Sehr gute News bei CMKM (Seite 58)
eröffnet am 19.02.04 17:29:02 von
neuester Beitrag 15.12.23 14:08:38 von
neuester Beitrag 15.12.23 14:08:38 von
Beiträge: 33.910
ID: 823.941
ID: 823.941
Aufrufe heute: 2
Gesamt: 1.261.762
Gesamt: 1.261.762
Aktive User: 0
Top-Diskussionen
| Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
|---|---|---|
| heute 15:47 | 3084 | |
| heute 16:23 | 3068 | |
| vor 48 Minuten | 1657 | |
| vor 47 Minuten | 1404 | |
| vor 57 Minuten | 1285 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 1222 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 1182 | |
| heute 15:09 | 1172 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
| Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 1. | 18.001,60 | +0,59 | 240 | |||
| 2. | 2. | 168,20 | +0,08 | 87 | |||
| 3. | 3. | 9,7000 | +12,27 | 75 | |||
| 4. | 14. | 6,1400 | -1,35 | 69 | |||
| 5. | 11. | 0,1865 | 0,00 | 52 | |||
| 6. | 7. | 0,8750 | -12,50 | 47 | |||
| 7. | 12. | 0,1561 | +2,97 | 38 | |||
| 8. | 6. | 2.302,50 | 0,00 | 36 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Morgäään
September 11, 2013
RE: Wells Fargo Case Update, Other Business
To All CMKM Shareholders:
On August 8, 2013 lawyers for Wells Fargo Bank filed a Motion for Judgment, which is essentially a motion asking for our case to be dismissed (see link to WF Mtn. for Judgment). This motion came suddenly after Wells Fargo lawyers got a Rule 16 case conference delayed two months in a row (July and August). Rule 16 conferences are designed to expedite and streamline scheduling, discovery, and cooperation between opposing parties in hopes of leading to a pre-trial settlement.
CMKM lawyers filed a response to the Wells Fargo MFJ on September 3, 2013 (see link to WFcmkm opp brief to MFJ) and a hearing was set for the judge to rule on this motion for September 12, 2013. However, Wells Fargo’s lawyers have gotten an extension until sometime in October so they can file a response to our response.
I am certainly hopeful/optimistic that the WF motion will be denied, but we must wait on the judge to make a final determination. As we can see – WF is using every legal tactic available to delay, avoid, and destroy our case against them. The facts in the case are very clear, but these tactics are typical in a case of this type. This case was originally scheduled for trial long ago, but the death of the lead attorney for WF allowed an initial long delay. When I was appointed for this job 22 months ago I fully expected to have the WF case settled within my first year due to advice from our attorneys. I fully expected that by now we would be “in business” in a serious way.
It is very clear that CMKM/NHHI can no longer wait for extended/delayed/uncertain civil litigation recoveries to fund our development of a viable business operation. We have been waiting for significant recoveries that would allow CMKM/NHHI to enter into operations totally debt-free, which is the optimum way to begin a business venture. However, waiting is no longer palatable for any of us.
Management has begun what will become an exhaustive effort to secure funding for our first oil/gas venture. Many promising oil/gas prospects have been located and studied, but one prospect in particular fits our specific criteria almost perfectly. I need to raise $15M for acquisition and $3M to $5M for operating capital and additional drilling. This acquisition would produce immediate cash flow of over $250k/month net, with the opportunity to drill an additional 20+ low-risk wells to increase cash flow significantly. The total proven reserve value of this prospect is $90M+, with probable and possible reserves that increase the potential to $140M+. This initial purchase would provide the cash flow, experience, and track record needed to make CMKM/NHHI a serious contender in the junior sector of the oil/gas business.
There are many ways to raise funds for this acquisition, and I am exploring any and all of them now. It will be difficult to secure traditional bank financing for this type of project, but the safety and proven history of this prospect make alternative funding very possible. This search for funding will take most of my time in the weeks ahead. If you as an individual shareholder have connections to funding sources or investors please have them contact me at stevek@cmkmdiamondsinc.com. Thank you and God bless!
Steve Kirkpatrick
www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/WF-Mtn-for-Judgment-08-12-13.pdf
www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/WFcmkm-opp-brief-to-MFJ-on-P.pdf
www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/
Gruss Capten
September 11, 2013
RE: Wells Fargo Case Update, Other Business
To All CMKM Shareholders:
On August 8, 2013 lawyers for Wells Fargo Bank filed a Motion for Judgment, which is essentially a motion asking for our case to be dismissed (see link to WF Mtn. for Judgment). This motion came suddenly after Wells Fargo lawyers got a Rule 16 case conference delayed two months in a row (July and August). Rule 16 conferences are designed to expedite and streamline scheduling, discovery, and cooperation between opposing parties in hopes of leading to a pre-trial settlement.
CMKM lawyers filed a response to the Wells Fargo MFJ on September 3, 2013 (see link to WFcmkm opp brief to MFJ) and a hearing was set for the judge to rule on this motion for September 12, 2013. However, Wells Fargo’s lawyers have gotten an extension until sometime in October so they can file a response to our response.
I am certainly hopeful/optimistic that the WF motion will be denied, but we must wait on the judge to make a final determination. As we can see – WF is using every legal tactic available to delay, avoid, and destroy our case against them. The facts in the case are very clear, but these tactics are typical in a case of this type. This case was originally scheduled for trial long ago, but the death of the lead attorney for WF allowed an initial long delay. When I was appointed for this job 22 months ago I fully expected to have the WF case settled within my first year due to advice from our attorneys. I fully expected that by now we would be “in business” in a serious way.
It is very clear that CMKM/NHHI can no longer wait for extended/delayed/uncertain civil litigation recoveries to fund our development of a viable business operation. We have been waiting for significant recoveries that would allow CMKM/NHHI to enter into operations totally debt-free, which is the optimum way to begin a business venture. However, waiting is no longer palatable for any of us.
Management has begun what will become an exhaustive effort to secure funding for our first oil/gas venture. Many promising oil/gas prospects have been located and studied, but one prospect in particular fits our specific criteria almost perfectly. I need to raise $15M for acquisition and $3M to $5M for operating capital and additional drilling. This acquisition would produce immediate cash flow of over $250k/month net, with the opportunity to drill an additional 20+ low-risk wells to increase cash flow significantly. The total proven reserve value of this prospect is $90M+, with probable and possible reserves that increase the potential to $140M+. This initial purchase would provide the cash flow, experience, and track record needed to make CMKM/NHHI a serious contender in the junior sector of the oil/gas business.
There are many ways to raise funds for this acquisition, and I am exploring any and all of them now. It will be difficult to secure traditional bank financing for this type of project, but the safety and proven history of this prospect make alternative funding very possible. This search for funding will take most of my time in the weeks ahead. If you as an individual shareholder have connections to funding sources or investors please have them contact me at stevek@cmkmdiamondsinc.com. Thank you and God bless!
Steve Kirkpatrick
www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/WF-Mtn-for-Judgment-08-12-13.pdf
www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/WFcmkm-opp-brief-to-MFJ-on-P.pdf
www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/
Gruss Capten
Hello Bob,
I am glad to see you posting
I am confused by your post, however; I don't understand how the growth of the derivatives' value, means it is ours - if that is what you are thinking? Maybe I am way off on what I think you are saying here. Bob, would you please explain it in terms simple enough for me, lol? Thank you.
Hello Cliffette,
This document indicates the IRS and Treasury concerns on trust tax liabilty of trillion of dollars. There were questions raised by shareholders that the amounts posted on CMKX Funds ($3.87 Trillion) and WGS Funds ($42 Trillion) were difficult to believe and accept. This document shows that the amounts are realistic. Interesting is the $3.87 Trillion and trust combination...what are the chances? Is this another piece of the puzzle?
Thank you,
BHollenegg
Gruss Capten
I am glad to see you posting
I am confused by your post, however; I don't understand how the growth of the derivatives' value, means it is ours - if that is what you are thinking? Maybe I am way off on what I think you are saying here. Bob, would you please explain it in terms simple enough for me, lol? Thank you.
Hello Cliffette,
This document indicates the IRS and Treasury concerns on trust tax liabilty of trillion of dollars. There were questions raised by shareholders that the amounts posted on CMKX Funds ($3.87 Trillion) and WGS Funds ($42 Trillion) were difficult to believe and accept. This document shows that the amounts are realistic. Interesting is the $3.87 Trillion and trust combination...what are the chances? Is this another piece of the puzzle?
Thank you,
BHollenegg
Gruss Capten
Interessantes von BHollenegg
I was searching the GAO.GOV assets and found this...interesting amounts...
"According to the OCC, between the first quarter of 1999 and the fourth quarter
of 2010, the total notional amount outstanding used to calculate
payments for derivatives contracts held by insured U.S. commercial
banks and trust companies grew over six times, from $32.7 trillion to
$231.2 trillion. For those same institutions, gross positive market
value grew nearly seven-and-a-half times, from $0.46 trillion to $3.87
trillion (see figure 2). The difference in these numbers is due to the
fact that the notional amount is used to calculate payments from the
contracts, which are typically a small percentage of the notional
amount. The net present value of these payments determine, in part,
gross positive market value. .."
www.gao.gov/assets/590/585331.html
The above information is an excerpt pertaining to The Treasury Department and The IRS concerns on tax liability issues. The period covered 1999 to 2010 correlates to the information I passed on in 2010..
"Taxes were paid to the U.S. Treasury for these settlements on December 30th and 31st, 2009. The continued holding of these settlement funds are, as a result, a violation of various banking, fraud and “trust fund” laws."
All the best,
BHollenegg
I was searching the GAO.GOV assets and found this...interesting amounts...
"According to the OCC, between the first quarter of 1999 and the fourth quarter
of 2010, the total notional amount outstanding used to calculate
payments for derivatives contracts held by insured U.S. commercial
banks and trust companies grew over six times, from $32.7 trillion to
$231.2 trillion. For those same institutions, gross positive market
value grew nearly seven-and-a-half times, from $0.46 trillion to $3.87
trillion (see figure 2). The difference in these numbers is due to the
fact that the notional amount is used to calculate payments from the
contracts, which are typically a small percentage of the notional
amount. The net present value of these payments determine, in part,
gross positive market value. .."
www.gao.gov/assets/590/585331.html
The above information is an excerpt pertaining to The Treasury Department and The IRS concerns on tax liability issues. The period covered 1999 to 2010 correlates to the information I passed on in 2010..
"Taxes were paid to the U.S. Treasury for these settlements on December 30th and 31st, 2009. The continued holding of these settlement funds are, as a result, a violation of various banking, fraud and “trust fund” laws."
All the best,
BHollenegg
Trading Spotlight
Das ist gut, der Kreis schließt sich und wird enger für die waren schuldigen
Morgäään
Helen Bagley (1st Global Stock Transfer LLC )sind frei von Schuld
9th Circ. Finds Middle Man Not Liable In $64M Stock Scam
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11…
By Kat Greene
Law360, Los Angeles (September 10, 2013, 5:09 PM ET) -- The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday partially reversed a district court’s decision to hold 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC and its owner responsible for a scam that lost investors in CMKM Diamonds Inc. $64 million.
The three-judge panel found there was material evidence to suggest that 1st Global and its owner, Helen Bagley, hadn’t participated in the scam — which sold billions of fake securities backed by fake diamond mining, buying and selling — when they transferred hundreds of billions of shares of stock.
The panel affirmed the district court's ruling against CMKM attorney Brian Dvorak, ordering him to pay more than $400,000 in disgorgement and rejecting his request for a stay until criminal proceedings are completed.
The stock transfer company had done its due diligence in asking two attorneys, including Dvorak, for their opinions about the legality of the stock, the panel found, and had acted only in their roles as transfer agents rather than masterminds of the scheme.
“The undisputed facts do not establish that Global and Bagley were substantial participants in the CMKM distribution as a matter of law,” the panel wrote in Tuesday’s published decision.
Beginning in 2003, CMKM issued and sold nearly 800 billion shares in its company, which purportedly mined gold and diamonds. It sent fake maps and fake reports to investors, who bought the stock on the OTC exchange known as “pink slips.”
Only there was no mining company, according to the criminal charges against CMKM, its owners and the other agents wrapped up in the scam. According to federal investigators, the owners and their cohorts simply collected the money for themselves.
Bagley and her company, 1st Global, were accused of participating in the scheme for their role in transferring the stock from restricted status — which alerts investors that a security has not been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission — to unrestricted.
But Bagley argued that she and her company had relied on letters from two separate CMKM attorneys that assured her the transfers were legal.
The three-judge panel agreed that no evidence presented suggested Bagley had substantially participated in the scheme, overturning U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks’ finding that the scam wouldn’t have been possible without Bagley’s seemingly unquestioning act of transferring hundreds of billions of shares.
The panel noted that while this particular decision is published, not every middle man or transfer agent can be found free of liability in such cases. Those decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis based on the evidence, the panel wrote Tuesday.
“Whether a defendant is a substantial factor in the distribution of unregistered securities is a question of fact requiring a case-by-case analysis of the nature of the securities scheme and the defendant’s participation in it,” the panel wrote.
U.S. Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and Morgan Christen and U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim sat on the panel that reached Tuesday’s decision.
1st Global and Bagley were represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski of Gordan & Silver Ltd.
The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds Inc. et al., case number 11-17021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Gruss Capten
Helen Bagley (1st Global Stock Transfer LLC )sind frei von Schuld
9th Circ. Finds Middle Man Not Liable In $64M Stock Scam
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11…
By Kat Greene
Law360, Los Angeles (September 10, 2013, 5:09 PM ET) -- The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday partially reversed a district court’s decision to hold 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC and its owner responsible for a scam that lost investors in CMKM Diamonds Inc. $64 million.
The three-judge panel found there was material evidence to suggest that 1st Global and its owner, Helen Bagley, hadn’t participated in the scam — which sold billions of fake securities backed by fake diamond mining, buying and selling — when they transferred hundreds of billions of shares of stock.
The panel affirmed the district court's ruling against CMKM attorney Brian Dvorak, ordering him to pay more than $400,000 in disgorgement and rejecting his request for a stay until criminal proceedings are completed.
The stock transfer company had done its due diligence in asking two attorneys, including Dvorak, for their opinions about the legality of the stock, the panel found, and had acted only in their roles as transfer agents rather than masterminds of the scheme.
“The undisputed facts do not establish that Global and Bagley were substantial participants in the CMKM distribution as a matter of law,” the panel wrote in Tuesday’s published decision.
Beginning in 2003, CMKM issued and sold nearly 800 billion shares in its company, which purportedly mined gold and diamonds. It sent fake maps and fake reports to investors, who bought the stock on the OTC exchange known as “pink slips.”
Only there was no mining company, according to the criminal charges against CMKM, its owners and the other agents wrapped up in the scam. According to federal investigators, the owners and their cohorts simply collected the money for themselves.
Bagley and her company, 1st Global, were accused of participating in the scheme for their role in transferring the stock from restricted status — which alerts investors that a security has not been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission — to unrestricted.
But Bagley argued that she and her company had relied on letters from two separate CMKM attorneys that assured her the transfers were legal.
The three-judge panel agreed that no evidence presented suggested Bagley had substantially participated in the scheme, overturning U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks’ finding that the scam wouldn’t have been possible without Bagley’s seemingly unquestioning act of transferring hundreds of billions of shares.
The panel noted that while this particular decision is published, not every middle man or transfer agent can be found free of liability in such cases. Those decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis based on the evidence, the panel wrote Tuesday.
“Whether a defendant is a substantial factor in the distribution of unregistered securities is a question of fact requiring a case-by-case analysis of the nature of the securities scheme and the defendant’s participation in it,” the panel wrote.
U.S. Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and Morgan Christen and U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim sat on the panel that reached Tuesday’s decision.
1st Global and Bagley were represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski of Gordan & Silver Ltd.
The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds Inc. et al., case number 11-17021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Gruss Capten
auch Interessant, unter anderem Punkt12, betrifft uns!!
1. IS INTEL REAL?
100% YES
2. DO SOME GURUS HAVE REAL INTEL?
100% YES
3. DO PEOPLE KNOW PEOPLE AT BANKS WHO?
LEAK INFORMATION?
100% YES
4. ARE MANY GURUS BEING SPOON FED WRONG INFORMATION?
100% YES
5. WILL GURUS GET AN EARLY ALERT OF THE RV FROM SOME SUPER SECRET CONTACT?
100% NO
6. DO GURUS NEED TO STOP CALLING THE RV DAILY?
100% YES
7. DOES IT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE TO FOLLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE WRONG EVERY DAY?
100% NO
8. IS GURU INTEL DESTROYING MANY LIVES GLOBALLY?
100% YES
9. CAN INTEL HELP YOU PREPARE TO EXCHANGE & PLAN?
100% NO
10. ARE TRUTH & LIES MIXED UP IN THE INTEL?
100% YES
11. ARE THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS CRAZY?
100% NO
12. ARE PROSPERITY PACKAGES REAL?
100% YES
13. IS THE GCR REAL?
100% YES
14. WILL THE IQD REVALUE?
100% YES
15. IS THERE A BIGGER GLOBAL PICTURE TO THIS?
100% YES
16. ARE WE CLOSE TO SEEING THE REVALUATION?
100% YES
17. ARE IRAQ EVENTS A FACTOR?
100% NO
18. WERE THE STOCK EXCHANGE GLITCHES DESIGNED & ENGINEERED?
100% YES
19. SHOULD YOU HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE TO MAKE MONEY WHILE WAITING ON THE RV?
100% YES
20. IS THIS A GAME FOR THE INSIDERS, RICH, WEALTHY & ELITE?
100% YES
21. IS OBAMA A BAD GUY WHO KEEPS DELAYING THE RV?
100% NO
22. ARE THE PTB'S REAL?
100% YES
23. ARE DINARIANS MAKING TO MUCH NOISE?
100% YES
24. ARE THE WORLD GLOBAL SETTLEMENTS REAL?
100% YES
25 IS THIS A BIG GLOBAL "CLEAN UP & SWEEP TO FLUSH OUT THE BAD GUYS & CROOKS?
100% YES
26. IS THIS TIED TO THE USA DEFICIT & DEBTS TO CHINA?
100% YES
27. IS CHINA INVOLVED WITH THIS PROCESS?
100% YES
28. IS THE GROUP REGISTRATION A BAD IDEA FOR DIVERSIFICATION?
100% NO
1. IS INTEL REAL?
100% YES
2. DO SOME GURUS HAVE REAL INTEL?
100% YES
3. DO PEOPLE KNOW PEOPLE AT BANKS WHO?
LEAK INFORMATION?
100% YES
4. ARE MANY GURUS BEING SPOON FED WRONG INFORMATION?
100% YES
5. WILL GURUS GET AN EARLY ALERT OF THE RV FROM SOME SUPER SECRET CONTACT?
100% NO
6. DO GURUS NEED TO STOP CALLING THE RV DAILY?
100% YES
7. DOES IT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE TO FOLLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE WRONG EVERY DAY?
100% NO
8. IS GURU INTEL DESTROYING MANY LIVES GLOBALLY?
100% YES
9. CAN INTEL HELP YOU PREPARE TO EXCHANGE & PLAN?
100% NO
10. ARE TRUTH & LIES MIXED UP IN THE INTEL?
100% YES
11. ARE THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS CRAZY?
100% NO
12. ARE PROSPERITY PACKAGES REAL?
100% YES
13. IS THE GCR REAL?
100% YES
14. WILL THE IQD REVALUE?
100% YES
15. IS THERE A BIGGER GLOBAL PICTURE TO THIS?
100% YES
16. ARE WE CLOSE TO SEEING THE REVALUATION?
100% YES
17. ARE IRAQ EVENTS A FACTOR?
100% NO
18. WERE THE STOCK EXCHANGE GLITCHES DESIGNED & ENGINEERED?
100% YES
19. SHOULD YOU HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE TO MAKE MONEY WHILE WAITING ON THE RV?
100% YES
20. IS THIS A GAME FOR THE INSIDERS, RICH, WEALTHY & ELITE?
100% YES
21. IS OBAMA A BAD GUY WHO KEEPS DELAYING THE RV?
100% NO
22. ARE THE PTB'S REAL?
100% YES
23. ARE DINARIANS MAKING TO MUCH NOISE?
100% YES
24. ARE THE WORLD GLOBAL SETTLEMENTS REAL?
100% YES
25 IS THIS A BIG GLOBAL "CLEAN UP & SWEEP TO FLUSH OUT THE BAD GUYS & CROOKS?
100% YES
26. IS THIS TIED TO THE USA DEFICIT & DEBTS TO CHINA?
100% YES
27. IS CHINA INVOLVED WITH THIS PROCESS?
100% YES
28. IS THE GROUP REGISTRATION A BAD IDEA FOR DIVERSIFICATION?
100% NO
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 45.410.695 von Paul_Muadib am 09.09.13 14:14:28Kann mir einer erklären, wie das gehen soll?
Durchsuchen
