Post by fastwalker on Dec 15, 2005 13:04:58 GMT -5
…..our past, but are maybe too blind to see.....
With this announcement by Frizzel of the SEC serving subpoenas on those involved with CMKX, one has to wonder exactly why? Speculation will abound on the boards that the SEC is interdicting in the deliverance of the Entourage divvies, or that the SEC has some other nefarious reason for “calling” the management and others involved with CMKX.
One thing is not readily apparent to those of us outside the internal thinking of CMKX, is why does the SEC persist in tagging CMKX?
Another thing we can also assume with some certainty is that the bashers will have a field day with this subpoenas activity and the rag known as STOCKGATE, will trumpet more of their “logic” regarding this latest round of SEC vs CMKX activity.
But IMHO, It’s difficult to “get behind” those people at STOCKGATE, especcially with the stumbling block to their credibility, that the man is a convicted felony. So, where the rest of us, both pro and con CMKX have a legitimate interest in what transpires in the market place, Lee Web
I believe lost his ticket for this ride by previously abusing his position of public trust with his actions as a crooked attorney.
Now you can assume he has found Jesus and has repented for his sins, but my experience with criminals both white and blue collar would suggest otherwise.
Of course he will continue to plead his case in the public forum, for those gullible enough to assume he is now remorseful of his past evil doings, and further that he is without an agenda.
But I’ll pass on trusting that he has repented for his past sins and that now he only wants to do good now.
IMHO he should have embraced that position of wanting to do some good when he had the public trust. Ibn all reality, it will never end with him and others like him, simply because they can still make a living off playing to the gullibility of the clueless and those too lazy to look it up for themselves crowd.
Without a doubt , unless you are remarkably naive then you have to accept, given CMKX’s documented history, that UC had without much demonstrated public reservation, continuously demonstrated a willingness of non-cooperation, or what the SEC surely regarded as being non-cooperative, during the SEC’s original and subsequent “spin” off investigation of JVs associated with CMKX.
However, one would assume, not always a viable position to take, that the subsequent demand by CMKX to be revoked should have, IMHO, alleviated the SEC’s concern’s that CMKX was capable as essentially a defunct entity, to have any bearing or impact on the market place and the investing public.
After all, the reversal of CMKX’s fortune, that by itself should serve as vivid reminder to all that pinkies are fraught with dangers, where the weak are consumed…
Alas, it would appear that the rumors of a settlement and potential revealing of a naked short position, has put the SEC on the defensive again, to protect it’s collective assets from closer scrutiny by Congress.
Amazing with all the problematic reporting companies out there, the enforcement arm of the SEC could wield substantial power to punish, it still elects to go after CMKX / UC. I guess to further “protect” us from their version of the bad guys who would harm us…the investing public….shame they didn’t get off their hands years ago, if in fact a problem existed with CMKX…lol.
Maybe the SEC should consider this statement made by President Lincoln, that the Governmnet's true calling is based on the notion that it is /was designed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people….
Unfortunately for all CMKXers one fact still self evident and remains consistent, that being the SEC has and will always, unless forced to, operate in secret and elects to not reveal to the public at large, the rhyme or reason for its activities.
We can see that the SEC and other Governmnetal agencies act by innuendo and other tactics, routinely as part and parcel of their non disclosure act, where any
“proposed” investigation are concerend. Mainly, as I see it, to simply cast “aspirations” and or “cover up” the many sins that routinely they allow to occur in the marketplace.
These activities are not for our protection as share holders / investing public, but rather I would anticipate, self serving schemes genrated because small minded, greedy stupid people are in positions of power running the agency, who believe themselves to be above the law, or that they are the law?
Sad that those in Government forget one simple fact of simply telling the truth,instead of operating on a need to know basis of non transparency and non disclosure.
What truly amazes me is the fact the public at large, due to apathy, ignorance or God knows what else, allows our elected officials to continue screwing things up.
What are the facts on which the SEC wants to discuss things with CMKX? Can we assume, which we have to at this point, that the SEC wants CMKX / UC to “come clean” on it’s real plans regarding the cert pull?
Have they been reading our message baords again?
Is the SEC concerned that CMKX is actually in the process of “proving” a NSS position and having done that, seek to bring down the house of cards constructed by the SEC?
Interesting that the SEC claims no NSS exists, that the SEC has gone on public record many times, including the hearing against CMKX and made again that assertion THAT CMKX WAS NOT A VICTIM of NSS. How stupid Will they look in the public eye, if this cert pull is really designed to prove a NSS position taken against CMKX?
The question now is what sanction or “other” recommendation can the SEC impose on UC? One may assume, however, that what appeared at first blush to be some issues exist sufficient enough that instead of asking for UC’s cooperation, they demand it via a subpoena. Will a deal be worked out in which UC must, to avoid penalties cooperate with the SEC and put this matter to rest by making a “public announcement” regarding the many rumors floating around?
Will thew faith we have in UC to yet “take care” of us financially proved, be realized or, upon closer examination, be found lacking?
Will CMKX be used by UC relevant to specific teaching of how to expose NSS, or as an “example” by the SEC as an instructive venue to revisit some key questions in which the SEC demands answers to, IN ORDER TO demonstrate to the public at large, when public companies fail to reveal or engage in erroneous financial dealings?
Keeping in mind this oxymoron of the SEC’s mandate that the protection of investors is paramount, that in fact “self-policing, self-reporting, remediation and cooperation with law enforcement authorities, among other things, are unquestionably the most important aspects of promoting the investors, public best interests.”
Here are some questions I would like to know up front.
1.What is the nature of the “interview” or misconduct
being looked at?
2.Did this renewed interest by the SEC result from
inadvertence, honest mistake or simple negligence,
reckless or deliberate indifference by the SEC toward
it’s Shareholders, or is this latest action indicative of
uncovered wrongful conduct, willful misconduct or
unadorned venality? Were the company’s auditors
actually misled?
3.If in fact this is a look at CMKX misconduct, what
information / evidence now rises to a level consistent
with the need to revisit past, alleged issues settled by
the revocation?
4.Is it the SEC actions now a result of pressure placed
on them to achieve “new” specific results, or further
demonstrate a tone of lawlessness set by those in
control of CMKX?
5.What compliance procedures were in place, or lacking i
initially to prevent or address the misconduct now
uncovered, if that is in fact what is being looked at?
6.Why did those procedures fail to stop or inhibit the
wrongful conduct?
7. Where in the organization did the misconduct occur, if
it did?
8.How high up in the chain of command was knowledge
of, or participation in, the misconduct?
9.Did senior personnel participate in, or turn a blind eye
toward, obvious indicia of misconduct?
10. How systemic was the behavior? Is it symptomatic
of the way UC does business, or was it isolated?
11. How long did the misconduct last?
12. How much harm has or did the misconduct caused
to investors and or other corporate constituencies?
13.Did the share price of the company’s stock drop
significantly as a result of same, or was it
manipulated throug insiders or NSS and a need and
conspracy was established to prevent its discovery
and disclosure?
14.How was the misconduct detected, and who
uncovered it?
15. How long after discovery of the misconduct did it
take the SEC to implement an effective response?
Why so long?
16. What steps did CMKX take upon learning of the
misconduct? Did they immediately stop it?
16.Were persons responsible for the misconduct
terminated? If not, are they still in the same
positions?
18.Did CMKX promptly, completely, and effectively
disclose the existence of the misconduct to the
public, to regulators, and to self-regulators?
19.Did the company cooperate completely with
appropriate regulatory law enforcement bodies?
20.Did the company identify what additional related
misconduct is likely to have occurred?
21. Did the CMKX take steps to identify damage to
investors and other corporate constituencies? Were
they somehow prevented in this action by the SEC?
22. Did CMKX appropriately recompense those
adversely affected by the conduct?
23. Were the Audit Committee (if it existed) and the
Board of Directors (?) fully informed? If so, when?
24. If this misconduct was the action of an insider, what
was the extent and nature of the company’s
investigation, the role of senior management, Board
committees, outside directors, outside counsel, and
the scope limitations placed on the review of the
facts?
This type of questioning could go on, but essentially what we need to know at this point is simply, to what extent did the company promptly make the results of any review available to SEC staff, including relevant documentation?
Here we are yet again dealing with the SEC and asking ourselves, did CMKX identify improper conduct and evidence with “sufficient precision to facilitate, if required, prompt enforcement action against those who violated the law?”
Did CMKX produce a thorough and probing written report detailing the findings of its review, if same was done, and voluntarily disclose that information to the SEC staff?
Was it incumbent upon the SEC, if it suspected misconduct, to request data and seek discovery of other data not offered?
The nagging question that arises now with this latest SEC inquiry begs to ask, did CMKX ask all its employees and insiders to cooperate with the SEC and then make all reasonable efforts to secure such cooperation?
We would all be remiss in our position as shareholders if we fail to ask serious questions of both CMKX and the SEC.
Currently without supporting data we have no clue who to believe.
While admirable considerations for solidarity to wards one’s shared interest, faith based assumptions often have a tendency to wither under the bright light of scrutiny. When these questions were first put awhile back, both the SEC and CMKX had a moral obligation at that time, to act in a manner consistent with putting first, the shareholder’s best interest, regardless if CMKX was a reporting company within the market community.
Yet the fact remains that the SEC also failed the shareholders, if in fact CMKX was guilty of misconduct awhile ago, instead of using innuendos to advise the shareholders of a suspected / real abuse regarding CMKX’s misconduct of reporting financial information, that had been made known to them (SEC) as a result of a “secret” investigation, they shows a certain level of contempt for the public’s best interest by not telling us.
Bottom line, guess we will just have to wait for leakage from these secret interviews.
BTW, The questions posed, including the one I obviously know about, are posed, along with many others in an investigation, to develop for me as an investigator, a picture into what happend and potentially why it happended.
Don't assume it to be bashing, it's not just real question that are asaked during an investigation to get at the facts / truth...lol
fw
With this announcement by Frizzel of the SEC serving subpoenas on those involved with CMKX, one has to wonder exactly why? Speculation will abound on the boards that the SEC is interdicting in the deliverance of the Entourage divvies, or that the SEC has some other nefarious reason for “calling” the management and others involved with CMKX.
One thing is not readily apparent to those of us outside the internal thinking of CMKX, is why does the SEC persist in tagging CMKX?
Another thing we can also assume with some certainty is that the bashers will have a field day with this subpoenas activity and the rag known as STOCKGATE, will trumpet more of their “logic” regarding this latest round of SEC vs CMKX activity.
But IMHO, It’s difficult to “get behind” those people at STOCKGATE, especcially with the stumbling block to their credibility, that the man is a convicted felony. So, where the rest of us, both pro and con CMKX have a legitimate interest in what transpires in the market place, Lee Web
I believe lost his ticket for this ride by previously abusing his position of public trust with his actions as a crooked attorney. Now you can assume he has found Jesus and has repented for his sins, but my experience with criminals both white and blue collar would suggest otherwise.
Of course he will continue to plead his case in the public forum, for those gullible enough to assume he is now remorseful of his past evil doings, and further that he is without an agenda.
But I’ll pass on trusting that he has repented for his past sins and that now he only wants to do good now.
IMHO he should have embraced that position of wanting to do some good when he had the public trust. Ibn all reality, it will never end with him and others like him, simply because they can still make a living off playing to the gullibility of the clueless and those too lazy to look it up for themselves crowd.
Without a doubt , unless you are remarkably naive then you have to accept, given CMKX’s documented history, that UC had without much demonstrated public reservation, continuously demonstrated a willingness of non-cooperation, or what the SEC surely regarded as being non-cooperative, during the SEC’s original and subsequent “spin” off investigation of JVs associated with CMKX.
However, one would assume, not always a viable position to take, that the subsequent demand by CMKX to be revoked should have, IMHO, alleviated the SEC’s concern’s that CMKX was capable as essentially a defunct entity, to have any bearing or impact on the market place and the investing public.
After all, the reversal of CMKX’s fortune, that by itself should serve as vivid reminder to all that pinkies are fraught with dangers, where the weak are consumed…
Alas, it would appear that the rumors of a settlement and potential revealing of a naked short position, has put the SEC on the defensive again, to protect it’s collective assets from closer scrutiny by Congress.
Amazing with all the problematic reporting companies out there, the enforcement arm of the SEC could wield substantial power to punish, it still elects to go after CMKX / UC. I guess to further “protect” us from their version of the bad guys who would harm us…the investing public….shame they didn’t get off their hands years ago, if in fact a problem existed with CMKX…lol.
Maybe the SEC should consider this statement made by President Lincoln, that the Governmnet's true calling is based on the notion that it is /was designed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people….
Unfortunately for all CMKXers one fact still self evident and remains consistent, that being the SEC has and will always, unless forced to, operate in secret and elects to not reveal to the public at large, the rhyme or reason for its activities.
We can see that the SEC and other Governmnetal agencies act by innuendo and other tactics, routinely as part and parcel of their non disclosure act, where any
“proposed” investigation are concerend. Mainly, as I see it, to simply cast “aspirations” and or “cover up” the many sins that routinely they allow to occur in the marketplace.
These activities are not for our protection as share holders / investing public, but rather I would anticipate, self serving schemes genrated because small minded, greedy stupid people are in positions of power running the agency, who believe themselves to be above the law, or that they are the law?
Sad that those in Government forget one simple fact of simply telling the truth,instead of operating on a need to know basis of non transparency and non disclosure.
What truly amazes me is the fact the public at large, due to apathy, ignorance or God knows what else, allows our elected officials to continue screwing things up.
What are the facts on which the SEC wants to discuss things with CMKX? Can we assume, which we have to at this point, that the SEC wants CMKX / UC to “come clean” on it’s real plans regarding the cert pull?
Have they been reading our message baords again?
Is the SEC concerned that CMKX is actually in the process of “proving” a NSS position and having done that, seek to bring down the house of cards constructed by the SEC?
Interesting that the SEC claims no NSS exists, that the SEC has gone on public record many times, including the hearing against CMKX and made again that assertion THAT CMKX WAS NOT A VICTIM of NSS. How stupid Will they look in the public eye, if this cert pull is really designed to prove a NSS position taken against CMKX?
The question now is what sanction or “other” recommendation can the SEC impose on UC? One may assume, however, that what appeared at first blush to be some issues exist sufficient enough that instead of asking for UC’s cooperation, they demand it via a subpoena. Will a deal be worked out in which UC must, to avoid penalties cooperate with the SEC and put this matter to rest by making a “public announcement” regarding the many rumors floating around?
Will thew faith we have in UC to yet “take care” of us financially proved, be realized or, upon closer examination, be found lacking?
Will CMKX be used by UC relevant to specific teaching of how to expose NSS, or as an “example” by the SEC as an instructive venue to revisit some key questions in which the SEC demands answers to, IN ORDER TO demonstrate to the public at large, when public companies fail to reveal or engage in erroneous financial dealings?
Keeping in mind this oxymoron of the SEC’s mandate that the protection of investors is paramount, that in fact “self-policing, self-reporting, remediation and cooperation with law enforcement authorities, among other things, are unquestionably the most important aspects of promoting the investors, public best interests.”
Here are some questions I would like to know up front.
1.What is the nature of the “interview” or misconduct
being looked at?
2.Did this renewed interest by the SEC result from
inadvertence, honest mistake or simple negligence,
reckless or deliberate indifference by the SEC toward
it’s Shareholders, or is this latest action indicative of
uncovered wrongful conduct, willful misconduct or
unadorned venality? Were the company’s auditors
actually misled?
3.If in fact this is a look at CMKX misconduct, what
information / evidence now rises to a level consistent
with the need to revisit past, alleged issues settled by
the revocation?
4.Is it the SEC actions now a result of pressure placed
on them to achieve “new” specific results, or further
demonstrate a tone of lawlessness set by those in
control of CMKX?
5.What compliance procedures were in place, or lacking i
initially to prevent or address the misconduct now
uncovered, if that is in fact what is being looked at?
6.Why did those procedures fail to stop or inhibit the
wrongful conduct?
7. Where in the organization did the misconduct occur, if
it did?
8.How high up in the chain of command was knowledge
of, or participation in, the misconduct?
9.Did senior personnel participate in, or turn a blind eye
toward, obvious indicia of misconduct?
10. How systemic was the behavior? Is it symptomatic
of the way UC does business, or was it isolated?
11. How long did the misconduct last?
12. How much harm has or did the misconduct caused
to investors and or other corporate constituencies?
13.Did the share price of the company’s stock drop
significantly as a result of same, or was it
manipulated throug insiders or NSS and a need and
conspracy was established to prevent its discovery
and disclosure?
14.How was the misconduct detected, and who
uncovered it?
15. How long after discovery of the misconduct did it
take the SEC to implement an effective response?
Why so long?
16. What steps did CMKX take upon learning of the
misconduct? Did they immediately stop it?
16.Were persons responsible for the misconduct
terminated? If not, are they still in the same
positions?
18.Did CMKX promptly, completely, and effectively
disclose the existence of the misconduct to the
public, to regulators, and to self-regulators?
19.Did the company cooperate completely with
appropriate regulatory law enforcement bodies?
20.Did the company identify what additional related
misconduct is likely to have occurred?
21. Did the CMKX take steps to identify damage to
investors and other corporate constituencies? Were
they somehow prevented in this action by the SEC?
22. Did CMKX appropriately recompense those
adversely affected by the conduct?
23. Were the Audit Committee (if it existed) and the
Board of Directors (?) fully informed? If so, when?
24. If this misconduct was the action of an insider, what
was the extent and nature of the company’s
investigation, the role of senior management, Board
committees, outside directors, outside counsel, and
the scope limitations placed on the review of the
facts?
This type of questioning could go on, but essentially what we need to know at this point is simply, to what extent did the company promptly make the results of any review available to SEC staff, including relevant documentation?
Here we are yet again dealing with the SEC and asking ourselves, did CMKX identify improper conduct and evidence with “sufficient precision to facilitate, if required, prompt enforcement action against those who violated the law?”
Did CMKX produce a thorough and probing written report detailing the findings of its review, if same was done, and voluntarily disclose that information to the SEC staff?
Was it incumbent upon the SEC, if it suspected misconduct, to request data and seek discovery of other data not offered?
The nagging question that arises now with this latest SEC inquiry begs to ask, did CMKX ask all its employees and insiders to cooperate with the SEC and then make all reasonable efforts to secure such cooperation?
We would all be remiss in our position as shareholders if we fail to ask serious questions of both CMKX and the SEC.
Currently without supporting data we have no clue who to believe.
While admirable considerations for solidarity to wards one’s shared interest, faith based assumptions often have a tendency to wither under the bright light of scrutiny. When these questions were first put awhile back, both the SEC and CMKX had a moral obligation at that time, to act in a manner consistent with putting first, the shareholder’s best interest, regardless if CMKX was a reporting company within the market community.
Yet the fact remains that the SEC also failed the shareholders, if in fact CMKX was guilty of misconduct awhile ago, instead of using innuendos to advise the shareholders of a suspected / real abuse regarding CMKX’s misconduct of reporting financial information, that had been made known to them (SEC) as a result of a “secret” investigation, they shows a certain level of contempt for the public’s best interest by not telling us.
Bottom line, guess we will just have to wait for leakage from these secret interviews.
BTW, The questions posed, including the one I obviously know about, are posed, along with many others in an investigation, to develop for me as an investigator, a picture into what happend and potentially why it happended.
Don't assume it to be bashing, it's not just real question that are asaked during an investigation to get at the facts / truth...lol
fw
