Owner
Post by Franko10 ™ on Nov 6, 2006 9:57:56 GMT -5
From where I am sitting aside from what I have been told about the short,.. where is the proof,.. or are we all looking for something that is just not there,,.
JMHO ,.. but in order to get compensation for something you have to be able to prove it,.
Last time I check out cert pull didn't cut it,.. coming in well below our CEO's appoint O/S.
So without bashing and name calling all I want from all of you is one answer,.. all the pumpers and gurus supply me with one shred of evidence that would be considered proof of a short.
All documents I have looked at over the years shows no proof so I am curious why so many are demanding compensation for something they have never seen,.. are they demanding it because they are told to,.. or do they in fact have proof,..
Not saying CMKM is a scam,.. not saying NSS never was,.. just saying slight of hand comes in many forms and perhaps we were deceived in a place many thought was the play...
Think about it,..
And better yet ,.. post it out in here,.. lets brain storm.,.. if there was in fact a NSS it should be pretty obvious by now one would assume,.. so where is it?
Thanks In Advance for keeping the post respectable and on topic.
Now to add a note I already ran this thread on the millionaires and I have new evidence there is no short,..
From the testimony:
The transfer agent
The SEC's next witness was Helen Bagley, owner of 1st Global Stock Transfer, which acted as CMKM's transfer agent.
Ms. Bagley testified that she had been CMKM's transfer agent since December of 2002, except "for one short week" in the summer of 2004 when there was "a rift" between 1st Global and CMKM.
As previously reported by Stockwatch, CMKM dropped 1st Global and proudly announced the engagement of Pacific Stock Transfer on June 29, 2004. Within days, Pacific Stock Transfer had disclosed to many CMKM shareholders that the company had a staggering 400 billion shares outstanding.
That was the end of CMKM's association with Pacific Stock Transfer. By July 8, 2004, the company announced that it had rehired 1st Global.
As part of her direct examination, Ms. Hakala led Ms. Bagley through a series of questions to draw out an explanation of the difference between issued, surrendered and outstanding shares.
"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.
"Yes," said Ms. Bagley.
"Okay," Ms. Hakala continued. "And the issued number of shares can change depending on how many people transfer shares among themselves once the company issues them?"
"Correct," Ms. Bagley replied.
Ms. Hakala moved on to pose a number of questions regarding CMKM's shareholders list for July 22, 2003, which indicated that the company had 698 shareholders of record as of that date.
In response to a question from the SEC lawyer, Ms. Bagley testified that shares held in street name would be reflected in the entry for Cede & Co. on that list, but there was no way for her to determine how many shareholders held those shares.
The transfer agent testified that she did not remember sending a shareholder list to CMKM in July of 2003, nor did a search of her records indicate that such a list had been sent to the company.
"Do you remember anyone from CMKM Diamonds asking you how many shareholders of record there were in July of 2003?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"No, I don't," Ms. Bagley said.
"Have you asked your staff if any of them remember anyone from CMKM Diamonds inquiring about the number of shareholders of record in July of 2003," the lawyer queried.
"Yes, I did," Ms. Bagley replied.
"And what did they say?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"They said no," the transfer agent answered.
As previously reported by Stockwatch, CMKM filed a Form 15 with the SEC claiming that it only had 300 shareholders of record as of July 22, 2003, effectively exempting the company from reporting obligations. In fact, CMKM had 698 shareholders of record as of that date and should have been filing periodic reports.
Ms. Hakala then moved to another series of questions regarding a share issuance in January of 2003.
According to Ms. Bagley's testimony, a total of more than 994 million shares were issued to 360 different people "for fieldwork in Canada" in January of 2003. Those 360 people were all shareholders of record after the stock was issued.
"So as of January 2003, the company knowingly had over 300 shareholders of record?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"Yes," Ms. Bagley replied.
"Did it seem strange to you that 360 people received shares for fieldwork in Canada?" the SEC lawyer queried.
"Yes," Ms. Bagley said.
Moving forward, Ms. Hakala referred Ms. Bagley to CMKM's master shareholders list for Dec. 31, 2004.
"How many shares were outstanding as of December 31st, 2004?" Ms. Hakala asked.
Ms. Bagley replied that there were 778,518,875,000 shares outstanding as of that date.
"If any auditors contacted you to ask how many outstanding shares there were as of December 31st, 2004, what would you say?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"I would tell them there are 778 billion," Ms. Bagley said.
"And change," suggested Ms. Hakala.
"And change," Ms. Bagley agreed.
Ms. Bagley went on to testify that there were 2,033 shareholders of record as of Dec. 31, 2004.
"And issued shares?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"It looks like two trillion and change," Ms. Bagley said.
"Does that mean that there are two trillion and change shares floating around out there?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"No," said Ms. Bagley. "That is the same thing as what's been issued and cancelled. It's constant."
"And the number of surrendered shares?" the lawyer queried.
"A billion four and change," Ms. Bagley began. "Or, excuse me, a trillion four and change."
"So if I took that trillion four and change, subtracted it from the 2.2 trillion and change, I'd end up with the number of outstanding shares?" asked Ms. Hakala.
"Correct," said Ms. Bagley.
"And do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of these numbers?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"None whatsoever," Ms. Bagley replied.
With that, Ms. Hakala finished her direct examination and handed off to Mr. Stoecklein, who conducted a brief cross-examination.
Mr. Stoecklein drew an acknowledgement from Ms. Bagley that his office had requested the CMKM shareholder list for July 22, 2003, and Dec. 31, 2004, on Feb. 10 or Feb. 11 of this year.
"Okay," Mr. Stoecklein said. "You've mentioned that the shareholder list that we've been referring to -- and we've been referring to two lists. One is July and one is December.
"And I'm not really going to distinguish amongst the two of them for this question.
"You've mentioned that the shares listed on those lists, the shares are in Cede & Company?"
"Correct," Ms. Bagley replied.
"And where do those shares go when they're in Cede & Company?" Mr. Stoecklein asked.
"They go into street name," Ms. Bagley began. "I -- I -- excuse me. Can you please clarify?"
"Sure," said Mr. Stoecklein. "I think you answered the question, though. They go in street name -- "
"Okay," Ms. Bagley said.
"Which means they don't stay in the name of the very shareholder; is that correct?" Mr. Stoecklein asked.
"That's correct," the transfer agent replied.
"Do you have any idea where that actual certificate ends up when it goes to Cede & Company?" asked Mr. Stoecklein.
"No, I don't," said Ms. Bagley.
"You don't keep a copy; correct?" CMKM's lawyer asked.
"No," Ms. Bagley answered.
"Are you familiar with the Depository Trust Company, DTC?" Mr. Stoecklein asked.
"Yes," said Ms. Bagley.
"Do you have an understanding that those shares may actually end up with the DTC?" Mr. Stoecklein queried.
"Yes," the transfer agent said.
"Are you familiar with what's called the share borrower program?" Mr. Stoecklein asked, drawing an objection from Ms. Hakala.
"What is the relevance of the share program?" Judge Murray asked CMKM's lawyer.
"Well, Your Honor, the whole issue just now was on what's issued and what's outstanding," Mr. Stoecklein said. "I'm trying to get to this issue of outstanding. They brought it up again."
"Wait a minute," Judge Murray said. "This has a bearing on what's outstanding?"
"It sure does, Your Honor," Mr. Stoecklein replied.
"Okay," the judge said. "I'll overrule the objection and allow the question if the witness knows."
"And I'm going to be very brief about it, Your Honor," Mr. Stoecklein said.
"Well, I don't -- I think you might be disappointed," Judge Murray said, turning to Ms. Bagley. "Does the witness know the answer to the question?"
"No, I don't," Ms. Bagley replied. "It's the first time I've heard it."
That marked the end of Mr. Stoecklein's cross-examination.
Ms. Hakala put a few more questions to Ms. Bagley on redirect, drawing testimony that the transfer agent retained the originals of all the shares that were surrendered and cancelled.
The SEC lawyer also drew a confirmation from Ms. Bagley that neither she nor anyone on her staff remembered anyone asking for the number of CMKM shareholders of record in July of 2003.
When Ms. Hakala finished her short redirect, Judge Murray posed a question of her own.
"Could I just ask the witness, do you transfer stock for any other company that has over 778 billion outstanding shares," the judge asked.
"No, we don't," Ms. Bagley replied.
With that, Judge Murray excused the witness.
JMHO ,.. but in order to get compensation for something you have to be able to prove it,.
Last time I check out cert pull didn't cut it,.. coming in well below our CEO's appoint O/S.
So without bashing and name calling all I want from all of you is one answer,.. all the pumpers and gurus supply me with one shred of evidence that would be considered proof of a short.
All documents I have looked at over the years shows no proof so I am curious why so many are demanding compensation for something they have never seen,.. are they demanding it because they are told to,.. or do they in fact have proof,..
Not saying CMKM is a scam,.. not saying NSS never was,.. just saying slight of hand comes in many forms and perhaps we were deceived in a place many thought was the play...
Think about it,..
And better yet ,.. post it out in here,.. lets brain storm.,.. if there was in fact a NSS it should be pretty obvious by now one would assume,.. so where is it?
Thanks In Advance for keeping the post respectable and on topic.
Now to add a note I already ran this thread on the millionaires and I have new evidence there is no short,..
From the testimony:
The transfer agent
The SEC's next witness was Helen Bagley, owner of 1st Global Stock Transfer, which acted as CMKM's transfer agent.
Ms. Bagley testified that she had been CMKM's transfer agent since December of 2002, except "for one short week" in the summer of 2004 when there was "a rift" between 1st Global and CMKM.
As previously reported by Stockwatch, CMKM dropped 1st Global and proudly announced the engagement of Pacific Stock Transfer on June 29, 2004. Within days, Pacific Stock Transfer had disclosed to many CMKM shareholders that the company had a staggering 400 billion shares outstanding.
That was the end of CMKM's association with Pacific Stock Transfer. By July 8, 2004, the company announced that it had rehired 1st Global.
As part of her direct examination, Ms. Hakala led Ms. Bagley through a series of questions to draw out an explanation of the difference between issued, surrendered and outstanding shares.
"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.
"Yes," said Ms. Bagley.
"Okay," Ms. Hakala continued. "And the issued number of shares can change depending on how many people transfer shares among themselves once the company issues them?"
"Correct," Ms. Bagley replied.
Ms. Hakala moved on to pose a number of questions regarding CMKM's shareholders list for July 22, 2003, which indicated that the company had 698 shareholders of record as of that date.
In response to a question from the SEC lawyer, Ms. Bagley testified that shares held in street name would be reflected in the entry for Cede & Co. on that list, but there was no way for her to determine how many shareholders held those shares.
The transfer agent testified that she did not remember sending a shareholder list to CMKM in July of 2003, nor did a search of her records indicate that such a list had been sent to the company.
"Do you remember anyone from CMKM Diamonds asking you how many shareholders of record there were in July of 2003?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"No, I don't," Ms. Bagley said.
"Have you asked your staff if any of them remember anyone from CMKM Diamonds inquiring about the number of shareholders of record in July of 2003," the lawyer queried.
"Yes, I did," Ms. Bagley replied.
"And what did they say?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"They said no," the transfer agent answered.
As previously reported by Stockwatch, CMKM filed a Form 15 with the SEC claiming that it only had 300 shareholders of record as of July 22, 2003, effectively exempting the company from reporting obligations. In fact, CMKM had 698 shareholders of record as of that date and should have been filing periodic reports.
Ms. Hakala then moved to another series of questions regarding a share issuance in January of 2003.
According to Ms. Bagley's testimony, a total of more than 994 million shares were issued to 360 different people "for fieldwork in Canada" in January of 2003. Those 360 people were all shareholders of record after the stock was issued.
"So as of January 2003, the company knowingly had over 300 shareholders of record?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"Yes," Ms. Bagley replied.
"Did it seem strange to you that 360 people received shares for fieldwork in Canada?" the SEC lawyer queried.
"Yes," Ms. Bagley said.
Moving forward, Ms. Hakala referred Ms. Bagley to CMKM's master shareholders list for Dec. 31, 2004.
"How many shares were outstanding as of December 31st, 2004?" Ms. Hakala asked.
Ms. Bagley replied that there were 778,518,875,000 shares outstanding as of that date.
"If any auditors contacted you to ask how many outstanding shares there were as of December 31st, 2004, what would you say?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"I would tell them there are 778 billion," Ms. Bagley said.
"And change," suggested Ms. Hakala.
"And change," Ms. Bagley agreed.
Ms. Bagley went on to testify that there were 2,033 shareholders of record as of Dec. 31, 2004.
"And issued shares?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"It looks like two trillion and change," Ms. Bagley said.
"Does that mean that there are two trillion and change shares floating around out there?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"No," said Ms. Bagley. "That is the same thing as what's been issued and cancelled. It's constant."
"And the number of surrendered shares?" the lawyer queried.
"A billion four and change," Ms. Bagley began. "Or, excuse me, a trillion four and change."
"So if I took that trillion four and change, subtracted it from the 2.2 trillion and change, I'd end up with the number of outstanding shares?" asked Ms. Hakala.
"Correct," said Ms. Bagley.
"And do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of these numbers?" Ms. Hakala asked.
"None whatsoever," Ms. Bagley replied.
With that, Ms. Hakala finished her direct examination and handed off to Mr. Stoecklein, who conducted a brief cross-examination.
Mr. Stoecklein drew an acknowledgement from Ms. Bagley that his office had requested the CMKM shareholder list for July 22, 2003, and Dec. 31, 2004, on Feb. 10 or Feb. 11 of this year.
"Okay," Mr. Stoecklein said. "You've mentioned that the shareholder list that we've been referring to -- and we've been referring to two lists. One is July and one is December.
"And I'm not really going to distinguish amongst the two of them for this question.
"You've mentioned that the shares listed on those lists, the shares are in Cede & Company?"
"Correct," Ms. Bagley replied.
"And where do those shares go when they're in Cede & Company?" Mr. Stoecklein asked.
"They go into street name," Ms. Bagley began. "I -- I -- excuse me. Can you please clarify?"
"Sure," said Mr. Stoecklein. "I think you answered the question, though. They go in street name -- "
"Okay," Ms. Bagley said.
"Which means they don't stay in the name of the very shareholder; is that correct?" Mr. Stoecklein asked.
"That's correct," the transfer agent replied.
"Do you have any idea where that actual certificate ends up when it goes to Cede & Company?" asked Mr. Stoecklein.
"No, I don't," said Ms. Bagley.
"You don't keep a copy; correct?" CMKM's lawyer asked.
"No," Ms. Bagley answered.
"Are you familiar with the Depository Trust Company, DTC?" Mr. Stoecklein asked.
"Yes," said Ms. Bagley.
"Do you have an understanding that those shares may actually end up with the DTC?" Mr. Stoecklein queried.
"Yes," the transfer agent said.
"Are you familiar with what's called the share borrower program?" Mr. Stoecklein asked, drawing an objection from Ms. Hakala.
"What is the relevance of the share program?" Judge Murray asked CMKM's lawyer.
"Well, Your Honor, the whole issue just now was on what's issued and what's outstanding," Mr. Stoecklein said. "I'm trying to get to this issue of outstanding. They brought it up again."
"Wait a minute," Judge Murray said. "This has a bearing on what's outstanding?"
"It sure does, Your Honor," Mr. Stoecklein replied.
"Okay," the judge said. "I'll overrule the objection and allow the question if the witness knows."
"And I'm going to be very brief about it, Your Honor," Mr. Stoecklein said.
"Well, I don't -- I think you might be disappointed," Judge Murray said, turning to Ms. Bagley. "Does the witness know the answer to the question?"
"No, I don't," Ms. Bagley replied. "It's the first time I've heard it."
That marked the end of Mr. Stoecklein's cross-examination.
Ms. Hakala put a few more questions to Ms. Bagley on redirect, drawing testimony that the transfer agent retained the originals of all the shares that were surrendered and cancelled.
The SEC lawyer also drew a confirmation from Ms. Bagley that neither she nor anyone on her staff remembered anyone asking for the number of CMKM shareholders of record in July of 2003.
When Ms. Hakala finished her short redirect, Judge Murray posed a question of her own.
"Could I just ask the witness, do you transfer stock for any other company that has over 778 billion outstanding shares," the judge asked.
"No, we don't," Ms. Bagley replied.
With that, Judge Murray excused the witness.
