I’ve seen this dance before, in Texas we call...

[fastwalker]

....it the Two Step....Which was / is the politics of Texas


“Defendants collusively condone and engage in these practices to their individual and collective enrichment, routinely alternating among themselves in the roles of prime broker who fails to deliver and third-party broker-dealer who permits the (failure to deliver) to persist," according to the filings.

According to the Dow Jones, the complaint says that Electronic Trading Group isn't challenging the practice of naked short selling per se, but rather is suing the broker-dealers for anticompetitive actions "by which they have arrogated to themselves illicit and anticompetitive profits at the expense and without the participation of their clients."
www.marketcenter.com/stocks/story.action?id=ITR103r9874


This is a typical tactic, or so it would seem, where a situation, a condition exists (NSS) which those bringing the litigation may have always know existed as an open secret, but for reasons of their own, they aren’t ready to prove the “actual” condition in an open court of law?

Why is that? Maybe because approaching the subject matter from this angle, will preclude a closer inspection of their activities in this predatory environment? Who knows, we can only wait at this point.

What we do know about the NSS issue at this point? We know that rules have been established:

Rule 203(c)(6) of Regulation SHO, establishes a “threshold security” is any equity security of any issuer that is registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, or that is required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act (commonly referred to as reporting securities), where, for five consecutive settlement days:

There are aggregate fails to deliver at a registered clearing agency of 10,000 shares or more per security;

The level of fails is equal to at least one-half of one percent of the issuer’s total shares outstanding; and

The security is included on a list published by a self-regulatory organization (SRO).

A security ceases to be a threshold security if it does not exceed the specified level of fails for five consecutive settlement days.

A detailed explanation / information will be found here, within the SEC's website at:
www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm
www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm

We know that active enforcement of these Fails To Deliver (FTD) is not, or it appears not to be a issue of paramount concern for the SEC. In that companies are included on the list and remain there for some time. Almost like the SEC is not reviewing the list to ascertain those most affected by the FTDs.

Just who is Shorty? Shorty is a collection of hedge funds, naked short sellers and overseas listers such as the Berlin Stock Exchange, and the out-of-control “Stock Borrow Program” run by the governance-conflict-laden Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. To the amazement of the industry, as often and not, Shorty may actually turn out to be the market’s own regulators.

We watched on June 23, when the SEC stated it has put into place Rule 202(T), which establishes procedures to allow the Commission to temporarily suspend the operation of the current "tick" test in Rule 10a-1, and any short sale price test of any exchange or national securities association, for specified securities.

Through a separate order, the Commission would suspend, on a pilot basis for a period of one-year, the tick test provision of paragraph (a) of Rule 10a-1, and any short sale price test of any exchange or national securities association, for approximately one-third of stocks in the Russell 3000 index.

The order also will suspend, on a pilot basis for a period of one year, the tick test provision of paragraph (a) of Rule 10a-1 for short sales executed in any security included in the Russell 1000 index after 4:15 p.m. Eastern, and all other securities after the close of the consolidated tape, and until the open of the consolidated tape the next day.

These processes that commenced on January 3, 2005, was seen then as a simply a way that permitted broker-dealers and self-regulatory organizations to make the necessary programming adjustments, effectively to hide or distort the NSS issue from their exposed position. Not good for cleaning up the mess, but exceptional, if followed, to hide and negate a clear look into the problem.

Unfortunate for the SEC, but great for us the investors, these predators didn’t want to undue the feeding buffet and so, their own greed and arrogance which they acquired from being allowed to legally steal from the market / us, thwarted the quick fix offered by the SEC to control and minimize the exposure.

More.......

Just some simple observations about those who have manipulated CMKX, gleaned from various media sources., would indicate, that we are we witnessing now the lid about to come off this pressure cooker known as NSS? Will this CMKX/Entourage cert pull be the portal sufficient enough to prompt our legitimate return to trading as CMKX, or as a newly named entity with all of our assets intact?

Will the cert pull establish a NSS position within CMKX? Or will the issuance of the dividends be simply the means get dividends in Entourage?

After all, it was stated that the task force has been working on establishing an NSS issue relevant to CMKX, are we still attempting to cross that threshold and boldly go, where others are also headed… I suggest that we need more answers than questions from these “updates.”….lol

OK, what allegedly are we doing here to determine culpability for our predicament? We each have different answers for who the bad guys are, but we all assume it to be the Market Makers?

But it appears, if you actually look at the big picture, that what we have is really a conspiracy of intent by many individuals and corporations, to defraud not only us specifically, but in general the investing public on many levels. It also appears that some entered into this activity with original intent to do so, while others simply became aware of the feeding frenzy conditions and jumped in. But regardless of their participation, they are all still guilty of fraud, deceptive trade practices and manipulation of the market for their own purposes..

Back to the MS. Yeah, I know each person here has a different and maybe colorful description of what an MM is, but I will point out some obvious data before moving on.

The major differences between The NASDAQ Stock Market and other major markets in the U.S. is the NASDAQ structure of competing Market Makers, in which there are approximately 250 member firms that act as OTCBB Market Makers. We can’t win against such odds, if they go bad.

Market Makers are NASD member firms that use their own capital, research, retail and or systems resources to represent a stock and compete with each other to buy and sell the stocks they represent. (That is an interesting notion…they compete with each other)

Each Market Maker competes for customer order flow by displaying buy and sell quotations for a guaranteed number of shares. Once an order is received, the Market Maker will immediately purchase for or sell from its own inventory, or seek the other side of the trade until it is executed, often in a matter of seconds” Now that last sentence is the one that makes you go mommy!

Granted that is their “real” function, but most associated with CMKX, know the MMs for something different than their PR “spin” We know them for Naked Short Selling (NSS), which is the illegal practice of short selling shares that haven't been borrowed or do not exist at all, .we see them or define them as “air shares.”

Why do we feel that NSS is taking place with our stock? There are various reasons, some are “gut” check reasons from investors who have the experience to see such activity and others, rely on “hard data,” to support their contention.

Often as investors, we follow various activities or trends, in order to estimate what the market and a stock in particular may do. Since we do not have access to or would deal in “insider trade” information, we have to rely on “predictors.

Therefore, if we as average investors utilize such tools, it stands to reason that market makers must use similar data gathering tools, to predict activity on the market, of course. Because they are professionals, we can also assume their tools are more sophisticated than those being used by you and me, the average investors.

However, as I pointed out, since we do follow activity and trends, we are often suspicious of activity which may indicate some type of “insiders “information” which demonstrates a "notable" reaction by an adjustment of the of the pps quotes.

Granted this activity, say for the NASDAQ and Exchange-listed stocks quoted, are relatively stable for NASDAQ stocks over the OTC, which only means, that we can easily see the (PPS) start to deteriorate after the influx of some possible “insider” trading begins, which isn't as notable versus the often volatile activity associated with the OTC, in which wild "swing" of the pps are more common.

Now we have to also ask, do market makers and specialists in the marketplace detect the presence of insider trading?

If so, how do quoted bid-asked spreads and market depth react to the onset of insider trading? Do insiders earn abnormal returns from illegal trades? How safe are they in the knowledge that they will make money from such trades and not be detected by others?

Well to ask if these guys can detect the presence of the insiders and avoid or capitalize on that activity, is kind of like asking a harden criminal, if he “knows” the methodology of criminals within his specialize field of endeavor?

Point being they (MM) know even if they do not participate, from their experience what to look for regarding insider activity.

Since it is a given, they (MMS) are for the most part, specialist in the market place, within that specialized environment, "given” their routine usage of that arena. They can, for all intents and purposes, be viewed from any “reasonable” person‘s definitions / expectations, as to their qualifications and ability to "detect" such insider activity and ALSO their ability to ignore, move off, or participate in a given feeding frenzy.

Given the reasonable person's expectation, we can accept that MMs in reality, are highly specialized and “knowledgeable” individuals and may in fact be on many “routine” and or unusual market related activities, of which “insider“ activity could be considered as one.

Okay, now who else has access to these kinds of information? Well for the most part all those who control or have an oversight function of the market place. Guess that leaves us out because we only have LII to track these activities.

So if everyone within a position of authority has access to data that would or could be recognized as “insider” or other manipulation activity, one can easily assume they can and may even be "purposefully" driven by that data / knowledge, relevant to their own individual performance and the magnitude of its impact, regarding their usage and or avoidance.

Now I’m in a pointing out various process, I will elaborate a bit more on other types of manipulative situations that can and probably have been visited upon us at one time or another.

Lets get come clarification on manipulations. We’ll start where NSS is the primary activity of the MMs, this activity is referred to as “Ghosting“ which is the illegal practice whereby two or more market makers collectively attempt to influence and change the price of a stock. This is a practice is seen routinely on a daily basis, drives us all crazy and we rightfully assumed their (MM) activity is not beneficial to us.

So how and why can they (MMs) get way with it? Aren’t there Laws to protect us, or are we simply covered by the “caveat emptor” warning when dealing with risk?

Of course there are laws, this practice is illegal because market makers are required by law to act in competition with each other. Ghosting is termed as such because, like a false image or a ghost, collusion and manipulation among market makers is difficult to detect.

Is it really?

As an investor, you may have a broker to manage your financial assets, often they are required, just as a good CPA, to deal with your debt or equity and your personal dreams / goals relevant to your shares. Usually, a portfolio is made up exclusively of publicly traded stock and you have very little time, since you are still working for a living, to watch the stocks in your portfolio and as a result, you may be unaware of , NSS, or how to guard against exposure to broker-dealer or the dreaded market maker manipulation.

So what can we do as a “day” trader and or “rabid” CMKXers with regards to naked shorting, especially since most of our activity is Internet-based?

Well lets start by increasing our awareness of market maker manipulation, which we can or should be able to recognize from our experience with CMKX.

Why is that important to recognize this market manipulation / NSS?

more....

[fastwalker]

continued...

Simply to be more effective in isolating and establishing a plan, to control, defeat and eliminate the adverse effects of MMM on your personal securities.

Notice I said “isolating and establishing a plan, to control, defeat and eliminate.” Usually a plan works best to achieve one person’s objective. However, given the scope of the problems at hand, one person will be unlikely in a position of sufficient enough power and or resources to deal with the problem.

We know for example, that the function of the market makers is essentially a good one, designed to assist the market in many areas. Especially, beneficial are their functions as a market maker, to handle small-sized and micro-cap stocks; as an exchange floor specialist involved with mid-sized or large-capitalized stocks; or a broker- dealer, who handles all stocks, where they essentially perform two separate and, apparently, incompatible functions.

First, they have to maintain an inventory of the stocks their firms have underwritten, and or continues to trade, or make a market in. They buy and sell these inventories for profit and in theory, they will buy low, which reduces the decline in price per share (PPS), and sell high, which reduces the rise in PPS. Therefore, these profit-making behaviors are presumed to provide a stabilizing effect on changes in the PPS of the stocks they make a market in

Second, they post the bid and ask prices at which others are willing to buy or sell and match incoming buy and sell orders. In return for performing these functions, market makers or specialists generate revenue for their firm through various order-flow or transaction-fee schemes.

But like the conflicts apparent in the dual role of an analyst-broker or auditor-consultant, the broker-dealer is faced with an opportunity to sell his or her firm’s inventory before others in a declining market or buy for his or her firm’s inventory before others in a rising market. This practice is one form of market maker manipulation. It is illegal, difficult to detect, but alleged in many instances—both correctly and, often, incorrectly—stated on Internet stock-chat message boards like us and other CMKX boards.

There is also a practice used by the MMms called “front running,” in which specialist market makers use their knowledge of private, incoming order-flow information
revealed by limit orders to generate monopolistic trading profits.

In June 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported that Knight Trading Group, (We are all familiar with these guys..) handled more than 11% of all the buy and sell orders for Nasdaq-listed stocks in 2000. They were in fact under investigation by the Securities &
Exchange Commission (SEC) and the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) for alleged “front running.”

Knight’s former head of institutional trading accused Knight traders of front running. He alleged that the traders placed their own orders for stock before others. Now that is interesting. We have terms now, that better describes the activity of the Mms with regards to CMKX.

Lets see the terms we have are as follows:

“Ghosting,” the illegal practice whereby two or more market makers collectively attempt to influence and change the price of a stock. This is a practice which we see on a routine daily basis, and

“Front running,” in which specialist market makers use their knowledge of private, incoming order-flow information revealed by limit orders to generate monopolistic trading profits.

Bottom line, by virtue of their positions and specialized knowledge they knew exactly what they were doing when the engaged in any form of manipulation.

To that end I would offer this comment…they are guilty. It is clear now that NSS can not and should never have been construed as a “necessary evil” to maintain stability in the markets.

NSS is an illegal act and those who are participated in it or in any other forms of manipulation, are guilty of the requisite wrongful attitude that accompanies the act of fraud. In OTHER WORDS, IT WASN’T ENGAGED IN BY ACCIDENT, SPECIIFC INTENT WAS NECESSARY TO FACILIATE THE EVENT.

Knowing this, why did so many in positions of authority fail to act upon this knowledge?
Maybe because they had their hands in the cookie jar also.

They also must have intended to act in a specific manner to reap a benefit, even knowing that they were holders of the Public Trust and that in fact, having such knowledge of the NSS, they betrayed the public trust and allowed various forms and repeated acts of manipulation to go forward.

To that issue I would suggest that their actions were intentional and as I previously stated, they have the tools to ascertain such manipulations at their disposal. So they were fully cognizant that such actions were taking place and they fully understood that such actions would deprive us of certain benefits and values permanently. That in my opinion is indicative of conditions / circumstances which make all of them criminals for engaging in actions where intent and fore knowledge is demonstrated as being present.

Okay where are we headed?

Well I don’t know about you, but I’m headed in a direction to get accountability from those who deprived me of what I was legally due,. I want satisfaction and monetary compensation from those who clearly intended to defraud me and knowingly conspired will others, with a willful intent to do so.

So we understand this premise I’m discussing here…General intent can be inferred by the act (CIVIL). Whereas Specific intent crimes (CRIMINAL) involves solicitation, conspiracy, attempt, murder, assault, felonies against property: Larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, forgery.

I’m not a law enforcement agency, so my efforts will be directed toward the civil aspect of obtaining relief.

I have previously discussed integrity, morality and public trust in various posts. Some understood where I was headed, other considered them too long, which is fine with me, because the posting were simply my way of thinking out loud and sharing information with those I have a shared commonality of interest. But clearly, it seems that no one was listening.

Such a failure to listen, to open one’s mind and consider all aspects of an issue, has become the mainstay of the bad guy’s agenda to keep us dumb and poor. It has become the plight of our modern society to be “the sound bite society,” in which we have evolved to wanting small bite sized data to consume, at the expense of actually knowing the real facts on a given issue.

As a society we have rules and regulations to live by, otherwise we would seen people running amok in the streets and a society where only the strong would rule and survive….ummmh!

Anyway, that is the premise of having laws, to have in place a level playing field which once established must be maintained to ensure stability and fairness for all. It’s only when we fail to maintain that level playing field that we encounter problems. These problems usually start as simple things which people say.. “”that doesn’t matter.” But those simple things that really do matter , they are usually the discarded things which serve as the basis and lubricant that creates the slippery slope.

Lets review some pf these rules /laws….

Model Penal Code…rejects distinction of specific v general intent, proposes these mental states of mind such as…..

Purposely: intends conduct and intends (desires) the outcome that will occur. is aware of existence of circumstances or believes or hopes they exist

Knowingly: A person does not want result but engages in act that is overwhelmingly likely to cause the result. In other words knows result could happen and initiates action toward and with a specific end result.

Recklessly:
The person in question consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk; disregard involves a gross deviation from that standard conduct of a law-abiding person.

Negligently:
The person committing the act should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, but fails to perceive risk to such a degree that it is construed as a gross deviation from that standard of care that a reasonable person would observe.

Okay, while I’m hopeful of a monetary resolution to this CMKX saga, I’m not overly concerned at this point about the settlement rumors, simply because rumors have a way of resolving themselves through a production / non production of the event in question.

What I’m really interested in exploring are the events that will surely transpire once this matter is finally revealed.

Trust me on this, there won’t be rumors of litigation, there will be litigation as many band together to initiate actions against those who manipulated us. I’m not an attorney, but I have good ones at my disposal and what I ‘m posting here is not intended to take the place of sound legal advice, it should be seen as simply my opinions given in a clearly hypothetical perspective with regards to CMKX and those manipulators who have been involved.

In any discussion of litigation there is always the question of what constitutes culpability, especially in criminal cases?

Well lets approach it from a common sense perspective in which one clearly understands the need to first establish some parameters regarding culpability, with regards to the alleged offenders.

I believe that to be a common starting point in which the perspective of "actus reus" and "mens rea" can be viewed and discussed.

Two terms derived from the principle “ actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty", i.e. the general test is one that requires proof of fault, of culpability or blameworthiness both in behavior and mind.

In this respect, the role of automatism is highly relevant in providing a positive explanation of the need to demonstrate they acted on their own accord, for their behavior to be found accountable in other words did they willingly engage in the activity with knowledge?

Once the actus reus has been established in a conventional offense, there must be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to justify a conviction.

Most legislatures also create so-called strict liability offenses, which criminalize the behavior without the need to prove a mens rea. The majority of these offenses are either quasi-criminal or relatively low fault instances of behavior, but liability may still be negated if automatism is present.

The actus reus of a crime generally falls within one of three classes, the first two being subject to a requirement of causation. ( THERE THAT WORD AGAIN, WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION).

The definition of each offense, whether common law or statutory, will always include the factual components necessary to constitute the actus reus. Some of these facts will be:

Contextual, i.e. describing the time or general circumstances during which the key components were allegedly committed, e.g. that a vehicle was driven at night with defective lights or that injuries were caused while resisting lawful arrest;

The key elements considered sufficiently antisocial that they should be proscribed, e.g. driving a vehicle dangerously. This will usually be based on one or more verbs which describe what the accused must have done.

Consequential, i.e. describing the result or outcome of the verb(s), e.g. that a victim was injured or suffered loss in some material way.

For both common law and statutory offenses, establishing the detailed list of elements necessary to constitute the offense and their scope is a matter of interpretation which may require the courts to review and revise its precedents to ensure that the current interpretations match the current needs.

For example, if an offence uses a verb such as "inflict" or "enter", it is for the courts to lay down the factors by which to distinguish the forms of action that might satisfy the requirement. Burglary requires "entry as a trespasser" so if the accused cut a hole in a window and introduced a fishing rod into the room to catch jewelry, would this be an entry?

Equally, if a surgeon performs a lifesaving operation knowing that the accused did not consent, did he or she inflict injury by cutting open the patient as victim with a knife?

At times, these decisions will have profound moral and practical implications for a society, with the rulings of judges and the findings of juries reflecting prevailing attitudes on issues as controversial as euthanasia and assisted suicide, sexual relationships, and the various forms of business activities that should or should not be crimes.

The problem is that, in effect, the courts may retrospectively criminalize behavior. If there are justifications for this outcome, they follow the argument that a person skating on thin ice can hardly complain if he or she falls through.

It is however, the true function of the courts to act to protect the rights of victims and the needs of society at large, and if this means that courts have an inherent jurisdiction to create new crimes by reinterpreting the old, that is probably a price worth paying so long as the power is used sparingly.

Taking a more everyday example, most legislatures create offences which regulate road traffic. Although humans and the words used to require a test of whether particular driving was or was not dangerous have remained remain relatively unchanging, technology has steadily evolved.

Many cars are fitted with sophisticated computerized systems to help control the vehicle while braking and so reduce the risk of skidding. If a car does skid and injures a pedestrian because, in all the circumstances, it was traveling at an excessive speed, should there be a variable test of dangerousness depending on whether the particular car was fitted with one or more of the additional safety devices?

The difficulty is that the speed at which it would be dangerous to drive an unmodified car might be entirely safe in the same road conditions in a car with the relevant devices installed. The answer is that each court will make a decision based on the particular set of facts before it but will always require a certain minimum level of skill from the driver.

Hence, an inexperienced driver cannot use the lack of skill as an excuse. Conversely, whether a person with vast experience as an international rally driver should show a greater than average level of skill in ordinary driving conditions is usually only a matter to be considered in sentencing.

Omission

In the criminal law, at common law, there was no general duty of care owed to fellow citizens. The traditional view was encapsulated in the example of watching a person drown in shallow water and making no rescue effort, where commentators borrowed the line, "Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep another alive." (Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861)), in support of the proposition that the failure to act does not attract criminal liability.

Nevertheless, such failures might be morally indefensible and so both legislatures and the courts have imposed liability when the failure to act is sufficiently blameworthy to justify criminalization. Some statutes therefore explicitly state that the actus reus consists of any relevant "act or omission", or use a word that may include both.

Hence, the word "cause" may be both positive in the sense that the accused proactively injured the victim and negative in that the accused intentionally failed to act knowing that this failure would cause the relevant injury.

In the courts, the trend has been to use objective tests to determine whether, in circumstances where there would have been no risk to the accused's health or well-being, the accused should have taken action to prevent a foreseeable injury being sustained by a particular victim or one from a class of potential victims. So, returning to the drowning example, the accused would be liable if the victim was a child in a pool with a water depth of six inches, or there was a floatation device nearby that could easily be thrown to the victim, or the accused was carrying a mobile phone that could be used to summon help.

However, the law will never penalize someone for not jumping into a raging torrent of water, i.e. the law does not require the potential saver to risk drowning even though the individual might be a lifeguard paid to patrol the given beach, river or pool. No matter what the terms of employment, an employee can never be required to do more than what is reasonable in all the circumstances.

State of affairs

A number of offences are defined as a situation or context, e.g. "being found within enclosed premises", "being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle", etc. These are usually strict liability and a conviction could be sustained even though an accused did not act in a wholly voluntary manner. Hence, if a person fell asleep in a quiet corner of a library and was locked in by inadvertent staff, the offence would be committed, but the relatively low level of fault could be reflected in the sentence

The external elements of a crime —the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, i.e. the "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in common law-based criminal law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Therefore we are looking at essentially the crime as having two parts: the mental part (“mens rea”) and the physical part (“actus reus”). In this way, we must interpret activities to include conduct, the harm that the perpetrator’s conduct caused, plus the causal link between the conduct and the harm.

Some have suggested that we proving a NSS position within CMKX. This notion was supported or at least encouraged by Frizzell as pertinent information made in a public forum or via a written medium, such pertinent information failure will surely impact the decision making ability of the shareholder’s to litigate or not based on what is finally revealed as the reasons for the cert pull.

I digress, so I’ll return to the manipulations / actions which can be viewed / construed as a form of Actus Reus …a guilty act which consists of voluntary act or omission that causes harm.

We also have to consider what boundaries exist whereby those involved in the manipulation actually had knowledge of certain information and failed to provide that information to those (shareholders) having a vested interest and a need to know right? This could range from the SEC RIGHT DOWN TO THE ir GUYS.

Is there linkage, as in causation, where a relationship exists between conduct and consequences?

What was the true function of “promoting” through hype, a condition in which false hope was held out to the shareholders that a better condition was forthcoming?

Does this action suggest or constitute a conspiracy of intent on the part of those who by accident or design created conditions in which we as shareholders would be permanently deprived of something of value and that being our company and our true PPS value?

If that is the case, that position would then clearly indicate, that many, at various levels of this event, some by their own admission have in fact acted in a way to manipulate by hype or bash, the life cycle / PPS of CMKX for their own agenda.

In any event do we simply accept that those who played a major role in CMKX’s demise are to be held harmless? Or that litigation at all levels from the SEC on down is not worth pursuing?

The harm done to us is clear. We all agree that person or persons acting with intent, or in a reckless negligent manner, individually and collectively committed criminal acts of deception and fraud to deprive us of something of value, our initial investment and the opportunity to profit short and long term from CMKX.

There is no doubt, or should be no doubt, that actions did occurr which resulted in the negation of an expected beneficial condition relevant to shareholder’s interest, specifically due to a designed or certain condition promoted, as a result of, repeated and egregious failures to abide by SEC laws and implied corporate integrity on the part of those involved with or having a public trust agreement . They did deprive us of the true value of CMKX.

No where in society's standards should individuals or corporations such as the SEC, DTCC, BROKAGE FIRMS, etc) be allowed to visit criminal acts on an unsuspecting public with whom they have a covenant. Sending a message of deterrent by punishing individual(s) and corporations for illegal actions that has been demonstrated to be egregious, is the responsibility of those charged with overseeing the activities involving the public's interest. If they fail in their duties, then we should as a group, be forceful in our reminder to them and that force will be litigation.

Take a stand when this cert pull issue is finalized. Assess exactly what transpired and who should be held accountable. After all, we will have clearly defined evidence to support our claims of fraud and deceptive trade practices upon completion of the cert pull.

fw

[fastwalker]

Of course if ZTG, ELO and Jay are correct by Tuesday we will all be wealthy...lol

If that is the case, many will move on and forget about this struggle. I will not. I think that we need a grass roots movement to address corruption at many levels and given the extent of money I anticipate from this "settlement / payout / entitlement.. whatever you want to call it, I still plan to light a fire under many people's butts to push the envelope of fighting / exposing those various manipulation processes I've outlined here.


There is a plan..but know one cares…lol

FW

[Franko10 ™]

Wow buddy I gotta go get my coffee and have a sit down and read this one,.. thanks for posting!~

[Franko10 ™]

Wow buddy,.. all I can say is wow,..