We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Gold/Mining/EnergyCasavant Mining Kimberlite International (CMKM)

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: CBurnett6/9/2008 8:47:19 PM
   of 2593
CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Continues to Try and Identify Shareholders

Last update: 5:42 p.m. EDT June 9, 2008

TYLER, Texas, Jun 09, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- In our efforts to continue to try to identify all of the shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. stock, current management of the Company would like to point investors that have been unable to procure physical stock certificates from their brokers to the website. is launching today to help identify the magnitude of individual investors unable to obtain stock ownership certificates and who perhaps inadvertently purchased illegal "naked short" or "phantom" electronic "entitlements" instead of actual shares. The scope of settlement failures in general has become a hot debate.
Commonly referred to as the "naked short selling" problem, the real damage is caused by stock lending and settlement failures(a). Of course, the end result is the same: an investor makes a payment but has no actual investment. That investor is not a "shareholder" because they don't own shares. Instead, they are an UnShareholder.

According to the website: If you requested a stock certificate from your broker and have not received it, you are an UnShareholder. If your brokerage account was changed to delete the shares of a company that you didn't agree is "worthless", you are an UnShareholder. If you received a 1099 with "non-qualifying dividends" when you believed you owned regular shares, you are probably an UnShareholder too.

Attorney Al Hodges states, "The UnShareholder site has been developed and established by the Pasadena, California law firm of Hodges and Associates in an attempt to document the nature and depth of the UnShareholder problem as well as to identify individual investors whom have in good faith purchased publicly traded shares of stock but, for all the wrong and illegal reasons, are not entitled to receive them nor to enjoy all the indicia of ownership."
(a) Stock lending is closely associated with short selling and settlement failure refers to the problem of sellers not delivering shares on the settlement date. Naked short selling is when stock is sold short and not borrowed for delivery on the settlement date.

SOURCE: CMKM Diamonds Inc.
CMKM Diamonds Inc., Tyler
Kevin West 903-262-8397

Copyright Business Wire 2008

PR :CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Continues to Try and Identify Shareholders

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: average joe9/18/2009 12:12:45 AM
   of 2593
DOJ Issues Six Criminal Indictments in CMKM Diamonds Case

September 17, 2009

Seven years after the saga of CMKM Diamonds, Inc (CMKX) officially began, over four years after the company was revoked by the SEC, and a year-and-a-half after the SEC filed civil charges against eleven individuals and three corporate entities, the Department of Justice unsealed criminal indictments against six individuals in the largest penny stock fraud in history.

Former CMKM CEO Urban Casavant and alleged mastermind John Edwards, along with cohort James Kinney, transfer agent Helen Bagley, attorney Brian Dvorak, and Urban’s secretary Ginger Gutierrez were charged with five counts of securities fraud in the massive and complex scam, which involved the selling of over 700 billion shares of CMKX stock to unsuspecting shareholders for an estimated $250 million.

The 40-page indictment, unsealed today in Las Vegas, included allegations of selling unregistered shares of company stock “by use of the mails, over-the-counter mediums of exchange (e.g, the Pink Sheets), and other means” in violation of federal laws. The indictment states that “JOHN M. EDWARDS, URBAN CASAVANT, HELEN BAGLEY, BRIAN DVORAK, GINGER GUTIERREZ, JAMED KINNEY, and others known and unknown, conspired to fraudulently issue and sell unregistered shares of CMKM stock for the purposes of enriching themselves.”

Casavant was also charged with income tax evasion for failing to report a “large part of the income tax due and owing by him to the United States of America for the calendar year 2004.” The charges allege that Casavant “concealed income from the stock and securities of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., by using nominees to conceal and disguise his interest in the shares and the proceeds, and by routing proceeds to accounts of nominees, corporate alter egos, and other entities” within his control.

The charges also included four “forfeiture allegations,” seeking either fines or property seizure on each count. Each forfeiture count states, “It is the intent of the United States of America to seek forfeiture of any properties of the defendants up to $60,000,000 in United States Currency.”

Timothy S. Vasquez, who was instrumental in the arrest and conviction of John Edwards’ wife Diana Lee Edwards (formerly Diana Lee Flaherty) in 2006, was brought on board to head the criminal task force investigating the CMKX scam earlier this year, helping to breathe new life into an investigation that many people (including this reporter) believed had been shelved for good. The multi-agency task force was comprised of representatives from the DOJ, FBI, IRS, and the SEC. The indictment will be available on the CMKM Diamonds website tomorrow at

Defendants Bagley, Kinney, and Gutierrez, who were arrested in Las Vegas yesterday, and Brian Dvorak, who was apprehended in Colorado, were released on bond today. Defendant John Edwards was arrested on September 7 in England. Extradition proceedings are ongoing. Urban Casavant, believed to be in Canada, is still at large.

With over 300,000 pages of evidence scanned during the discovery process, the trials involving all six defendants could take years, but at least the criminal justice process has officially begun. After years of waiting and hoping, sometimes all but giving up hope, today’s criminal indictments will hopefully offer some degree of closure for the over 50,000 victims in the CMKX scandal.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: StockDung9/18/2009 4:36:29 PM
   of 2593
Indictments in CMKM Diamonds Naked Shorting Scam
Friday, September 18, 2009

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: StockDung who wrote (2581)3/2/2010 3:10:58 PM
From: scion
   of 2593
CMKM Diamonds Kelowna litigant has more theories

2010-03-02 13:36 ET - Street Wire
Also Street Wire (U-CMKX) CMKM Diamonds Inc

by Janice Shell

There is another legal filing by David Nelson, the Canadian shareholder of CMKM Diamonds Inc., who late last year filed a lawsuit in Kelowna against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Following the filing of his statement of claim, Mr. Nelson provided a number of "updates" to his cult-like followers on various Internet message boards, and has appeared at one court hearing.

About three weeks ago, he submitted a lengthy affidavit to the Kelowna court. Unlike a usual affidavit, a sworn statement of fact, this ramble reads more like an amended statement of claim, that is, full of allegations, many repeated again and again. He furnished a copy of his affidavit to his online fans, using his familiar alias "Gus Jarvis." We review it below.

The SEC's lawsuit against the CMKM Diamonds perpetrators has left the company's cult-like shareholders unsatisfied. They believe they are owed large sums, though not by the actual perpetrators of the scam. These shareholders have found a fatter goose to pluck, and now demand to be "paid" by the SEC. Their earnest pleas (and constant grumbling) have resulted in the filing of two legal actions against the commission and its commissioners. Both actions are brim-full of conspiracy theories, the likes of which were a staple of the CMKM promotion.

Mr. Nelson, a shareholder, self-filed his lawsuit on Nov. 6, 2009, at the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Kelowna. A. Clifton Hodges, a Pasadena lawyer, filed his, a class-action, on Jan. 8, 2010, in U.S. Federal Court.

The affidavit

In Mr. Nelson's affidavit, he swears that now he, not the CMKX Shareholders Coalition for Justice, is the plaintiff: "I am the Plaintiff in this proceeding and as such have personal knowledge of the matters and facts hereinafter deposed to, save where stated to be on information and belief and where so stated I verily believe the same to be true." It comprises a few facts and a great many beliefs.

Mr. Nelson appears to have to some extent changed his mind about why he is suing the SEC. In the statement of claim, he alleged that the SEC had, through negligence, failed to stop the CMKM fraud in a timely manner, and that they further "colluded" with unnamed perpetrators in the supposed naked shortselling of CMKM stock. In the affidavit, he mentions those claims only briefly before going on to incorporate many elements of the complaint filed by Mr. Hodges in California -- the sting operation, the "frozen trusts", and of course the $3.87 trillion monetary demand -- all of which he believes to be true and well founded.

The "evidence"

According to Mr. Nelson, all of the above has been clearly proved by Mr. Hodges, whose case "confirms CMKX was used as a vehicle in a sting operation, and statements made in the case are now confirmed by talks taking place to release the money from the frozen trust accounts between Al Hodges and the SEC and other Government entities."

As evidence he cites talks with lawyer Mr. Hodges. "In preparation for my filing I have had discussion with Al Hodges and he has confirmed directly to me that these trusts are there and the funds have been collected. His lawsuit is only to force the release of the already collected funds. Several plaintiffs who hired Al Hodges in this case have confirmed on public forums [that is, Internet message boards] that talks and actions are ongoing to release these monies, but the U.S. Government has repeatedly lied about the release of those funds, sending codes to release the money that did not work, and that money was missing out of the trust fund when access codes worked."

There follows a lengthy recitation from Mr. Hodges's complaint, which includes a number of astonishing allegations: "To fulfill the plan to criminally trap such wrongdoers, the Securities and Exchange Commission, with assistance from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security:

"Encouraged the company to expand its promotional activities, assisted in the setup of the "racing activities" [CMKM sponsored a NASCAR Funny Car] of the company, and underwrote a substantial portion of the cost of such activities;

"Consented to, facilitated, and supported the sale of certain company [mineral claims to several foreign corporations;

"Consented to, facilitated, and supported the conferences between Robert A. Maheu and his associates on the one hand, and the wrongdoing short sellers on the other, all for the purpose of settling the potential liability of said wrongdoers with consent of the U.S. Government."

In addition, the SEC supposedly "consented" to the hiring of D. Roger Glenn, at one time CMKM's lawyer, and to the payment of stock dividends in shares of several companies related to CMKM. Both Mr. Hodges and Mr. Nelson mistakenly believe that Roger Glenn was the "drafter of [the] Sarbanes-Oxley [Act]."

"NSS" once more

Having read Mr. Hodges's allegations into the record, so to speak, Mr. Nelson mounts his favourite hobbyhorse, naked shortselling. In a breathtaking excursus on "collusion between the hedge funds, Wall Street firms, the SEC, DTCC, SIFMA [Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association], and the Federal Reserve," he veers off into a discussion of Bernie Madoff's crimes: "Bernie Madoff is just a small example of collusion that takes place on wall street, one in which the criminals made all the rules, one in which you don't even have to sell the public real shares. Here is from the Wall Street Jounal's Ianthe Jeanne Dugan, Feb. 21 2009: 'The trustee liquidating Bernard Madoff's investment firm said there was no evidence that Mr. Madoff bought any securities for clients in at least 13 years.'"

It is difficult indeed to see what Mr. Madoff's Ponzi scheme, which did not involve the actual trading of any stock, "real" or otherwise, has to do with CMKM. Mr. Nelson appears to believe that Mr. Madoff was "counterfeiting" stock (and options), rather than simply accepting money and pretending to invest it.

Mr. Nelson's concerns about "NSS" are so great that he plans to extend his suit to much of the penny stock market, "introduc[ing] dozens of examples of victim companies and how the SEC followed the same modus operandi of protecting the perpetrators at the expense of the victim companies, their employees, and the unsuspecting public who bought counterfeit shares in those companies." One of these "victim companies" is Eagletech, which was successfully sued by the SEC in 2005; its registration was revoked (like CMKM's) in 2006.

He says that now he also "seeks a full public enquiry into Canadian regulatory agreements with the SEC and a public enquiry into all thirteen Canadian Securities Regulators and the SEC themselves." That, however, may not be enough: since the RCMP, the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, Homeland Security, and Interpol have all worked together at times, and, Mr. Nelson believes, knew the "size and scope" of the "NSS" fraud, they too, "and others to be named," should be investigated.

Court appearance

On Feb. 8, Mr. Nelson made his first appearance in court. The purpose of this hearing is unclear, given that the defendants have yet to be properly served in the case.

His online account of what transpired at the hearing is, alas, an imprecise narrative, but he was pleased with the outcome: "I was nervous I must admit, but I nailed a speech that asked the judge for the release of 3.87 trillion dollars to fifty thousand shareholders who are on the victim identification list handed in by CMKM Diamonds, which I produced the update from their website showing this was true."

He further reported that "the judge looked proud of me and there was an emphasis that they had looked this over, this was no normal case my friends."

Quite so. It is a most unusual case, but judges can be inscrutable, often allowing litigants to believe their case has received a favourable hearing. Sometimes even a goggle-eyed stare and a dropped jaw can be interpreted as an expression of pride.

Mr. Nelson is now accepting donations to help with his legal costs. He claims to have received more than $3000 so far, and plans to hire a lawyer to explain how to execute proper service on the SEC, something he has so far neglected to do. He has also announced his intention to issue two press releases about the suit in the very near future.

With a flash of bravado, Mr. Nelson warns: "If we are not paid by next week the heat will be turned up one hundred percent".

The saga continues.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: StockDung3/12/2010 2:21:23 PM
   of 2593
Dealing With Fraud by Denial By FLOYD NORRIS
March 11, 2010

Years after Charles Ponzi was imprisoned for a fraud that cost victims millions of dollars in 1920, the state of Massachusetts determined it had recovered all the assets it could, and began to distribute them to victims, who stood to receive less than 30 cents for each dollar they invested.

To get the money, the victims had to turn over the notes they had received from Ponzi. But many of them refused to do so when the cash was offered in 1931.

Those who refused, wrote Donald Dunn in his book, “Ponzi: The Incredible True Story of the King of Financial Cons,” were “holding onto the belief that Ponzi somehow would yet make good on his promise of 50 percent interest.”

He did not.

That was probably not the first, and certainly not the last, example of what might be called “buyer’s denial.” It is the belief that somehow a fraud was not what it seemed to be, and that there was still a way to avoid losing the money the victim had foolishly invested.

“One has to ignore a lot of data to come to that conclusion. But that may be better than having to admit to yourself that it is over and you’re never going to get your money back,” said Dean G. Kilpatrick, the director of the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center and a professor at the Medical University of South Carolina. “It stands to reason that some would prefer to believe something else.”

To conclude that, it may be necessary to believe that there is some large conspiracy involving the government. Otherwise, why would prosecutors have wrongly claimed there was a huge fraud?

Perhaps the largest case of “buyer’s denial,” at least in terms of alleged damages, is in the fraud involving a tiny company known as CMKM Diamonds, which purported to have valuable diamond mining claims. In reality, what it had was a publicity machine, including the sponsorship of a car at “funny car” races around the country.

Several shareholders in CMKM — some of whom kept buying shares after the government exposed the fraud — want 10 current and former commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay them $3.87 trillion, an amount equal to about half the United States government debt in public hands. You might think that would be enough, but the suit claims those are merely compensatory damages. They also want punitive damages, but do not cite a figure.

That is an impressive amount for a company whose last published balance sheet showed total assets of $344. That is dollars, not millions.

The tale the shareholders tell, in a lawsuit filed in January in federal district court in Santa Ana, Calif., is of a conspiracy involving not just the S.E.C., but also the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

Before getting into their view of reality, we’ll look at the record as developed in court cases filed by the S.E.C. and the Justice Department.

By their account, CMKM Diamonds illegally issued hundreds of billions of shares of stock, which insiders proceeded to sell into the market while the company issued a series of false news releases and failed to file required financial statements with the S.E.C.

With volume in the stock reaching billions of shares a day, the company needed an explanation for where all those shares came from. Disclosure that the company was simply printing them might have alarmed even the least astute investor.

CMKM came up with an explanation that would also be used later by another “pump and dump” fraud named Universal Express. It blamed “naked” short-selling by criminals who had sold shares they had not borrowed beforehand.

Eventually, the S.E.C. ordered a temporary halt to the trading, citing the lack of public information on the company. The insiders kept selling shares, earning a total profit of at least $64 million, according to the government.

The case stands as a tribute to the ineffectiveness of civil remedies against determined crooks. The S.E.C. sued the insiders in federal court in Nevada. Most of them did not bother to reply. The S.E.C. got an order requiring John Edwards, a British citizen said to be the mastermind of the fraud, to pay $55 million in restitution, damages and interest. He left the country.

Urban Casavant, the company’s chief executive and the man who ran the publicity machine, was ordered to pay almost $69 million, but did not. He moved to Canada.

Both of those men, along with four other people said to have been involved in the fraud, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Nevada. Mr. Edwards is fighting extradition from Britain. Mr. Casavant is a fugitive.

The other view of CMKM is advanced by A. Clifton Hodges, a lawyer in Pasadena, Calif. In his class-action suit representing shareholders, and in an interview, he maintained that the government had set up a sting to catch the criminals who were doing the naked shorting.

The government had, the suit says, “evidence that short-sellers were utilizing their activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment of taxes and to support foreign terrorist operations.”

The government supposedly set up a sting using the services of Robert Maheu, a former F.B.I. agent and associate of Howard Hughes, who briefly served as a director of CMKM and complained that he was not paid. Mr. Maheu has since died.

The government now should distribute to shareholders the money it made on the scheme, the suit maintains. It does not explain how it arrived at a number in the trillions.

Mr. Hodges told me he had evidence to back up his case, but would not reveal it now.

He said the suit is allowed under a 1971 Supreme Court decision that allowed victims of ostensibly improper searches by federal narcotics agents to sue the agents as individuals, even though they could not sue the government. He thinks that justifies suing everyone who was an S.E.C. member from 2004 to the present.

Mr. Hodges told me that he could produce testimony from an unnamed witness who had heard Christopher Cox, then the S.E.C. chairman, direct that no enforcement action be taken against CMKM. Mr. Cox declined to comment, citing the pending litigation, but it is worth noting that the S.E.C. did file enforcement actions against the company while Mr. Cox was at the helm.

Mr. Hodges told me he has the phone number of Mr. Casavant, the fugitive former chief executive, in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, and had spoken to him. He would not provide the number.

While pursuing his own theory of what happened at CMKM, Mr. Hodges does not seem to have done an especially thorough job of keeping up with the official version. The federal indictment of Mr. Casavant was unsealed in September, six months ago. But when I spoke to him this week, Mr. Hodges told me that Mr. Casavant had not been indicted.

Because I had written about CMKM several years ago, several shareholders brought this suit to my attention. When I told one I believed that the suit was unlikely to succeed, another called to ask me if the government was paying me off to suppress the news.

If the suit is dismissed, those shareholders are not likely to conclude that the claim is nonsense. Instead, they probably will see the dismissal as proof of an even larger conspiracy. Buyer’s denial can be a powerful thing.

Floyd Norris comments on finance and economics in his blog at

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: scion who wrote (2582)5/13/2013 1:16:51 PM
From: DanDerr
   of 2593
LOL! The saga now does not continue! Great job, Al!!!!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: DanDerr who wrote (2584)5/13/2013 1:23:31 PM
From: scion
   of 2593
Re CMKX - demand for $3.87 trillion from the SEC commissioners - May 13 2013 Petition DENIED.

No. 12-1138
Title: David Anderson, et al., Petitioners
Christopher Cox, et al.

Docketed: March 20, 2013
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (11-55169)
Decision Date: December 19, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 18 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 19, 2013)
Apr 16 2013 Waiver of right of respondents Christopher Cox, et al. to respond filed.
Apr 23 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.
May 13 2013 Petition DENIED.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
A. Clifton Hodges 4510 East Thousand Oaks Blvd. (805) 371-7515
Suite 201
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Party name: David Anderson, et al.
Attorneys for Respondents:
Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
Counsel of Record United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: Christopher Cox, et al.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: DanDerr5/14/2013 7:21:22 PM
   of 2593
We already have been at the World Court/International Court being represented there to release our funds the past 2 years, Peter Maheu went before the US Surpreme Court to have our funds released in camera. Review where we all have been.

Mr. Hodges has petitioned Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the II House of Windsor to have our funds released. This is VERY IMPORTANT to know this. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the II House of Windsor she took and oath to protect the Common Law Rights of Common Law man(God's Law) which also includes WE THE PEOPLE as Common Law Man with Inherent Rights Why is this important?

Mr. Hodges has been operating the Bivens according to the ORGANIC/ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and not the constitution of the corporation of the United States. The US Supreme Court has been attempting to protect the corporation of the United States under her majesty the crown corporation of London at that time, not Her Majesty Elizabeth the second of the House of Windsor. When we begin to comprehend what was done to us and the importance of TITLE/NAME the realm of jurisdiction will open our minds to the way our ForeFathers wanted things to be for us and protected those Inherent Rights and Common Law Rights.

I know this is confusing because you believe to be American's yet America still falls under the Jurisdiction of the Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II House of Windsor. Reverse engineer American History and evidences and facts begin to reveal themselves how both united states of America was changed into the United States of America Corporation.

THERE IS ANOTHER QUEEN OF LONDON its a TITLE for the CORPORATION OF LONDON also KNOWN AS THE CROWN. When court proceedings take place and the CROWN is prosecuting they are doing so under STATUTORY LAW the lowest of law, statutory law is the lowest form of law and only operates within government and government agency, Common Law is the Highest Law of the Land which all of us both Americans and Canadians realize that this has been hidden from us through the corrupt court systems and we subject ourselves believing what the government dictates, and they use for short the CROWN to trick us and we NEVER QUESTION WHO ARE YOU?

. Just like Federal Reserve people think it is a function of the government we learned its a Private Bank/Cartel. Same goes for the CROWN it represents the CROWN CORPORATION OF QUEEN OF LONDON

Mr. Hodges has done what no other Attorney in the united states of America EVER ATTEMPTED TO DO is operate and plead out Bivens Case through the ORANGIC/ORIGINAL Constitution.

I would write more on this and perhaps I will to help teach what has been taken from all of us through the corruption of the past 100 plus years

Read more:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: DanDerr who wrote (2586)5/14/2013 7:55:22 PM
From: scion
   of 2593
...they are doing so under STATUTORY LAW the lowest of law, statutory law is the lowest form of law and only operates within government and government agency, Common Law is the Highest Law of the Land which all of us both Americans and Canadians realize that this has been hidden from us through the corrupt court systems and we subject ourselves believing what the government dictates, and they use for short the CROWN to trick us and we NEVER QUESTION WHO ARE YOU?

The Ignorance Quotient cannot be measured...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: scion who wrote (2587)5/15/2013 9:11:41 AM
From: DanDerr
   of 2593
Scary to think that idiots like this roam freely amongst us!! See my last post on FAKE for more. Pure nuts...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10