SEC Commission v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. et al

[sandi66]

United States District Court
District of Nevada (Las Vegas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ

Securities and Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. et al
Assigned to: Judge Larry R. Hicks
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston
Cause: 15:77 Securities Fraud

Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/07/2008
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 850 Securities/Commodities
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Securities and Exchange Commission represented by John M McCoy, III
Securities and Exchange Commission
5670 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90036-5627
323-965-3668
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Blaine T Welsh
U.S. Attorney's Office
333 Las Vegas Blvd So
Suite 5000
Las Vegas, NV 89101-
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie A Hakala
5670 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323-965-3875
Email: [e-mail]
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly M White
Securities and Exchange Commission
5670 Wilshire Blvd., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323-965-3250
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


V.

Defendant
CMKM Diamonds, Inc.
TERMINATED: 04/21/2008

Defendant
1st Global Stock Transfer LLC

Defendant
NevWest Securities Corporation

Defendant
Urban Casavant

Defendant
John Edwards

Defendant
Ginger Gutierrez

Defendant
James Kinney

Defendant
Kathleen Tomasso
TERMINATED: 06/11/2008

Defendant
Anthony Tomasso
TERMINATED: 06/11/2008

Defendant
Helen Bagley represented by Mark S Dzarnoski
GORDON & SILVER, LTD
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Ninth Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89109
702-796-5555
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Daryl Anderson

Defendant
Sergey Rumyantsev represented by Sergey Rumyantsev
1951 North Jones Blvd.
Apartment G202
Las Vegas, NV 89108
PRO SE

Defendant
Anthony Santos represented by Anthony Santos
6965 N Durango Dr
Ste 1115-381
Las Vegas, NV 89149
Fax: [phone]
PRO SE

Defendant
Brian Dvorak represented by John Wesley Hall, Jr.
1311 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


Date Filed # Docket Text

04/07/2008 1 COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Securities and Exchange Commission. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 4/17/2008. Proof of service due by 8/5/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons, # 15 Summons)(White, Molly) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 Case assigned to Judge Larry R. Hicks and Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 2 NOTICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IB 2-2: In accordance with 28 USC § 636(c) and FRCP 73, the parties in this action are provided with a link to the "AO 85 Notice of Availability, Consent, and Order of Reference - Exercise of Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge" form on the Court's website - link. Consent forms should NOT be electronically filed. Upon consent of all parties, counsel are advised to manually file the form with the Clerk's Office. (no image attached) (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 3 Summons Issued as to Daryl Anderson. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 4 Summons Issued as to Anthony Tomasso. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 5 Summons Issued as to Urban Casavant. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 6 Summons Issued as to CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 7 Summons Issued as to Brian Dvorak. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 8 Summons Issued as to John Edwards. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 9 Summons Issued as to 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 10 Summons Issued as to Ginger Gutierrez. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 11 Summons Issued as to Helen Bagley. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 12 Summons Issued as to Kathleen Tomasso. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 13 Summons Issued as to James Kinney. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 14 Summons Issued as to NevWest Securities Corporation. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 15 Summons Issued as to Sergey Rumyantsev. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 16 Summons Issued as to Anthony Santos. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 17 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Government Attorney. Attorney: John M. McCoy III, Molly M. White, and Leslie A. Hakala. by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. Motion ripe 4/7/2008. (Welsh, Blaine) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/08/2008 18 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 6 Summons Issued. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. waiver sent on 4/7/2008, answer due 6/6/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 04/08/2008)

04/08/2008 19 ORDER Granting 17 Motion for Leave to Appear for Attorney John M. McCoy, III, Molly M White and Leslie A Hakala for Securities and Exchange Commission. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston on 4/8/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ES) (Entered: 04/08/2008)

04/09/2008 20 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 7 Summons Issued. Brian Dvorak waiver sent on 4/9/2008, answer due 6/8/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/11/2008 21 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 5 Summons Issued. Urban Casavant waiver sent on 4/7/2008, answer due 6/6/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 04/11/2008)

04/16/2008 22 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 8 Summons Issued. John Edwards waiver sent on 4/8/2008, answer due 6/7/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 04/16/2008)

04/17/2008 23 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Securities and Exchange Commission.. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 04/17/2008)

04/18/2008 24 STIPULATED/CONSENT JUDGMENT of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit [Proposed] Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction Against Defendant CMKM Diamonds, Inc.)(Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

04/18/2008 25 Submission of PROPOSED ORDER on 24 Stipulated/Consent Judgment ; filed by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

04/21/2008 26 (1st Notice) PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ORDER 109: that John M. McCoy, III is in violation of Special Order 109. Participation in the electronic filing system became mandatory for all attorneys effective January 1, 2006. You are required to register for the Courts Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) program and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Courts website www.nvd.uscourts.gov, then select CM/ECF Info, to register the Attorney(s). (no image attached) (RFJ) (Entered: 04/21/2008)

04/21/2008 27 FINAL JUDGMENT of Permanent Injunction Against Defendant CMKM Diamonds Inc re 24 Stipulated/Consent Judgment by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (ES-cc: Atty Bill Frizzell) . (Entered: 04/22/2008)

04/24/2008 28 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 9 Summons Issued. 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC waiver sent on 4/14/2008, answer due 6/13/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 04/24/2008)

04/24/2008 29 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 11 Summons Issued. Helen Bagley waiver sent on 4/14/2008, answer due 6/13/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 04/24/2008)

05/05/2008 30 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 16 Summons Issued. Anthony Santos served on 4/21/2008, answer due 5/11/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 05/05/2008)

05/05/2008 31 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 15 Summons Issued. Sergey Rumyantsev served on 4/14/2008, answer due 5/4/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 05/05/2008)

05/05/2008 32 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 27 Stipulated/Consent Judgment addressed to Bill Frizzell. (ES-remailed to 602 S. Broadway Ave, Tyler TX 75701-1501) (Entered: 05/06/2008)

05/06/2008 33 MOTION to Extend Time to Answer Plaintiff's 1 Complaint, by Defendant Sergey Rumyantsev. Motion ripe 5/6/2008. (ES) (Entered: 05/07/2008)

05/07/2008 34 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 3 Summons Issued. Daryl Anderson waiver sent on 5/5/2008, answer due 7/4/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 05/07/2008)

05/09/2008 35 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, filed by Sergey Rumyantsev.(ES) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

05/12/2008 36 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Larry R. Hicks, on 5/8/2008, granting 33 Defendant Rumyantsev's Motion to Extend Time to 05/09/2008, in which to file and serve his answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL) (Entered: 05/12/2008)

05/12/2008 37 ANSWER to 1 Complaint filed by Anthony Santos.(ES) (Entered: 05/13/2008)

05/14/2008 38 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 14 Summons Issued. NevWest Securities Corporation waiver sent on 5/12/2008, answer due 7/11/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/16/2008 39 STIPULATED/CONSENT JUDGMENT of John Edwards by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 05/16/2008)

05/16/2008 40 Submission of PROPOSED ORDER on 39 Stipulated/Consent Judgment ; filed by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 05/16/2008)

05/20/2008 41 JUDGMENT of Permanent Injunction and other relief against defendant John Edwards. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/20/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ES) (Entered: 05/21/2008)

05/22/2008 42 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 12 Summons Issued. Kathleen Tomasso served on 4/18/2008, answer due 5/8/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 05/22/2008)

05/22/2008 43 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Securities and Exchange Commission re 4 Summons Issued. Anthony Tomasso served on 4/18/2008, answer due 5/8/2008. (Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 05/22/2008)

06/05/2008 44 STIPULATED/CONSENT JUDGMENT of Anthony Tomasso by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 06/05/2008)

06/05/2008 45 Submission of PROPOSED ORDER on 44 Stipulated/Consent Judgment ; filed by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 06/05/2008)

06/05/2008 46 STIPULATED/CONSENT JUDGMENT of Kathleen Tomasso by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 06/05/2008)

06/05/2008 47 Submission of PROPOSED ORDER on 46 Stipulated/Consent Judgment ; filed by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 06/05/2008)

06/05/2008 48 ERROR: Wrong event selected by Court. (MJZ) MOTION to Stay/Suggestion of Bankruptcy by Defendants Anthony Tomasso and Kathleen Tomasso. Motion ripe 6/5/2008. (ES) (Entered: 06/06/2008)

06/05/2008 49 SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY Upon the Record as to Defendants Anthony Tomasso and Kathleen Tomasso. (ES) (Entered: 06/06/2008)

06/09/2008 50 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, filed by Brian Dvorak. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 6/19/2008. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 7/24/2008.(Hall, Jr., John) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

06/09/2008 51 JUDGMENT of PERMANENT INJUNCTION and other relief against defendant Kathleen Tomasso. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/9/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ES) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

06/09/2008 52 JUDGMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION and other relief against defendant Anthony Tomasso. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/9/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ES) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

06/10/2008 53 NOTICE by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission re 27 Stipulated/Consent Judgment. of Acknowledgment of Receipt of Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction against Defendant CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (White, Molly) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

06/13/2008 54 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, filed by Helen Bagley. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 6/23/2008. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 7/28/2008.(Dzarnoski, Mark) (Entered: 06/13/2008)

06/18/2008 55 STIPULATION Regarding Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. (White, Molly) (Entered: 06/18/2008)

06/18/2008 56 NOTICE by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission re 55 Stipulation. Proof of Service (White, Molly) (Entered: 06/18/2008)

06/19/2008 57 RESPONSE to 49 Suggestion of Bankruptcy; filed by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. Opposition to Tomassos Motion for Stay Replies due by 7/3/2008. (White, Molly) Docket entry relationship added on 6/19/08. (MJZ) (Entered: 06/19/2008)

06/24/2008 58 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston, on 6/24/2008. By Judicial Assistant: MXS. Hearing by telephone conference call set for 6/27/2008, at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston RE: 55 Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the call. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MXS) (Entered: 06/24/2008)

[alrich]

Hi Sandi, mine is from 6/30/08, it is newer info. I got it from 88 board.

[alrich]

Case 07-A-538649-B Status ACTIVE 6/30/08
« Thread Started Yesterday at 9:25pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARING: PROVE UP OF DEFAULT
« Thread Started Today at 6:55pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 07-A-538649-B Status ACTIVE
Plaintiff CMKM Diamonds Inc Attorney Koch, David R.
Defendant Desormeau, Dave Attorney Pro Se
Judge Denton, Mark R. Dept. 13


courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us:8490/

To check for results click on above link
Next click Civil Criminal Probate
Type 07 A 538649 in the boxes marked District Court Case Number
Click Calendar
Click "YES" under Minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event 06/30/2008 at 11:00 AM ALL PENDING MOTIONS (06-30-08)
Heard By Denton, Mark R.
Officers Sue Burdette, Court Clerk
Cynthia Georgilas, Reporter/Recorder

Parties 0001 - P1 CMKM Diamonds Inc No
008830 Koch, David R. Yes
0002 - D1 Desormeau, Dave No
0003 - D Edwards, John No
0004 - D Eton Properties Corp No
0005 - CO Eton Properties Corp No
0006 - DC CMKM Diamonds Inc No

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLTF'S MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL ... HEARING: PROVE UP OF DEFAULT

Bill Frizzell, Esq., Texas Counsel, Appearing Pro Hac Vice, also present.

As to PLTF'S MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL: Court finds everything appears to
be in order; and ORDERED, motion GRANTED. Mr. Koch to submit proposed Order
and notify the State Bar of the Court's action.

As to HEARING: PROVE UP OF DEFAULT: Mr. Koch stated this is as to John
Edwards. After calling the Courtroom and hearing no response, Court
inquired if the amount is liquidated or if this is for punitive damages. Mr.
Frizzell stated it is liquidated; the bulk of the damage award is for shares
of stock and the value of the stock; and referred to a Declaration and
exhibits attached thereto from Kevin West, the CEO of the company. Court
stated there are proceedings in the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr.
Frizzell stated that is a separate action filed by the Securities Exchange
Commission; CMKM was one of the named Defts and was not named as a
disgorgement Deft but named as a party and the action against CMKM was for
things done by prior management; there is no question that this entity has
authority to maintain this. Further statements by Mr. Frizzell as to the
disgorgement action and the civil action. Upon Court's inquiry, Mr.
Frizzell stated the SEC is aware of this action. Further statements by
counsel as to the punitive damages, the damages tied to the stock that was a
deluded from this company, and the exhibits which show how extensive and
egregious this fraud was.
Testimony and exhibits presented. (See worksheets.) Following the
testimony of Mr. West, Mr. Koch stated service in this case of Mr Edward was
by publication. Mr. Frizzell stated there were numerous attempts by one of
the process servers to serve Mr. Edwards, and noted Mr. Edwards submitted
himself to the disgorgement procedure, and has hired an attorney for that.
COURT ORDERED, matter taken UNDER SUBMISSION to review the Default Judgment.


Case 07-A-538649-B Status ACTIVE 6/30/08
« Reply #1 Yesterday at 9:32pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desormeau/Edwards PROVE UP OF DEFAULT
Spread it:


Desormeau/Edwards 06/30/2008 at 09:00 AM PROVE UP OF DEFAULT
Denton, Mark R.
All Parties
Case 07-A-538649-B Status ACTIVE
Plaintiff CMKM Diamonds Inc Attorney Koch, David R.
Defendant Desormeau, Dave Attorney Pro Se
Judge Denton, Mark R. Dept. 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filed Date Description Performed
05/23/2008 PROVE UP OF DEFAULT 06/30/2008
For All Parties
05/19/2008 CMKM DIAMONDS INCS REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIM 05/19/2008
For CMKM Diamonds Inc
Filed By CMKM Diamonds Inc 5 pages
05/07/2008 DECLARATION OF KEVIN WEST IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
For CMKM Diamonds Inc
Filed By CMKM Diamonds Inc 128 pages
05/14/2008 ENTRY IN ERROR
05/07/2008 APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON JOHN EDWARDS
For CMKM Diamonds Inc
Filed By CMKM Diamonds Inc 3 pages
www.equitygroups.com/bustedstocks/cmkx/messages/138028.html
Re: Case 07-A-538649-B Status ACTIVE 6/30/08
« Reply #2 Yesterday at 9:37pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF DEFAULT AND PROVE-UP sample 198.173.15.31/Forms/pdf_files/CCM0601.pdf ORDER OF DEFAULT AND PROVE-UP ON DAMAGES www.cookcountycourt.org/profiles/files/45_pretrialforms_2972225368.pdf

[sandi66]

INITIAL DECISION RELEASE NO. 291
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
FILE NO. 3-11858

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.


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

In the Matter of

CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
:
INITIAL DECISION

July 12, 2005

APPEARANCES:
Leslie A. Hakala, Gregory C. Glynn, and John B. Bulgozdy for the Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission.

Donald J. Stoecklein for CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

Bill Frizzell for John Martin, et al., (Owners Group).1

BEFORE:
Brenda P. Murray, Chief Administrative Law Judge.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) issued its Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP) on March 16, 2005, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The OIP alleges that the common stock of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (CMKM Diamonds), is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, and that since registering its stock, CMKM Diamonds has not filed an annual report on Form 10-K or 10-KSB since May 9, 2002, or a quarterly report on Form 10-Q or 10-QSB since November 18, 2002. As a result, the OIP alleges that CMKM Diamonds has failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.

CMKM Diamonds filed its Answer on April 12, 2005, in which it admitted that the factual allegations in the OIP are true but denied that it failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13. (Answer 1-2.)

I held a one-day public hearing on May 10, 2005, in Los Angeles, California, during which six witnesses testified for the Division of Enforcement (Division), three witnesses testified for CMKM Diamonds, and more than sixty exhibits were admitted into evidence.2 At the hearing, I read into the record the names of some twenty-five CMKM Diamonds shareholders who sent letters concerning this proceeding. I ruled that those letters would be treated as exhibits offered but not admitted into evidence. (Tr. 25-26.) Appendix A to this Initial Decision is a list of additional letters received after the hearing, which will receive the same treatment. The Division, CMKM Diamonds, and the Owners Group filed their Post-Hearing Briefs on June 6, June 17, and June 20, 2005, respectively. The Division filed its Reply Brief on June 29, 2005.3

ISSUES
If CMKM Diamonds has failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13, the issue is what remedial sanction, if any, is appropriate pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings and conclusions herein are based on the entire record. I applied preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof. See Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 (1981). I have considered and rejected all arguments and proposed findings and conclusions that are inconsistent with this Initial Decision.

Background
CMKM Diamonds was incorporated in Delaware in 1998 as Cyber Mark International Corp. (Cyber Mark). (Answer at 1-2.) In April 2002, Cyber Mark changed its corporate domicile to Nevada. (Answer at 2; Div. Ex. 3.) On November 25, 2002, Cyber Mark agreed to acquire certain mineral claims held by five companies owned by the family of Urban Casavant (Casavant) in exchange for $2 million and almost 3 billion shares of Cyber Mark restricted common stock with registration rights. (Answer at 2; Div. Ex. 3 at 5.) Prior to his resignation on November 25, 2002, Cyber Mark's sole director appointed Casavant sole director, president, and chief executive officer. (Answer at 2; Div. Ex. 3 at 7.) On November 26, 2002, Casavant appointed his wife, Carolyn Casavant, as vice president of claims, his son, Wesley Casavant, age twenty-two, to the position of corporate treasurer, and his daughter, Cindy Casavant, to the position of corporate secretary. (Answer at 2-3, Div. Ex. 3 at 7.) On December 3, 2002, the company changed its corporate name to Casavant Mining Kimberlite International. (Answer at 3; Div. Ex. 3 at 7.) In February 2004, it changed its name to CMKM Diamonds. (Answer at 3.)

CMKM Diamonds currently is a Nevada corporation based in Las Vegas, Nevada, which is purportedly engaged in the business of mineral exploration.4 (Answer at 6; Form 8-Ks, filed March-May 2005 (official notice); Div. Ex. 6 at 14.) In the most recent information it has provided to the public through a periodic filing, a Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, CMKM Diamonds reported total assets of $344.00, all in cash, and total liabilities of $1,672.00. (Div. Ex. 3 at 2.) Casavant currently is the president, chief executive officer, and co-chair of CMKM Diamonds's two-person board of directors. (Tr. 71-73; Div. Exs. 5, 18, 19, 24, 53; Form 8-Ks, filed March-May 2005 (official notice).) Casavant and his wife have signatory authority on CMKM Diamonds's bank accounts. (Tr. 183.) Casavant refused to testify at the hearing, and asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to all questions asked by the Division.5 (Tr. 242-61.)

From January 1, 2003 through April 19, 2005, the price of CMKM Diamonds's stock ranged from a low of $0.00013 per share to a high of $0.0135 per share. (Div. Ex. 17.) Its average price during this period was $0.00071. (Div. Ex. 17.) The trading volume of CMKM Diamonds's stock from January 2003 until August 2003 exceeded 100 million shares per day on four occasions. (Tr. 137-38; Div. Ex. 61.) From August 2003 to April 2005, however, the trading volume of the company's stock was significantly higher, frequently exceeding 1 billion shares per day and sometimes exceeding 2 billion shares per day. (Tr. 138; Div. Exs. 17, 61.)

In a Form 8-K filed on March 14, 2005, CMKM Diamonds reported that on two occasions during 2004, it had amended its articles of incorporation to change the number of authorized shares. The first amendment, on March 1, 2004, changed the number of authorized shares from 200 billion to 500 billion. The second amendment, on August 18, 2004, changed the number of authorized shares from 500 billion to 800 billion. (Form 8-K, filed March 14, 2005 (official notice).) As of December 31, 2004, CMKM Diamonds had 2,033 shareholders of record and more than 778 billion shares outstanding. (Tr. 159-61; Div. Ex. 14 at 504.)

Donald J. Stoecklein (Stoecklein), current counsel for CMKM Diamonds, owns the Securities Law Institute in Las Vegas, Nevada, which assists approximately forty-two public companies in their periodic reporting obligations, including CMKM Diamonds. (Tr. 315-16.) Stoecklein also owns Opus Pointe, which is an accounting and bookkeeping company and a division of the Securities Law Institute. (Tr. 167, 326-27.) Opus Point and the Securities Law Institute are working on CMKM Diamonds matters and an employee of each firm testified at the public hearing. (Tr. 167, 314.)

On March 4, 2005, CMKM Diamonds announced that, effective March 1, 2005, it had relocated its executive offices to 5375 Procyon Street, Suite 101, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Div. Ex. 53.) However, as of April 6, 2005, this address was occupied only by a "hot rod" shop. (Div. Ex. 55.) "Debbie" at the Securities Law Institute, which is owned by CMKM Diamonds's counsel, reported in an e-mail sent on April 6, 2005, that a shareholder had visited the site, discovered this fact, and reported it on the company's Web site.6 "Debbie" advised that "You might want to call Urban [Casavant] or Michael and have them 'move in' and talk to the owner of the hot rod shop and also tell Andy what to tell shareholders when they call." (Div. Ex. 55.) CMKM Diamonds continued to report this false business address in two subsequent Form 8-K filings. (Div. Ex. 12; Form 8-K, filed May 18, 2005 (official notice).)

Robert Maheu (Maheu) has known Stoecklein for a number of years and is part of a team assembled by Stoecklein, which Maheu believes will clear up past mistakes and will result in compliance going forward. (Tr. 285-86, 296.) Maheu set up the Small Defense Plant Administration fifty years ago, and later the Small Business Administration. (Tr. 285, 287.) Casavant appointed Maheu as co-chairman of CMKM Diamonds's board in February 2005. (Tr. 283-84, 286, 293; Div. Exs. 53, 56.) Maheu is paid $40,000 per month. (Tr. 286.)

Failure to File Periodic Reports
CMKM Diamonds registered its securities with the Commission in 1999, pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. (Answer at 1, 6.) Since that time, CMKM Diamonds has failed to file annual reports for its fiscal years ended December 31, 2002, 2003, and 2004. (Answer at 7; Tr. 51; Div. Ex. 1.) It has also failed to file quarterly reports for the periods ended: March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2003; March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2004; and March 31, 2005. (Answer at 7; Tr. 51; Div. Ex. 2.)

On March 31, 2003, the company filed a request for an extension of time to file its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2002, because it had not yet completed its financial statements. (Div. Ex. 4.) CMKM Diamonds never filed an annual report for 2002. (Div. Ex. 1.) On May 16, 2003, the company filed a request for an extension of time to file its quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2003, claiming it had not yet completed its financial statements. (Div. Ex. 7.) Despite having not filed an annual report for 2002, CMKM Diamonds erroneously represented in this filing that it had filed all required reports for the preceding twelve months. (Div. Ex. 7.) CMKM Diamonds never filed a quarterly report for the quarter ending March 31, 2003. (Div. Ex. 2.)

On July 22, 2003, CMKM Diamonds filed a Form 15, signed by Casavant, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 12g-4, in which it certified that it had approximately 300 shareholders of record as of that date.7 (Div. Ex. 8.) The trading volume in CMKM Diamonds's shares inexplicably experienced a sharp increase shortly after it filed the Form 15.

On February 16, 2005, CMKM Diamonds revoked its original Form 15 filing because it actually had 698 shareholders of record as of the filing date of the original Form 15.8 (Div. Exs. 9, 13.) The persuasive evidence is that the Division's inquiry to CMKM Diamonds's counsel on December 23, 2004, led CMKM Diamonds to revoke the Form 15 because it contained a materially false representation. (Div. Exs. 20, 21.)

Failure to Achieve Compliance
In early January 2005, CMKM Diamonds retained Bagell, Josephs & Company, LLC, to audit the company's financial statements. (Tr. 68-74, 79; Div. Ex. 24.) Neil Levine (Levine), a certified public accountant with that firm and the engagement partner on the audit, met with Casavant and others to discuss the requirements for the audit. (Tr. 68-73.) Since being retained, Levine and his firm have not performed any audit procedures because CMKM Diamonds has failed to provide them with any books, records, or supporting documents, despite their repeated requests. (Tr. 69-71, 82-86, 95, 103, 109.) For example, Levine requested, but never received, supporting documents, such as invoices, for the company's stock issuances. (Tr. 82-86, 91.) He did receive a memorandum with several pages of spreadsheets attached, identifying to whom stock was issued in 2002 and 2003, as well as the number of shares. (Tr. 84-85; Div. Ex. 26.) These documents were incomplete, however, as the stock price was not included for every issuance and there was no information about stock issuances in 2004. (Tr. 85; Div. Ex. 26.)

In late February 2005, Levine sent a letter inquiring about the status of the information he had requested, including general ledgers and documents supporting the company's stock issuances. (Tr. 90-91; Div. Ex. 27.) Levine never received a response. (Tr. 91.) Subsequently, Levine met with Casavant, Stoecklein, and others in Las Vegas. (Tr. 92.) They discussed Levine's requests for documents, and he was informed that the company's books and records were being assembled. (Tr. 92-94, 103.) Levine did not receive any documents at this meeting, and no one gave him a date by which he would receive such documents. (Tr. 93.) He later contacted the company to gauge their progress in assembling the books and records. (Tr. 93-94.) Its response informed him that things were progressing slowly. (Tr. 94.) One week before the hearing, Stoecklein told Levine that the company would be sending him documents. (Tr. 94.) Levine did not receive anything. (Tr. 95.)

Levine opined that if he received all the necessary information in proper form, he may be able to perform the required audits in three months. (Tr. 95-96.) Levine and his firm terminated the engagement with CMKM Diamonds effective at the end of the hearing, due to the company's failure to provide the requested documentation and information required to perform the audit work. (Tr. 96-98; Div. Ex. 59.)

In early March 2005, several months after the auditor was retained, Opus Pointe was hired to compile CMKM Diamonds's financial information for its financial statements.9 (Tr. 168.) Suzanne Herring (Herring) is an accountant with, and president of, Opus Pointe. (Tr. 167.) Since being retained, CMKM Diamonds has provided Opus Pointe with bank statements, cancelled checks, contracts, and reports from the transfer agent. (Tr. 171-72, 179.) Though Herring has made repeated requests for additional documents over several months, she has not been provided with a "pretty substantial" amount of information that she needs to prepare the financial statements. (Tr. 183.) For instance, Herring has repeatedly requested additional documents from Casavant, Ginger Gutierrez, who was the office administrator at the company, CMKM Diamonds's former attorney, and a former company employee. (Tr. 172-79, 181-83.) None of these persons have furnished any documents to Herring. (Tr. 172-79, 182-83.)

When Opus Pointe began its work in March 2005, CMKM Diamonds's balance sheet, financial statements, and general ledger were nonexistent. (Tr. 171.) Opus Pointe has since posted some transactions to draft general ledgers for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2002, 2003, and 2004. (Tr. 171-72, 185; Div. Ex. 58.) These draft ledgers, which are the only books and records prepared to date, are incomplete and based on incomplete information. (Tr. 185-86, 191, 204; Div. Ex. 58.) For example, Herring has not been provided documents that support CMKM Diamonds's issuance of more than $24 million in stock pursuant to an "unknown agreement." (Tr. 191-92.) She also is unsure whether CMKM Diamonds's purported acquisition of a jade collection, supposedly worth $56 million, has or has not been reversed. (Tr. 187-91.)

The draft ledger for 2003 reflects that deposits were made into CMKM Diamonds's bank account. (Tr. 193-96.) These deposits were not revenues earned by the company; instead, they were loans from Casavant. (Tr. 194-96.) The draft ledger for 2003 reflects no revenues because the company was not engaged in any revenue-producing activities. (Tr. 193-96; Div. Ex. 58.) Similarly, the draft ledger for 2004 reflects no business operations and no revenues or income.10 (Tr. 196-97; Div. Ex. 58.) CMKM Diamonds had an accumulated deficit of more than $36 million as of December 31, 2004. (Tr. 197-203.)

Herring estimated that she would require approximately thirty days to reconstruct CMKM Diamonds's books and records for 2002, 2003, and 2004, once she had all the information that she needed. (Tr. 203-04.) She has been unable to proceed because she lacks the documents that she requested from the company. (Tr. 204.)

The meetings Maheu has attended concerning CMKM Diamonds have been held in Stoecklein's office, possibly because Casavant operates CMKM Diamonds out of his home. (Tr. 175, 291.) Maheu has no background in the mining business, and does not know how many employees CMKM Diamonds has, if any, who they are, how much they are paid, or what kind of work they perform. (Tr. 296-98.) He has never seen CMKM Diamonds's general ledger and does not know what the company's assets and liabilities are. (Tr. 307-08.) Maheu incorrectly assumed that an audit of the company's financial statements had started as of the date of the hearing. (Tr. 306-07.) Maheu was unaware that CMKM Diamonds had not responded to requests for financial information and, at the hearing, he learned that CMKM Diamonds had not provided auditors and bookkeepers with documents they requested from Casavant months earlier. (Tr. 288-91.)

CMKM Diamonds currently has no independent auditor to audit its financial statements. In fact, it has no financial statements to be audited. In addition, no drafts of any of CMKM Diamonds's missing periodic reports have been prepared. (Tr. 336-38.) No witness could specify a date by which CMKM Diamonds would file any of its delinquent reports. (Tr. 275, 296, 354.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13-13 thereunder require issuers of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act to file periodic and other reports with the Commission. Exchange Act Rule 13a-1 requires issuers to submit annual reports, and Exchange Act Rule 13a-13 requires issuers to submit quarterly reports. No showing of scienter is necessary to establish a violation of Section 13(a) or the rules thereunder. SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 740-41 (2d Cir. 1998); SEC v. Wills, 472 F.Supp. 1250, 1268 (D.D.C. 1978).

The purpose of the periodic reporting provisions is to supply the investing public with current and accurate information about an issuer so that the investing public may make informed decisions. As stated in SEC v. Beisinger Indus. Corp., 552 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history):

The reporting requirements of the [Exchange Act are] the primary tool which Congress has fashioned for the protection of investors from negligent, careless, and deliberate misrepresentations in the sale of stock and securities. Congress has extended the reporting requirements even to companies which are "relatively unknown and insubstantial."

CMKM Diamonds admits that it has not filed an annual report since May 9, 2002, or a quarterly report since November 18, 2002, but it contends that it did not violate the periodic reporting provisions, because it had a good faith belief that the number of shareholders of record identified in the original Form 15 was accurate, and that filing was not denied or revoked by the Commission. (Answer at 5, 7; April 13, 2005, Prehearing Conference Tr. 12; Tr. 51-54; Resp. Post-Hearing Br. at 2, 5-7, 15-16.) More specifically, CMKM Diamonds argues that the filing of the Form 15 on July 22, 2003, suspended its duty to file periodic reports until it revoked the Form 15 on February 17, 2005. (Answer at 5, 11-12; Tr. 51-54; Resp. Post-Hearing Br. at 2, 5-7, 15-16.)

Exchange Act Rule 12g-4 provides, in relevant part, that an issuer's duty to file periodic reports shall be suspended immediately upon filing a certification on Form 15 that its class of securities registered under the Exchange Act is held of record by less than 300 persons. Implicit in this rule is that the information reported be true and correct. See SEC v. Savoy Indus., 587 F.2d 1149, 1165 (D.C. Cir. 1978); SEC v. Kalvex, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 310, 316 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); see also Black's Law Dictionary, 124, 220 (7th ed. 1999) (a "certification" is an "attested statement," which means a statement affirmed to be true or genuine). The evidence establishes that CMKM Diamonds knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that it had more than 300 shareholders of record when it filed the Form 15 on July 22, 2003.

On January 12, 2003, CMKM Diamonds issued 994,083,000 shares to 360 people for "fieldwork in Canada."11 (Tr. 157-59; Div. Exs. 15, 26.) CMKM Diamonds also issued almost 3 billion shares to twenty-nine companies on January 22, 2003. (Tr. 87-89; Div. Exs. 16, 26.) On January 7, 2003, CMKM Diamonds announced that it was performing a shareholder audit designed to identify every shareholder of record. (Div. Ex. 29.) Two weeks later, the company announced that it expected the audit to be completed in the next few days. (Div. Ex. 30.) Given the company's recent issuance of shares, this shareholder audit would have determined that CMKM Diamonds had more than 300 shareholders of record as of January 2003.

Less than one month after filing the false Form 15, CMKM Diamonds announced a two-for-one stock split, payable to all shareholders of record as of September 12, 2003. (Div. Exs. 34, 36, 38, 41.) Also, the company announced in September 2003 that it was spinning off a portion of its business, and each shareholder of record as of September 19, 2003, would receive one share of the subsidiary's stock for each share of CMKM Diamonds stock they held. (Div. Ex. 40.) These announcements indicate that CMKM Diamonds was well aware of the true number of its shareholders of record in the months that immediately followed the filing of the false Form 15.

The records of CMKM Diamonds's transfer agent, 1st Global Stock Transfer, LLC (1st Global), establish that CMKM Diamonds had 698 shareholders of record on July 22, 2003. (Tr. 141-42, 146-47, 151; Div. Ex. 13.) 1st Global would have retained a copy of a request by a company for a shareholder list. (Tr. 155-57.) 1st Global has no record or recollection of CMKM Diamonds requesting a copy of a shareholder list or otherwise inquiring as to the number of shareholders it had in July 2003. (Tr. 155-57, 162, 165-66.) Thus, the evidence is that CMKM Diamonds made no effort to confirm or verify the number of shareholders of record before filing the Form 15.

Moreover, an attorney representing CMKM Diamonds wrote a letter to the transfer agent dated February 5, 2004, stating that 1st Global's records of the company's share issuances since January 2003 "match the records and remembrances of [CMKM Diamonds]."12 (Div. Ex. 57.) As such, CMKM Diamonds must have known that it had more than 300 shareholders of record when it filed the original Form 15.

In addition, Casavant and CMKM Diamonds issued statements throughout 2004 that: (1) support my finding that the company either knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the original Form 15 was false; and (2) contradict the contention that CMKM Diamonds did not believe it had any reporting obligations subsequent to filing the false Form 15. These statements demonstrate that CMKM knew that the original Form 15 was false and that it remained subject to the periodic reporting requirements.

Beginning in January 2004, Casavant mentioned to a business partner that CMKM Diamonds "needed to be reporting," and he assured him ten or twelve times in 2004 that CMKM Diamonds was "working on getting reporting," and that the company was "getting close to be[ing] reporting." (Tr. 208-09, 214.) Casavant wanted to announce that CMKM Diamonds "was reporting" in October 2004 at a shareholder appreciation party. (Tr. 209-10.) In June 2004, CMKM Diamonds issued at least three press releases in which it announced that it was taking steps to becoming fully reporting and that it was dedicated to complying fully with all requirements.13 (Div. Exs. 43-45.) In September 2004, CMKM Diamonds announced that its accountants were "working to complete the audit of the company's financials. When that has been accomplished, the company will be well on its way to becoming a reporting company again." (Div. Ex. 49.) Furthermore, in October 2004, Casavant stated in an interview broadcast on an Internet Web site that the company was "working really hard" to bring current its reporting, and that it was "ahead of schedule." (Tr. 211; Div. Exs. 18, 19.) Although he did not provide an exact date by which the audit would be completed, Casavant indicated that it may be by the end of October 2004. (Div. Exs. 18, 19.)

Assuming arguendo that CMKM Diamonds honestly believed somehow that it had three hundred or less shareholders on July 22, 2003, there is no evidence is that it made an effort to confirm or verify such material information with its transfer agent prior to filing the false Form 15. By not doing so, and in light of its stock issuances and announcements before it filed the Form 15, CMKM Diamonds turned a blind eye to information that would have revealed the misrepresentation in the Form 15. See SEC v. Roor, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17416 at *15, *26 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Accordingly, CMKM Diamonds's conduct in this regard was, at a minimum, reckless. See id.; see also In re Fischbach Corp. Sec. Litig., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 373 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

The evidence is overwhelming that CMKM Diamonds and Casavant knew or, at a minimum, was reckless in not knowing, that the original Form 15 was false. I therefore conclude that filing the false Form 15 did not suspend CMKM Diamonds's reporting obligations.14 To conclude otherwise would permit companies to deprive shareholders and the investing public generally of information about the company by knowingly or recklessly filing materially false forms with the Commission.

The facts of this case demonstrate a situation where management deprived shareholders and investors of material information in official filings, but promoted the company to investors through informal news releases and public statements that contained false information. Since filing the false Form 15, CMKM Diamonds has told the public informally that it has engaged in several multi-million dollar transactions. For example, in press releases issued on July 27, 2004, and September 13, 2004, respectively, CMKM Diamonds announced the receipt of $3 million from U.S. Canadian Minerals and $5 million from St. George Minerals. (Tr. 308-09; Div. Exs. 46, 48.) These press released also indicated that CMKM Diamonds would soon file its delinquent reports. As a result of CMKM Diamonds's failure to file periodic reports making formal public disclosure of material information, the investing public has received only self-serving statements from persons promoting CMKM Diamonds.

I conclude that CMKM Diamonds violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 by failing to file: (1) annual reports since May 9, 2002; and (2) quarterly reports since November 18, 2002.

Finally, at the hearing on May 10, 2005, CMKM Diamonds argued that its periodic filings were only delinquent by twenty-two days.15 (Tr. 51-57; Resp. Post-Hearing Br. at 2, 5-7, 15-16.) However, CMKM Diamonds knew that revocation of the Form 15 required CMKM Diamonds to file all missing periodic reports within sixty days, or by April 18, 2005. (Tr. 324.) As of the date of this Initial Decision, CMKM Diamonds had not filed the missing reports. Therefore, even if I accepted CMKM Diamonds's position that it acted in good faith and believed that the representations in its Form 15 were true, it is still in violation of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13.

SANCTIONS
Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission, "as it deems necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors," to revoke the registration of a security or suspend the registration of a security for a period not exceeding twelve months if it finds, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, that the issuer of such security has failed to comply with any provision of the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. Because I have already concluded that CMKM Diamonds violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13, the only remaining issue is the appropriate sanction.

In determining whether a sanction is appropriate under Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act, the public interest factors identified in Steadman v. SEC are instructive. 603 F.2d 1126, 1140 (5th Cir. 1979), aff'd on other grounds, 450 U.S. 91 (1981); see also WSF Corp. , 77 SEC Docket 1831, 1836-37 (May 8, 2002) (12(j) case applying Steadman). The relevant factors under Steadman are: (1) the egregiousness of the respondent's actions; (2) the isolated or recurrent nature of the infraction; (3) the degree of scienter involved; (4) the sincerity of the respondent's assurances against future violations; (5) the respondent's recognition of the wrongful nature of its conduct; and (6) the likelihood of future violations. 603 F.2d at 1140. No one factor controls. See SEC v. Fehn, 97 F.3d 1276, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1996).

CMKM Diamonds's violations of the periodic reporting provisions were recurrent, egregious, and evidence a high degree of scienter. Over a period of several years, it failed to file: (1) required annual reports for its fiscal years ended December 31, 2002, 2003, and 2004; and (2) required quarterly reports for the periods ended March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2003, and 2004, and March 31, 2005. Several of these violations occurred after the institution of this proceeding, and each violation occurred after Casavant assumed control of the company. Furthermore, CMKM Diamonds filed a registration statement on Form S-8 in May 2003, more than two months before it filed the false Form 15. (Div. Ex. 6.) Thus, it was required to file periodic reports pursuant to Exchange Act Section 15(d) for at least the remainder of 2003. CMKM Diamonds failed to do so. Lastly, the instructions to Form S-8 require that an issuer may use Form S-8 only when it has filed all required periodic reports for the preceding twelve months. CMKM Diamonds, however, was delinquent in filing its annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, when it registered its securities on Form S-8.

CMKM Diamonds's violations involved important provisions of the Exchange Act. Throughout the period during which it has filed no reports, CMKM Diamonds has operated in secret, revealing scant information to the investing public regarding its purported multi-million dollar transactions and stock issuances while the trading volume of its stock is consistently more than 1 billion shares per day. Finally, CMKM Diamonds continues to report a false business address in filings with the Commission.

The company's and Casavant's repeated statements during 2004 about "working on getting reporting" and becoming compliant indicate that the company was acutely aware of its failure to file required periodic reports. Furthermore, as discussed above, CMKM Diamonds misrepresented the number of its shareholders of record in the original Form 15.

CMKM Diamonds does not appreciate the wrongfulness of its conduct and the requirement that it provide the investing public with accurate information. It also has failed to offer adequate assurances against future violations. Although CMKM Diamonds was purportedly "working on getting reporting" during 2004, CMKM Diamonds's first actual efforts at becoming compliant were in January 2005, after the Division had already contacted it regarding its delinquent reports. Prior to that time, the company's financial statements were nonexistent and it had retained no auditor. (Tr. 68-77, 171.) In fact, to this day its financial statements remain nonexistent and its auditor has since resigned due to the company's failure to cooperate with the audit. In February 2005, CMKM Diamonds announced that it was "working toward completing an audit of its financial statements." (Div. Ex. 52.) In reality, however, the company had no financial statements to audit and an audit had yet to begin. Since that time, the company has refused to provide its auditor and bookkeeper with information, despite their repeated requests. Additionally, CMKM Diamonds repeatedly misrepresented its business address in the following months.

Maheu's appointment as director does little to assure me that the company will be able to effect prompt compliance, as he is without sufficient control of the company or the situation. For example, as of the hearing, he was under the mistaken impression that an audit had commenced. Furthermore, he learned at the hearing that the company had consistently failed to provide documents requested by its auditor and bookkeeper.

Finally, CMKM Diamonds's violations of the periodic reporting provisions will likely to continue in the future. Opus Pointe has barely begun assembling the company's financial statements, and despite repeated requests, the company has yet to provide it with substantial information necessary for their completion. Moreover, CMKM Diamonds's auditor recently terminated the engagement due primarily to Casavant's failure to provide promised documents. Thus, CMKM Diamonds has no independent auditor and no financial statements to be audited. Furthermore, no drafts of CMKM Diamonds's missing reports have been prepared and no witness could specify a date by which the company would file any of its delinquent reports. As such, it is highly likely that CMKM Diamonds will continue to violate the periodic reporting provisions in the future.

The public hearing was an opportunity for CMKM Diamonds to address the allegations in the OIP. It failed to do so. Casavant seems to be the only person running the company and he refused to testify. Several witnesses testified that they tried to get financial information from Casavant and he failed to supply it. CMKM Diamonds has been out of compliance since 2002, and has made no good faith effort to remedy the situation.

CMKM Diamonds's failure to file required periodic reports has deprived the investing public of current, reliable information regarding its operations, purported million-dollar transactions, and financial condition. Viewing the Steadman factors in their entirety, I conclude that the appropriate sanction for the protection of investors is revocation of the registration of CMKM Diamonds's securities.

RECORD CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Rule 351(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.351(b), I hereby certify that the record includes the items set forth in the record index issued by the Secretary of the Commission on July 6, 2005.

ORDER
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above:

IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registration of each class of securities of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., is hereby REVOKED.

This Initial Decision shall become effective in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Rule 360 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.360. Pursuant to that Rule, a party may file a petition for review of this Initial Decision within twenty-one days after service of the Initial Decision. A party may also file a motion to correct a manifest error of fact within ten days of the Initial Decision, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.111. If a motion to correct a manifest error of fact is filed by a party, then that party shall have twenty-one days to file a petition for review from the date of the undersigned's order resolving such motion to correct a manifest error of fact. The Initial Decision will not become final until the Commission enters an order of finality. The Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party files a petition for review or a motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the Commission determines on its own initiative to review the Initial Decision as to a party. If any of these events occur, the Initial Decision shall not become final as to that party.

__________________
Brenda P. Murray
Chief Administrative Law Judge



Appendix A

Insert:
APPENDIX A
Letter from Allan L. Abbott, July 6, 2005
Letter from Bruce Allen, June 27, 2005
Letter from Bruce and Jake Barrett, May 20, 2005
Letter from Bruce and Jake Barrett, June 21, 2005
Letter from Rob Bish, June 22, 2005
Letter from Janet Bova-Wood, June 22, 2005
Letter from Amanda Boyd, May 23, 2005
Letter from Lawrence Brainard, June 24, 2005
Letter from Jo-Anne M. Brandes and Christine A. Allen, May 31, 2005
Letter from Raymond and Merri Burnthorn, July 5, 2005
Letter from C. Austin Burrell, July 5, 2005
Letter from James R. Butler, Jr., May 19, 2005
Letter from Kelly Chumly, June 2, 2005
Letter from Kelvin L. Clark, May 19, 2005
Letter from Patrick K. Cluney, June 6, 2005
Letter from Sue Collins, June 13, 2005
Letter from Geoffrey V. Cone, July 5, 2005
Letter from Robert J. Cuomo, May 25, 2005
Letter from George DeMeyers, May 13, 2005
Letter from Michael Demny, June 21, 2005
Letter from Sal DeSantis, June 23, 2005
Letter from George Dobbs, May 23, 2005
2
Letter from William C. Doggett, Jr., May 19, 2005
Letter from Walter E. Donnell, May 19, 2005
Letter from John Dorst, June 28, 2005
Letter from Janet Douglass, June 8, 2005
Letter from Janet Douglass, June 22, 2005
Letter from Charles F. Earwood, May 16, 2005
Letter from Robert Ellingsen, June 29, 2005
Letter from Teresita Diana Ereno, June 30, 2005
Letters from Martin Eylat, May 13 and May 16, 2005
Letter from Odette Eylat, May 13, 2005
Letter from Richard B. Free, May 13, 2005
Letter from Shelley Gause, May 17, 2005
Letter from “glens0,” May 18, 2005
Letters from John Graber, May 13 and May 16, 2005
Letter from Joshua Hastings, May 23, 2005
Letter from Patrick R. Hastings, May 19, 2005
Letter from Kaye Henderson, June 29, 2005
Letter from Jason E. Heppner, May 17, 2005
Letter from Kenneth P. and Sandra Hicks, May 25, 2005
Letter from Jesse R. Hodges, June 27, 2005
Letter from Alan Holman, June 6, 2005
Letter from Sherman Hooper, June 13, 2005
Letter from Nancy E. Hunt, May 25, 2005
3
Letter from Milton Jenkins, May 19, 2005
Letter from James L. Jonas, June 21, 2005
Letter from Tim and Penny Kelley, June 21, 2005
Letter from Souk Khounkhong, May 12, 2005
Letter from Cathy Kidd, June 6, 2005
Letter from Diane Lang, July 1, 2005
Letter from Dr. Len LaScolea, July 6, 2005
Letter from S.J Latarski, July 5, 2005
Letter from Melene M. Laughlin, May 25, 2005
Letter from Paul Levy and Joanne Levy, June 3, 2005
Letter from James Lim, June 21, 2005
Letter from Bonifacio B. Lintag, Jr., May 13, 2005
Letter from Deena C. Long, May 31, 2005
Letter from Thomas Marcum, June 21, 2005
Letter from Darryl Blaine Marlowe, June 21, 2005
Letter from Ricky Matteson, June 23, 2005
Letter from Sam Minaudo, June 21, 2005
Letter from Sarbjeet Mission, May 13, 2005
Letter from Trevor T. Mordecai, June 22, 2005
Letter from Roberta, Michael A., and Scott M. Murphy, May 13, 2005
Letter from William J. Murphy, June 21, 2005
Letter from John Nels, June 30, 2005
Letter from Darrin Ngo, June 21, 2005
4
Letter from Darrin Ngo, June 30, 2005
Letter from Michael L. Noel, June 21, 2005, with attached letters
Letter from Michael L. Noel, June 21, 2005 (“corrected ruling”)
Letter from Michael L. Noel, June 22, 2005
Letter from Michael L. Noel, June 29, 2005
Letter from John C. Ochei, May 13, 2005
Letter from David A. O’Dor, May 12, 2005
Letter from Thomas E. Osenbach, June 22, 2005
Letter from Michael Owen, June 21, 2005
Letter from Rebecca L. Parker, May 13, 2005
Letter from Randy Paul, May 13, 2005
Letter from Anna Jo Pevehouse, May 10, 2005
Letter from John Polanskey, June 30, 2005
Letter from Z. Tony Rahim, May 13, 2005
Letter from Howie Romans, III, June 27, 2005
Letter from Erminie and Robert Rowe, June 15, 2005
Letter from Karen L. Saperstein, May 17, 2005
Letter from William and Doris Schwenk, May 13, 2005
Letter from Kathy Shindledecker, June 21, 2005
Letter from David Shipley, June 29, 2005
Letter from Dennis Smith, June 1, 2005
Letter from Glen Smith, July 1, 2005
Letter from Roger Summers, June 9, 2005
5

www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id291bpm-append.pdf



Endnotes

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

1 The Owners Group is a non-party granted limited participation.

2 The Division called an independent auditor, a Commission information and technology specialist, a transfer agent, a bookkeeper, a business man, and the president, chief executive officer, and co-director of CMKM Diamonds to testify. CMKM Diamonds called a business man, an attorney, and the co-director of CMKM Diamonds to testify.

3 Citations to CMKM Diamonds's Answer will be noted as "(Answer __.)." Citations to the transcript of the hearing will be noted as "(Tr. __.)." Citations to the Division's and CMKM Diamonds's exhibits will be noted as "(Div. Ex. __.)," and "(Resp. Ex. __.)," respectively. Citations to the Division's, John Martin's, and CMKM Diamonds's Post-Hearing Briefs will be noted as "(Div. Post-Hearing Br. __.)," "(Owners Group Post-Hearing Br. __.)," and "(Resp. Post-Hearing Br. __.)," respectively.

4 Cyber Mark was formerly engaged in the electronic game industry. (Div. Ex. 3 at 2.)

5 A trier of fact in a civil proceeding may draw adverse inferences from a respondent's refusal to testify. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319-20 (1976); John Kilpatrick, 48 S.E.C. 481, 486 & n.18 (1986). This may extend to a corporate defendant based on an officer's refusal to testify. See SEC v. Prater, 289 F. Supp. 2d 39, 50 (D. Conn. 2003). Nonetheless, I have not drawn any adverse inferences from Casavant's refusal to testify, because the evidence in the record is more than sufficient to decide this matter. Casavant was represented by David Z. Chesnoff, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Gerald W. Griffin, New York, New York.

6 In February 2005, Debbie Amigone was one of Stoecklein's employees working on CMKM Diamonds matters. (Tr. 163.)

7 Form 15 is titled Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration Under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty to File Reports Under Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

8 CMKM Diamonds's assertion that it brought the incorrect Form 15 to the Commission's attention in February 2005, when it learned that CMKM Diamonds had more than 300 shareholders on July 22, 2003, is false. (Answer at 5, 11-12; Tr. 318-24, 342-47; Div. Ex. 54.) On December 23, 2004, the Division inquired of counsel why CMKM Diamonds was not filing periodic reports. (Div. Exs. 20, 21.) At that time, CMKM Diamonds was represented by David G. Liston, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLP. (Id.) This correspondence establishes that the Commission knew in December 2004 that CMKM Diamonds's Form 15 was false.

9 CMKM Diamonds did not pay Opus Pointe's retainer; rather, it was paid by the Securities Law Institute. (Tr. 169.)

10 CMKM Diamonds's business partners testified that the company did, in fact, have some business operations. According to their testimony: CMKM Diamonds owns one mine shaft in Ecuador, and Nevada Minerals is the operator of the mine. (Tr. 220-22, 237-38, 263-64.) U.S. Canadian Minerals owns a processing facility in Ecuador, which processes the ore that is extracted from CMKM Diamonds's mine. (Tr. 216-21, 236-37, 267-68, 271.) Under the terms of Nevada Minerals's contract with CMKM Diamonds, Nevada Minerals is entitled to twenty percent of the revenue that CMKM Diamonds collects. (Tr. 272-75.)

In 2004, CMKM Diamonds and U.S. Canadian Minerals purportedly split between $90,000 and $120,000 in revenues. (Tr. 217-19, 222-23.) CMKM Diamonds did not, however, actually receive this money, as it went to either Nevada Minerals or the purchase of safety equipment. (Tr. 238-39, 275-76) CMKM Diamonds owed Nevada Minerals $180,000, as of one week before the hearing. (Tr. 239, 273-76; Div. Exs. 22, 23.) As the result of a default letter, the parties agreed in May 2005 that Nevada Minerals will take possession of the "sands" in Ecuador to satisfy the debt that CMKM Diamonds owes Nevada Minerals. (Tr. 273.) Also, in December 2004, Nevada Minerals surrendered 75 billion shares of CMKM Diamonds stock to the company for a $2.2 million promissory note due in December 2005. (Tr. 277-78.) CMKM Diamonds and U.S. Canadian Minerals are also engaged in a joint venture in Canada, which has not generated any revenues. (Tr. 240.)

11 As sole director, Casavant has authorized the issuance of an unbelievable number of CMKM Diamonds's shares. The owner of CMKM Diamonds's transfer agent, who I find credible based on her demeanor, testified that she found this stock issuance to be strange, and she did not transfer stock for any other company with over 778 billion shares outstanding. (Tr. 159, 166.)

12 The letter was written by Brian Dvorak of Dvorak & Associates, Ltd., another attorney representing the company. (Tr. 176.)

13 In two of the press releases, Casavant announced that CMKM Diamonds had retained the law firm of Edwards & Angell. (Div. Exs. 44, 45.)

14 CMKM Diamonds presented no evidence to support its defense that it relied on the advice of counsel in filing the original Form 15. (April 13, 2005, Prehearing Conference Tr. 12; Answer at 3.)

15 Exchange Act Rule 12g-4(b) provides that if the certification on Form 15 is subsequently withdrawn, the issuer shall, within sixty days of such withdrawal, file with the Commission all reports which would have been required had the certification not been filed.



www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id291bpm.htm

[sandi66]

Latest filing from SEC:

viewer.zoho.com/docs/st5bcc


ty Tramp and Jackpot

[sandi66]

CMKM Diamonds Awarded Millions in Fraud Lawsuit



By Dialog NewsEdge Posted: 07/14/08 09:48 [Submit Comment]


(RAPAPORT) Las Vegas Review-Journal: The thousands of investors who bought penny stock in CMKM Diamonds got some good news when a Clark County district judge issued a $33.7 million judgment against a key defendant.

District Judge Mark Denton on July 1 entered a default judgment against the alleged mastermind of the scheme, John Edwards, 65.

CMKM Diamonds, which has a new chief executive officer and directors, took the action against Edwards. The company now can seek and seize real estate, common stock and other assets belonging to the defendant. The lawsuit remains pending against Henderson resident Dave Desormeau, former treasurer of CMKM, and others.

CEO Urban Casavant, 51, founded and operated the Las Vegas company. CMKM Diamonds issued statements claiming to have diamond and mineral claims on thousands of acres in the Saskatchewan province of Canada. The company promoted itself through ads on billboards and race cars at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway.

The lawsuit accuses Edwards of conspiring with officers and insiders to dilute the shares of CMKM and reap profits at the expense of shareholders in the company. About 700 billion shares in CMKM were issued between January 2003 and August 2004, according to the lawsuit.

Edwards set up 32 trust accounts that benefited from the issuance of 250 billion shares valued at $53 million split between 500 transactions, according to the lawsuit.

Edwards transacted business through NevWest Securities, a Las Vegas firm that has since closed. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in 2006 cited NevWest based on allegations that the firm violated anti-money laundering rules in transactions for Edwards. The authority censured the firm and fined it $100,000.

The Securities and Exchange Commission in April filed a lawsuit accusing CMKM, Casavant, Edwards and others of a "massive and complex scheme" to sell stock in the alleged gold and diamond mining company.

The defendants are accused of making at least $64.2 million in profit, "much of which was paid to Casavant to support his extravagant lifestyle."

The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against securities law violations by the defendants and disgorgement of "ill-gotten gains."

CMKM Diamonds, now led by new CEO and Chairman Kevin West of Tyler, Texas, also is pursuing a separate lawsuit in district court against Casavant and others, said plaintiffs attorney David Koch of Henderson.

Edwards didn't participate in the lawsuit against him, and plaintiffs have been unable to locate Casavant. "We think Casavant is hiding out and laying low," as Edwards did, Koch said. But Koch hopes the plaintiffs will be allowed to serve Casavant with notice of the lawsuit through an advertisement in a newspaper.

www.diamonds.net/News/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=22337


also wings provided this link 11/25/08: CMKM Diamonds Awarded
a US$33.7 Million Judgment
CMKM Diamonds, Inc. has been awarded a US$33,675,365 judgment in a Nevada
District Court against one of the former insiders of the company, John Edwards. Edwards
was labeled as one of the two ‘masterminds’ of the scheme to defraud investors of over
US$64 million in a lawsuit filed in April by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
“I am very pleased with the progress being made through the company’s litigation. It is
time to begin the search for someone with the business experience that is needed to move the
company forward,” says Kevin West, currently the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
CMKM, which has begun the process of searching for a new Chairman.

www.diamondintelligence.com/download/files/DIB%20521.qxd.pdf

[sandi66]

Two new SEC docs

viewer.zoho.com/docs/hecjac

viewer.zoho.com/docs/udDade

[sandi66]

John Edwards:

i37.tinypic.com/x5s6f6.jpg

Acknowledgement of Judgement 25 June 2008

[sandi66]

Daryl Anderson:

viewer.zoho.com/docs/jwbW4



ty salty

[jcline]

Request to Enter Default against Defendant Urban Casavant

tinyurl.com/5mcxeh


orig. link:

convert.neevia.com/prods/32b1def8-c06d-4348-916b-0914ef613fe9.cvn/https___ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pl_file%3Dmerged_0.15373899633682_-1-1218488973.pdf

[sandi66]

08/11/2008 77 MOTION for Entry of Clerks Default against Defendant Urban Casavant by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission. Motion ripe 8/11/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Leslie A. Hakala)(Hakala, Leslie) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
08/11/2008 78 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings, 60 Telephonic Miscellaneous Hearing held on Friday, June 27, 2008, before Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Cline Transcription Services, Inc., 702-644-1123. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber using the court's "Transcript Order" form available on our website www.nvd.uscourts.gov before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 9/1/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/11/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/9/2008. (EDS) (Entered: 08/11/2008)

[travelbugaz]

AMENDED NOTICE OF
PROPOSED DEPONENTS

Filed 10/16/2008

JOHN M. McCOY III, Cal. Bar No. 166244
E-mail: [e-mail]
MOLLY M. WHITE, Cal. Bar No. 171448
E-mail: [e-mail]
LESLIE A. HAKALA, Cal. Bar No. 199414
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
Rosalind R. Tyson, Regional Director
Andrew G. Petillon, Associate Regional Director
5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90036-3648
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., URBAN
CASAVANT, JOHN EDWARDS,
GINGER GUTIERREZ, JAMES
KINNEY, ANTHONY TOMASSO,
KATHLEEN TOMASSO, 1ST
GLOBAL STOCK TRANSFER LLC,
HELEN BAGLEY, NEVWEST
SECURITIES CORPORATION,
DARYL ANDERSON, SERGEY
RUMYANTSEV, ANTHONY
SANTOS, and BRIAN DVORAK,
Defendant
Case No. 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ
AMENDED NOTICE OF
PROPOSED DEPONENTS
The Commission files this Amended Notice of Proposed Deponents because,
on October 14, 2008, the Commission received an email from Anthony Santos.
Based on that email, it is the understanding of the Commission’s counsel that Mr.
Santos would like the Commission to Amend the parties’ Joint Notice of Proposed
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 12

Deponents to include Mr. Santos’s list of anticipated deponents. In the interests of
time and efficiency, the Commission has not sought to have all parties re-sign the
Notice of Deponents, because the only change that the Commission has made is to
add the list of Mr. Santos’s deponents.
Witnesses the Securities and Exchange Commission Plans to Depose
Witness
Defendant(s) To Whom
Testimony May Be Relevant
1. Urban Casavant Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
2. John Edwards Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
3. Anthony Tomasso Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley
4. Kathleen Tomasso Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley
5. 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC
(Rule 30(b)(6) witness)
Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
6. Helen Bagley Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 2 of 12

7. NevWest Securities Corporation
(Rule 30(b)(6) witness)
Edwards, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, NevWest, Anderson,
Santos, Rumyantsev
8. Daryl Anderson Edwards, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, NevWest, Anderson,
Santos, Rumyantsev
9. Sergey Rumyantsev Edwards, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, NevWest, Anderson,
Santos, Rumyantsev
10. Anthony Santos Edwards, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, NevWest, Anderson,
Santos, Rumyantsev
11. Brian Dvorak Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
12. James Kinney Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
13. Ginger Gutierrez Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
14. David Coffey Edwards
15. D. Roger Glenn Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 3 of 12
16. Bruce Harlan Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
17. G. Brad Beckstead Casavant, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
18. Christopher Jensen Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
19. Patricia DeCosta Casavant, Edwards, 1st Global,
Bagley, Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
20. Todd Smith Edwards, 1st Global, Bagley
21. Edward Thompson Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
22. David J. DeSormeau Casavant, Edwards, 1st Global,
Bagley, Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
23. Timothy Cammell Casavant, Edwards, 1st Global,
Bagley, Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
24. Vincent LoCastro Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley
25. A. Daryll Pryor Casavant, Dvorak, Kinney,
Gutierrez
26. Arnold Gutka Casavant, Dvorak, Kinney,
Gutierrez
27. Neil Levine Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 4 of 12
28. Keith Llorens Edwards, 1st Global, Bagley,
NevWest, Anderson, Santos,
Rumyantsev
29. Laura Anthony Edwards, ATomasso, KTomasso,
1st Global, Bagley, NevWest,
Anderson, Santos, Rumyantsev
30. Don Yarter Casavant, Edwards, 1st Global,
Bagley, Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
31. Jovan Silic Casavant
32. Elizabeth Childs-Johnson Casavant
33. Ben Goldak Casavant
34. Sherwood Cook Edwards, NevWest, Anderson,
Santos, Rumyantsev
35. Kristen Buck Casavant
36. Thomas Cook Casavant, Edwards, 1st Global,
Bagley, Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
37. Jeannie Kinney Casavant, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
38. Shawn Hackman Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
49. Emerson Koch Casavant, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
40. Gary Walters Casavant, Edwards, ATomasso,
KTomasso, 1st Global, Bagley,
Dvorak, Kinney, Gutierrez
The Commission also plans to depose any expert witnesses identified by any
of the defendants.
///
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 5 of 12

Witnesses Defendant Urban Casavant Plans to Depose
(No information provided.)
Witnesses Defendant John Edwards Plans to Depose
None. (Counsel for Mr. Edwards informed counsel for the Securities and
Exchange Commission that he does not plan to make an appearance in this case.)
Witnesses Defendant Anthony Tomasso Plans to Depose
None.
Witnesses Defendant Kathleen Tomasso Plans to Depose
None.
Witnesses Defendants 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC and Helen Bagley
Plan to Depose
Defendants Helen Bagley and 1st Global Stock Transfer draw the Court's
attention to the fact that Plaintiff SEC has, thus far, produced fifty two (52)
volumes of testimony taken during the SEC's investigation of this matter. Counsel
for Bagley and 1st Global represents and warrants that he has diligently and in
good faith devoted substantial time to reading the investigative testimony;
however, it has not been possible to read all 52 volumes provided. Thus, counsel
for Bagley and 1st Global assert that it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list
of all possible depositions that may be required in this case at this very early time
in discovery.
Defendants Helen Bagley and 1st Global Stock Transfer reserve the right to
identify and depose additional witnesses as information becomes available to them
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 6 of 12

in discovery. Subject to the reservation of rights set forth above, Defendants Helen
Bagley and 1st Global Stock Transfer identify the following individuals as persons
whose depositions will likely be required:
1. Urban Casavant
2. John Edwards
3. Ginger Gutierrez
4. James Kinney
5. Anthony Tomasso
6. Kathleen Tomasso
7. Anthony Santos
8. Brian Dvorak
9. Dave DeSormeau
10. Rendel Williams
11. Bruce Harlan
12. Todd Smith
13. Edward Thompson
14. DR Glenn
15. Chris Jensen
Witnesses Defendant NevWest Securities Corporation Plans to Depose
(No information provided.)
Witnesses Defendant Daryl Anderson Plans to Depose
1. Helen Bagley
2. Urban Casavant
3. Sherwood Cook
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 7 of 12

4. John Edgar Dhonau
5. Brian Dvorak
6. John M. Edwards
7. D. Roger Glenn
8. Keith Llorens
9. Anthony Tomasso
10. Kathleen Tomasso
Witnesses Defendant Sergey Rumyantsev Plans to Depose
None.
Witnesses Defendant Anthony Santos Plans to Depose
Helen Bagley First Global Stock Transfer
Ameritrade Personnel and such
others who may represent any other
brokerage firm(s) thru which CMKX
Shares may have been sold
Sydney Lewis Depository Trust Corporation
Lawrence Renbaum Securities and Exchange
Commission
Leslie Hakala Securities and Exchange
Commission
Lusanna Gie FINRA District 2
Jill Jabanow FINRA District 2
Kieth Llorens FINRA District 2
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 8 of 12

Matt Chipman A purchaser of CMKM Stock
D. Roger Glenn Edwards & Angell
Witnesses Defendant Brian Dvorak Plans to Depose
None.
Dated: October 16, 2008 /s/ Molly M. White_________________
Molly M. White
Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and
Exchange Commission
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 9 of 12

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is:
[X] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5670 Wilshire
Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036-3648
Telephone No. [phone]; Facsimile No. [phone].
On October 16, 2008, I caused to be served the following document entitled
AMENDED NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEPONENTS on the parties whose
service of process forms have been filed in this action and others, addressed as
stated on the attached service list:
[X] OFFICE MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I placed for
collection and mailing today following ordinary business practices. I am
readily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited with
the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
[ ] PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed
envelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service.
Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los
Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid.
[ ] EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a
facility regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of
Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postage
paid.
[ ] HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to
the office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list.
[ ] FEDERAL EXPRESS: By placing in sealed envelope(s) designated by
Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, which I deposited in
a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express or delivered to a Federal
Express courier, at Los Angeles, California.
[X] ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail
to the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list.
[ ] FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The
transmission was reported as complete and without error.
[X] (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am a member of the State
Bar of California and an attorney permitted to appear before this Court and
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: October 16, 2008 /s/ Molly M. White
Molly M. White
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 10 of 12

SEC v. CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., et al.
United States District Court - District of Nevada
Case No. 2:08-CV-00437-LRH-RJJ
(LA-3028
SERVICE LIST
Irving M. Einhorn, Esq.
Law Offices of Irving M. Einhorn
1710 10th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant John Edwards
Mark S. Dzarnoski, Esq.
Gordon & Silver, Ltd.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ninth Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Helen Bagley and 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC
Urban A. Casavant
RR 5 Site 16 Box 29
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan S6V 5R3
Canada
Email: [e-mail]
John Wesley Hall, Jr., Esq.
1311 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202-4843
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Brian Dvorak
Kathleen Tomasso
9580 Lake Serena Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33496
Email: [e-mail]
Anthony Tomasso
9580 Lake Serena Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33496
Email: [e-mail]
Sergey Rumyantsev
1951 North Jones Boulevard, #G-202
Las Vegas, NV 89108
Email: [e-mail]
Anthony Santos
6965 North Durango Drive, Suite 1115-381
Las Vegas, NV 89149
Email: [e-mail]
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 11 of 12


NevWest Securities Corporation
c/o Anthony Santos
6965 North Durango Drive, Suite 1115-381
Las Vegas, NV 89149
Email: [e-mail]
Brent R. Baker, Esq.
Parsons Behle & Latimer
201 S. Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Daryl Anderson
Eric N. Klein, Esq.
Eric N. Klein & Associates, P.A.
1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Email: [e-mail]
Sean I. Koplow, Esq
6801 Lake Worth Road, Suite 214
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Email: [e-mail]
Michael R. Bakst
PMB 702
222 Lakeview Avenue, #160
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Email: [e-mail]
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 95 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 12 of 12



convert.neevia.com/prods/51c01715-5f9b-4859-93fa-157c00cf9c8c.cvn/CMKM%2520062%5B1%5D.pdf

[sandi66]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 58958 / November 14, 2008
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-13156
In the Matter of
ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS DARYL ANDERSON,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Respondent.
I.
On September 2, 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) instituted public administrative proceedings pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Daryl Anderson (“Respondent”).
II.
Respondent, pursuant to Rule 240(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice , 17 C.F.R. § 201.240(a), has now submitted an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”) in connection with of these public administrative proceedings which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of these proceedings, and the findings contained in Section III.4 below, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Order”), as set forth below.
III.
On the basis of this Order and the Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that:
1.
From March 2003 through May 2005, Anderson was a registered representative associated with NevWest Securities Corporation, a broker-dealer registered with the Commission during that period. Anderson, 40 years old, was at relevant times a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada.
2.
On August 7, 2008, a judgment of permanent injunction was entered by consent against Anderson, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., et al., Civil Action Number 02:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
3.
The Commission’s Complaint alleged that, among other things, from March 2003 until May 2005, Anderson improperly sold more than 259 billion shares of unregistered securities of CMKM in 569 separate transactions. The complaint also alleged that this unregistered distribution generated more than $53.3 million in proceeds, and yielded approximately $2.3 million in commissions for Anderson.
IV.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent’s Offer.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, that Respondent Anderson be, and hereby is barred from association with any broker or dealer.
Any reapplication for association by the Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the satisfaction of any or all of the following: (a) any disgorgement ordered against the Respondent, whether or not the Commission has fully or partially waived payment of such disgorgement; (b) any arbitration award related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (c) any self-regulatory organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; and (d) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order.
For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon Acting Secretary
2

www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2008/34-58958.pdf

[sandi66]

fwiw: compliments of Pedro viewer.zoho.com/docs/qc5dKi on the CMKX suit


JOHN M. McCOY III, Cal. Bar No. 166244
E-mail: [e-mail]

MOLLY M. WHITE, Cal. Bar No. 171448
E-mail: [e-mail]

LESLIE A. HAKALA, Cal. Bar No. 199414
E-mail: [e-mail]


Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission
Rosalind R. Tyson, Regional Director
Andrew G. Petillon, Associate Regional Director
5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90036-3648
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Case No. 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ

Plaintiff,
vs.
CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.,
URBAN CASAVANT,
JOHN EDWARDS,
GINGER GUTIERREZ,
JAMES KINNEY,
ANTHONY TOMASSO,
KATHLEEN TOMASSO,
1ST GLOBAL STOCK TRANSFER LLC,
HELEN BAGLEY,
NEVWEST SECURITIES CORPORATION,
DARYL ANDERSON,
SERGEY RUMYANTSEV,
ANTHONY SANTOS, and BRIAN DVORAK,

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST JOHN EDWARDS

INTRODUCTION This case involves a complex scheme to improperly issue and sell unregistered shares of stock in CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (“CMKM”), a purported diamond and gold-mining company and to manipulate CMKM’s stock price and volume through false statements. From January 2003 through May 2005, John Edwards (“Edwards”), the scheme’s mastermind, fraudulently issued hundreds of billions of shares of purportedly unrestricted stock to himself and his nominees and reaped proceeds of more than $25 million. In May of 2008, Edwards entered into a partial settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). This motion for summary judgment should resolve all remaining issues against Edwards. On May 20, 2008, the Court entered a Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Against Defendant John Edwards (“Judgment”), at which time the Court retained jurisdiction to determine the appropriate amounts of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. (See Statement of Material Facts Supporting Motion for Summary Judgment Against John Edwards (“SF”) Nos. 1-4.1) Edwards consented to entry of the Judgment and agreed that for purposes of determining the amounts of disgorgement and civil penalties, he would not contest the allegations in the Commission’s complaint. (See SF No. 5.) Thus, the allegations of the Complaint should be taken as true. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Commission now moves for an order: (a) directing Edwards to disgorge his ill-gotten gains of

1

The evidentiary citations in this brief will be citations to the Statement of Material Facts Supporting Motion for Summary Judgment Against John Edwards (“SF”) and the evidence cited therein. The evidence cited in the SF is attached to the Declaration of Molly M. White Supporting Summary Judgment Against John Edwards and is found in the Declaration of Pamela Chattoo Supporting Summary Judgment Against John Edwards.

2

million; (b) directing Edwards to pay prejudgment interest in the amount of $2,013,046.39; and (c) assessing civil penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d). This motion is based on the allegations in the Complaint, which are deemed true for purposes of this motion, the Statement of Material Facts Supporting Motion for Summary Judgment Against John Edwards and the evidence cited therein, the Declaration of Molly M. White, the Declaration of Pamela Chattoo, and any other evidence or argument that the Court deems appropriate. Taken together, this evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the Commission should be granted summary judgment on its claims for monetary relief. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Overview Edwards was the mastermind in a scheme to fraudulently issue hundreds of billions of shares of unregistered CMKM stock. (See SF No. 8.) As a result of this scheme, Edwards and others sold their shares of CMKM stock into the public markets for more than $64.3 million. (See SF No. 10.) Edwards made about $26.4 million from his participation in the scheme. (See SF No. 11.) The scheme began when several private Canadian companies controlled by Urban Casavant entered into a reverse merger with a public shell that was owned by Edwards. (SF No. 12.) Over a twenty-month period, CMKM improperly issued up to 622 billion shares of purportedly unrestricted stock based on both written authorizations and attorney opinion letters. (SF No. 13.) These authorizations and opinions were often facially inadequate, suspect, and inconsistent. (SF No. 13.) CMKM’s transfer agent nevertheless issued sheaves of unlegended stock certificates. (See SF No. 14.) Edwards and others then deposited the certificates with various broker-dealers, including NevWest

3

Securities, and sold the shares into the market. (See SF No. 15.) Promptly after selling CMKM stock, Edwards and others wired the proceeds to a series of bank accounts, provided large sums to Casavant, and used the money for various purposes, including paying gambling debts, investing in real estate, and generating more shareholder interest. (SF No. 16.) By engaging in this conduct, Edwards violated the registration provisions of the federal securities laws. (See SF No. 25.) Casavant generated investor interest in CMKM by using false press releases, Internet chat boards, and “funny car” race events across the country. (SF No. 17.) To divert attention from their own dumping of CMKM shares, Casavant persuaded CMKM’s investors that the reported high trading volume in CMKM stock reflected extensive “naked short selling” rather than ordinary stock dilution. (SF No. 18.) This promotion was extremely successful, and about 40,000 investors purchased CMKM stock during the period of the fraud. (SF No. 19.) In reality, Casavant ran the company from his house in Las Vegas, and CMKM had no meaningful operations other than issuing and promoting its own stock. (SF No. 20.) On March 3, 2005, the Commission ordered a 10-day trading suspension pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Exchange Act. Shortly thereafter, the Commission instituted an administrative proceeding to revoke the registration of CMKM’s stock pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act based on the company’s failure to file periodic reports. (SF No. 22.) Even after the Commission took these steps, the individuals behind the CMKM fraud continued to sell stock. They only stopped selling CMKM’s stock the day after an evidentiary hearing was held in the administrative proceeding, at which point substantial negative information about CMKM became public. (SF No. 23.) In October 2005, the Commission revoked the registration of CMKM’s stock, effectively ending public trading in the stock. (SF No. 24.)

4

B. Participants in the Scheme John Edwards, age 65, is a British citizen who resided in Las Vegas during the relevant period. (SF No. 30.) Edwards conducted his business activities through several dozen corporate entities and trusts over which he has exclusive control (the “Edwards Entities”), as well as through certain nominees. (SF No. 30.) Using approximately 34 different brokerage accounts at NevWest, Edwards sold almost 260 billion shares of CMKM stock from March 2003 through May 2005, generating total proceeds in excess of $53.3 million. (SF No. 31.) CMKM Diamonds, Inc. was at all relevant times a Nevada corporation based in Las Vegas that purported to acquire and develop mining properties in North and South America. (SF No. 26.) CMKM’s common stock was registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act and was quoted on the Pink Sheets until the Commission ordered deregistration on October 28, 2005. (SF No. 26.) Urban Casavant, age 51, is a Canadian citizen who resided in Las Vegas during the relevant period. (SF No. 27.) At all relevant times, Casavant served as the CEO and chairman of the board of CMKM. (SF No. 27.) Casavant resigned all of his positions at CMKM in March of 2007. (SF No. 28.) Casavant currently lives in Canada. (SF No. 28.) In October 2004, the Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission issued a cease-and-desist order to Casavant in connection with CMKM. (SF No. 29.) NevWest Securities Corporation, a Nevada corporation located in Las Vegas, was the broker-dealer that Edwards used to sell his shared of CMKM. (SF No. 38.) NevWest registered with the Commission in October 1999. (SF No. 38.) As of July 16, 2007, NevWest deregistered with the Commission, and currently has no operations. (SF No. 38.)

5

Daryl Anderson, age 39, resided in Las Vegas at all relevant times, and now lives in Laguna Beach, California. (SF No. 39.) Anderson served as Edwards’ registered representative at NevWest. (SF No. 39.) Anderson stopped working as a broker in March 2007. (SF No. 39.) Sergey Rumyantsev, age 37, is a Russian citizen living in Las Vegas. (SF No. 40.) He served as NevWest’s CEO and head trader. (SF No. 40.) He holds Series 4, 7, 24, 27, 53, and 55 licenses. (SF No. 40.) Anthony Santos, age 42, a resident of Las Vegas, is an attorney licensed in Connecticut who served as NevWest’s executive vice president, chief compliance officer, and general counsel. (SF No. 41.) He holds Series 7 and 24 licenses. (SF No. 41.) 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC, a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, has been registered as a transfer agent with the Commission since October 2001. (SF No. 36.) 1st Global has served as CMKM’s transfer agent since 2002. It is owned and operated by Helen Bagley. (SF No. 36.) Helen Bagley, age 61, resides in Las Vegas. Bagley owns and operates 1st Global. (SF No. 37.) Brian Dvorak, age 52, resided in Las Vegas at all relevant times. (SF No. 42.) As CMKM’s attorney, Dvorak prepared hundreds of bogus opinion letters supporting the issuance of purportedly unrestricted CMKM stock. (SF No. 42.) During the relevant period, Dvorak also operated the website www.144opinionletters.com. (SF No. 42.) Dvorak now resides in Boulder, Colorado. (SF No. 42.) In October 2007, Dvorak filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. (SF No. 42.) Dvorak is licensed to practice law in Nevada. (SF No. 42.) Kathleen Tomasso, age 56, is a resident of Boca Raton, Florida. (SF No.

6

34.) She acted as a nominee for Edwards, and sold CMKM stock on his behalf. (SF No. 34.) She is married to Anthony Tomasso. (SF No. 34.) Anthony Tomasso, age 68, is a resident of Boca Raton, Florida. (SF No. 35.) He acted as a nominee for Edwards, and sold CMKM stock on his behalf. He is married to Kathleen Tomasso. (SF No. 34.) C. John Edwards’ Role in the Scheme 1. Edwards’ Role in Establishing CMKM Diamonds From 1998 to 2001, CMKM was a Delaware corporation headquartered in Ontario, Canada. (SF No. 43.) In late 2001 or early 2002, Edwards acquired the then-empty corporate shell, reincorporated it, and listed “Ian McIntyre” as its president and director in Nevada and Commission filings. (SF No. 44.) “Ian McIntyre” was an alias used by Edwards. (See SF No. 45.) In 2001, Casavant controlled five private Canadian companies that held largely untested mineral claims in Saskatchewan, Canada. (SF No. 46.) On or about November 25, 2002, Edwards and Casavant agreed to a reverse merger in which CMKM acquired the mineral claims, purportedly in exchange for $2,000,000 and 2.8 billion shares of common stock. (SF No. 47.) Casavant became the sole director of CMKM, as well as its president and CEO. (SF No. 47.) CMKM announced that “McIntyre” would continue to act as director on “post-merger matters” until January 15, 2003. (SF No. 48.) 2. Edwards’ Interaction With CMKM’s Transfer Agent Immediately after the merger, CMKM increased its number of authorized shares from 500 million to 10.5 billion, and as of about December 4, 2002, CMKM retained 1st Global Stock Transfer as its transfer agent. (SF No. 49.) 1st Global, which was owned and operated by Helen Bagley, served as the transfer agent for multiple companies in which Edwards actively traded stock. (See SF No. 52.)

7

Bagley regularly followed Edwards’ directives, discussed CMKM stock with him, and issued unrestricted CMKM stock certificates at his instruction. (SF No. 54.) Edwards gave Bagley about $200,000 in a purported loan. (See SF No. 53.) In addition to suspicious payments from Edwards, Bagley directly and indirectly received payments in excess of $344,000 from Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso (“the Tomassos”) during 2003 and 2004. (SF No. 55.) The Tomassos, who sold billions of shares of CMKM stock, were nominees for Edwards. (SF No. 56.) From December 2002 through September 2004, on approximately 60 separate occasions, 1st Global issued a total of more than 589.7 billion shares of CMKM stock in certificate form without a restrictive legend to the Edwards Entities, Edwards’ nominees, Casavant’s nominees, and others.2(SF No. 58.) To accommodate these issuances, from November 2002 through August 2004, CMKM increased its number of authorized shares five times, from 10.5 billion to 800 billion shares. (SF No. 62.) The purportedly unrestricted CMKM stock issuances were based on obviously incomplete and suspicious and, in some cases, forged documentation. (SF No. 62.) For example,

2A restrictive legend is a statement placed upon a stock certificate stating, among other things, that the stock is not registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 5 of the Securities Act and that an ownership interest in the stock represented by that certificate cannot be sold or transferred absent registration or the existence of a valid exemption from registration. (SF No. 59.) The presence of a restrictive legend on a stock certificate forecloses future sale or distribution of that stock certificate until the issuer’s transfer agent removes the legend by reissuing the certificate without the legend being present. (SF No. 60.) The absence of the restrictive legend on the stock certificate creates the impression that the stock it represents is the subject of a registration statement with the Commission or exempt from such registration. (SF No. 61.)

8

•In January 2003, CMKM issued more than 2.7 billion shares of purportedly unrestricted stock to 29 separate entities controlled by Edwards, pursuant to board minutes signed by Casavant. (SF No. 63.) The minutes offer no explanation for the issuances, which were issued without a restrictive stock legend pursuant to a temporally impossible, facially incomplete, and forged attorney opinion letter. (SF No. 63.)

•In February 2003, CMKM issued 68 million purportedly unrestricted shares to an associate of Edwards “for the extension of the existing forbearance agreement contract” pursuant to board minutes signed by “Ian McIntyre, Trustee.” (SF No. 64.) By this time, however, “Ian McIntyre” supposedly had relinquished all his roles at CMKM. (SF No. 64.) At no time was “Ian McIntyre” listed as a control person for CMKM, and therefore was not authorized to sign issuance instructions, in the documentation from the company in Bagley’s files. (SF No. 64.)

•In August 2003, CMKM issued 4 billion purportedly unrestricted shares to 25 entities controlled by Edwards (2 billion shares) and to three Casavant nominees (2 billion shares). (SF No. 66.) These shares were issued without explanation pursuant to board minutes signed by Casavant and supported by a forged opinion letter purportedly written by an attorney who was ineligible to practice law at that time. (SF No. 66.) Moreover, the names listed in the letter did not completely match the names to whom Bagley issued certificates. (SF No. 66.)

•In March 2004, based on Edwards’ handwritten instructions to Dvorak, CMKM issued 75 billion shares of purportedly unrestricted

9

stock to sixteen of the Edwards Entities and Gutierrez. (SF No. 67.) Although Casavant orchestrated some of these and other fraudulent stock transfers, Edwards initiated others without Casavant’s knowledge or consent. (SF No. 69.) 3. Edwards’ Dealings with CMKM’s Corporate Counsel Beginning in December 2003, Casavant retained Brian Dvorak as corporate counsel for CMKM, primarily to prepare board resolutions and attorney opinion letters authorizing the issuance of purportedly unrestricted stock. (SF No. 71.) Over a ten-month period, Dvorak wrote at least 464 opinion letters, the vast majority of which contained baseless or fabricated justifications for the issuance of unrestricted CMKM stock. (SF No. 72.) Armed with these letters, in 2004, CMKM issued more than 606 billion unrestricted shares to the Edwards Entities, Casavant’s nominees, and others. (SF No. 72.) Dvorak also prepared opinion letters based on Edwards’ handwritten instructions, although he knew from past experience that Edwards sold corporate shells for stock, falsified documents, and dumped stock into the market. (SF No. 75.) Dvorak knew that Edwards had no formal role at CMKM, that Casavant accused Edwards of directing Bagley to issue unauthorized shares, and that Edwards exerted undue pressure on Casavant. (SF No. 76.) 4. Edwards’ Sales of CMKM Stock Beginning in September 2002, Edwards opened at least 36 brokerage accounts at NevWest, a full service retail broker-dealer in Las Vegas. (SF No. 83.) The vast majority of the brokerage accounts consisted of trusts and corporations that had ties to Edwards and over which Edwards exercised complete control. (SF No. 84.) Edwards used his personal social security number for about 30 of the brokerage accounts. (SF No. 85.) The addresses that Edwards used for almost all of his brokerage accounts matched the address used by CMKM on its Commission filings from December 2001 through September 2002. (SF No. 86.)

10

All of Edwards’ accounts and trades were handled by one of NevWest’s registered representatives, Daryl Anderson (“Anderson”). (SF No. 87.) Beginning in February 2003, Edwards visited NevWest’s offices approximately weekly to hand-deliver CMKM stock certificates to Anderson. (SF No. 88.) The CMKM stock certificates were often sequentially numbered and recently issued. (SF No. 89.) In total, Edwards deposited 597 CMKM stock certificates at NevWest, totaling more than 261 billion shares. (SF No. 90.) Edwards acquired at least 14.2 billion shares directly from CMKM, and he acquired at least 51.9 billion shares from entities that received their shares directly from CMKM. (SF No. 91.) Edwards also acquired shares from Casavant’s nominees and family members. (SF No. 91.) Upon receiving the stock certificates, NevWest contacted 1st Global to verify that the certificates were “validly issued” and unrestricted. (SF No. 92.) Bagley or her son vouched for all of Edwards’ stock certificates, and NevWest deposited all of them into Edwards’ accounts. (SF No. 92.) After the stock certificates were deposited into Edwards’ account, Edwards gave Anderson price limit orders to sell the stock. (SF. No. 92.) Edwards sold his CMKM shares within two weeks to three months after depositing them. (SF No. 93.) Edwards’ dumping of CMKM shares spanned several years. From March 2003 through May 11, 2005, Edwards sold 259,890,832,854 shares of CMKM stock in 569 separate transactions at NevWest, generating proceeds of more than $53.3 million. (SF No. 94.) By August 2004, Edwards’ shares made up more than 20% of the total number of authorized shares of CMKM. (See SF No. 95.) By May 2005, Edwards had sold more than 32% of CMKM’s total authorized shares through NevWest. (SF No. 96.) NevWest primarily sold the CMKM stock to one other broker-dealer until mid-October 2004, when that broker-dealer informed NevWest that it would no

11

longer trade CMKM shares because the Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission, a Canadian regulator, had issued a cease-and-digest order regarding CMKM stock. (SF No. 97.) NevWest then found a new buyer and continued selling CMKM stock. (SF No. 97.) Online investors were the primary purchasers of Edwards’ shares. (SF No. 97.) About 40,000 people purchased CMKM stock in market transactions during the fraud, particularly after June 2004 when CMKXtreme became extremely popular. (SF No. 82.) Until late 2004, Edwards wired the proceeds of his CMKM sales “as they became available” primarily to two bank accounts whose names did not match the names on NevWest’s brokerage accounts. (SF No. 102.) One of the entities that controlled several of the brokerage accounts listed “Ian McIntyre” as its registered agent. (SF No. 103.) After a regulator raised concerns about the third-party wires in late 2004, Anthony Santos, Anderson’s supervisor, advised Edwards to open corresponding bank accounts for each Edwards Entity in order to avoid “confusion.” (SF No. 104.) In 2004, Santos and Sergey Rumyantsev, NevWest’s president and head trader, began to have concerns about Edwards’ trading activities. (See SF No. 105.) Anderson, Santos, and Rumyantsev all considered CMKM to be a questionable issuer about which reliable information was not publicly available. (SF No. 106.) Anderson, Santos, and Rumyantsev all knew that Edwards had previously been involved with CMKM, and had all reviewed CMKM’s past Commission filings, which listed the same address that Edwards used to open most of his NevWest accounts. (SF No. 107.) Edwards provided NevWest with vague oral explanations for his activities, declined to identify his “clients,” and told NevWest that he was not an affiliate of CMKM and that no proceeds from his sales were returned to the company or its affiliates. (SF No. 108.)

12

5. Edwards’ Use of Nominees Using the tactics described above, Edwards arranged the issuance of purportedly unrestricted CMKM stock to nominees who, through intermediaries, returned a portion of the sales proceeds to Edwards. (SF No. 111.) Specifically, Edwards and Bagley coordinated the issuances of about 77.3 billion shares of unrestricted CMKM stock to five entities near Boca Raton, Florida. (SF No. 112.) The five entities were owned by Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso. (SF No. 112.) The Tomassos sold some of the CMKM stock promptly upon receipt, generating proceeds of at least $6.5 million. (SF No. 113.) The Tomassos then wired more than $2.2 million to Edwards, $344,000 to Bagley and her son, and substantial sums to other Edwards associates. (SF No. 113.) 6. Edwards Profited From the Scheme Edwards accumulated proceeds of more than $53.1 million from his CMKM-related trading. (SF No. 114.) While Edwards invested some of those proceeds in real estate throughout the country, much of his profits went back to Casavant and CMKM. (SF No. 115.) Casavant directly and indirectly received more than $26.7 million from Edwards. (SF No. 116.) In aggregate, Edwards made about $26.4 million from the scheme. (SF No. 11.) III. ARGUMENT A.The Legal Standard Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, affidavits, and other supporting papers show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). At the summary judgment stage, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809

13

F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Rather, it draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 630-31. John Edwards’ liability is not at issue in this motion. On May 20, 2008, the Court entered Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Against John Edwards (“Edwards Judgment”). (SF No. 1.) The Edwards Judgment enjoins Edwards from future violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) & 77e(c), and permanently bars him from participating in any offering of a penny stock. (SF No. 3.) Edwards consented to the entry of judgment. (SF No. 3.) In doing so, Edwards agreed that “the Court shall order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest thereon, and a civil penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d).” (SF No. 4.) Edwards also agreed that “in connection with the Commission’s motion for disgorgement and/or civil penalties . . . the allegations of the Complaint shall be accepted as and deemed true by the Court.” (SF No. 5.) Edwards is therefore precluded from arguing that he did not violate the prohibitions against unregistered offerings in Sections 5(a) and 5(c)of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) & 77e(c). He is also precluded from denying the allegations in the Complaint. The evidence presented demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the Commission is entitled to judgment ordering Edwards to pay $26.4 million in disgorgement, plus $2,013,046.39 in prejudgment interest, and third-tier civil penalties as determined by the Court. B.The Court Should Order Edwards to Disgorge $26.4 Million in Ill-Gotten Gains And Pay Prejudgment Interest 1.Disgorgement It is well settled that the Commission may seek, and courts may order, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. See SEC v. First Pacific Bancorp, 142 F.3d

14

1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1998); SEC v. Patel, 61 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 1995) (“In the exercise of its equity powers, a court may order the disgorgement of profits acquired through securities fraud.”). Courts have “broad equity powers to order the disgorgement of ‘ill-gotten gains’ obtained through the violation of the securities laws.” SEC v. First Pacific Bancorp, 142 F.3d at 1191; see also SEC v. JT Wallenbrock & Assoc., 440 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that Disgorgement plays a central role in the enforcement of the securities laws. “The effective enforcement of the federal securities laws requires that the [Commission] be able to make violations unprofitable. The deterrent effect of enforcement action would be greatly undermined if securities law violators were not required to disgorge illicit profits.” By deterring violations of the securities laws, disgorgement actions further the Commission’s public policy mission of protecting investors and safeguarding the integrity of the markets. Although the Commission at times may use the disgorged proceeds to compensate injured victims, this does not detract from the public nature of Commission enforcement actions: “the touchstone remains the fact that public policies are served and the public interest is advanced by the litigation.” SEC v. Rind, 991 F.2d 1486, 1491-92 (internal citations omitted; alterations in the original) (9th Cir. 1993); see also SEC v. First Jersey Secs., Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1474 (2d Cir. 1996) (“The primary purpose of disgorgement as a remedy for violation of the securities laws is to deprive violators of their ill-gotten gains, thereby effectuating the deterrence objectives of those laws.”).

15

The amount of disgorgement should include all gains flowing from a defendant’s illegal activities. See SEC v. JT Wallenbrock, 440 F.3d at 1114, 1117; SEC v. Cross Fin. Servs, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 718, 734 (C.D. Cal. 1995). In calculating disgorgement, the Commission need only show “‘a reasonable approximation of profits causally connected to the violation.’” SEC v. First Pacific Bancorp, 142 F.3d at 1192 n.6 (quoting SEC v. First Jersey Secs. Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1475 (2d Cir. 1996)); SEC v. Patel, 61 F.3d at 139. Once the Commission has established that the disgorgement figure reasonably approximates the unlawful proceeds, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant, who must demonstrate that the disgorgement figure is not a reasonable approximation. SEC v. Calvo, 378 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2004); SEC v. Hughes Capital Corp., 917 F. Supp. 1080, 1085 (D.N.J. 1996), aff’d, 124 F.3d 449 (3d Cir. 1997). Here, the Court should order Edwards to disgorge all proceeds from his sales of CMKM stock because his sales violated Section 5 of the Securities Act. See SEC v. Calvo, 378 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (3d Cir. 2004) (“it is well within the district court’s discretion to rule that the amount of disgorgement will be the more readily measurable proceeds from the unlawful transaction”). Through this scheme, Edwards generated proceeds of more than $53.3 million from his sales of CMKM stock. (See SF No. 31.) Some of this money was returned to Casavant, but Edwards made about $26.4 million as a result of the scheme. (See SF Nos. 10-11.) The Court should therefore require Edwards to disgorge the $26.4 million that he received as a result of the scheme. 2.Prejudgment Interest The Court should order Edwards to pay $2,013,046.39 in prejudgment interest. In consenting to the entry of judgment, Edwards agreed “that prejudgment interest shall be calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from March

16

5, 2003.” (SF No. 4.) Disgorgement usually includes prejudgment interest to ensure that the wrongdoer does not profit from the illegal activity. See SEC v. Manor Nursing Centers, 458 F.2d at 1105; SEC v. Cross Fin. Servs., Inc., 908 F. Supp. 718, 734 (C.D. Cal. 1995). The post-judgment interest rate mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is the appropriate rate at which to calculate pre-judgment interest unless the trial judge finds, on substantial evidence, that the equities of a particular case require a different rate. See Western Pacific Fisheries, Inc. v. S.S. President Grant, 730 F.2d 1280, 1289 (9th Cir. 1984). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, the amount of prejudgment interest on $26,400,000 calculated from March 5, 2003 through December 31, 2008 is $2,013,046.39. (SF No. 125.) After that, prejudgment interest accrues at the rate of $6,848.84 per week. (SF No. 126.) C.The Court Should Award Civil Penalties Against Edwards The Court should order Edwards to pay a third-tier civil penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d). Edwards consented to payment of civil penalties. (SF No. 4.) Because Edwards’ conduct involved reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement, the Court should impose a third-tier penalty. The Securities Act provides that penalties should be assessed according to a three-tier system. First-tier penalties may be imposed for any violation of the Securities Act, and should not exceed $6,500 for a natural person or “the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2)(C); 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.1001-201.1003. Second-tier penalties apply to violations of the Securities Act that “involved fraud, deceit, manipulation or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement.” 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2)(C). For each violation, the maximum second-tier penalty is the greater of (1) $60,000 for a natural person, or (2) “the gross

17

amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2)(C); 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.1001-201.1003. Third-tier penalties apply to violations of the Securities Act that (1) involve “fraud, deceit, manipulation, or reckless disregard for a regulatory requirement”; and (2) “directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons.” 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2)(c). For each violation, the maximum third-tier penalty is the greater of (1) $120,000 for a natural person, or (2) the “gross amount of pecuniary gain” to the defendant as a result of the violation. 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2)(C); 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.1001-201.1003.3Third-tier penalties are appropriate here because (1) Edwards’ conduct involved a reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement; and (2) directly resulted in substantial losses to other persons. Edwards was the mastermind of a complex scheme to improperly issue and sell billions of shares of CMKM stock. (SF Nos. 7-8.) As such, he deliberately disregarded the regulatory requirement that stocks that are sold into the market be registered with the Commission and violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c). (See SF No. 124.) Through this scheme Edwards and others sold CMKM shares to more than 40,000 investors, generating more than $60 million in proceeds. (SF Nos. 10 & 19.) But CMKM had no 3Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the maximum penalties that can be imposed under the Securities Act are adjusted for inflation in accordance with 17 C.F.R. § 201.1001. Accordingly, for natural persons, the maximum penalty amounts for violations occurring between February 1, 2001 and February 14, 2005 are $6,500 for a first-tier penalty, $60,000 for a second-tier penalty, and $120,000 for a third tier penalty. 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.1002 & 201.1003. After February 14, 2005, the maximum penalty amounts were adjusted to $6,500 for a first-tier penalty, $65,000 for the second tier, and $130,000 for a third-tier penalty. See 17 C.F.R. § 201.1003. Because some of Anderson’s violations took place after February 14, 2005, the Court could assess the higher penalty amount of $130,000 for the violations that occurred after February 14, 2005.

18

meaningful operations other than to promote its own stock, and the company was run out of Casavant’s house. (SF No. 20.) A third-tier penalty is therefore appropriate. When imposing penalties, a court can award either a maximum of $120,000 or the “gross pecuniary gain” per violation of the Securities Act. For example, in one fraud case, the court determined the penalty amount by assessing a penalty for each of four different misrepresentations made. SEC v. Coates, 137 F. Supp. 2d 413, 428-30 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In another case, the Court assessed a penalty for each of 12 investors defrauded. See Kenton Capital, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1, 17 n.15 (D.C. 1998) (awarding $1.2 million penalty based on an assessment of a $100,000 third-tier penalty for each of 12 investors that defendant defrauded). Given the recurrent nature of Edwards’ conduct, the penalties here could be quite high. From March 2003 through May 11, 2005, Edwards sold 259,890,832,854 shares of CMKM stock in 569 separate transactions at NevWest, generating proceeds of more than $53.3 million in proceeds. (See SF No. 62.) Thus, the Court has discretion to impose a penalty as high as 569 times $120,000 or 569 times $26.4 million. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against John Edwards and enter the [Proposed] Final Judgment Against John Edwards that the Commission lodged with the Court in connection with this motion.

Dated: December 16, 2008

/s/ Molly M. White Molly M. White Attorney for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission

19

PROOF OF SERVICE I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is: [X] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036-3648 Telephone No. [phone]; Facsimile No. [phone]. On December 16, 2008, I caused to be served the following document entitled MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST JOHN EDWARDS on the parties whose service of process forms have been filed in this action and others, addressed as stated on the attached service list: [X] OFFICE MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I placed for collection and mailing today following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. [ ] PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service. Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid. [ ] EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a facility regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postage paid. [ ] HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to the office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list. [ ] FEDERAL EXPRESS: By placing in sealed envelope(s) designated by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, which I deposited in a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express or delivered to a Federal Express courier, at Los Angeles, California. [X] ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail to the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list. [ ] FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. [X] (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am a member of the State Bar of California and an attorney permitted to appear before this Court and that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: December 16, 2008

/s/ Molly M. White Molly M. White

SEC v. CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., et al. United States District Court - District of Nevada Case No. 2:08-CV-00437-LRH-RJJ (LA-3028) SERVICE LIST Irving M. Einhorn, Esq. Law Offices of Irving M. Einhorn 1710 10th Street Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Email: [e-mail] Attorney for Defendant John Edwards Mark S. Dzarnoski, Esq. Gordon & Silver, Ltd. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ninth Floor Las Vegas, NV 89169 Email: [e-mail] Attorney for Helen Bagley and 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC Urban A. Casavant RR 5 Site 16 Box 29 Prince Albert, Saskatchewan S6V 5R3 Canada Email: [e-mail] John Wesley Hall, Jr., Esq. 1311 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72202-4843 Email: [e-mail] Attorney for Brian Dvorak Kathleen Tomasso 9580 Lake Serena Drive Boca Raton, FL 33496 Email: [e-mail] Anthony Tomasso 9580 Lake Serena Drive Boca Raton, FL 33496 Email: [e-mail] Sergey Rumyantsev 1951 North Jones Boulevard, #G-202 Las Vegas, NV 89108 Email: [e-mail] Anthony Santos 6965 North Durango Drive, Suite 1115-381 Las Vegas, NV 89149 Email: [e-mail]

21

NevWest Securities Corporation c/o Anthony Santos 6965 North Durango Drive, Suite 1115-381 Las Vegas, NV 89149 Email: [e-mail] Brent R. Baker, Esq. Parsons Behle & Latimer 201 S. Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Email: [e-mail] Attorney for Daryl Anderson Eric N. Klein, Esq. Eric N. Klein & Associates, P.A. 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Email: [e-mail] Michael R. Bakst PMB 702 222 Lakeview Avenue, #160 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Email: [e-mail]

22

[sandi66]

www.zohoviewer.com/docs/wQUIg Filed yesterday

John M. McCoy, Molly M. White, Leslie A. Hakala attorney for plaintiff SEC vs CMKM Diamonds, Inc., Urban Casavant, John Edwards, Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney, Tomasso, First Global, Helen Bagley, NevWest, Daryl Anderson, Rumyantsez, Santos and Brian Dvorak


These documents have not been seen on SEC site yet... and I think it's tacky to post anything on bottom of each page. Not proven

[lynn64]

OK, my computer locks up every time I try to view that document. Can you give a summary of the contents?

[sandi66]

viewer.zoho.com/docs/czddMh

Re John Edwards

To Molly White: his attorney stated to Ms. Molly White, John Edwards did not and will not file opposition.

[sandi66]

tired of workin received call back today from the SEC, 1/27/09

MP3 provides info on what was said.

www.zshare.net/audio/54745287cff4c7d6/



ty UCROCKS, and tired of workin

[sandi66]

Report: NATIONWIDE COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL GROUP LLC
Category: Questionable Activities

NATIONWIDE COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL GROUP LLC Being diligent in your research of NATIONWIDE COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL GROUP LLC. The name changes, companies opened and closed to blow out the lien positions of people defrauded and a track record of deceit. Boca RatonBoca Raton Florida

NATIONWIDE COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL GROUP LLC
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
4400 N. Federal Highway Suite 301
Boca Raton, Florida, 33431
U.S.A.



Nationwide Commercial Financial Group, LLC
4400 N. Federal Highway Suite 301
Boca Raton, FL 33431

Phone: [phone]
Toll Free: 877-340-2228
Fax: [phone]

Offices in: Tampa, FL Miami, FL Jacksonville, FL Chicago, IL

TRANSATLANTIC COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL LLC

TRANSATLANTIC MORTGAGE FUNDING LLC

TRANSATLANTIC FUNDING GROUP LLC

NATIONWIDE COMMERCIAL GROUP LLC

A.J.T.M. FINANCIAL GROUP LLC

NATIONWIDE COMMERCIAL GROUP LLC

VINTAGE EQUITY FUND LLC

KRKA L.L.C.

K.R.K.A. REALTY INC.
(D.B.A.) SUCCESS REALTY INC

T & T EQUITY LLC

FEDERAL INVESTMENTS LLC

NEWKIRK INVESTMENTS INC

GLOBAL MANAGED FINANCIAL LLC

71ST ST HOLDINGS LLC

ANTHONY TOMASSO (a.k.a) 561 347 2228

ANTHONY J. TOMASI Sr.

ANTHONY J. TOMASI Jr.

KATHLEEN TOMASSO

Being diligent in your research of these people could save you time and money. The name changes, companies opened and closed to blow out the lien positions of people defrauded and a track record of deceit. If you are having trouble locating these individuals for service of court documents the address located in the Palm Beach Property Appraisers web site:

(TOMASSO VENTURES LLC) is 749 North East 71st St, Boca Raton, FL 33487.

If you have no luck with that address try this one:

491 Racquet Club Rd, (Suite 103) Weston, FL 33326.

Information for research purposes:

Florida Department of Corporations Search Engine (http://www.sunbiz.org/index.html)

Florida Office of Financial Regulation (http://www.flofr.com/licensing/licensecheck.htm)

Individual (Name) Search in the FL Office of Regulation
(https://cf.fldfs.com/pubinqry/pub1/individuals.cfm)

The State of Florida recommends this site (http://www.finra.org/index.htm)

Palm Beach Clerk of the Court (http://www.pbcountyclerk.com/oris/records_home.html)

The last web site I recommend is the FBI tips web page. (https://tips.fbi.gov/)

James workman
Jacksonville, Florida
U.S.A.

www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/320/RipOff0320290.htm


ty ezaltheladiespa

[sandi66]

by jetops 12/6/08\

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

I wanted to advise anybody look doing business with this company there broker posing as lender. My client got took for $3900 dd fess and about $3000 dollars for a site inspection/appraisal. They table fund with other company in my case it got passed to two different companies before I fund out who the real lender with money. There address is

Tony Tomasso
Chief Operation Officer
Nationwide Commercial Financial Group, LLC
4400 N. Federal Highway, Suite 301
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Office: 561-347-2228 Ext 205
Fax: [phone]
Toll free 877 340 2228
[e-mail]
website: www.ncfgcomm.com

tony will never call you back and will only email and is in the business of colleting DD fees upfront. The old saying applies if it two good to be true it is .IN my case his company offered rate and fees that could not be matched any were else. I fell for the bait.

I wish in the initial search I would have found the information I dug up lately on him



Here are the fact he being sued in federal court , Let the facts speak in The case of the U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION vs 14 defendants including Anthony Tomasso, Kathleen Tomasso



Here are facts on SEC case against Anthony Tomasso, Kathleen Tomasso,

www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20519.htm

www.scamfraudalert.com/f125/sec-filed-charges-against-14-defendants-cmkm-diamonds-inc-12481/

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 20519 / April 7, 2008
Securities and Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., et. al, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Civil Action No. 08- CV 0437
SEC Charges Fourteen Defendants In Scheme To Issue And Sell Unregistered CMKM Diamonds Stock

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed a civil injunctive action against fourteen defendants involved in the alleged illegal issuance and sale of unregistered stock of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., purportedly a diamond and gold mining company located in Las Vegas. With assistance from a transfer agent and an attorney, allegedly CMKM fraudulently issued hundreds of billions of shares of purportedly unrestricted stock to John Edwards, the scheme's mastermind, and his nominees, as well as to the nominees of Urban Casavant, the company's chief executive officer. The Commission alleges that as Casavant generated demand for CMKM stock through fraudulent promotion of the company, Edwards, Casavant, and their nominees sold their shares into the public markets for at least $64.2 million in profit, much of which was paid to Casavant to support his extravagant lifestyle. Allegedly, Edwards profited by about $26.4 million from sales through a single broker-dealer, Casavant profited by about $31.5 million, and Casavant's nominees profited by about $6.3 million.

The Commission's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleges that, from January 2003 to May 2005, CMKM improperly issued up to 622 billion shares of purportedly unrestricted stock. According to the complaint, these issuances were based in large part on both written authorizations and attorney opinion letters prepared by Brian Dvorak, CMKM's lawyer, which were often facially inadequate, suspect, and inconsistent. Allegedly, based on these faulty documents, CMKM's transfer agent, 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC, and its owner, Helen Bagley, issued stacks of stock certificates without restrictive legends. Edwards, his nominees, Kathleen Tomasso and Anthony Tomasso, and Casavant's nominees, James Kinney and Ginger Gutierrez, then allegedly deposited the certificates with various broker-dealers and sold the shares into the market. NevWest Securities Corporation and its employees, Anthony Santos, Sergei Rumyantsev, and Daryl Anderson, are alleged to have sold more than 259 billion shares of CMKM stock for Edwards, despite numerous red flags indicating a massive unregistered distribution. Meanwhile, Casavant allegedly generated investor interest in CMKM by using false press releases, Internet chat boards, and "funny car" race events across the country. The complaint alleges that this promotion was extremely successful, and about 40,000 investors purchased CMKM stock during the period of the fraud without knowing that Casavant ran the company from his house in Las Vegas, and that CMKM's primary activity was to issue and promote its own stock.

The Commission charged CMKM, Casavant, Edwards, Gutierrez, Kinney, the Tomassos, 1st Global, Bagley, NevWest, Anderson, Rumyantsev, Santos, and Dvorak with violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 by participating in an unregistered distribution of securities. The Commission also charged CMKM and Casavant with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, CMKM is alleged to have violated Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and Casavant is alleged to have violated Rule 13b2-1 under the Exchange Act. Finally, the Commission charged Casavant with aiding and abetting CMKM's violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a 13 thereunder for which CMKM was previously found liable in an administrative proceeding.

The Commission seeks a permanent injunction against all defendants. The Commission also seeks an accounting, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against Casavant, Edwards, Gutierrez, Kinney, the Tomassos, 1st Global, Bagley, NevWest, Anderson, Rumyantsev, Santos, and Dvorak. In addition, the Commission seeks a penny stock bar against Casavant, Edwards, Gutierrez, Kinney, Anthony Tomasso, Kathleen Tomasso, Bagley, Anderson, Rumyantsev, Santos, and Dvorak. Finally, the Commission seeks an order prohibiting Casavant from acting as an officer or director of any public company.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission.

The Commission's investigation is continuing.

forum.brokeroutpost.com/loans/forum/2/250383.htm

[travelbugaz]

INFORMATION FOR CMKM DIAMONDS INVESTORS
CIVIL ACTION AGAINST CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. URBAN CASAVANT, et al.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On June 23, 2009, the federal district court in the District of Nevada granted the SEC’s motion for summary judgment against defendants John Edwards, Daryl Anderson, and Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso.

The court ordered:

Edwards to pay $28,583,288.98 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $26,400,000;
Anderson to pay $2,490,211.04 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $2,300,000; and
The Tomassos to pay $702,131.22 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $648,500.
The court ordered the defendants to pay these amounts to the Clerk of the Court for the District of Nevada within ten business days. Any amounts paid to the Clerk will be deposited into an interest-bearing account with the Court Registry Investment System.

In cases where the SEC obtains a judgment to recover money from the defendants, and the defendants do not comply with the judgment by paying the money, the SEC will seek to enforce the judgment.

It is not yet known how much money, if any, will be recovered in this case. If the assets ultimately collected are sufficient for a practical and economically feasible distribution of funds to investors, the SEC may by motion to the court propose a plan to distribute the funds. No funds can be distributed to investors unless and until the court approves a distribution plan.

Order Granting SEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants John Edwards, Daryl Anderson, and Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso (June 23, 2009)

www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/cmkmopinion062309.htm

Actual Judgement:

www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/cmkmopinion062409.pdf

[sandi66]

www.zohoviewer.com/docs/hVbzw ... 8/5/09 SEC vs CMKM

[sandi66]

By: pickleman77360640
14 Aug 2009, 06:59 PM EDT
Rating: Rate this post: Msg. 858108 of 858206

Jump to msg. #
Tyler updated their lawsuit against UC in NEVADA to INCLUDE
ROGER GLENN, HIS FIRM, AND MANY OTHERS!!

This is the NEVADA Lawsuit against UC that has been sitting idle for sometime now.

Register of ActionsCase No. 07A540161CMKM Diamonds Inc vs Urban Casavant, The UAJC 2005 Irrevocable Trust, et al §
§
§
§
§
§
Case Type: Business Court
Subtype: Other Business Court Matters
Date Filed: 04/25/2007
Location: Department 25
Conversion Case Number: A540161


Party Information Lead Attorneys
Conversion Extended Connection Type No Convert Value @ 07A540161
Removed: 04/24/2009
Converted From Blackstone


Defendant Bucko LLC


Defendant Casavant, Urban


Defendant Decosta, Patricia E


Defendant Dvorak, Brian


Defendant Edward Angell Palmer and Dodge LLP


Defendant Glenn, Donald Roger


Defendant Gutierrez, Ginger


Defendant Kinney, James


Defendant Monte Verde International Holdings LLC


Defendant P A Holdings Inc


Defendant The UAJC 2005 Irrevocable Trust


Defendant Wayne, Deshawn L


Defendant Williams, Cierra


Defendant Williams, Mike


Defendant Williams, Rendal

Other Community Bank Of Nevada
Wixom, Michael B.

Retained

Other Hurd, G Gene


Plaintiff CMKM Diamonds Inc
KOCH, DAVID

Retained
Events & Orders of the Court OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
04/25/2007 Complaint
COMPLAINT FILED Fee $148.00
07A5401610001.tif pages
04/25/2007 Application
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AFFIDAVIT OF KEVIN WEST IN SUPPORT THEREOF
07A5401610002.tif pages
04/25/2007 Statement
DECLARATION OF DAVID R KOCH IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
07A5401610003.tif pages
04/25/2007 Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure
INITIAL APPEARANCE FEE DISCLOSURE
07A5401610004.tif pages
04/27/2007 Motion
PLTF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO)
07A5401610005.tif pages
04/30/2007 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (2:45 PM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
PLTF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) Court Clerk: Sue Burdette Heard By: Mark Denton
Parties Present
Minutes
Result: Matter Heard
05/02/2007 Motion
PLTF'S MTN FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
07A5401610006.tif pages
05/02/2007 Temporary Restraining Order
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTIOIN FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
07A5401610008.tif pages
05/15/2007 Motion
PLTF'S MTN TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL (WILLIAM FRIZZELL)
07A5401610009.tif pages
05/15/2007 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
PLTF'S MTN FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Court Clerk: Sue Burdette Heard By: Mark Denton
Parties Present
Minutes
Result: Continuance Granted
05/18/2007 Motion
MOTION TO INTERVENE
07A5401610011.tif pages
05/21/2007 Motion to Associate Counsel (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
PLTF'S MTN TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL (WILLIAM FRIZZELL) Court Clerk: Sue Burdette Heard By: Mark Denton
Parties Present
Minutes
Result: Motion Granted
05/22/2007 Motion
MOTION TO INTERVENE
07A5401610012.tif pages
05/23/2007 Temporary Restraining Order
AMENDED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MTN FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
07A5401610013.tif pages
05/30/2007 Motion
PLTF'S APPLICATION FOR TRO/MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
07A5401610014.tif pages
05/30/2007 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
PLTF'S MTN FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Court Clerk: Sue Burdette Heard By: Mark Denton
Parties Present
Minutes
Result: Granted in Part
06/01/2007 Conversion Case Event Type
GENE HURD'S MTN TO INTERVENE/06 (VC NTC 06/29/07)
07A5401610015.tif pages
06/08/2007 Conversion Case Event Type
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FURTHER TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
07A5401610016.tif pages
06/11/2007 Temporary Restraining Order
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
07A5401610017.tif pages
06/11/2007 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
PLTF'S APPLICATION FOR TRO/MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Court Clerk: Sue Burdette Heard By: Mark Denton
Parties Present
Minutes
Result: Granted in Part
06/13/2007 Lis Pendens
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION LIS PENDENS
07A5401610018.tif pages
06/13/2007 Lis Pendens
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION LIS PENDENS
07A5401610019.tif pages
06/13/2007 Lis Pendens
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION LIS PENDENS
07A5401610020.tif pages
06/20/2007 Conversion Case Event Type
AMENDED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
07A5401610021.tif pages
06/26/2007 Order
ORDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE
07A5401610022.tif pages
06/27/2007 Withdrawal
WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO INTERVENE
07A5401610023.tif pages
07/02/2007 CANCELED Motion to Intervene (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
Vacated

08/23/2007 Motion
PLTF'S MTN TO ENLARGE TIME TO SERVE/07
07A5401610024.tif pages
09/21/2007 Certificate
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
07A5401610025.tif pages
09/24/2007 Motion (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
PLTF'S MTN TO ENLARGE TIME TO SERVE/07 Court Clerk: Sue Burdette Heard By: Mark Denton
Minutes
Result: Motion Granted
10/11/2007 Order Granting
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO SERVE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
07A5401610026.tif pages
10/16/2007 Appearance
OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
07A5401610027.tif pages
10/16/2007 Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure
INITIAL APPEARANCE FEE DISCLOSURE
07A5401610029.tif pages
10/16/2007 Objection
OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
07A5401610030.tif pages
10/17/2007 Notice of Entry of Order
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
07A5401610028.tif pages
12/03/2007 Notice of Bankruptcy
NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY FILING
07A5401610031.tif pages
12/11/2007 Motion
PLTF CMKM DIAMONDS, INC'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR PUBLICATION OF SUMMONS/08
07A5401610032.tif pages
12/11/2007 Motion
PLTF CMKM DIAMONDS, INC'S 2ND APPLICATN FOR RETURN OFFUNDS/09 (VJ 01-10-08)
07A5401610033.tif pages
12/11/2007 Bond
PLAINTIFFS INJUNCTION BOND TO DEFENDANT #53BSBE02177 $10,000.00
07A5401610034.tif pages
12/19/2007 Order Granting
ORDER GRANTING PLTFS SECOND APPLICATION FOR RETURN OF FUNDS
07A5401610035.tif pages
12/19/2007 Order for Service by Publication
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR PUBLICATION OF SUMMONS
07A5401610036.tif pages
01/10/2008 Conversion Case Event Type
MINUTE ORDER RE: PLTF'S APPL FOR ORDER FOR PUBLCATN OF SUMMONS/RETURN OF FUNDS
07A5401610037.tif pages
01/10/2008 Minute Order (2:20 PM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
MINUTE ORDER RE: PLTF'S APPL FOR ORDER FOR PUBLCATN OF SUMMONS/RETURN OF FUNDS Court Clerk: Sue Burdette Heard By: Mark Denton
Minutes
Result: Matter Heard
01/14/2008 CANCELED Motion (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
Vacated

01/14/2008 CANCELED Motion (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Denton, Mark R.)
Vacated

06/20/2008 Request
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SEPARTE SUMMONS NRCP 4A
07A5401610038.tif pages
07/29/2008 Affidavit of Publication
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
07A5401610039.tif pages
08/13/2009 First Amended Complaint
First Amended Complaint for (1) conversion; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity; (4) Constructive Trust; (5) Civil Conspiracy
Financial Information
Conversion Extended Connection Type No Convert Value @ 07A540161
Total Financial Assessment 413.00
Total Payments and Credits 413.00
Balance Due as of 08/14/2009 0.00

04/26/2007 Transaction Assessment 413.00
04/26/2007 Conversion Payment Receipt # 01352514 TURNER GREEN AFRASIABI & ARLEDGE LLP (148.00)
04/26/2007 Conversion Payment Receipt # 01352599 CASH ACCOUNT (19.00)
04/27/2007 Conversion Payment Receipt # 01352803 CASH ACCOUNT (19.00)
05/01/2007 Conversion Payment Receipt # 01353454 JUNES LEGAL SERVICE INC (100.00)
10/16/2007 Conversion Payment Receipt # 01387821 SMITH LARSEN WIXOM CHTD (101.00)
04/18/2008 Conversion Payment Receipt # 01424946 RESEARCH REPORTS (26.00)

www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=6649467

ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKI&read=858108

[sandi66]

Posted by: nufced Date: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:49:54 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 277306

APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT URBAN CASAVANT
Case No.: 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ
APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT URBAN CASAVANT

TO ALL PARTIES AND ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission
(“Commission”) will, and hereby does, apply for entry of a final judgment of
permanent injunction and other relief by default against defendant Urban Casavant
(“Casavant”). This Application for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant
Urban Casavant (“Application”) is made on the grounds that Casavant has failed to
answer, plead, or otherwise respond to the Commission’s Complaint within the
time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Casavant waived service of the Summons and the Complaint on April 11,
2008. A copy of the waiver is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Leslie A.
Hakala Supporting Application for Default Judgment Against Defendant Urban
Casavant.
The Clerk of the Court entered default against Casavant on August 12, 2008.
The default is attached as Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Leslie A. Hakala
Supporting Application for Default Judgment Against Defendant Urban Casavant.
Casavant is not a minor or an incompetent person, and he is not in military
service.
The allegations in the Complaint warrant entry of a Final Judgment against
Casavant: (1) permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a)
and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and
77e(c), Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78 m(a),
78m(b)(2)(A) & 78m(b)(2)(B), and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13a-1, 13a-13, and
Rule 13b2-1, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.13a-1 & 240.13a-13 & 240.13b2-1; (2)


ordering the payment of $31,500,000 in disgorgement plus $2,689,433.62 in prejudgment interest; (3) ordering payment of third-tier civil penalties; (4)imposing an officer-and-director bar against Casavant; and (5) imposing a penny
stock bar against Casavant.




Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Commission is not required to serve this Application for Entry of Default
Judgment on Casavant because he has not appeared in this action. Nonetheless, on
August 26, 2009, the Commission sent Casavant a letter giving him notice that it
intended to file this Application.
This Application is based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points
and Authorities Supporting Application for Entry of Default Judgment Against
Defendant Urban Casavant, the Declaration of Leslie A. Hakala Supporting
Application for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Urban Casavant, the
Declaration of Pamela Chattoo Supporting Application for Entry of Default
Judgment Against Defendant Urban Casavant, the files and records of this case,
and any evidence or argument that the Court may consider in connection with this
Application.
Dated: August 31, 2009 /s/ Molly M. White
Molly M. White
Leslie A. Hakala
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 128 Filed 08/31/2009 Page 3 of 6
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is:
[X] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5670 Wilshire
Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036-3648
Telephone No. [phone]; Facsimile No. [phone].
On August 31, 2009, I caused to be served the following document entitled
APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT URBAN CASAVANT on the parties whose service of process
forms have been filed in this action and others, addressed as stated on the attached
service list:
[X] OFFICE MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I placed for
collection and mailing today following ordinary business practices. I am
readily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited with
the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
[ ] PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed
envelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service.
Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los
Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid.
[ ] EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a
facility regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of
Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postage
paid.
[ ] HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to
the office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list.
[ ] FEDERAL EXPRESS: By placing in sealed envelope(s) designated by
Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, which I deposited in
a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express or delivered to a Federal
Express courier, at Los Angeles, California.
[X] ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail
to the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list.
[ ] FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The
transmission was reported as complete and without error.
[X] (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am a member of the State
Bar of California and an attorney permitted to appear before this Court and
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: August 31, 2009 /s/ Molly M. White
Molly M. White
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 128 Filed 08/31/2009 Page 4 of 6
SEC v. CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., et al.
United States District Court - District of Nevada
Case No. 2:08-CV-00437-LRH-RJJ
(LA-3028)
SERVICE LIST
Irving M. Einhorn, Esq.
Law Offices of Irving M. Einhorn
1710 10th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant John Edwards
Mark S. Dzarnoski, Esq.
Gordon & Silver, Ltd.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ninth Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Helen Bagley and 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC
Urban A. Casavant
RR 5 Site 16 Box 29
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan S6V 5R3
Canada
Email: [e-mail]
John Wesley Hall, Jr., Esq.
1311 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202-4843
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Brian Dvorak
Kathleen Tomasso
9580 Lake Serena Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33496
Email: [e-mail]
Anthony Tomasso
9580 Lake Serena Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33496
Email: [e-mail]
Sergey Rumyantsev
1951 North Jones Boulevard, #G-202
Las Vegas, NV 89108
Email: [e-mail]
Anthony Santos
6965 North Durango Drive, Suite 1115-208
Las Vegas, NV 89149
Email: [e-mail]
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 128 Filed 08/31/2009 Page 5 of 6
NevWest Securities Corporation
c/o Anthony Santos
6965 North Durango Drive, Suite 1115-208
Las Vegas, NV 89149
Email: [e-mail]
Douglas E. Griffith, Esq.
Kesler & Rust
McIntyre Building, 2nd Floor
68 S. Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Daryl Anderson
Eric N. Klein, Esq.
Eric N. Klein & Associates, P.A.
1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Email: [e-mail]
Michael R. Bakst
PMB 702
222 Lakeview Avenue, #160
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Email: [e-mail]
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 128 Filed 08/31/2009 Page 6 of 6

viewer.zoho.com/docs/racPcac doc 1

viewer.zoho.com/docs/tacKgg doc 2


viewer.zoho.com/docs/hacHcg doc 3


viewer.zoho.com/docs/qacxjd doc 4

viewer.zoho.com/docs/zacodm doc 5

viewer.zoho.com/docs/qacmwa doc 6

investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41049162


cmkmshareholders.com/ - [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
OTHER RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT URBAN CASAVANT

I.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
Securities and Exchange Commission’s Application for Entry of Default Judgment
Against Defendant Urban Casavant is GRANTED.

[sandi66]

FINAL JUDGMENT
OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT CMKM
DIAMONDS, INC.


www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/cmkmfinaljudgment.pdf

[sandi66]

www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/casavantjudgment090209.pdf

CMKM Diamonds, Inc., Urban Casavant, John Edwards, Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney, Anthony Tomasso, Kathleen Tomasso, 1st Global Stock Transfer, LLC, Helen Bagley, Nevwest Securities Corporation, Daryl Anderson, Sergey Rumyantsev, Anthony Santos, and Brian Dvorak (Case No.: 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ)

www.sec.gov/news/whatsnew/wn-today.shtml

[sandi66]

INFORMATION FOR CMKM DIAMONDS INVESTORS
CIVIL ACTION AGAINST CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. URBAN CASAVANT, et al.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On September 2, 2009, the federal district court in the District of Nevada entered a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief against defendant Urban Casavant. The judgment permanently enjoins Casavant from violating the antifraud and registration provisions, and from aiding and abetting violations of the books and records, reporting, and internal controls provisions, of the federal securities laws. The judgment also orders Casavant to pay $34,189,433.62 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $31,500,000.

Final Judgment of Permanent Junction and Other Relief Against Defendant Urban Casavant (September 2, 2009)
www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/casavantjudgment090209.pdf

BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2009, the federal district court in the District of Nevada granted the SEC’s motion for summary judgment against defendants John Edwards, Daryl Anderson, and Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso.

The court ordered:

Edwards to pay $28,583,288.98 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $26,400,000;
Anderson to pay $2,490,211.04 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $2,300,000; and
The Tomassos to pay $702,131.22 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $648,500.
The court ordered the defendants to pay these amounts to the Clerk of the Court for the District of Nevada within ten business days. Any amounts paid to the Clerk will be deposited into an interest-bearing account with the Court Registry Investment System.

In cases where the SEC obtains a judgment to recover money from the defendants, and the defendants do not comply with the judgment by paying the money, the SEC will seek to enforce the judgment.

It is not yet known how much money, if any, will be recovered in this case. If the assets ultimately collected are sufficient for a practical and economically feasible distribution of funds to investors, the SEC may by motion to the court propose a plan to distribute the funds. No funds can be distributed to investors unless and until the court approves a distribution plan.

Order Granting SEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants John Edwards, Daryl Anderson, and Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso (June 23, 2009)
www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/cmkmopinion062409.pdf

On April 7, 2008, the SEC filed a civil injunctive action against CMKM Diamonds, Inc., its former Chairman and CEO, Urban Casavant, and 12 other defendants involved in the alleged illegal issuance and sale of unregistered stock of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., purportedly a diamond and gold mining company located in Las Vegas, Nevada. The SEC charged all of the defendants with violating the registration provisions of the federal securities laws. In addition, the Commission charged CMKM and Casavant with violating the antifraud and various reporting, record keeping, and internal controls provisions.

Litigation Release No. 20519: Securities and Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., et al, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Civil Action No. 08- CV 0437 (April 7, 2008)
www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20519.htm

Complaint
www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20519.pdf

SELECTED COURT ORDERS

Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction Against Defendant CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (April 21, 2008)
www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/cmkmfinaljudgment.pdf

On April 21, 2008, the court entered a final judgment against CMKM Diamonds, Inc. enjoining it from future violations of the federal securities laws.

Order Granting SEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants John Edwards, Daryl Anderson, and Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso (June 23, 2009)
www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/cmkmopinion062409.pdf

OTHER SEC ACTIONS CONCERNING CMKM DIAMONDS

Litigation Release No. 20855: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Marco Glisson, Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-00104 (D. Nevada) (January 15, 2009)
www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr20855.htm

Complaint
www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp20855.pdf

In the Matter of Daryl Anderson, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-13156 (September 2, 2008) (Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Notice of Hearing)
www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2008/34-58449-o.pdf

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58958 (November 14, 2008) (Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2008/34-58958.pdf

In the Matter of CMKM Diamonds, Inc, Initial Decision Release No. 291, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-11858 (July 12, 2005)
www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id291bpm.htm

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 52694 (October 28, 2005) (Order Dismissing Review Proceedings and Notice of Finality)
www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/34-52694.pdf

Release No. 34-51305 (March 3, 2005) (Trading Suspension: CMKM Diamonds, Inc., aka Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc.)
www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/34-51305.htm


www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/cmkmopinion062309.htm



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 09/04/2009

[travelbugaz]

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTI
« Thread Started Yesterday at 11:19pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
PLEASE TAKEN NOTICE that this case, which was filed by Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2008, may be related to another
action currently pending in the District of Nevada, USA v. John M. Edwards, et al.,
Case No. 02:09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ (“Criminal Action”).


Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:25:02 PM
JOHN M. McCOY III, Cal. Bar No. 166244
E-mail: [e-mail]
MOLLY M. WHITE, Cal. Bar No. 171448
E-mail: [e-mail]
LESLIE A. HAKALA, Cal. Bar No. 199414
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
Rosalind R. Tyson, Regional Director
Andrew G. Petillon, Associate Regional Director
5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90036-3648
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., URBAN
CASAVANT, JOHN EDWARDS,
GINGER GUTIERREZ, JAMES
KINNEY, ANTHONY TOMASSO,
KATHLEEN TOMASSO, 1ST
GLOBAL STOCK TRANSFER LLC,
HELEN BAGLEY, NEVWEST
SECURITIES CORPORATION,
DARYL ANDERSON, SERGEY
RUMYANTSEV, ANTHONY
SANTOS, and BRIAN DVORAK,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 1 of 5
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
PLEASE TAKEN NOTICE that this case, which was filed by Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2008, may be related to another
action currently pending in the District of Nevada, USA v. John M. Edwards, et al.,
Case No. 02:09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ (“Criminal Action”). The indictment in that
case was unsealed on September 17, 2009. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and
correct copy of the Superseding Indictment in the Criminal Action issued on May
27, 2009 (Document No. 7).
The Commission believes that these cases may be related (as that term is
defined in General Order No. 2006-05) because they appear to:
(1) involve the same parties and be based on the same or similar claims;
and
(2) involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law such
that assignment to the same District Judge and/or Magistrate Judge may effect a
substantial savings of judicial effort, because the same result should follow in both
actions.
Dated: September 29, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Molly M. White
Molly M. White
Leslie A. Hakala
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 2 of 5
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is:
[X] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5670 Wilshire
Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036-3648
Telephone No. [phone]; Facsimile No. [phone].
On September 29, 2009, I caused to be served the following document entitled
Notice of Related Case on the parties as stated on the attached service list, by:
[X] OFFICE MAIL: By mailing today following ordinary business practices. I
am readily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing
of correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited
with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of
business.
[ ] PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed
envelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service.
Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los
Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid.
[ ] EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a
facility regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of
Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postage
paid.
[ ] HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to
the office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list.
[ ] FEDERAL EXPRESS: By placing in sealed envelope(s) designated by
Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, which I deposited in
a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express or delivered to a Federal
Express courier, at Los Angeles, California.
[X] ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail
to the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list.
[ ] FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The
transmission was reported as complete and without error.
[X] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar
of this Court, at whose direction the service was made. I declare under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: September 29, 2009 /s/ Molly M. White
MOLLY M. WHITE
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 3 of 5
SEC v. CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., et al.
United States District Court - District of Nevada
Case No. 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ
SERVICE LIST
Irving M. Einhorn, Esq.
Law Offices of Irving M. Einhorn
1710 10th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant John Edwards
Mark S. Dzarnoski, Esq.
Gordon & Silver, Ltd.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ninth Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Helen Bagley and 1st Global Stock Transfer LLC
Urban A. Casavant
RR 5 Site 16 Box 29
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan S6V 5R3
Canada
Email: [e-mail]
John Wesley Hall, Jr., Esq.
1311 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202-4843
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Brian Dvorak
Kathleen Tomasso
9580 Lake Serena Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33496
Email: [e-mail]
Anthony Tomasso
9580 Lake Serena Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33496
Email: [e-mail]
Sergey Rumyantsev
1951 North Jones Boulevard, #G-202
Las Vegas, NV 89108
Email: [e-mail]
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 4 of 5
NevWest Securities Corporation
c/o Anthony Santos
6965 North Durango Drive, Suite 1115-208
Las Vegas, NV 89149
Email: [e-mail]
Douglas E. Griffith, Esq.
Kesler & Rust
McIntyre Building, 2nd Floor
68 S. Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Daryl Anderson
Michael R. Bakst
PMB 702
222 Lakeview Avenue, #160
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Email: [e-mail]
Anthony Santos
Infinite Software Corporation
28202 Cabot Road, Suite 415
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Email: [e-mail]
Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 131 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 5 of 5

« Last Edit: Today at 12:07am by Duc N Altum » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In life, if there is no struggle, there is no progress.

The positives build you and the negatives build your character.

Duc N Altum
New Member

member is offline




Faith is believing in what you can not see. The reward is seeing what you believed.




Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Maheu BLVD.
Re: TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED P
« Reply #1 Yesterday at 11:27pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from the person who sent this to me in an IM said this: "i think they are connecting the civil case with the federal case." Interesting

noahltl1.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=cmkx1&thread=1851&page=1

[sandi66]

viewer.zoho.com/docs/tcUddb Case 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Document 132-5 Filed 11/12/2009 SEC vs CMKM Diamonds, etc.

ty mccurdydon

[sandi66]

PJ's Post , Lawsuits Terminated , CMKX related
« Thread Started Today at 5:58am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC vs CMKM Diamonds(Urban Casavant terminated)
« Thread Started Today at 4:25am »


:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ Securities and Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc. et al
Larry R. Hicks, presiding
Robert J. Johnston, referral
Date filed: 04/07/2008
Date of last filing: 11/19/2009



Parties

1st Global Stock Transfer LLC
7361 Prarie Falcon Road
Suite 110
Las Vegas, NV 89128
Added: 04/07/2008
(Defendant)


Daryl Anderson
170 Dumond Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Added: 04/07/2008
TERMINATED: 06/24/2009
(Defendant) represented by


James L Edwards
Parker & Edwards
1389 Galleria Drive
Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89014
702-835-1301
702-835-1304 (fax)
[e-mail]
Assigned: 01/15/2009
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


Doug Griffith
Kesler & Rust
68 Main Street
2nd Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Assigned: 03/27/2009
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


David Hall
Parsons Behle & Latimer
201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
801-532-1234
801-536-6111 (fax)
[e-mail]
Assigned: 06/27/2008
TERMINATED: 01/05/2009


Helen Bagley
5501 Dessert Spring Road
Las Vegas, NV 89149
Added: 04/07/2008
(Defendant)


represented by


Mark S Dzarnoski
Gordan & Silver, Ltd
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Ninth Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89109
702-796-5555
702-369-2666 (fax)
[e-mail]
Assigned: 06/13/2008
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


CMKM Diamonds, Inc.
c/o Kevin West, Registered Agent
615 South Broadway, 2nd Floor
Tyler, TX 75701
Added: 04/07/2008
TERMINATED: 04/21/2008
(Defendant)


Urban Casavant
90 Innisbrook Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Added: 04/07/2008
TERMINATED: 09/03/2009
(Defendant)



Brian Dvorak
Added: 04/07/2008
(Defendant) represented by John Wesley Hall, Jr.
.
1311 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
Assigned: 06/09/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


John Edwards
2817 Channel Bay Drive
Las Vegas, NC 89128
Added: 04/07/2008
TERMINATED: 06/24/2009
(Defendant)


Ginger Gutierrez
443 East Harmon Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89121
Added: 04/07/2008
(Defendant)


Don Jensen
7579 Calpella Ave.
Hesperia, CA 92345
Added: 07/20/2009
(Interested Party)


James Kinney
9285 Jensen Street
Las Vegas, NV 89124
Added: 04/07/2008
(Defendant)


NevWest Securities Corporation
5440 West Sahara Avenue
Suite 202
Las Vegas, NV 89146
Added: 04/07/2008
(Defendant)


Sergey Rumyantsev
1951 North Jones Blvd.
Apartment G202
Las Vegas, NV 89108
Added: 04/07/2008
(Defendant)
PRO SE


Anthony Santos
6965 N Durango Dr
Ste 1115-381
Las Vegas, NV 89149
702-974-2150 (fax)
Added: 04/07/2008
(Defendant)
PRO SE


Securities and Exchange Commission
5670 Wilshire Blvd., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323-965-3998
323-965-3394 (fax)
Added: 04/07/2008
(Plaintiff) represented by Leslie A Hakala
.
5670 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323-965-3875
[e-mail]
Assigned: 04/07/2008
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


John M. McCoy, III
Securities and Exchange Commission
5670 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90036-5627
323-965-3668
323-965-3958 (fax)
[e-mail]
Assigned: 04/07/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


Blaine T Welsh
U.S. Attorney's Office
333 Las Vegas Blvd So
Suite 5000
Las Vegas, NV 89101-
[e-mail]
Assigned: 04/07/2008
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


Molly M White
Securities and Exchange Commission
5670 Wilshire Blvd., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323-965-3250
[e-mail]
Assigned: 04/07/2008
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


Anthony Tomasso
c/o Transatlantic Lending Group
2424 North Federal Highway
Suite 401
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Added: 04/07/2008
TERMINATED: 06/24/2009
(Defendant) represented by Michael Bakst
.
PMB 702, 222 Lake View
Ste 160
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Assigned: 08/08/2008
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


Kathleen Tomasso
c/o Transatlantic Lending Group
2424 North Federal Highway
Suite 401
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Added: 04/07/2008
TERMINATED: 06/24/2009
(Defendant) represented by Michael Bakst
.
PMB 702, 222 Lake View
Ste 160
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Assigned: 08/08/2008
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ty PJ