Post by portrush on Apr 15, 2011 19:58:53 GMT -6
Friday, April-15-11
Shareholders;
We the undersigned are directors of CMKM Diamonds Inc. We do not believe that the board of directors for CMKM Diamonds Inc. have been in any way negligent or derelict in any of the duties to inform and protect shareholders in any matters.
Firstly, your demand letter states that you would like to be informed of “funds purported to exist” in the Bivens lawsuit that has been before the courts brought by certain shareholders or on behalf of certain shareholders through attorney A. Clifton Hodges.
You spoke to the fact that Mr. Hodges testified under oath in the court proceedings. On this point we must respectfully disagree. Mr. Hodges was speaking on behalf of his client(s) and as such was not under oath. Lawyers are allowed to advocate for their client based on facts they believe to be true. Mr. Hodges was in fact arguing a side of the case, and as such is not “testifying” as you have misstated in your letter. “The case brought by Mr. Hodges was dismissed by the Court and is now on appeal.” Mr. Hodges is pursuing the matter on appeal at this time. The company has no obligation nor would it be a wise use of resources to attempt to get involved in this matter. In fact spending valuable company resources and time on something that has never been validated by our own extensive investigation would, in the opinion of the board, be irresponsible. This company has always had an open line of communication with Mr. Hodges. The company has requested on multiple occasions from Mr. Hodges any such tangible evidence, including but not limited to any pertinent documentation which. For reasons known only to Mr. Hodges, the company has not received any documented evidence of any trust that is “purported” to exist. The company has NO knowledge of any type of trust fund and has no evidence that such a trust has ever existed.
Shareholders have received transparency of everything this board has been doing since it’s inception. The Company has posted on the Word Wide Web evidence from our many litigation activities that the company is pursuing in order to restore money to the company bank accounts. This is being done for the benefit of all shareholders. The Company has stated and restated our goal of being a viable and fully legally compliant company in the future. With in the last calendar year the Company built the financial records from recovered data that was thought lost at one time, filed all taxes for pertinent previous years and posted the information on our company website for the shareholders to see.
With all due respect to the writers of the demand letter to the company, you are misinformed on some of your “facts”. It is stated that the concerns of shareholders are “unanswered and ignored”. This is quite simply not factual. The company website has court filed documents on it that show where the company is spending it’s resources. This is done with great consideration and care in fulfilling our duties to shareholders.
The board at this time finds that the request to pursue action against Mr. Hodges to be misguided and unwise. The case before the court as mentioned above was dismissed. The company has asked for evidence and received none. There is no meritable action that we can find to take at this time There are simply no accounts, trusts, funds and settlement damages that the company can find to pursue. We have stated and restated this several times in the past. We are hopeful for all shareholders and this company that a compensation fund of some type does exist and that Mr. Hodges is successful in the pursuit of this matter based on the information he possesses and wishes to keep confidential. If the company can assist in that endeavour it stands ready to assist Mr. Hodges and his shareholder clients.
Demanding that we pursue something that does not appear to exist would be irresponsible and would cause the company to expend valuable resources in the process. We have instructed management to obtain a copy of any trust agreement holding funds for shareholder regardless of the source, this management has not found evidence any agreement has ever been in existence. In response to the accusation that the Board is in breach of its fiduciary duty, please see the financial statements posted on our company website.
It should also be noted that the Frizzell Law Firm is NOT an officer of the company. Mr Frizzell is a contingency attorney that the company hired to perform litigation against the former insiders and associate of the company in order to recover assets that were illegally taken from the company and it’s shareholders. You are requested not to contact his office for information about the company’s affairs. The company is diligently working on searching for a Public Relations officer that will be available to answer general shareholder questions. A basic set of protocols and appropriate contact methods will be posted to our website as soon as this process is completed. The company is also reviewing data received from candidates for the CEO position that is vacant and will inform shareholders when a suitable candidate is chosen.
The Board hereby recognizes the demand to answer the shareholders letter and as evidenced by the date stamp on this letter we have complied with said demand. Please continue to monitor our website at www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com for further litigation progress and company updates.
The CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Board of Directors
Shareholders;
We the undersigned are directors of CMKM Diamonds Inc. We do not believe that the board of directors for CMKM Diamonds Inc. have been in any way negligent or derelict in any of the duties to inform and protect shareholders in any matters.
Firstly, your demand letter states that you would like to be informed of “funds purported to exist” in the Bivens lawsuit that has been before the courts brought by certain shareholders or on behalf of certain shareholders through attorney A. Clifton Hodges.
You spoke to the fact that Mr. Hodges testified under oath in the court proceedings. On this point we must respectfully disagree. Mr. Hodges was speaking on behalf of his client(s) and as such was not under oath. Lawyers are allowed to advocate for their client based on facts they believe to be true. Mr. Hodges was in fact arguing a side of the case, and as such is not “testifying” as you have misstated in your letter. “The case brought by Mr. Hodges was dismissed by the Court and is now on appeal.” Mr. Hodges is pursuing the matter on appeal at this time. The company has no obligation nor would it be a wise use of resources to attempt to get involved in this matter. In fact spending valuable company resources and time on something that has never been validated by our own extensive investigation would, in the opinion of the board, be irresponsible. This company has always had an open line of communication with Mr. Hodges. The company has requested on multiple occasions from Mr. Hodges any such tangible evidence, including but not limited to any pertinent documentation which. For reasons known only to Mr. Hodges, the company has not received any documented evidence of any trust that is “purported” to exist. The company has NO knowledge of any type of trust fund and has no evidence that such a trust has ever existed.
Shareholders have received transparency of everything this board has been doing since it’s inception. The Company has posted on the Word Wide Web evidence from our many litigation activities that the company is pursuing in order to restore money to the company bank accounts. This is being done for the benefit of all shareholders. The Company has stated and restated our goal of being a viable and fully legally compliant company in the future. With in the last calendar year the Company built the financial records from recovered data that was thought lost at one time, filed all taxes for pertinent previous years and posted the information on our company website for the shareholders to see.
With all due respect to the writers of the demand letter to the company, you are misinformed on some of your “facts”. It is stated that the concerns of shareholders are “unanswered and ignored”. This is quite simply not factual. The company website has court filed documents on it that show where the company is spending it’s resources. This is done with great consideration and care in fulfilling our duties to shareholders.
The board at this time finds that the request to pursue action against Mr. Hodges to be misguided and unwise. The case before the court as mentioned above was dismissed. The company has asked for evidence and received none. There is no meritable action that we can find to take at this time There are simply no accounts, trusts, funds and settlement damages that the company can find to pursue. We have stated and restated this several times in the past. We are hopeful for all shareholders and this company that a compensation fund of some type does exist and that Mr. Hodges is successful in the pursuit of this matter based on the information he possesses and wishes to keep confidential. If the company can assist in that endeavour it stands ready to assist Mr. Hodges and his shareholder clients.
Demanding that we pursue something that does not appear to exist would be irresponsible and would cause the company to expend valuable resources in the process. We have instructed management to obtain a copy of any trust agreement holding funds for shareholder regardless of the source, this management has not found evidence any agreement has ever been in existence. In response to the accusation that the Board is in breach of its fiduciary duty, please see the financial statements posted on our company website.
It should also be noted that the Frizzell Law Firm is NOT an officer of the company. Mr Frizzell is a contingency attorney that the company hired to perform litigation against the former insiders and associate of the company in order to recover assets that were illegally taken from the company and it’s shareholders. You are requested not to contact his office for information about the company’s affairs. The company is diligently working on searching for a Public Relations officer that will be available to answer general shareholder questions. A basic set of protocols and appropriate contact methods will be posted to our website as soon as this process is completed. The company is also reviewing data received from candidates for the CEO position that is vacant and will inform shareholders when a suitable candidate is chosen.
The Board hereby recognizes the demand to answer the shareholders letter and as evidenced by the date stamp on this letter we have complied with said demand. Please continue to monitor our website at www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com for further litigation progress and company updates.
The CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Board of Directors
