Kevin update - 9/28

[digger]

cmkmdiamondsinc.com/ceoupdates.php



9-28-07
To all CMKM shareholders:

As many of you are aware, CMKM Diamonds, Inc. is currently involved in a total of five lawsuits in which the Company is the plaintiff in two of them and the defendant in the other three. The Company also has an outstanding issue concerning a Wells notice with the SEC and an issue to be dealt with concerning the Manitoba Securities Commission. Other issues at hand are the actions that the Company is taking to become fully compliant in order to return to trading status.

Entourage Mining has recently filed suit in British Columbia against 101047025 Saskatchewan LTD. and CMKM Diamonds, Inc. to cancel the contract of October 2005 in which our Company was issued 45 million shares of Entourage Mining stock in a restricted certificate. We have made contact with several law firms in Vancouver. We will retain counsel to represent the interests of the company and the shareholders. We have communicated with the attorney for Entourage. CMKM has not been served with the lawsuit but we have reached an agreement with counsel for Entourage regarding service of the summons. Entourage counsel is aware of our efforts in retaining counsel in Vancouver. This lawsuit is very important to this company. It appears from all records we obtained from prior counsel and all records which we have received from other sources that CMKM has never owned the claims which are now involved in the lawsuit being brought by Entourage. Our records show substantial money was paid for the claims and for drilling on the claims. It is the company’s firm belief that these remaining claims should belong to the company because of the money spent to maintain these claims.

CMKM Diamonds, Inc. is also the defendant in two Nevada State court cases.

1. Jay Rutherford vs. CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

Our Las Vegas attorney has been in communication with Rutherford’s attorney. There is no discovery ongoing at this point. Rutherford’s attorney has asked the court to grant a default judgment against Urban Casavant since he has refused to appear for a deposition. CMKM attorney and Rutherford’s attorney were present for Urban Casavant’s deposition on May 15, 2007 but Urban Casavant did not appear. Under Nevada law, the court has legal authority to strike the answer of a party that refuses to appear for a deposition. Rutherford’s attorney is seeking a default judgment against Urban Casavant and CMKXtreme, Inc.

The Court has scheduled a hearing for October 17, 2007 on the Motion To Strike filed by Rutherford’s attorney. Rutherford’s attorney is asking the court to strike the answer filed by John T. Moran III on behalf of Urban Casavant and CMKXtreme, Inc. because they failed to show for depositions. If the answer is stricken, then a default will likely be taken against the Urban Casavant and CMKXtreme.

2. Francisco Carrano vs. CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

The parties are involved in scheduling various discovery matters. The discovery period of a lawsuit is the time when the parties exchange information about the case with each other. This is important to us because current management had no involvement in the transactions which resulted in this lawsuit. We expect to receive all documents so that we can better determine what rights we have in this dispute. There is a discovery hearing set for October 15, 2007. The orders from the Court will dictate to the parties the deadlines for certain legal matters to be filed.



The Company has filed two Nevada State court cases against former management and other insiders of the Company.

We are continuing our efforts to locate and serve the parties we have sued. We have issued multiple subpoenas and are awaiting responses from many of the parties who have received our subpoenas.

1. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. vs. Dave Desormeau; John Edwards; Does 1-50; and Roes 1-50

We are currently considering our options in the Edwards/Desormeau lawsuit. We have expended significant funds and made numerous attempts to serve John Edwards at several known addresses. Our investigation continues into the acts of Mr. Desormeau and Mr. Edwards.

2. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. vs. Urban Casavant; The UAJC 2005 Irrevocable Trust; Michael Williams; Deshawn L. Wayne; Brian Dvorak; James Kinney; Ginger Gutierrez; P.A. Holdings, Inc.; Bucko LLC; Does 1-20; and Roes 1-20

In a hearing this week in Las Vegas, Judge Denton granted our motion to enlarge the time to serve the summons and complaint for an additional 90 days. David Koch has submitted an order for the court's signature and we will post a copy of the order once we have received it from the Court.

We also requested permission to serve the summons and complaint via publication on all parties that have not been served or filed an answer. The judge indicated he was inclined to permit us to do so, he asked that we submit a formal written application. Mr. Koch has agreed to file such application for service by publication.



Bill Frizzell has made contact with an attorney at the Manitoba Commission. Since current management was not involved with the company’s acts which have been alleged in the proceeding being brought by the Manitoba Commission, we have requested certain items from the Manitoba Commission’s file. We will respond appropriately when we receive the requested information from the Commission.

The Company has not filed an official response to the Wells Notice but we are in contact with the SEC regarding the matter. Current management was not involved in the matters being alleged by the commission when the acts occurred. We are acquiring information through various sources so that we can adequately respond to the matters raised in the Wells Notice.

As we have previously discussed, the Company is working diligently to obtain the financial records and company documents which were used to transact hundreds of business and stock deals over the last four years. We have been fortunate to have subpoena power to obtain certain documents and financial records. Some of the records we are requesting are voluminous and because of the large volume, we occasionally receive requests for extensions of time from those parties that receive our subpoenas. Delays often occur through no fault of the company, but the material is vitally important to our efforts to have a set of auditable books. We have discovered many transactions that will need documentation before this company can become compliant. We are succeeding in our efforts to obtain all needed records.

Many shareholders have inquired as to why the Company feels that it is feasible to return to trading with no tangible assets. We are not prepared to guess at what assets the Company may have in the future. Current management knows and understands that the Company will need to have tangible assets and a well structured business plan in order to have any chance of success in the markets. We continue our efforts in this regard.

Sincerely,
Kevin West
CEO & Chairman


My money says, Kevin didn't write this.
It's got lawyer written all over it. imho

[Deleted]

it reads like a fizzle epistle.

[digger]

brigantine said:

it reads like a fizzle epistle.

[integrity4u]

Surely this isn't the "News" everyone is expecting today.

[veritasvincit]

"Many shareholders have inquired as to why the Company feels that it is feasible to return to trading with no tangible assets. We are not prepared to guess at what assets the Company may have in the future. Current management knows and understands that the Company will need to have tangible assets and a well structured business plan in order to have any chance of success in the markets. We continue our efforts in this regard."

[dumguy]

Have we seen the wells notice?

[wwjdthrume]

integrity4u said:

Surely this isn't the "News" everyone is expecting today.

Hi Integrity, It's CMKX so when I hear that F4D's and 66's boards were anticipating news - this is what I expected they meant.

Hopefully there is different news coming out for us. The dates this one has for court are in the near future. What's another few weeks among friends?

I think that taking the Roes and Does to court along with UC is great! I don't think Urban is the problem with these delays or the company. But that 14C group has some heavy hitters who have never been outed. Pay or play might be what is happening. We have no choice but to stay tuned.

IMO-Debi

[shoelessjoe]

dumguy said:

Have we seen the wells notice?

no one has ever seen anything that Tyler has dum guy. That is why very few believe much of what is spoken of by them. And I do not believe that as many who might have believed them before believe them now.

They continue to distance themselves with their so called efforts.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone will ever completely trust them again. And who knows maybe that was/is the plan

And they have said that they must adress the item in manitoba. That is not necissarily truth either.
They could just ignore it.Unless of course they are the ones who requested the hearing. Of which some really really smart people ( ito) don't think happened. rofl

[portrush]

Not much of this update is new. It isn't a PR after all, just another CEO update designed to make some sort of statement in hopes of quelling the angst of shareholders. What makes it frustrating is that some of the info is far from new. We understand that the claims were leased and not owned. We understand that they are trying to serve notice to those that wronged the company.

As a businessman, it would seem the most prudent thing is to shut it down and declare bankruptcy. If all you can talk about is incurring more expense, have no bead on what assets you may have in the future, have no money now...why put shareholders through the increased angst? Obviously this is rhetorical and the answer quite obvious...there's more to the story that isn't being told. IMO, of course.

pr

[dreamer]

Very, very insightful Port!

"As a businessman, it would seem the most prudent thing is to shut it down and declare bankruptcy. If all you can talk about is incurring more expense, have no bead on what assets you may have in the future, have no money now...why put shareholders through the increased angst? Obviously this is rhetorical and the answer quite obvious...there's more to the story that isn't being told. IMO, of course."

[St1ck]

If the bad guys are funding Tyler, hopefully all this legal work will drain their wallets.
IMO the folks that all these lawsuits are serving are the ones who sold off all their shares and are attempting to gain wealth through litigation. Seems to me none of this activity, and the illogical plan to trade again, will benefit any shareholders.

[jo]

update, schmupdate..lol

[tenbeers]

portrush said:

Not much of this update is new. It isn't a PR after all, just another CEO update designed to make some sort of statement in hopes of quelling the angst of shareholders. What makes it frustrating is that some of the info is far from new. We understand that the claims were leased and not owned. We understand that they are trying to serve notice to those that wronged the company.

As a businessman, it would seem the most prudent thing is to shut it down and declare bankruptcy. If all you can talk about is incurring more expense, have no bead on what assets you may have in the future, have no money now...why put shareholders through the increased angst? Obviously this is rhetorical and the answer quite obvious...there's more to the story that isn't being told. IMO, of course.

pr

[SkipperGas]

I think that this is a Quarterly Update that was promised months ago for now.

[Deleted]

PHHHHTTTTTTTTTTPR. PRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRS--T
WHY DONT THEY BRING IN SOME OF THE BASHERS, AND LET THEM SUPORT THE O.G. CO. THATS ALL THIS IS IMO., SO THAT THEY CAN CREATE A WORKING CO , FIRST I THINK THEY NEED SHARE HOLDERS, WHY NOT TRY TO INDUCE BONAFIDE SHARE HOLDERS TO BRING THERE SHARES OVER TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY NEED FOR FILEING , DIDNT WORK, 2ND THEY NEED CASH , WHAT BETTER , TO GET THOSE SAME SHARE HOLDERS TO SUPPORT THERE CO. THESE ARE ONLY TWO IMPORTANT INGREDIENTS THEY NEED ,AGAIN GO GET THE BASHERS FOR MONEY , GOD BLESS US @cmkm, THE REAL CO. TWT.

[marsupial]

veritasvincit said:

"Many shareholders have inquired as to why the Company feels that it is feasible to return to trading with no tangible assets. We are not prepared to guess at what assets the Company may have in the future. Current management knows and understands that the Company will need to have tangible assets and a well structured business plan in order to have any chance of success in the markets. We continue our efforts in this regard."

well now I feel a whole lot better

[smeagol8]

I like that "guess", if they wanted to sound just a little bit professional, they should have said: "We are not prepared to guess exactly what assets we will be successful in recovering." If that is what they meant.

[SkipperGas]

seagull said:

sooo tell me... what is the point of these 'updates'??
... we want a PR!!

After years of lies from the mouths of Acca, et al, Kevin is trying to bring us back to reality. I'm grateful that he has been willing to take on this thankless task. He and Frizzle are our only hope of getting anything back on our investment. I support them completely.

[lacajungal]

brigantine said:

it reads like a fizzle epistle.

For shizzle!! lol This is getting ridiculous!!

lacajungal

[shoelessjoe]

my69z said:

shoelessjoe said:

no one has ever seen anything that Tyler has dum guy. That is why very few believe much of what is spoken of by them. And I do not believe that as many who might have believed them before believe them now.

They continue to distance themselves with their so called efforts.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone will ever completely trust them again. And who knows maybe that was/is the plan

And they have said that they must adress the item in manitoba. That is not necissarily truth either.
They could just ignore it.Unless of course they are the ones who requested the hearing. Of which some really really smart people ( ito) don't think happened. rofl

Shoeless,,,shoeless..... take a re-read of this part after your done rollin round,,,

And you might owe that really,really smart person......an apology cause it wasn't CMKX who "requested"

"Since current management was not involved with the company’s acts which have been alleged in the proceeding being brought by the Manitoba Commission, we have requested certain items from the Manitoba Commission’s file. We will respond appropriately when we receive the requested information from the Commission."

Sounds like what that "person" told you to me,,,,,,"CMKX" didn't "request" this hearing....

glty

lol
and of course you thought I was referring to you? lol

Have you even read what the director said in 2004? The company doesn't have to respond just because one of the other entities requested the hearing.
Nothing new can happen to cmkm. But if they do not defend they can not trade in any issue in Canada. Period!

Think it thru. No more hints all imho of course

[shoelessjoe]

my69z said:

shoelessjoe said:

lol
and of course you thought I was referring to you? lol

Have you even read what the director said in 2004? The company doesn't have to respond just because one of the other entities requested the hearing.
Nothing new can happen to cmkm. But if they do not defend they can not trade in any issue in Canada. Period!

Think it thru. No more hints all imho of course

ummmm,,,,,this is the only part i was talking about.....

" Unless of course they are the ones who requested the hearing. Of which some really really smart people ( ito) don't think happened. rofl"

Manitoba was not requested by CMKX....."period !"

lol come on,I was hoping for more than just that period thingy.

i'm on record saying we will never trade again. You on the other hand believe they will. What easier route to trading than to clear up this little thing in Canada?

A little more to help eliminate the other 3.

Urban can not go to court on this. Why? I don't know other than he would have to give more information than just pleading the 5th.

He's done that 2 maybe 3 different occasions already.

1st: when he had to submit a deposition pertaining to ucad in 2004.

2nd: sec hearing in 2005

3rd: depositon to sec pertaining to cert pull/entourage distribution no record I can find as to those depostions by urban,ibm,stocklien and frizzell

but I think that if urban submitted one he would have had to fall back upon his 5th ammendment rights once again. ( not to mention he could be served there)

So scratch urban from the 4.

Melvin? He did have a job opportunity go south. Was that a Canadian company? imo He should be motivated to call the hearing. But he says not.

That leaves Desormeaux. Could have been him I suppose but if he attends it would be a good opportunity to serve him.

That leaves cmkm diamonds to answer to the Canadian SEC as to there unregistered trading of cmki and cmkx.

Why didn't they just say they had applied to Manitoba to hear their case. It would have at the least shown where they are doing something to get back into the markets. No they decide to play more games with the shareholders and put the blame somewhere else.

all jmho

[shoelessjoe]

my69z said:

ok,,,,i'll do better than a period thing and not by choice cause like I said during our 15+ minute Paltalk over this,,,,,read the actual Policy,,,based on what would be reqired of CMKX to have this lifted,,,,,,it's not "CMKX" requesting this hearing but a follow-up from manitoba based on Sask....the National Policy that was passed up there July 27, 2007........

I'll ask one very simple & obvious question......is CMKX currently revoked in Manitoba??,,,,,,obviously no

From the Policy......." 4.1 Application for a full revocation "

An issuer requesting a full revocation order should submit an application, with the application fees, to the securities regulatory authorities in all jurisdictions where the issuer's securities are cease-traded. The application should include the following information: "

But you say....." Why didn't they just say they had applied to Manitoba to hear their case."

They didn't apply for this

" No they decide to play more games with the shareholders and put the blame somewhere else. "

I know it's just an opinion,,,,,,,but base it around the actual Policy

glta

OK HERE IT IS:

AND WHEREAS the Director is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to make this Order;

AND WHEREAS the Director is of the opinion that the length of time required for a hearing would be prejudicial to the public interest;

THE DIRECTOR HEREBY ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to clause 134(1)(d) of the Act that trading in all securities by and of The Respondents cease forthwith up to and including November 9, 2004; and

2. Pursuant to clause 134(1)(a) of the Act, that the exemptions contained in sections 38, 39, 39.1, 81, 82 and 102 of the Act and the exemptions contained in The Securities Regulations, R.R.S., c. S-42.2 Reg 1, which provide for exemptions from the requirements of sections 27, 58, 71 or 104 to 109 of the Act, shall not apply forthwith up to and including November 9, 2004, with respect to any trade in securities by the Respondents;

AND TAKE NOTICE THAT:

1. This Order may be extended for such period as the Director considers necessary where sufficient information is not provided to the Director on or before November 9, 2004;

2. The Commission will, at the request of any person or company named in this Order, grant a hearing before the Commission with respect to the within matter, such hearing to be held at such time and place as the Commission shall determine;

3. The purpose of such hearing will be to consider whether it is in the public interest that a permanent cease trade order pursuant to clause 134(1)(d) of the Act and a permanent prohibition of statutory exemptions pursuant to clause 134(1)(a) of the Act be made with respect to the Respondents by reason of the conduct herein before described and by reason of failing to provide the Commission with satisfactory information on or before
the date of the hearing or any extension thereof by the Commission;

4. Any party to these proceedings may be represented by counsel of their choice at any such hearing before the Commission; and

5. Upon failure of any party to attend any such hearing at the time and place set therefore, the hearing may proceed in the absence of such party and such party is not entitled to any further notice of the proceedings therein.

DATED at Regina, Saskatchewan on October 26, 2004.
“Barbara Shourounis”Barbara Shourounis
Director - Securities Division
Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission

www.sfsc.gov.sk.ca/ssc/enforcementorders.shtml

So the dude says it would be predudicial to the public. I interpret that to mean too costly to put the onis on the public to pay for.

He then says that it can be extended which it was

it pertains to all securities

and if someone (respondant) chooses to request a hearing,they mayy.

The ruling was already made. The securities commission did not need a hearing to do this. The respondant needed to pursue if they wanted to pursue.

Someone requested the hearing. Other than Manitoba.

You had not looked into this when we spoke in pal talk. Now you have and you give some information from july 07.

I showed where cmkm has reason to request the hearing. imo you do not. You just say not.

I showed reason why urban,and desormeau would be compelled to avaoid a courtroom and Melvin should be motivated.
Melvin has said he didn't I'll take his word for it.

Cmkm principals would also have motivation if they plan to do business in canada. (trade)

If they do not go to the hearing that someone requested no other ruling will be made against them pertaining to unregistered trading of cmki and cmkm.

In our pal talk conversation I just asked that you or anyone else prove my information wrong. You still have not done that.

enjoy the weekend maybe we will get news or a packet and all this will have no meaning. BUB lol

jmho

[sioux]

TAKE NOTICE THAT The Manitoba Securities Commission ("Commission") has adjourned the hearing set for October 24, 2007 to October 31, 2007 commencing at 9:00 a.m.
DATED at Winnipeg, Manitoba on September 24, 2007.

www.msc.gov.mb.ca/legal_docs/investigation/notices/cmkm.html

sorry if this was already out...

[shoelessjoe]

my69z said:

what in the world are you talking about.....

" You had not looked into this when we spoke in pal talk. Now you have and you give some information from july 07. "

What i just said is exactlly what I said then,,,,based on what CMKX would need to submit to have this TRO lifted,,,,,,it wasn't CMKX who requested this Manitoba thing.........i talked about the original Sask order AND this Policy......i even talked about the policy in an MP3,,,,BEFORE you and me had that Paltlk talk

So no,,,,,i'am not just now looking into this..........

pertaining to all securities.......means Sask securities

You obviously don't remember a thing i've said........but my opinion is the same on if it was CMKX who actually requested to be taken to this hearing,,,,,,,,,,,,,i still don't care to convince you...& it's just funny to see so much bashing of the Co..

Read the new policy....no response from CMKX will equal another TRO.

glta

-------------------------------------------------

I haven't been going into Paltalk for a month,,,,,and without a doubt not for 5 weeks......

By: my69z
21 Aug 2007, 10:58 PM EDT
Msg. 593337 of 608264
Jump to msg. #

MP3: Manitoba & Edwards...


13 mins long..

www.zshare.net/audio/32546651afb114/

Chris

actually my memory is not bad,however

You might consider getting yours checked. lol
I took your advice and listened to your mp3. It was quite good,but you might have changed your opinion since that time. don't know.

At the 1 minute 6 second time of your mp3 you state. It won't matter if cmkx shows.

at 3:10 you say Manitoba was just following up with what sask did.

I'll ask here: What did Sask do? answer:

THE DIRECTOR HEREBY ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to clause 134(1)(d) of the Act that trading in all securities by and of The Respondents cease forthwith up to and including November 9, 2004; and

2. Pursuant to clause 134(1)(a) of the Act, that the exemptions contained in sections 38, 39, 39.1, 81, 82 and 102 of the Act and the exemptions contained in The Securities Regulations, R.R.S., c. S-42.2 Reg 1, which provide for exemptions from the requirements of sections 27, 58, 71 or 104 to 109 of the Act, shall not apply forthwith up to and including November 9, 2004, with respect to any trade in securities by the Respondents;

So manitoba has done what sask did and revoked the 4 entities from the securities market.

You gave good information about the new policy of july 27th? of this year. Iliked it.

But it says the same thing as the one from sask albeit they use the term apply for vs sask saying request hearing. not much difference there.

And in your mp3 about the 4:02 area you quite clearly say the same thing. It needs to be requested. Now your terminology is apply. And I agree that it would now apply to all jurisdictions.

They seem the same to me

And at 4:46 you say you doubt cmkx would show up.

So all of or most of what you shared in your mp3 is what I have been saying. That someone had to request the hearing or apply for and pay application fee for a hearing.

YOu just say you don't think cmkx requested/applied for the hearing.

I have shown the reasons why urban,desormeau and melvin probably didn't and given reason why it would have been beneficial for the company to do it.
That being that it would show the shareholders they are being proactive in attempting to get us to a trading status again. somewhere!

And I looked back at all the posts in this thread and although many were unhappy with the info in the update and complained of such,I didn't notice anyone bash the company.

oh you also asked if cmkm was currently revoked from trading in manitoba and you answered,"obviously not"

If manitoba followed sask,obviously they are.

all imo