent corporations. This behavior may have played a role in the current delay of all CMKM Diamond's shareholders obtaining physical possession of their stock certificates.

Mr. Frizzell's letter of Complaint to the NASD can be found on the CMKM Task Force website:

Re: Request for Investigation of Brokerage Conduct Involving CMKM Distribution http://www.cmkmtaskforce.com/nasdcomplaint.php

"Due to the indisputable evidence of large numbers of failed deliveries in this stock...."

"The most alarming problems are represented by those shareholders who have been requesting certs from their brokers since the company?s first announcement of a distribution seven months ago. Here is a sampling of excuses being given to shareholders as reasons for their inability to obtain a cert:

1. We had your cert, but it is now lost. It will take us another 6 to 8 weeks to obtain another one.

2. This stock purchase was a book entry only and no certificate is available.

3. Your stock was classified as a worthless security and is no longer in your account.

4. Our clearing firm has not been able to deliver these certificates due to a backlog of requests at the transfer agency.

5. I have been instructed we are no longer pulling certs for CMKM and there is nothing I can do. You need to contact the company.

6. CMKM Diamonds has a K code next to it, indicating that it is being held in safekeeping for the client. The clearing agent has made the decision not to issue certs but rather fax a copy of the certs it holds to the transfer agent.

7. Attached herewith is evidence of ownership of shares held electronically by XYZ clearing for ABC broker. ABC to confirm receipt of this proof of shares of CMKM and related companies are held with XYZ.

8. In light of the lack of cooperation (by the transfer agent), your May 15th, 2006 deadline must be bogus and must be extended, and Entourage shares could of course still be sent to ABC for the benefit of XYZ.

9. MNO said they had discussed with the Task Force the acceptability of the affidavit as proof of ownership in lieu of the certificate, and that it would be accepted. No such conversation ever occurred with the Task Force members.

10. We ordered your certificate, and it has been lost. You must now fill out a loss certificate. The transfer agent confirms that no certificate was ever issued.

Each quoted statement above is taken verbatim from a shareholders letter or from a broker's written response to a shareholder's request for a cert. I could continue with pages and pages of documented incidences of these broker responses to the requests of the shareholders if such is necessary to establish the need for a full investigation."

Nevada law NRS 78.235 mandates that each shareholder has the right to request and receive certificates of ownership from the company for their stock. Specifically, the statute states "....Every stockholder is entitled to have a certificate, signed by officers or agents designated by the corporation for the purpose, certifying the number of shares owned by him in the corporation."

To the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, regulatory officials, and Congressional Representatives, it is respectfully requested:

"This law has been broken and some seven months later, the people/shareholders of CMKX request that the necessary steps be taken to enforce this law."

Further, the impact of naked short selling (electronic stock counterfeiting), has had negative and far reaching effects on many companies, in which shares are being traded daily. The mounting indications of manipulative shorting and massive failures to deliver (electronic stock counterfeiting) associated within the fails statistics and confidential records held by the clearance corporations, leaves more questions than answers in regards to the enormity of this problem.

"Compliance with Regulation SHO began on January 3, 2005. Regulation SHO was adopted to update short sale regulation in light of numerous market developments since short sale regulation was first adopted in 1938.

Regulation SHO requires the SROs to disseminate a daily list of threshold securities where such SRO, or its market center, is the primary listing venue for any such security.

Currently, threshold lists include the name and ticker symbol of securities that meet the threshold level on a particular settlement date. Some investors have requested that the SROs provide more detailed information for each threshold security, including the total number of fails, the total short interest position, the name of the broker-dealer firm responsible for the fails, and the names of the customers of responsible brokers and dealers responsible for the short sales. The fails statistics of individual firms and customers is proprietary information and may reflect firms' trading strategies. The release of this information could be used to engage in unlawful upward manipulation of the price of the securities in order to "squeeze" the firms improperly."

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm

However, considering the above information, the confidentiality and anonymity privileges enjoyed by these firms is at the expense of the victimized companies in question and their investors.

Starting with an increased awareness of this issue now is the time to act and let our collective voices be heard. While the CMKX shareholder base, of over 38,900+ shareholders worldwide, provides a formidable force to be reckoned with, the appeal of this complaint should capture the attention of all those who participate in a market that all investors should be able to place a great degree of faith and confidence into. Concerns over this issue have been expressed by many companies, beyond CMKX, and are deserving of our collective action.

This press release is meant to serve as a global rallying call for all shareholders, and companies, who have been affected by this issue. The systemic nature of this problem cannot be denied and all efforts will be taken to expose it.

The CMKX Shareholders Coalition for Market Reform is a non-partisan group and is dedicated to creating market wide awareness in regards to the systemic problem of stock manipulation. It is not affiliated, in any way, with the CMKX Owner's Group or the CMKM Task Force.

For more information: Contact: founder@cmkxshareholderscoalition.net http://www.cmkxshareholderscoalition.net/subpage.html

Our shares held in our certificates from the cert pull were
converted to money in our trust...(i believe or certificate
number is related to our "compartment" in the trust, held
by a private company (i believe the dtcc). Brokers/dealers
were given 5 years to get all liens/notes paid in full...

The SEC filed their lawsuit April 2006, 2 months before the deadline
for the Nevada Company to be wound down...Kevin West was nothing more
than the registered agent for Nevada...After he signed off on the
SEC lawsuit April 21, 2008...his job was done...no more business/lawsuits could happen June 21, 2008. Nevada Company no longer existed after June 2008...(Now, the SEC is continuing their 2008 lawsuit by appeal...on Bagley...that's not new business, so it's kosher.)

Hodges lawsuit was filed because he called Obama and asked about our trust...claiming it was $3.78T....Obama looked for it and found it, he added $90B to Hodges figure (for himself) so Obama confirmed the dtcc (a private company) had the trust...

Hodges made many false claims in his lawsuit; i have personal knowledge of those false claims...since i have the true docs to prove it....you see, Maheu and Stoeckline were not the power behind getting us paid....Maheu was appointed by CONGRESS to looking why the SEC allowed 4T unregistered shares flood the market and scam investors. Maheu's job was to disprove that fact; and he could not. The power behind this is LeoWanta, the real LeoWanta which is a code name and is worth over 42T.....this is what hodges wanted to get his hands on...my money; this is the reason he went to Richmond Va...claiming i was his client and to release the money to him....i called the SEC and the SEC called Bush Jr, who moved my money. This is the $4.5T Bush Jr. moved to the Richmond VA BoA June 2006, after Maheu resigned. i believed, that Bush was using this money to earn interest over the 5 years to help the brokers pay what they owed..since some of you hold billions of shares, and i will not tell you the price per share that was demanded be paid....June 2006. (Because Interest since then as been added...it's way more than demanded...probably double the demand...i will tell you this; the demand was not cheap. Anyway, Hodges in Richmond VA for that 2 weeks to us, claimed the account Hodges was claiming belonged to Cottrell...(you see Bush Sr was trying to capture my money; using his goto guy, Cottrell and Lee Emil Wanta who claimed the money was theirs)...this is why hodges wanted in our game; and the reason why he bought the bogus delidog shares...the reason why he filed his lawsuit; he figured he could get control of the money by court order making our distribution through him--of course he would pay all delidog shares and bogus owner group shares out of our trust....eliminating the SEC in our distribution...which i knew was never gonna happen. (i believe after the July 2005 Initial Decision to revoke our security...the owners group sold out...October 28, 2005 it became final...then the cert pull...then delidog begin to sell...and that's why frizzell's extra 20,000 shareholders were added to the mastershareholder lists April 2008...May 2006, we had 39,000 bona fide shareholders (less brokerage houses who tried to cash in on folks who didn't pull their certs)

Today, the problem is Hodges showed the thief in the white house where our trust money is; and they've been using it ever since...stealing it...the SEC is between a hard place and a rock....Schapiro gets fired if she tells the DTCC to release the trust....if she doesn't...for certain when Obozo is gone...she will be gone too..she is in a no win situation...

You see the Japanese have the access codes to my money and all stolen money held in the dtcc/federal reserve....they can't use it; it's still frozen...that is why i posted benjaminfulfords update...the White Dragon Society (the ruling party in Japan) doesn't like thieves and liars....and won't give the bushes anymore loans to bail out banks or give to the military to start wars...they wouldn't take $23T of my money as a bribe, since Ben Fulford is fully aware that i am the real Leo Wanta...the japanese know the bushes and clintons have stolen my money over the past 22 years.

Not to worry, you couldn't have a better individual on your side..You bona fides have the best of the best on your side...LeoWanta--in with our LORD and Saviour holding my right hand..what more could you ask for..these thieves will get away with NOTHING

...all you have to do is watch....money talks ...BS walks....the money is mine our LORD knows it and these thieves are gonna have to give it all back, and the CMKX trust is part of what they've stole.

i don't think it's gonna be much longer, i was told Obama is a Chinaman......that's his home....On Valentines Day, guess where he is going>>>>China, Communist China, where Americans are not welcomed. Obozo is gonna meet with the head honcho in china...they are probably related...they had big plans to take over the USA, covertly..

..no way, no how, this founding father is gonna let that fruitcake in the white house take over my country!

keep the faith nosurrendernc...watch Obama....i think he won't be coming back from China...i think the congress can and will impeach him...then throw him and Michelle in jail for the rest of their lives, IF he comes back to face impeachment.

THANK YOU FATHER
leowanta

when you get a weak moment:

STAND ON THIS TRUTH/PROMISE OF GOD ALMIGHTY TO JOEL HIS PROPHET IN HIS NAME: (GOD ALWAYS KEEPS HIS PROMISES)

Joel 2:25-26

King James Version (KJV)

25And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you.

26And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my people shall never be ashamed.

The Frayer 7 speak to the minions
« Thread Started Today at 6:18pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone tell me what this is about? Sounds to me like the Frayer bunch think they won control and ownership of the company now.

By: retireman
16 Feb 2012, 03:51 pm CST
Rating: post rating 5 Msg. 1068807 of 1068809
Jump to msg. #
shareholder action settlement

i am happy to report to all shareholders that there has been a settlement in the 7th District Court of Smith County, tx Action 11-3417-a, regarding 7 shareholder plaintiffs and cmkm Diamonds, Inc. This settlement paves the way for a open official forum for the shareholders to interact with their company and officers, and for a real shareholder vote to legitimately occur to place elected shareholder representative directors on the board. The Plaintiffs have submitted a motion and an order, to be signed by the judge, for dismissal without prejudice, in case the terms of the agreement are not met. i do not expect this to be an issue at all, because i believe Mr. Kirkpatrick to be a man of integrity and his word.

Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Kozic conducted these negotiations with the intention of doing the best for the shareholders. Both parties realized that should a judge get a look at this situation, the future of cmkm would be cloudy at best, and the company could be put into receivership. i don't think shareholders realize how close this company was to being done....over....kaput. Without the intervention of Mr. Kirkpatrick into this company, cmkx, in my opinion, was doomed. He has already infused his own money to keep this afloat and met obligations the company was mandated to make good on. He can discuss those with all at the upcoming meetings, should he choose to.

Parameters have been agreed upon for shareholder web meetings, a vote of 2 shareholder directors on the board and terms regarding litigation of the naked short issue of this stock and review of records. i invite all to review this agreement.

http://www.zshare.net/download/990860149f9f66c2/


Please be aware that Mr. Kirkpatrck is financing these meetings out of his own pocket, to the tune of thousands of dollars. This is how much he believes in the future possibilities here. There is no company money. The previous management and board basically left this situation high and dry, and in my eyes, looked for someone who could infuse capital and hopefully have some business sense.

In Mr. Kirkpatrick, i believe we have found more than that. We have found a man of means, tact, business acumen, honesty and the ability to take the bull by the horns and march us forward with grounded leadership and hopeful promise for the future. Our negotiations through numerous conversations have been open, yet testy at times, and i have enjoyed getting to know him and gain respect for him.

I was not going to relent on the fact that we needed open legitimate meetings and a vote of some type. i also wanted the board to board chats and interviews to stop immediately, which Mr. Kirkpatrick did as part of our negotiations. i told him in order for him to have credibility to all shareholders, you cannot play to factions. It will be just more of the same. He admitted to not being "up" on the politics of the situation, which i tried to explain to him.. board to board, person to person.

That said, Mr. Kirkpatrick is looking at this situation as strictly a business venture going ahead. He has said he can't do anything about the past. i said, i can forget the past, as long as we examine it, to make sure criminal activity did not take place, and if it did, i expect the company to take the appropriate action.

I am also encouraged by the fact that the "Tyler" era is coming to an end in terms of location and personnel. It is time for a fresh start. Time to look forward, because in my eyes, there are exciting possibilities for this company.

First, Wells Fargo.. i am getting the sense, we may have some success here..

Second, the land claims and core samples, held by Mr. Koch.. Mr. Kirkpatrick is holding meetings and moving forward quickly to try and make deals and get things moving on this front. One great reason we all wanted a settlement. i expect to hear updates at our first meeting on this and of the legal actions to acquire properties that cmkx wants to seize and put on the market to be sold to raise capital to fuel the company and these endeavors.

Lastly, and very, very exciting to me.. after years of delay by former management, we finally, i believe, will find out very important truths quickly through the litigation of the naked short issue, if this tx firm, be it Wes Christian or whomever, takes on the case. Mr. Kirkpatrick has assured me if they don't, he will seek out other representation, including the taser law firm in Atlanta, to possibly help us out. It is my understanding that this law firm, supposedly one of the best in the country at this type of litigation, was interested in our case and solicited the company, then examined the records and evidence, and in doing so, established that we have a case. Our settlement agreement specifies a timeline in which the company must secure representation or the plaintiffs will be allowed access to any naked shorting materials they request or require to take action on their own.

The other important aspect of this "Naked Short" litigation is this.. it will once and for all put to rest the matter of the trust. In one phone call to a brokerage, Ameritrade for example.. when this law firm calls and says "we are probably going to take action against you for the shorting of cmkx.. there is rumor you already made a settlement.. is that true or not".. If true and money was collected, then the Urban/Maheu/Hodges/Conspiracy/Sting/Operation stuff was all true.. If not, and no settlement was made.. it was all bs.. pure and simple.. so all shareholders should have that answer very shortly.. and i welcome that day..You well know, if the brokers really did pay, there is no way that they will pay twice.

What i consider one shocking revelation that came to light, to me at least, which i believe the shareholders need to know.. is that Bill Frizzell forwarded to the sec a copy of the Owner's Group cd that contained the data of brokerage statements obtained from the shareholders by the Owners Group solicitation to tabulate their holdings in order to prove a naked short. As we know from the 2005 Frizzell letters to brokerages, by tabulating just a small percentage of stock held by shareholders at each brokerage, it was clear that a huge naked short occurred.. in the Ameritrade example, with about 3,000 shareholder accounts reporting, we almost reached the total of shares issued and held by Ameritrade, yet there were still some 15,000 accounts to go. So the sec had all this information, and did nothing. (Remember Bernie Madoff???) That, in my eyes, puts them in collusion to protect the crime perpetrated by the naked shorting of this stock against the shareholders. In other words, they are liable. Where was Tyler... they wasted years of peoples' lives, instead of publicly forcing the hand of the sec to right this enormous wrong. And to this day, what has been done??? i was absolutely incensed finding this out. How this serves us now is that if the law firm that is going to take on this litigation brings this matter up to the sec, i would hope that they can leverage the sec into playing ball with us and help facilitate a naked short settlement, even though, to my understanding, research and interaction with securities commissions, the naked short must and should be attacked on a state by state basis. The states' laws are what is going to win the case for us. btw, Exhibit b, #3, was pretty much written by Mr. Frizzell as an edit to our negotiation, so this came from him, not me.. Please also refer to Exhibit b, #7-8.. same thing...Another thing, why wasn't this type of information used or mentioned in the Bivens.. Seems to me, presenting this evidence in court would have been a slam dunk, to show collusion on the part of the sec. We can only hope that these wasted years finally pay off for all of us with the upcoming naked short litigation by a competent law firm. That is our only hope here, in regards to this.

As far as the statute of limitations that apply here, since the shareholders have not been made aware of the naked short evidence and have never been privy to it, a class action should be able to proceed, by the shareholders, not the company, since no timetable has begun relating to the shareholders as a class. As far as the former liability the former company officers may have for sitting on this evidence.....well.......I also believe there was a us Supreme Court ruling that addressed this situation, in our favor. That is for this expert legal firm to figure out.

I have said to Mr. Kirkpatrick that i could show shareholders a document from the dtcc that says we have no money for cmkx, signed by a judge, and they still wouldn't believe it. He agrees that we will never be able to have all shareholders on the same page regarding these beliefs....but.. the only thing that interests me at this point, is going ahead with real business with a man that i believe can do the job, and i think we have one.

The dtcc lawyers told the Court at the Fryar hearing.. they are not a bank, and would not be holding this money, if any of this occurred. They also said if we could corroborate any of these "trust" rumors, they would provide an affidavit to this fact. They went out of their way after the hearing to confer with Mr. Fryar on this point. . Now had Hodges come forward and worked with the Fryar office, this all could have been done. But Hodges never once, as opposed to every other person contacted in this effort, made a legitimate effort to respond, in any way. You all will have to form your own opinion of Hodges' actions.

In regards to the Fryar effort and our present 7 plaintiff effort, Mr. Kirkpatrick admires what we did and are doing. Realizing it is our right as shareholders to find the truth and demand certain basic things from the company. We have discussed the Hodges' situation and basically he is caught between a rock and a hard place. The Bivens action will run its course, and that will be that.

In regards to the Fryar effort, i believe it is important to clarify that there were nine attempts made to serve Hodges. i personally talked with the lady at the Apple Valley, ca address that informed me she used to work for Hodges and he owes her money. She was very sympathetic to our plight. Once again, it is obvious to me by reading some of these boards, that even supposed board mods who were in law enforcement for 30 years.. don't get it. The Fryar office accomplished something extremely difficult legally. They obtained 2 out of state subpoenas through the petition of letters rogatory. i talked to many lawyers that said this probably would not happen. i will say this about "Flips"... at least he was man enough to accept his subpoena and not run and hide, even though he did "hide" with his testimony, after expounding to all who would listen his intimate knowledge of the "trust" funds. The Hodges situation is what it is.. it certainly does not paint a pretty picture of a man who is attempting to chase down almost 4 trillion dollars for shareholders, or give it much legitimacy. To me, the quick resolution of that matter, the Bivens, will only serve the shareholders positively to move to the future with the real possibilities for the company through the claims and naked short litigation.

Before i start my kumbaya moment, i want to address those people and boards that have done nothing but berate myself, ag members, Fryar clients, and the 7 of us. What most don't realize is slowing but surely, the onion known as cmkx is being peeled away and the truth is coming out, mainly due to these actions above. While board research and dd is important, without verifiable legal action, it basically means squat. What the current action in tx has gained us is leverage.. something the shareholders have never had. If anyone can't see this, they surely don't see the entire picture and are too jaded to realize this. Many companies have had shareholders seek legal action against them to gain some type of equity for the shareholders and been successful, as we have been here. If gaining shareholder meetings and a vote for directors is harmful to shareholders, i must be on the wrong bus. Especially after being blindly promised these things for years. As far as who was involved in these negotiations, i can tell you that the only people on the phone when i was discussing our legal action was myself and Mr. Kirkpatrick, certainly no one from any board or any board moderator... and while some people really think they may know what is actually going on.. when i read these posts and insults, i realize 99% have no clue. Already some are coming out and saying don't vote for this guy ...or this one.. The bottom line is.. we will have an open election.. people can run and vote for whom they want, and if people don't like it ... tough..All i would say to that is, remember who got you the right to do it.. and the gentlemen that took money out of their own pocket to finance the tx litigation...after being promised for years by the Tyler gang that you would have that right.

For that matter, i want to thank publicly all that sacrificed and spoke with their wallets, not their mouths... in the Fryar effort and the gentlemen in the tx effort. Mr. Bates, Mr. Hermansen, Mr. Crosier. Mr. Cox and all of the people that dug deep to keep us afloat and that took much abuse. You folks are all the best and i congratulate and thank you all for your commitment and support.

I have shown Mr. Kirkpatrick a company in Minnesota, a shareholder voting company, and talked with these people. i have described our situation and our shareholder base, and they tell me a vote can be held for between $6,500.00 to $8,500.00 depending on certain things. They can transfer the data from the ta and handle paper ballots as well. Obviously, this is a far cry from the quotes of previous management, that really in my eyes, never really wanted a vote and in general, did not serve the shareholders well. We had money for everything.... salaries, medical coverage, legal fees...but never for a legitimate vote. Mr. Kirkpatrick assures me that, one way or the other, the expense of this will be covered..with whatever voting method he approves.

http://www.surveyandballotsystems.com/

In closing, much has been accomplished in the last two years, even though money is not yet in our pockets. i feel we are finally on the right road, with the right leadership. i ask those who have been friends of mine and supported actions i have been involved with.. to look at the bigger picture here and throw your support behind Mr. Kirkpatrick. i believe he is our only fighting chance, for this company to at least survive and then, hopefully, succeed.. and if he is given a real chance, with real support by the shareholders, will do right by us.

To those that hold me in disdain, hatred or whatever, realize what has been accomplished. Realize after years in this stock, you finally will have a legitimate voice here.

I ask all to put down our swords of disagreement and discontent.. band together...and support Mr. Kirkpatrick and the hopeful future of cmkm Diamonds, Inc.

Jerry

5T WD haha

BMFL<OD

next week(s) is here

strike4     Share   Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:51:04 AM 
Re: janice shell post# 333320     Post #  of 333471   

Watch the personal attacks? You calling Hodges crazy is not a personal attack... Not to mention what you stated many times about the Shareholders in this stock..

Seems like the court at this moment do not think Hodges is crazy...

FACT IS.. You said NSS did not exist through the years since 1997... Let the future record divulge the truth.

Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00031-JVS-

MLG v. Central District of California,
Santa Ana

CHRISTOPHER COX, an individual; et
al
ORDER
Defendants - Appellees.

Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner.

The renewed motion for summary affirmance of this appeal is denied
because the arguments raised in the opening brief are sufficiently substantial to
warrant further consideration by a merits panel.

See United States v. Hooton, 693
F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

Appellees’ request to stay the briefing schedule pending disposition of the
motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot.

The answering brief is due 30 days after the date of this order. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.

  janice shell     Share   Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:27:02 PM 
Re: strike4 post# 333471     Post #  of 333472   

You calling Hodges crazy is not a personal attack...

Exactly. It's the simple truth.

You said NSS did not exist through the years since 1997...

Not true. I said that there was no NSS in CMKX, or in most other penny stocks. Casavant issued 800 BILLION shares. Is there some part of that you don't get?

The appellate panel based its ruling on questions having nothing to do with the merit, or lack thereof, of Krazy Al's appeal. Had you been reading along, you'd know that jarta thought resubmitting the motion for summary affirmance was a poor move on the part of the Appellees. I guess the judges thought so too.

More fun this way.

Oh, and are you aware that a group of CMKX shareholders has filed a complaint against Hodges with the California Bar?


5T WD haha

BMFL<OD

next week(s) is here

Last edited by Bull Finch (2012-03-01 12:32:01)

Fryar Hearing Testimony
•
•
1
1 CAUSE NUMBER 2011-47860
2
3 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
4 PETITIONER 164th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
5
6
7
8
9 ******************************************* * *****
10 SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
11 *************************************************
12
13
14
15
16 On the 30th day of September, 2011, the
17 following proceedings came on to be heard in the
18 above-entitled and -numbered cause before the
19 Honorable Alexandra Smoots-Rogan, Judge Presiding,
20 held in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
21 Proceedings reported by Certified Shorthand
22 Reporter and Machine Shorthand/Computer-Aided
23 Transcription.

• 1
2 A P P E A R A N C E S
3
4 FOR THE PETITIONER:

FOR
Mr. F. Eric Fryar, SBN 07495770
Mr. Avneil J. Adler, SBN 24071933
FRYAR LAW FIRM, P.C.
1001 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77001
Telephone: 281-715-6396
Facsimile: 281-715-6397
THE DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING CORPORATION:
Mr. Edward B. Adams, Jr., SBN 00790200
Mr. Peter C. Tipps, SBN 24070748
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, L.L.P.
Fulbright Tower
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77010
Telephone: 713-651-5151
Facsimile: 713-651-5246

• 1 P R 0 C E E D I N G S
2 THE COURT: All right. We are on the
3 record in Cause Number 2011-47860;
4 and if I could have appearance for the record,
5 Counsel.
6 MR. FRYAR: Eric Fryar, Avneil Adler,
7 Fryar Law Firm, for Petitioner.
8 MR. ADAMS: Edward B. "Teddy" Adams and
9 Peter Tipps for DTCC, one of the respondents.
10 THE COURT: All right. And this is a
11 motion to compel depos prior to suit, correct?
12 MR. FRYAR: I guess for permission to
• 13 take depos prior to suit.
14 THE COURT: Okay. All right. You can
15 give me the background if you want. I've read it.
16 I -- I guess my -- my major question at this point
17 is: The depos you're seeking to get are those
18 dep -- are all of those depos out of county?
19 MR. FRYAR: Yes.
20 MR. ADLER: They're all out of state.
21 THE COURT: They're all out of state.
22 Do I -- that's -- this is going to be my first
23 question to you. Do I have authority to order depos
24 of witnesses that are out of state when we don't even
• 25 have a case pending?
4
• 1 MR. ADLER: Well -- so actually
2 Respondent somewhat addressed that in his objections.
3 THE COURT: I thought of it before he
4 came to his objection, so that's
5 MR. ADLER: Right.
6 THE COURT: That's why I'm asking the
7 question.
8 MR. ADLER: Right. Okay. We 11,
9 Rule 201 does allow us to take out-of-state
10 depositions in the case that there is an action or
11 proceeding in the state. Mr. Adams actually said an
12 action. In the beginning of Rule 201 it says • 13 proceeding in the state.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. ADLER: You can certainly make the
16 argument that the Rule 202 petition is a proceeding
17 of some sort. It's an action. There's a cause
18 number. Actually, the case law Mr. Adams cites and
19 which just generally speaks about Rule 202 is about
20 I ' whether or not 1t's subject to removal for federal
21 diversity grounds.
22 So there really is no case law as far
23 as -- I mean, there is case law that discusses
24 Rule two -- as an ancillary proceeding, but there's
• 25 no case law on point as far as out-of-state

• 1 subpoenas, but I'd argue that it is a proceeding for
2 purposes of allowing letters rogatory.
3 MR. FRYAR: It -- it would seem to be
4 strange to set up to say we want to have in this
5 state a mechanism where people can take limited
6 discovery with the permission of the Court in order
7 to avoid unnecessary lawsuits and limit that to
8 discovery within the state unless, you know, it were
9 specifically stated in the rule --
10 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
11 MR. FRYAR: -- and it's not. The rule
12 allows us to have a proceeding, subject to permission
• 13 of the Court, to take limited discovery to determine
14 whether a cause of action exists and allows us to use
15 the rules of discovery to do that.
16 Rules of discovery clearly say -- I
17 mean, you can't order a deposition in New York, but
18 you issue letters rogatory, and we have to go follow
19 the New York procedure in order to secure a subpoena
20 there and get that.
21 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
22 MR. FRYAR: But, I mean, there is a
23 proceeding on file here. There is a cause number.
24 If you issue an order, then Rule 202 gives us the
• 25 right to go exercise, you know, whatever remedies

• 1 exist in New York, Florida, and California.
2 MR. ADLER: Right. Incidentally, we
3 also -- we styled the petition in a way that it's for
4 an anticipated suit. I actually looked into the case
5 law and -- or the -- rather, the statutes in
6 California and Florida, and they also have a similar
7 type of proceeding for obtaining testimony prior to a
8 lawsuit.
9 THE COURT: Okay. Response.
10 MR. ADAMS: Yes, Your Honor. And you
11 want to just talk about whether they can do this at
12 all? • 13 THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, if I don't
14 have legal authority to do it, then I'm not going to
15 do it whether you respond to it or not. I'm--
16 MR. ADAMS: Sure.
17 THE COURT: That's all I'm asking.
18 MR. ADAMS: We believe there is no
19 legal authority for out-of-state depositions. As the
20 Court knows, this is a very narrow area that allows
21 very limited, specific discovery. You don't get to
22 take discovery -- you don't get to do anything
23 besides take a deposition of someone in state.
24 As opposing counsel mentioned, there's
• 25 not a lot of case law on this, but that case law that

··-------------------------------
7
• 1 does exist talks about whether this is an action or
2 proceeding in the context of removal. You can remove
3 an action. So if there were truly an action, we
4 could've come down here and removed the case to
5 federal jurisdiction -- federal court of
6 jurisdiction -- existed.
7 The case that I looked at said "No.
8 You can't do that because this is not an action that
9 can be removed." And for the same reason it's not an
10 action letters rogatory rules of procedure that
11 allow you to, in this pre-suit context, reach over to
12 Florida or New York or California to take a
• 13 deposition of somebody who's a stranger to Texas.
14 But even if you could, Your Honor
15 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
16 MR. ADAMS: -- under that reason, you
17 shouldn't allow the deposition of Mr. Richards here
18 because although -- be talking about investigating a
19 claim, the motion they filed was for -- there are two
20 reasons you can take a deposition pre-suit, one, to
21 investigate a claim --
22 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
2 3 MR. ADAMS: and two, to prevent a
24 failure or delay of justice. At least as to
• 25 Mr. Richards, they went for the latter, and there is
-------- - - -------- ··-- ··-·-·· --- .
8
• 1 no evidence at all anywhere in the papers they filed
2 that taking Mr. Richards' deposition now would any
3 way prevent a failure or delay of justice. He's not
4 sick. He's not going away. If they think they have
5 a lawsuit, they can file it and then go through the
6 procedure, take his deposition if they need it, but
7 there's nothing in the record to indicate that he
8 needs to be deposed now. They could've filed a
9 different motion asking to -- to investigate a claim.
10 We'd have a different issue. They didn't do that.
11 THE COURT: And I thought I read in
12 these papers that this is not y'all's first rodeo,
• 13 that there's already some litigation previously
14 around this.
•
15 MR. ADAMS: Let me give you a little
16 bit of background about this.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 MR. FRYAR: Not us.
19 THE COURT: Not you, but there's some
20 previous was it in your response --
21 MR. ADAMS: It was, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: that I read that? Okay.
23 MR. ADAMS: There's a company called
24 CKKM Diamonds [sic] .
25 THE COURT: Uh-huh.

•
•
9
1 MR. ADAMS: It's a penny stock. The
2 people that ran that company were bad actors, issued
3 billions of shares improperly. There was lawsuits in
4 Nevada by the SEC against the operators of that.
5 Everyone in there either agreed to a consent judgment
6 against them or had summary judgment found against
7 them. While that proceeding was going on, the
8 company was folded up. Through that -- there were
9 various doc exchanges between that company -- other
10 companies as part of the winding-up process.
11 Meanwhile, in California -- and these
12 were some of the documents that were attached to the
13 petition. Mr. Hodges, one of the lawyers, one of the
14 people they want to depose, filed a lawsuit, a
15 putative class action against all the commissioners
16 of the SEC, and their theory is that there is a
17 secret multi-trillion-dollar fund that was set up.
18 That case was dismissed on the
19 pleadings, and one of the things they want to do is
20 depose the lawyer. The DTCC -- and I'm sorry for
21 this background. This is a little complicated.
22 Back in the olden times, when you
2 3 bought a share of stock, you got a stock certificate.
24 They sent it to you in the mail . That doesn't happen
25 anymore. What happens now is the company called the

• 1 DTCC that we represent, The Depository Trust &
2 Clearing Corporation, collects all those stock
3 certificates for pretty much everybody in the
4 country, and they put them in a vault, and they keep
5 electronic records of "Teddy Adams has a thousand
6 shares of Exxon stock" and I have it through Smith
7 Barney. Smith Barney will have an account with the
8 DTC that says "We have 5 million shares," and if they
9 need more shares they'll buy them from Morgan Stanley
10 and they'll make a record on the books.
11 Along with the functions of
12 storing/keeping records of who owns -- which
• 13 brokerage houses own stock, the DTCC also will -- if
14 you're going to make a dividend payment, instead of
15 ExxonMobil having to pass it out to everybody,
16 they'll give it to the DTCC, which, in turn, will
17 say, "All right. Smith Barney has a thousand shares.
18 They get $500,000. Merrill Lynch has 5,000 shares.
19 They get $25,000." Then Merrill Lynch and Smith
20 Barney will allocate it to their people.
21 Mr. Richards, who they want to depose,
22 is somebody who works for the DTCC
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 MR. ADAMS: -- and he is part of this
• 25 other lawsuit and part of this morass.

1 Someone called him and recorded a
2 conversation with Mr. Richards in which he says "I
3 don't know anything about this. I don't know what
4 you're talking about. I've never seen anything, nor
5 have I told anyone I've ever seen anything." So this
6 is some big fishing expedition trying to find
7 something that may lead to some lawsuit about a $2.8
8 trillion secret fund that may or may not exist.
9 MR. FRYAR: Let me
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. FRYAR: -- get
12 THE COURT: Yeah.
13 MR. FRYAR: -- real practical.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. FRYAR: Okay? First of all, we're
16 representing shareholders okay? -- shareholders
17 who bought stock that wasn't even authorized stock
18 okay? -- who lost their money. They're victims; no
19 question. There was a lot of litigation involving
20 the people that perpetrated the fraud, none which
21 went to a judgment that actually benefited the
22 shareholders.
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 MR. FRYAR: Okay? There are -- you
25 know, I' 11 just say there are rumors -- okay?
DONNA KING, CSR
164TH OFFICIAL REPORTER
(713) 368-6256
There
1 is -- I don't have any documentary evidence that
2 proves this, but there the shareholders had been
3 told by company insiders, some of whom are now d e ad,
4 that there were settlements done several years back
5 to set up funds for the benefit of the shareholders.
6 Mr. Hodges is one of the people we want
7 to depose. He instituted a lawsuit in California in
8 which he went -- you know, we got records of -- of
9 arguments before the Court in which he stated: I've
10 got evidence that this record that these trust
11 funds exist. DTCC is one of the owners of this.
12 Mr. -- who's the other guy?
13 MR. ADLER: Richards.
14 MR. FRYAR: -- Richards has been
15 contacted. The other guy' Fielding
16 MR. ADLER: Phillips.
17 MR. FRYAR: -- Phillips says he's
18 actually seen records that prove that this trust fund
19 exists and is where Mr. Hodges says.
20
21
22
2 3 wait, wait.
24
25
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FRYAR: So we have contact
THE COURT: Is Phillips one -- wait,
Is Phillips
MR. FRYAR: Okay.
THE COURT: Is this Phillips person

somebody you wanted to depose?

2 MR. FRYAR: Yes. There were --
3 MR. ADLER: Yeah.
4 MR. FRYAR: -- three people we want to
5 depose, Richards, Phillips, and Hodges. Basically
6 we've been hired by a bunch of these shareholders,
7 who say "If there's money out there that belongs to
8 us, we want to find it and we want to assert our
9 rights to it. We want to be paid. If there's not
10 we want to know that too. " You know?
11 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
12 MR. FRYAR: So, I mean, this is a
13 situation in which I could file a lawsuit, which
14 would be very expensive, and go through motions
15 practice on information and belief based on these
16 representations that have been made to our clients.
17 We'd be doing it in good faith. They think the money
18 is there.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. FRYAR: Okay? But what we want to
21 do is use this rule for exactly what it's designed
22 for, which is to say, you know, "DTCC, if we're
23 crazy" -- and some people have said Mr. Hodges is
24 crazy. "If this fund doesn't exist, why don't you go
25 under oath and tell our shareholders it doesn't exist
instead of file -- hiring Fulbright & Jaworski tot
2 come in and file a paper the day before the hearing
3 to say 'Don't -- we don't want to go under oath to
4 say whether you have -- we have your money or not.'"
5 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
6 MR. FRYAR: Okay? What we're tying --
7 trying to do is save resources, use the rule for what
8 it's designed for, and they're in here trying to
9 block our access to information. Well, all -- all
10 our people want to know is: Should we be suing
11 somebody? We don't want to file a lawsuit if there's
12 no basis. We've been told that we're crazy. We've
13 been told that this is a lie. We've also been told
14 that it's the truth. You know, "Attorney Fryar, can
15 you -- is there any way to find out for sure?" You
16 know? To which, my response is: There's Rule 2 0 2'
17 which allows us to take a deposition for exactly this
18 type of situation.
19 THE COURT: Right. But does it allow
20 you to take all of those dep -- it sounds like, from
21 the little bit you just told me, the main person you
22 need is this Phillips person, but --
23 MR. FRYAR: Well, Phillips and Hodges
24 definitely, and -- but, you know, what they're saying
2 5 is: We've seen the information -- we -- we have
• 1 information that it's at the DTCC. We've seen a
2 record that it's at the DTCC. They're not, like
3 they're not associated with the DTCC. They're -- all
4 they can give us is hearsay. Why not go to the
5 source? I mean, give us one guy who's going to say
6 "This is true" or "This is false" under oath.
7 MR. ADLER: If I may add, just as far
8 as the DTCC is concerned, the phone transcript that
9 Mr. Adams was referring to earlier -- that's actually
10 a call from the CEO of the company. The rumors were
11 so prevalent that the CEO of a company actually
12 called Mr. Richards, hosted a transcript on their
• 13 company Web site --
14 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
15 MR. ADLER: -- and com -- and put up a
16 report about -- aside from the actual conversation
17 about the substance of this conversation.
18 It was obviously a very prevalent
19 rumor, and there were several people -- we weren't
20 we weren't able to find those people that had spoken
21 directly to Mr. Richards. There were several people
22 that had said -- to that effect, that
23 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
24 MR. ADLER: -- you know •
25 THE COURT: All right. Frankly, I
1 don't think you're saving any money to take three
2 depositions, regardless. I'm still kind of
3 questioning whether or not I even have the authority
4 to order these depositions. I'm--
5 And this Phillips person is somebody
6 you represent as well?
7 MR. ADAMS: No, Your Honor. We
8 represent Morris --we represent DTC, who's Morris
9 Richards' employee [sic].
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. ADAMS: Hodges and Phillips -- I
12 don't know anything about them. They --
tt 13 THE COURT: Yeah.
14 MR. ADAMS: They're on their own.
15 I think we I'd like to just re-focus
16 for a little bit. First of all, Rule 202 -- there's
17 got to be some standard. It can't just be based on
18 rumors and hopes and dreams. The transcript that was
19 posted was unequivocal. He said he didn't know
20 anything about this, but we're getting a little bit
21 a -- far -- far afield because they asked to take a
22 deposition not to investigate a claim as to
23 Mr. Richards, but to prevent a failure or delay of
24 justice, a situation if somebody is sick, dying,

1 THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, if that's
2 the reason -- that seems like the wrong reason. I'll
3 tell you that right now. If that's what you've
4 alleged, that's the absolute wrong reason because we
5 haven't even talked about that.
6 MR. FRYAR: Well, we don't want to sue
7 Mr. Richards individually, but he's a witness in a
8 lawsuit -- if this -- if the fund exists --
9 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
10 MR. FRYAR: -- our people have a
11 lawsuit to assert their interest in the fund.
12 THE COURT: I understand
tt 13 MR. FRYAR: Right.
14 THE COURT: exactly what you're
15 saying, but if the basis for your wanting a
16 deposition prior to suit is just because you want to
17 avoid him dying on you or something like that
18 that's not what we've discussed. What we've
19 discussed is investigating a claim.
20 If that's your basis, it sounds like
21 that should have been part of the original motion.
22 MR. FRYAR: I think we alleged that in
23 the alternative. Didn't we?
24 MR. ADLER: Well, the rule actually
25 says to perpetuate or obtain testimony, and I don't

1 think that whether Mr. Richards --
•
•
2 THE COURT: Do you have a copy of your
3 motion?
4 MR. ADLER: Yes.
5 THE COURT: Make my life easy. If all
6 it says is that you want to prevent it because he's
7 dying or he's got some other calamity, then it's
8 going to be denied. You're not barred from re-filing
9 it with the correct claim, but -- or you might just
10 save yourself some money, just file this thing.
11 MR. ADLER: Here's the paragraph that
12 talks about Richards' testimony .
13 THE COURT: Yeah. You got "may prevent
14 further delay." You --
15 MR. ADLER: I don't -- I don't think
16 the situation of whether or not he might die is
17 necessarily an only circumstance where --might
18 prevent a delay of justice.
19 THE COURT: And I think we're saying
20 the same things. The problem is that's not what --
21 you -- you alleged it as just trying to prevent delay
22 instead of alleging trying to prevent delay or --
23 and/or investigating the claim.
24 So, you know, if that's all you've got,
25 I'm going to deny as to Richards. Let me see

• 1 Phillips. It sounds like you just need this Phillips
2 person. I will tell you that.
3 MR. FRYAR: Well -- and Hodges is the
4 attorney who says that he has this evidence, and his
5 lawsuit was dismissed before it got to discovery or
6 anything on the merits, so we want to -- and he's
7 also a shareholder, so we want to find out what he's
8 got.
9 THE COURT: Okay. I'll let you depose
10 Hodges and Phillips. You're not deposing Richards.
11 Give me an order. There you go.
12 MR. ADAMS: Thank you, Your Honor. May
• 13 we be excused?
•
14 THE COURT: Yes. You're excused.
15 Do you have an order for me, or do you
16 want to submit one?
17 MR. ADLER: I have one here.
18 THE COURT: If you want to doctor it
19 and submit it to me, that's fine.
20 MR. ADLER: I have -- if you want to
21 just change the -- put the relevant names --
22 THE COURT: There. You fill in their
23 names so that I don't misspell them and then hand it
24 back to me .
25 MR. ADLER: Sure. Sure.

• 1 THE COURT: I'll sign it. Okay?
2 MR. ADAMS: May we submit an order as
3 to Richards?
4 THE COURT: Yes. Submit an order as to
5 Richards, and I'll sign off on it.
6 MR. ADAMS: Thank you.
7 THE COURT: Okay? Thank you. Have a
8 good weekend.
9 (End of proceedings.)

1 THE STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF HARRIS
3
4 I, Donna King, Official Court Reporter in
and for the 164th Judicial District Court of Harris
5 County, Texas, do hereby certify that the above and
foregoing contains a true and correct transcription
6 of all portions of evidence and other proceedings
requested in writing by counsel for the parties to be
7 included in this volume of the Reporter's Record in
the above-styled and -numbered cause, all of which
8 occurred in open court or in chambers and were
reported by me.
9
10 I further certify that this Reporter's
Record of the proceedings truly and correctly
11 reflects the exhibits , if any, admitted by the
respective parties.
12
13 I further certify that the total cost for
the preparation of this Reporter's Record is
14 $ and was paid/will be paid by
15
16 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this, the 13th day
of October, 2011.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--l{l-;~--------- DONNA KING, Texas CS 6273
Expiration Date: 12/ 1/12
Official Court Reporter
164th Judicial District Court
Harris County, Texas
201 Caroline, 12th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 368-6256
• 25
DONNA KING, CSR
164TH OFFICIAL REPORTER
(713) 368-6256

bob remember the post where you proved the naked short

it is below but here is an excerpt from it and the ramifications I added, are these completely true statements given the evidence below:

"According to the documents there are 703,518,875,000 shares held by stockholders of record (certified stock) + 407,321,106,308 known uncertified stocks= 1,110,839,981,000 (Trillion Shares) accounted for. Now, what about the Unknown “Street Name† stocks? That is what the certificate pull was about, to identify the actual owners of both unknown and known “Street Name† stocks"


Bob does this mean every real share in cmkx was held in cert form march 4th 2005, ie not one share held at the dtcc to trade.

So would that mean every single brokers statement bill handed leslie Hakala on the cd may 11th 2005 were naked or fails as there were no shares held at the dtcc to even trade.

So that would mean going into the administrative hearing every single share was off the market, not at the dtcc, so the exhibit 17 used false data as there were no shares to trade and it would have proven a massive naked short, the exact short held at the dtcc, ie over 400 billion shares.

So it would be true that every letter bill wrote to etrade, ameritrade, td waterhouse, etc were all naked shares or fails.

So this is clealy why bill said he had irrefutable evidence of the naked short, as it was just that easy to prove.

And every share traded here was either a naked share/fail the dtcc cover: From March 17, 2005 through April 29, 2005 CMKM traded publicly, in the US under the trading symbol “CMKX,† a total of 551,756,751,833 shares, an average share volume of more than 17 billion shares per day, reaching a maximum on April 21, 2005 of 94,654,588,201 shares. These figures do not include foreign trades nor trades made on an ex-clearing basis.

Given we all know etrade and ameritrade and td certed their clients, then we now know that those shares came from the 703 billion certs held, right, as all those fails at the DTCC are now certed. None of the shares on the master list were dumped into the market as those certs didn't end up in street form. We know that because there were 703 billion shares in cert form march 2005 and not in street name, ie they were held outside the DTCC. Phxgold was right, none of the share raises were dumped into the market.

Basically bob, this proves the whole ending is a facade as the company had irrefutable evidence of the naked short, and those that thought all along that all the shares were tied up for the operation al hodges outlines were right. And this is not conjecture, it is fact. It also proves that proving the short was easy, you just had to get the records of the shares held at the dtcc and you have an exact record of the short, which would have been verified in the cert pull.


CMKX's Naked Short Reveiled?
« Thread Started on Today at 11:43am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Naked Short is noted in the company’s PRs and SEC Filings. The wording is confusing in the original statements. Stockholders addressed this several times, but there remains an uncertainty whether there is documented evidence of a substantial naked-short. The following paragraphs provide explanations clarifying the company's information on naked-shorted stock count. The reference documents are provided at the end of this post.

On March 4, 2005, a company's Press Release stated 703,518,875,000 owned by 2,032 Stockholders, which doesn't include the “Street Name† stocks.

The company released another PR to clarify the previous information. The company explained Issued and Outstanding …†The issued and outstanding share number includes all shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of March 4, 2005, including those held by stockholders in their respective brokerage accounts and/or other nominee names.† In other words, definition of Issued and Outstanding, Stocks held by stockholders, whether at home, bank, brokerage account, beneficiary, TRUST, or under the mattress.

Then the company continues and explains what they consider a “Stockholder of Record†. “A stockholder of record is a person/entity that holds an actual certificate for shares of the Company's common stock in its name. Therefore, the Company has 2,032 stockholders that hold certificates in their own name. “. In other words, Definition of stockholder of record are stockholders with certificates in the name of the actual owners whether held at home, bank, brokerage, beneficiary, TRUST…

The company then explains the definition of †Street Name† and how many shares are listed with Cede & Co., which are 407,321,106,308 “Street Name†. "Street name" refers to shares held in a person's/entity's brokerage or other trading account (important statement here, stockholders are not identified by the actual name of owners because the shares are not certed). The majority of these shares are typically shown on stockholder lists as being held in CEDE & CO. This is where the confusion enters the picture. Definition of †Street Name†... shares held by brokerage or other trading account that are not certified. Why are "Street Name" stocks not certified? For starters, the stocks are always available for immediate sale or transfer to another broker. In addition, monthly brokerage statements are proof of ownership. Also, if the stock splits, there are no labor-intensive processes of having old certificate and having a new one issued.

According to the documents there are 703,518,875,000 shares held by stockholders of record (certified stock) + 407,321,106,308 known uncertified stocks= 1,110,839,981,000 (Trillion Shares) accounted for. Now, what about the Unknown “Street Name† stocks? That is what the certificate pull was about, to identify the actual owners of both unknown and known “Street Name† stocks. What is the known and unknown amount? It is somewhere located in the following Task Force Count and the shares presently not certed. The counterfeiting of shares is huge, imho.

Total Received Fax's: 42723
Total Fax's Filed: 42723
Number of Certs: 55495
Total Shares: 634,983,934,884
Number of Shareholders: 39863

The Clincher???
If there were 703,518,875,000 shares held by stockholders of record (certified) before the cert pull, then where are and who owned the large number of certified shares? The SEC Filings state that certain decisions were approved by the majority shareholder vote. Urban Casavant took the time and effort to file with the SEC what constitutes a majority shareholder. When the Outstanding balance was increased to 800 Billion, the document referenced below states that the increase was approved by 65% vote. Now, 65% of 500 Billion is 325 Billion shares held by the majority vote. What entity or entities are owners of 352 Billion shares, who voted for the increase to 800 Billion? Is this what the 2002 UJAC Irrevocable Trust and 2005 Irrevocable Trust accounts are all about...protecting the Majority Vote shares and assets? Also, what was the “significant contributions to the company† already made by Michael Williams as stated by Urban Casavant in the SEC Filing referenced below? Is part of the majority vote in Mr. Williams’ “The MDW and GRW 2000 Irrevocable Trust†? Urban Casavant and Michael Williams both entered contracts signing as Trustees of the Irrevocable Trust Accounts. Something to ponder.

Each avenue we take leads us to yet another direction. There will be many directions mapped out in the documents available. We are driven by our desire to understand the journey through CMKX-Land. Though we may take a different route with different viewpoints, I feel the final destination will be the same for the bona fide stockholder, a welcoming Return On Investment. Imsho.

All the best,
BHollenegg


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

References

Shares Outstanding and Stockholders of Record.

In the March 4, 2005 press release, the Company disclosed it had 703,518,875,000 shares of common stock issued and outstanding to approximately 2,032 stockholders of record (excluding shares held in "street name").

Several stockholders have raised concern over what the previous statement actually means. The issued and outstanding share number includes all shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of March 4, 2005, including those held by stockholders in their respective brokerage accounts and/or other nominee names.

A stockholder of record is a person/entity that holds an actual certificate for shares of the Company's common stock in its name. Therefore, the Company has 2,032 stockholders that hold certificates in their own name.

"Street name" refers to shares held in a person's/entity's brokerage or other trading account. The majority of these shares are typically shown on stockholder lists as being held in CEDE & CO. The Company is not aware of how many stockholders have shares held in "street name", but the Company's stockholder list as of March 4, 2005 had 407,321,106,308 shares held in CEDE & CO.


http://www.secinfo.com/d1zrpn.z51.htm?Find=majority&Line=336#Line336



PHXGOLD MEMEBER OF BOD EXPLAINS THAT NONE OF THE CERTS FROM THE MASTER LIST HIT WERE DUMPED INTO THE MARKET. LATER IT WAS CORROBORATED BY THE POST ABOVE THAT NONE OF THE CERTS HANDED OUT HIT THE STREET OR THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN STREET NAME AT THE DTCC:

PHXGOLD

ill say it again you cannot find a single issuance to cede and co. directly from the company to raise capital. since 2002 before uc came along. see. every shares issued had a name on it. every share issuance can be traced to a certificate issued to a person not to cede. from start to finish. every share started in someones hands directly from the company in cert form. either the sec ignored thousands if not hundreds of thousands of violations of rule 144 or something else is happening. Pedro posted some info about the share releases from the a/s increase to 800b but quickly removed it as it proved the shares were issued to specific individuals in cert form in canada. and not dumped by the co on the market. but that proved something other than his point. once realized it was removed quickly. much like the actions of the dtcc on their site.



You should remember that the simplest explanation, containing the fewest assumptions, is usually correct.



your right treyb the simpelest is probably true so here we go. remember GB's graph shows shares surrendered and volume spikes almost identical? well go back and look at Pedros exibits Most of those shares are issued and surrendered the same day. looks pretty bleak huh!
I meanlooks like uc and friends got those shares issued and sold them the same day right?

well if the T/A cut the certs and handed them directly to someone right now. and they went directly to theyre broker how long would it take for that cert to be processed by the broker. then sent to the dtcc and processed then sent back to the T/A and processed out as surrendered in the T/A books? Remember alot of these entities are canadian also.

Now which answer is the simplest?
1) those shares were issued and handed directly to all of those individuals then taken directly to a brokerage, processed thru the broker, dtcc and back to the T/A and processed out as surrendered on the very same day?

2) is it possible that the shares never left the building?

which is the easiest answer?


i just find it interresting that there was so mouch interrest in the stock the very days the shares were surrendered compared to the days they werent. its almost spooky huh. but If the interrest was self generated meaning that there was an entity that picked up all or most of the"surrendered shares taht makes the chart more logical IMO. We do know with Reg D shares that they have to be registered that means that the transactions have to run thru a broker but what about the s registered shares. what if cmkm llc thats in canada took posession of the s shares in cananda. that would mean no registration needed as they are forign entities. and it would also allow uc to pick up shares thru the entitiy in canada without requireing a form 3 because the s registration dosent require disclosure and they are not controlled shares. just some thoughts as to how those shares could be issued and surrendered in the T/a's books the very same day normal avanues imo are physically impossible. jmo
~Phx


If we are going to use Pedro's numbers and GB's graphs, then the simplest explanation is that no NSS exists, since the O/S gets reconciled to the 778 billion figure.



ok thats if thats the simplest explaination to you can you let us know how is and i say if the entities that were issued these shares and if they were sitting at the T/A's office waiting for the certs how they got to theyre brokerages signed the certs the broker processed them drove them to the dtcc then the dtcc drove them to the T/A to be processed out all in the same day? Maybe for someone from Nevada but what about the canadian entities? I know when Ive ordered certs from the Time that Jeff has told me tghey were issued to the time I got them has averaged about 10 days that just 1 trip. But if they were issued directly from the T/A mail in a perfect world would take at least 3 days to recieve them locally
~Phx


Also look at the A/S increases in feb 2004 and March 2004 those percentages were increasing from 97b to 200b was voted on by 55% then 200b to 500b Voted on by 65% If your diluting by selling as well as increasing the O/S how does you voting percentage go Up? ~Phx

BHOLLENEGG

The Clincher???
If there were 703,518,875,000 shares held by stockholders of record (certified) before the cert pull, then where are and who owned the large number of certified shares? The SEC Filings state that certain decisions were approved by the majority shareholder vote. Urban Casavant took the time and effort to file with the SEC what constitutes a majority shareholder. When the Outstanding balance was increased to 800 Billion, the document referenced below states that the increase was approved by 65% vote. Now, 65% of 500 Billion is 325 Billion shares held by the majority vote. What entity or entities are owners of 352 Billion shares, who voted for the increase to 800 Billion? Is this what the 2002 UJAC Irrevocable Trust and 2005 Irrevocable Trust accounts are all about...protecting the Majority Vote shares and assets? Also, what was the “significant contributions to the company† already made by Michael Williams as stated by Urban Casavant in the SEC Filing referenced below? Is part of the majority vote in Mr. Williams’ “The MDW and GRW 2000 Irrevocable Trust†? Urban Casavant and Michael Williams both entered contracts signing as Trustees of the Irrevocable Trust Accounts. Something to ponder.

EVERY SHARE ON BILL FRIZZELL'S CD THAT WAS A BROKER'S STATEMENT WAS NAKED OR A FAIL, BELOW EVERY SHARE NOT IN CERT FORM IS NAKED AND WHY BILL COULD SAY HE HAD IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF THE NAKED SHORT HE DIDSept 30, 2005

Greetings Group Members,

I have received several emails of late inquiring about our naked short investigation. We have continued to tally shares by people that have sent their statements to us but the numbers are not changing significantly. We proved a huge naked short position in this company a long time ago. Our documentation substantiates 482 billion shares (approximately) owned by 11557 shareholders. This does not include cert holders. FRIZZELL LAW FIRM
305 S. Broadway, Suite 302
Tyler, Texas 75702
(903)595-1921
Fax (903)595-4383
E-Mail jmartin@cmkxownersgroup.com




May 16, 2005

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission

FOIA Office, Stop 0-5

6432 General Green Way

Alexandria, VA. 22312-2413

Re: FOIA Request on behalf of CMKX Shareholders


This request is being made on behalf of 5,050 shareholders of CMKX stock. These shareholders own over 300 billion shares of common stock. This number does not include shareholders who possess certificates of ownership. A current NOBO/OBO list has confirmed that there exists a minimum of 59,669 accounts in various firms with holdings of CMKX. A December 2004 certificate detail report from the transfer agent states that 2033 people hold certificates of ownership. Those certificates represent 326 billion shares being held by individuals other than Cede and Co. By these numbers 626 billion shares are owned by only 7,083 shareholders. The company states that 703 billion shares are issued and outstanding. The CMKX shareholders that own the balance of the 59,669 accounts (an estimated 50,000) are confirmed owners of the remaining of the outstanding stock. I trust you can understand our need for the information requested in this document. I will be glad to provide you with documentation of my group’s share ownership upon your request.

NOTICE THE CHANGE FROM THE DECEMBER 2004 CERT LIST TO THE MARCH 4TH 2005 CERT LIST, NONE OF THE SHARE RAISES HIT THE MARKET AT ALL

In the March 4, 2005 press release, the Company disclosed it had 703,518,875,000 shares of common stock issued and outstanding to approximately 2,032 stockholders of record (excluding shares held in "street name")."

According to the documents there are 703,518,875,000 shares held by stockholders of record (certified stock) + 407,321,106,308 known uncertified stocks= 1,110,839,981,000 (Trillion Shares) accounted for. Now, what about the Unknown “Street Name† stocks? That is what the certificate pull was about, to identify the actual owners of both unknown and known “Street Name† stocks. What is the known and unknown amount? It is somewhere located in the following Task Force Count and the shares presently not certed. The counterfeiting of shares is huge, imho.

ALL THESE SHARES ARE NAKED OR THE COVER AS ALL SHARES AT THIS MOMENT IN THE COMPANY ARE HELD IN CERT FORM From March 17, 2005 through April 29, 2005 CMKM traded publicly, in the US under the trading symbol “CMKX,† a total of 551,756,751,833 shares, an average share volume of more than 17 billion shares per day, reaching a maximum on April 21, 2005 of 94,654,588,201 shares. These figures do not include foreign trades nor trades made on an ex-clearing basis.


"Ms. Bagley, just so that we understand the difference between issued, surrendered, and outstanding shares, suppose hypothetically I have a certificate -- I'm issued a certificate for 100 shares," Ms. Hakala began. "And that's the only issuance, that's the only thing going on. What would issued, surrendered and outstanding be?"

Ms. Bagley explained that there would be 100 issued shares, no surrendered shares and 100 outstanding shares.

"Okay," Ms. Hakala said. "If I then sell my -- transfer -- want you to transfer my hundred shares, I sell them to my co-counsel, Mr. Glynn here, so that now he has the hundred shares and I no longer have anything, what would the issued, surrendered, and outstanding be?"

"The issued would be 200, the surrendered would be a hundred, and the outstanding would be a hundred," Ms. Bagley replied.

"So is it correct that the outstanding number of shares is the most accurate number to know how many shares of stock issued by the company are out in circulation?" Ms. Hakala asked.