Q&A with Bud Burrell - June 6, 2006
1) Mr. Burrell, CMKX shareholders have been clamoring for more info about your recent thoughts on a 100 Billion Share CMKX O/S. Do you have any more insight you can share on this concept?
BB: I was informed that Casavant et al had agreed to return their respective shares to the Treasury, this information coming while they were under active investigation. Something happened to de-activate the investigation, and/or clear UC, and the next thing I heard was there was some question about the forfeiture of the shares in question.2) Do you think the recent UTAH law will be challenged by the SEC?
BB: If they could have their wishes, the SEC would challenge this law. They have several problems, beginning with the Separation of Powers in the Constitution. There is also the non-trivial issue that should they make such a challenge in the Courts, they would be opened up to both discovery and deposition, neither of which they want. Right now, I am 55-45 against a Court challenge and about 75-25 there will be an Administrative Challenge. Remember, the SEC is regulated by Congress. The least risky approach for the SEC is to have one of "their" Congressmen or Senators legislate against such laws. Believe me, Utah has opened Pandora's Box here.3 ) What are your thoughts of the impact of rule 3210
tinyurl.com/ejehu BB: It is a nasty joke, which is being totally ignored by everyone. It is the worst kind of posturing BS.
4) At this juncture with our investment in CMKX, what is the single most thing that we as individual shareholders can do to help our cause and battle the NS issue.........
BB: You must literally inundate your legislators, regulators, Congressmen, Senators, et al, a letter a week from every one of you individually SCREAMING "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it any more." Tell the elected types you will work against them in their campaigns actively if they don't pull their respective heads out of wherever. 5) In your opinion, what is the reason for the silence from the company, the task force, and the SEC? Nobody is talking. What purpose could this serve?
BB: I have no clue. I know Mr. Frizzell is competent counsel but I know nothing more about the others other than Maheu.6) What is your opinion/thoughts on the DTCC's "wind down rule"?
BB: The Wind Down Rule goes back to the original certificate only delivery movement that was crushed. The few that got it done had the unusual experience of finding thousands of shares in the DTCC system, after they had executed the withdrawal, and embarrassing the crap out of everyone.
This is more sound and no light, signifying nothing. 7) What are your thoughts on Mr. Frizzell's formal complaint to the NASD?
cmkxunitedforum.proboards70.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1149118362BB: I think the NASD will ignore this most likely, or respond with arrogance. You can't challenge the NASD for breaking its own rules according to the 34 ACT. It is a true child of Joe Kennedy Sr. 8) Why do you feel some brokerages have denied their clients of the stock certificates they have requested?
BB: They have them loaned out to the hedge funds, their own market makers, and others, or are unable to get them back from DTCC, or some twisted combination of the above.9) Why do you believe certain brokerages have requested certificates in the name of the brokerages instead of the shareholders?
BB:If they own them, rather than the shareholders, they can do just about anything they please with them, including using to secure their own house shorting and market making accounts. Dr. Trimbath said it best: "Take Delivery of Your Shares".10) Do you believe the numerous resignations within the SEC have anything to do with the "weeding" process some have theorized?
BB: I am judgmentally certain that these retirements are the equivalent of rats jumping from a sinking ship. I don't know the precise number, but at least 50% of the senior SES level appointees have hit the silk in the last 24 months. I don't think the SEC Management has had to do much, rather the conduct of parties such as Cox have given them a clear signal that there is a new sheriff in town, and he isn't going to play by the rules. 11) You mentioned a way that the shareholders could file individual legal complaints in the court system, if we found out that we were being lied to or mislead..in the event that were to happen, what exactly was the procedure that you once referred to, that would tie up the courts and make a larger impression on our situation.
BB: The SEC has no immunity against constitutional tort claims. If just 50 of you would file such claims for violations of your property rights under the 5th Amendment, the SEC's legal back would be figuratively broken. They told the Sedona principals they didn't have the staff for 50 shorting cases. Hit them with 500 claims, and they would lock up the Federal Judiciary for years.12) At what point in time would you think the shareholders should begin to question the company/ and their "attorney" after being told for several months that a distribution is on it's way and does not happen?
BB: You should be getting regular updates from anyone representing you. The biggest problem with CMKX from the beginning was that it was built on un-substantiated rumors, rather than hard third party due diligence and research. I said in my CFRN interview that I was no supporter of or enemy of CMKX, simply because I had no reliable information on it. I also told everyone that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, the simplest answer was most likely the correct one (the principal known as Occam's Razor for those of you truly interested in the science of decision making). Albert Einstein's description of stupidity is someone repeating the same conduct over and over, expecting different results.13) The seller's of naked shorts, at least some of them, surely have annual audits. Why isn't this disclosed in financial statements as a liability and/or contingent liability? Is it hidden too deep in the system for the CPA's to find these potential liabilities?
BB: The only thing that could be happening here is that there has been a private letter ruling about treatment of such items. I am not a tax specialist, but you are raising an important question. Interest on the fails was the bane of REFCO and BAWAG Bank. This number was submerged in the financial statements of REFCO, missed by both their auditors and Goldman's investment bankers.
CPA's spend a lot of their audit time searching for undisclosed liabilities of the company they are auditing. 14) Do you believe the short in CMKX has been proven? If so, what are the ramifications of this?
BB: It is proven as far as I am concerned. Look at the stats on the opening page of this Task Force Group. 15) Do you believe the sole purpose of the cert. pull is for the Entourage dividend distribution? Or do you believe this was a way to bypass the SEC's alleged warning to the company in regards to demanding a cert. pull? We have received dividends in the past without the company requiring our certs....why would this distribution be different?
BB: I don't know the reason for the cert pull, except to avoid giving out Entourage shares to holders of counterfeit certs. I suspect procedurally that there are other reasons.16) The Counterfeiters (NSS BROKERS) who make a profit from selling the FTDs, Why are these Brokers "NOT" paying TAXES for their FTDs??
BB: They have to be hiding the profits, rolling them over year to year in tax-free swaps, or at least claiming to.17) Is CMKX the only Company to use the "CERT PULL", to get the GRANDFATHERED SHARES (SHO) covered in your Opinion??
BB: Again, I don't know.18) Cross Listing
A Canadian listed company (TSE) can list on an exchange in the US and sell shares to the public. This seems like dilution. Help me understand where this is not fraud.
ex. Phoenix Technology (trust fund on TSE) also trades on pink sheets for the same price as it trades on the TSE with exchange the difference. As a pink sheet who knows who owns the shares but it seems to be a convenient way to make some serious money.
Comments
Thank you.
BB: This is no accident. This is a very good due diligence question. The TSE is considered to be more tightly regulated than any US market, Period.19) How will Wall Street deal with paid bashers?
BB: Hell, They are paying them, either brokers, hedge funds or manipulators. They won't do s--- to them.20) Why do you think there was a broad advertising campaign for CMKX such as the race cars, slogans, film documentary about Urban Casavant's life and dreams of creating a million millionaires?
BB: Great promotion strategies for a junior company trying to create a market identity. Also great for a pump and dump, if that is what it was.21) Why do you think people of renown reputation such as Roger Glenn, Robert Maheu,, Don Stoecklein, and Michael Williams are involved with this company?
BB: They know something you don't.22) Do you believe writing to government officials, the SEC, and the NASD could harm a potential settlement?
BB: Just the opposite. Cockroaches hate light. If you had hard proof of the existence of a real settlement, rather than just years of rumors and name dropping, then you might adjust the tone. The last thing they want is for you to stop responding to their direction. Hard questions get hard answers. If you are afraid of the answers, you don't belong just in CMKX, but any stock. Anyone feeding you that kind of crap should be blanked out of the conversation. This position is sheer idiocy based on what I know23) If we shareholders of CMKX get our hands on evidence that hedge funds and/or market makers and/or brokers were complicit in naked shorting us, do you think the shareholders should, either individually or in class-action, file a suit similar to the one recently filed by the shareholders of Biovail. This one:
biz.yahoo.com/bw/060324/20060324005559.html?.v=1BB: I have a better answer for a better kind of suit. If enough of you with any market smarts get together, I will get you a different kind of hearing.24) Have you heard of the "Nevada Stock Exchange" (NVSE)?
BB: This was linked to a lawyer promoter linked to some pretty nefarious characters. He always is the guy who turns in his client companies, AFTER he sells his free trading shares to get HIS fee.25) Shareholder is asking about your companys trading platform?
BB: It is Swiss based, and the patent is in process. That is about all I can say as I am in a Form 10 filing period right now. 26) What do you think about ex-Goldman Sachs execs running the country?
BB: GS is both the Rolls Royce of IB's, and the largest hedge fund in the World. How do you think they manage their risks? I knew the man who set up their modern systems, one of the inventors of the Options Pricing Model. Modern Global Finance is about global reach, and CEO's of Goldman have it more than anyone. Paulsen is a flat Genius. 27) Bud, do you think the SEC can come back from all of the "TARNISHED REPUTATION" it so rightfully earned through the years of protecting the CROOKS (WALL STREET BIG BOYS) while ROBBING the small investors??
BB: They don't care what you think of them, and they don't care about their reputation with anyone other than Congress and the Senate.28) Mr. Burrell, do you have a concrete idea who specifically naked shorted CMKX?
BB: Try many of your founding principals and their associates.29) Mr. Burrell....
Concerning a short settlement.......
In one of your interviews with CFRN you stated.......
www.ultimateuploads.com/audio/view.php?play=52037eabbabe5d708a2382de18bb3b77......."there is rumor of a short settlement having occurred already and apparently it is related to the number of shares presented to a settlement committee who will analyze the number of shares that were actually shorted in excess of the outstanding number of shares which in turn will trigger what's called a structured settlement from an insurance company"........
BB: I was given the name of the purported Insuror and their Re-Insurance Company. Again, the story cannot be verified in due diligence.Have you heard anymore on this matter and can you elaborate more.........and what type of insurance company would cover this type of settlement....
BB: I don't know if I believe there is a settlement, probably I am sitting at 80-20 against, and 80-20 for a Sting.30) Mr. Burrell, Can you comment on CMKX O/S?
BB: Too many lies have been told to reconcile anything without a Stock Ledger.31) Bud, If you don't mind sharing your thoughts on this:
At this stage of the game, knowing what you know now, if you had a chance to buy CMKX shares, would you? and how much would you risk?
BB: I would not buy the shares even if I could.32) Many "pump & dump" companies and ponzi schemes fleece investors by implementing either multiple or massive reverse splits. To my knowledge, CMKX has never had a reverse split, but had one forward split. What are your thoughts on this?
BB: It is not relevant to my understanding of anything logical.33) Do you have an opinion on the resignation of Rendall Williams, the former CEO of U.S. Canadian Minerals, a JV partner of CMKX?
BB: You all got lucky, but probably too late.34) Mr. Williams held 2.5 Billions shares of CMKX before his departure. Shortly before his "resignation", it is rumored he was forced to sell his position. Do you think this has any relevance to our current situation?
BB: I go back to what I heard when everyone was under investigation. This story is consistent with that story, and again, that is not verified by due diligence.35) If CMKX has/had proof of valuation, what potential reasons would prevent them from disclosing this information?
BB: It is either negative, or is part of the highly suspicious settlement. A smart lawyer could really make some money if he had proof of assets in this deal.36) If you owned stock in CMKX, what actions, if any, would you be taking at this time?
BB: I would be suing everyone across the Board, direct and class, Federal and State, for every violation in the book.37) What is the single, most important bit of advice you can offer CMKX shareholders?
BB: Communicate, and demand real hard due diligence proofs.38) Various theories and rumors have infiltrated the message boards for the past few years concerning CMKX. One of the most popular is the "sting theory". Do you think a "sting" is a possibility?
BB: I do. I spoke with investigators early on, and based on what I told them, I have no reason to believe they would have dropped the case, unless the DOJ got orders from up top to shut it down. 39) Why do you believe bashers have plagued this stock and it's shareholders, even after revocation?
40) Why do you believe Emerson Koch held CMKX claims in his name?
BB: I don't know himA securities litigation/class action firm I am working with has gone after the Prime Brokers. I will query them tomorrow. The good news is that they know who CMKX is and they aren't afraid of the issues.
I would be happy to do this again, thanks to Kranker and Janie.
The key would be to get the questions organized for me, thanks for which goes to the administrators on this site.
A final point I made in my radio interviews: The CMKX shareholders are still the largest and most coherent group of shareholders of any victimized stock. Learn to speak with the same voice, articulating the same message to all, and make them listen whether they want to or not. Make your requests and DEMANDS in unison. You can blow the Choir out of the Tabernacle in chunks.
Stay unified. And remember the lessons of the MOB, the quote under the citation by HH Houlihan.
PROCEED Here for more Q&A with Bud Burrell and Mark Faulk,cmkxunitedforum.proboards70.com/index.cgi?board=questionsanswers&action=display&thread=1149558829&page=2
