EVIDENCE

***THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA, ENFORCEMENT DIVISION ATTORNEY FOR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, IN PARTICULAR BELITTLE, DISREGARD, AND POSSIBLY SUPPRESS ANY AND ALL PERTINENT INFORMATION THAT FAILS TO FIT NEATLY INTO THEIR FOLLOWING PRECONCEIVED SMALL BOX: THE PUMP AND DUMP SCAM WAS PERPETRATED BY "CERTAIN" MEMBERS OF THE PREVIOUS CMKM MANAGEMENT AND "CERTAIN" OF THEIR AGENTS, BOTH OF WHOM UTILIZED A SMALL CONNIVING BROKER TO CARRY OUT THEIR SCAM. FURTHERMORE, THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA IN PARTICULAR ACTUALLY APPEAR TO AID AND ABET/PROTECT ANY AND ALL PERPETRATORS WHO FAIL TO FIT NEATLY INTO THEIR PRECONCEIVED SMALL BOX. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA IN PARTICULAR NOT ONLY FAIL TO PERFORM THEIR SWORN/FIDUCIARY DUTIES WHICH ARE TO OVERSEE THE SECURITIES MARKETS, TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS, AND TO PROTECT INVESTORS, THEY HAVE ACTUALLY BECOME PERPETRATORS AGAINST THE VERY INVESTORS WHOM BY LAW THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT, ALL OF WHICH LEADS TO CONTRADICTIONS, INCONSISTENCIES, AND DISCREPANCIES IN BOTH THE RELATED CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CMKM LITIGATION. CASE IN POINT #1 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-0437, 4-7-08, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEVADA, IS APPARENTLY INCOMPLETE, INACCURATE, AND INADEQUATE. In Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court, District of Nevada, Leslie Hakala alleges that "To divert attention from

their own dumping of CMK 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." DONALD STOECKLEIN DEPOSITION, 1-24-06 In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that a naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience told both Bill Frizzell and him that a 14 to 1 short position exists in CMKM stock. That means that for every one legitimate share that exists, 14 naked short shares exist, which in turn means that numerous naked short sellers exist. In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that they obtained a NOBO list and the number of CMKM shares on that NOBO list exceeded the number of CMKM shares on the list of 1st Global Stock Transfer, which in turn means that naked short sellers exist. If the analysis of the naked short expert and the NOBO list are accurate, then "the reported high trading volume in CMKM stock" would have "reflected extensive "naked short selling" rather than ordinary stock dilution." END OF DEPOSITION BILL FRIZZELL DEPOSITION, 1-6-06 In said deposition, Bill Frizzell testifies repeatedly that CMKM was naked shorted. Bill Frizzell's testimony is most likely predicated upon the analysis of the naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience and said NOBO list. If Bill Frizzell's testimony is correct, then "the reported high trading volume in CMKM stock" would have "reflected extensive "naked short selling" rather than ordinary stock dilution."

END OF DEPOSITION ATTORNEY AL HODGES' COMMENT TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, FILE NO. S7-08-08. Excerpt from comment: "The case of CMKX represents the greatest "counterfeit shares" fraud in the UNITED STATES." http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-08/s70808-151.htm END OF COMMENT If Al Hodges' comment is correct, then "the reported high trading volume in CMKM stock" would have "reflected extensive "naked short sellng" rather than ordinary stock dilution." QUESTIONS Did Leslie Hakala investigate the naked short expert? If so, what did she discover? If not, why not? Did Leslie Hakala disregard and possibly suppress the analysis of the naked short expert because it fails to fit neatly into her preconceived small box? Did Leslie Hakala investigate said NOBO list? If so, what did she discover? If not, why not? Did Leslie Hakala disregard and possibly suppress said NOBO list because it fails to neatly fit into her preconceived small box? Did Leslie Hakala disregard and possibly suppress the testimony of

Donald Stoecklein because it fails to fit neatly into her preconceived small box? Did Leslie Hakala disregard and possibly suppress the testimony of Bill Frizzell because it fails to neatly fit into her preconceived small box? Is Leslie Hakala aware of Attorney Al Hodges' comment to the Securities and Exchange Commission, File No. S7-08-08? If not, why not? If so, did Leslie Hakala disregard and possibly suppress Attorney Al Hodges' comment because it fails to fit neatly into her preconceived small box? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #2 THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND NASD IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA IN PARTICULAR COULD HAVE ALLOWED TWO BROKER DEALER CUSTOMERS OF JEFFERIES AND COMPANY TO ILLEGALLY NAKED SHORT 111 BILLION SHARES OF CMKM STOCK. In the "Jefferies Letter," dated 5-6-05, Cathleen Shine, Deputy General Counsel for Jefferies and Company, responds to requests from Ms. Anne Dansard Glowacki, NASD, concerning Jefferies' failure to report certain trades in CMKM in 3-04.

According to the "Jeffferies Letter," the trades, amounting to 111 billion CMKM shares, involves "two broker dealer customers of Jefferies" who requested that trades in CMKM be settled "Ex-Clearing," which are trades that are cleared outside a clearing house and therefore are unreported. The "two broker dealer customers of Jefferies" alleged to be long sellers and further alleged that they made the request that trades in CMKM be settled "Ex-Clearing" to circumvent the required significant deposit. According to the "Jeffferies Letter," Jefferies "made a business and operational risk decision to allow a limited number of broker dealer customers who were long sellers of CMKX to settle the trades "Ex-Clearing." http://www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/doc_index.html QUESTIONS Have the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASD in general and Leslie Hakala in particular investigated the validity of the allegations of the "two broker dealer customers of Jefferies?" If so, can the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASD in general and Leslie Hakala in particular provide documented proof? If neither the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission nor NASD in general nor Leslie Hakala in particular has investigated the validity of the allegations of the "two broker dealer customers of Jefferies," how could they have known for certain that the "two broker dealer customers of Jefferies" were "long sellers" and not illegal "naked short sellers?" Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASD in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties?

Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission and NASD in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS In Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court, District of Nevada, Leslie Hakala alleges that "To divert attention from their own dumping of CMK 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." QUESTIONS Were the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular aware of the "Jefferies Letter" on or before the filing of said civil action? If the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular were aware of the "Jefferies Letter" on or before the filing of said civil action, have they investigated the validity of the allegations of the "two broker dealer customers of Jefferies?" If so, can the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular provide documented proof? If the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular have failed to investigate the validity of the allegations of the "two broker dealer customers of Jefferies," how could they have known for certain that "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?" Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching

their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #3 ANDREW PETILLION, BRANCH CHIEF OF ENFORCEMENT AT THE PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE FOR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WARNS BILL FRIZZELL, CMKM SHAREHOLDER/ATTORNEY/OWNER'S GROUP REPRESENTATIVE AGAINST DOING A CERTIFICATE PULL; CMKM TASK FORCE DISBANDS WHICH CAUSES PREMATURE STOPPAGE OF THE CERTIFICATE PULL; LESLIE HAKALA, ENFORCEMENT DIVISION ATTORNEY FOR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, BELITTLES, DISREGARDS, AND POSSIBLY SUPPRESSES PERTINENT INFORMATION REGARDING THE ILLEGAL NAKED SHORTING OF CMKM STOCK. The meeting prior to the Securities and Exchange Commission Administrative Hearing of 5-10-05 for CMKM consisted of Andrew Petillion, Branch Chief of Enforcement at the Pacific Regional Office, Leslie Hakala, Enforcement Division Attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission, D. Roger Glenn, former CMKM securities counsel and former Enforcement Division Attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Robert Maheu, CoChairman of CMKM, Donald Stoecklein, CMKM securities counsel, and Bill Frizzell, CMKM shareholder/attorney/Owners Group representative CMKM shareholders. Excerpt from Bill Frizzell's 9-30-05 email to Owners Group members: "...We proved a huge naked short position in this company a long time ago...By my estimates there are at least a trillion and a half shares that have been sold in CMKX stock. When all shares (including foreign and obo accounts) are added to the mix, the total

could exceed two trillion shares. Have a good weekend." According to Bill Frizzell, Andrew Petillion warns: "By the way, if this is an orchestrated short squeeze against the brokerage houses to make the stock price go up, we will come after those who are responsible. We would not look kindly on a cert pull because it would cause market manipulation." Bill Frizzell responds: If there are brokers out there with shares in their accounts that they haven’t delivered, then it is what it is.” QUESTIONS Why would Andrew Petillion, Branch Chief of Enforcement at the Pacific Regional Office for the Securities and Exchange Commission attend a meeting for CMKM, a little diamond company? Why would Andrew Petillion view Bill Frizzell's attempt to provide evidence of the illegal naked shorting of CMKM stock at the pending SEC Administrative Hearing for CMKM as a short squeeze against the brokers? Why would Andrew Petillion warn Bill Frizzell against doing a certificate pull? Why would Andrew Petillion believe that CMKM's doing a certificate pull would be market manipulation? Could Andrew Petillion possibly be aiding and abetting/protecting the larger securities firms, such as Knight Trading Group, Ameritrade, E*Trade, and Jeffries and Company, that allowed their big customers, the hedge funds, to illegally naked short CMKM stock? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Andrew Petillion in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Andrew Petillion in particular be covering

up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS According to Bill Frizzell, Leslie Hakala asks: "What proof do you have of naked shorting?" Bill Frizzell answers: "Well, I have a CD and these are 5,050 brokerage statements that represent 350 billion shares. This has just come within the last five days. We also have a December 2004 report from the transfer agent saying that 2,033 people hold certificates representing 326 billion shares. That’s 676 billion shares owned by only 7,083 shareholders. Since there over 50,000 total shareholders total, its obvious that the ones that haven’t been counted yet will far surpass the 703 billion shares issued." Bill Frizzell's answer is most likely predicated upon the analysis of the naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience and said NOBO list. According to Bill Frizzell, Leslie Hakala responds: "Well if you prove the naked short, we will investigate it." QUESTIONS Is it Bill Frizzell's fiduciary duty to have to "prove" the "naked short?" Is it not the sworn/fiduciary duty of the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular to oversee the securities markets, to enforce the federal securities laws, and to protect investors? Therefore is it not the sworn/fiduciary duty of the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular to have already "investigated" and subsequently "proved" the "naked short?" If the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular had in fact failed to "investigate" and subsequently "prove" the "naked short,"

could they be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS DONALD STOECKLEIN DEPOSITION, 1-24-06 In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that a naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience told both Bill Frizzell and him that a 14 to 1 short position exists in CMKM stock. That means that for every one legitimate share that exists, 14 naked short shares exist, which in turn means that numerous naked short sellers exist. In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that they obtained a NOBO list and the number of CMKM shares on that NOBO list exceeded the number of CMKM shares on the list of 1st Global Stock Transfer, which in turn means that naked short sellers exist. If the analysis of the naked short expert and the NOBO list are accurate, then "the reported high trading volume in CMKM stock" would have "reflected extensive "naked short selling" rather than ordinary stock dilution." END OF DEPOSITION BILL FRIZZELL DEPOSITION, 1-6-06 In said deposition, Bill Frizzell testifies repeatedly that CMKM was naked shorted. Bill Frizzell's testimony is most likely predicated upon the analysis of the naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience and said NOBO list. If Bill Frizzell's testimony is correct, then "the reported high trading

volume in CMKM stock" would have "reflected extensive "naked short selling" rather than ordinary stock dilution." END OF DEPOSITION Therefore the evidence that Bill Frizzell would most likely have presented at the Administrative Hearing of 5-10-05 would have been the analysis of said naked short expert and said NOBO list. Bill Frizzell's presenting that evidence would have offered the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular the perfect opportunity to disprove the analysis of the naked short expert and said NOBO list and finally put to rest the notion that CMKM stock was illegally naked shorted. But instead of taking advantage of that opportunity, the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular argue that the upcoming Administrative Hearing of 5-10-05 should involve only the very narrow questions of whether CMKM has violated federal securities laws by failing to file required reports and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate. Judge Murray rules that CMKM and the Owners Group can't make the illegal naked shorting of CMKM stock an issue at the upcoming Administrative Hearing of 5-10-05 for CMKM. QUESTIONS Why did the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular fail to take advantage of the opportunity to disprove the analysis of the naked short expert and said NOBO list and finally put to rest once and for all the notion that CMKM stock was illegally naked shorted? Why did the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular argue that the upcoming Administrative Hearing of 5-10-05 should involve only the very narrow questions of whether CMKM has violated federal securities laws by failing to file required reports and, if so, what

sanctions are appropriate? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular have been uncertain that they could disprove the analysis of the naked short expert and said NOBO list and finally put to rest the notion that CMKM stock was illegally naked shorted? Could that uncertainty be the reason that the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular argued that only the very narrow questions of whether CMKM has violated federal securities laws by failing to file required reports and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate should be involved at the Administrative Hearing of 5-10-05? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? Could Judge Murray be aiding and abetting/protecting the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular by ruling that CMKM and the Owners Group can't make the illegal naked shorting of CMKM stock an issue at the upcoming Administrative Hearing of 5-10-05 for CMKM? Could Judge Murray be breaching her sworn/fiduciary duties? Could Judge Murray be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS Despite Andrew Petillion's warning Bill Frizzell against doing a certificate pull, CMKM creates a Task Force consisting of Robert Maheu, Donald Stoecklein, and Bill Frizzell to identify bona fide CMKM shareholders for the distribution of 50 million Entourage

Mining Ltd. (Entourage) (ETGMF) shares to CMKM shareholders in exchange for Smeaton/Forte a la Corne mining claims. Each member of the Task Force, Robert Maheu, Donald Stoecklein, and Bill Frizzell, receives subpoenas from the SEC to produce documents and appear for depositions. QUESTION Why did the Securities and Exchange Commission depose each member of the CMKM Task Force? END OF QUESTION Shortly after being deposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Task Force disbands without publicly announcing its findings or distributing the 45 million shares Entourage cert to the CMKM shareholders. The counter for the outstanding shares of CMKM stops prematurely at just over 703 billion shares. QUESTIONS Why did the Task Force, shortly after being deposed by the SEC, disband without publicly announcing its findings or distributing the 45 million shares Entourage cert to the CMKM shareholders? Could Andrew Petillion or any other higher-up at the SEC have somehow influenced the Task Force to disband to prevent the counter for the outstanding shares from going over the authorized amount of 800 billion shares which of course would have proved the illegal naked shorting of CMKM stock? Could Andrew Petillion or any other higher-up at the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could Andrew Petillion or any other higher-up at the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission be covering up

said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #4 BECAUSE JUDGE MURRAY RULES THAT CMKM AND THE OWNERS GROUP CAN'T MAKE THE APPARENT ILLEGAL NAKED SHORTING OF CMKM STOCK AN ISSUE AT THE UPCOMING ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OF 5-10-05 FOR CMKM, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-0437, 4-7-08, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEVADA, COULD BE INCOMPLETE, INACCURATE, AND INADEQUATE. In Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Leslie Hakala alleges that "To divert attention from their own dumping of CMK 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." Judge Murray rules that CMKM and the Owners Group can't make the illegal naked shorting of CMKM stock an issue at the upcoming Administrative Hearing of 5-10-05 for CMKM. Because Leslie Hakala fails to factor in the naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience and said NOBO list in Civil Action No. 08-CV 0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court, District of Nevada, her allegation that "To divert attention from their own dumping of CMK 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," could be based on insufficient data, and the result could be, in computer jargon, "GIGO: garbage in, garbage out." CASE IN POINT #5 THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA IN PARTICULAR, FAIL TO ACCOUNT FOR 362 BILLION

UNREGISTERED/RESTRICTED SHARES IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-0437, 4-7-08, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEVADA. Leslie Hakala alleges in said civil action that from January 2003 to May 2005, CMKM improperly issues up to 622 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares. From March 2003 through May 2005, using approximately 34 different brokerage accounts at NevWest Securities Corporation, John Edwards sells almost 260 billion shares of the purportedly 622 billion registered/unrestricted CMKM shares. That leaves approximately 362 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares that Leslie Hakala fails to account for in said civil action. A source familiar with the civil action discloses that John Edwards was the only defendant who utilized accounts at NevWest to sell his unregistered/restricted shares. Leslie Hakala obviously can't account for those 362 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares without implicating the larger securities firms such as Knight Trading Group, Ameritrade, E-Trade, and Jeffries and Company. Furthermore, NevWest is not a self-clearing firm. Instead, it must clear its certs through clearing firms such as Wells Fargo and Dain Rauscher that have a contractual relationship with DTC. Although Brian Dvorak is the only attorney that the SEC mentions in the civil action as having written attorney opinion letters, the source discloses that he viewed attorney opinion letters pertaining to the issuing and selling of unregistered/restricted CMKM shares that were written by D. Roger Glenn, a former Enforcement Division Attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission. The source discloses that the Securities and Exchange Commission was notified about the suspicious activities regarding CMKM but failed to respond.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20519.pdf QUESTIONS Why have the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular failed to account for the unaccounted for 362 billion unregistered/restricted shares? Why have the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular failed to include the larger securities firms such as Knight Trading Group, Ameritrade, E*Trade, and Jeffries and Company in said civil action? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be aiding and abetting/protecting the larger securities firms such as Knight Trading Group, Ameritrade, E-Trade, and Jeffries and Company? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #6 THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA IN PARTICULAR FAIL TO INCLUDE D. ROGER GLENN AND THE FIRM IN WHICH HE WAS A PARTNER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGATIONS, EDWARDS, ANGELL, PALMER, & DODGE, LLP, AS DEFENDANTS IN CIVIL ACTION No. 2:08-CV-0437, 4-7-08, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEVADA.

D. ROGER GLENN DEPOSITIONS, 7-19-06 AND 10-23-07 In said depositions, D. Roger Glenn alleges that he was unaware of the CMKM pump and dump scam and further alleges that he relied on the information that Brian Dvorak presented him for writing his opinion letters. Two possibilities exist: 1. D. Roger Glenn is telling the truth which means he failed to adequately investigate the information himself BEFORE writing his opinion letters. Of course that indicates that D. Roger Glenn is completely incompetent; or 2. D. Roger Glenn is lying and was part of the CMKM pump and dump scam. Brian Dvorak is a defendant in Civil Action No. 08-CV-0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20519.pdf Brian Dvorak is a defendant in Grand Jury Superseding Indictment 2-09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ, 5-27-09, United States District Court, District of Nevada http://www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/documents/cmkm_indictments_5-27-09.pdf In Amended Civil Action No. A540161, 8-13-09, District Court, Clark County, Nevada, Bill Frizzell attorney for the current CMKM management adds D. Roger Glenn and the firm in which he was a partner at the time of the allegations, Edwards, Angell, Palmer, & Dodge, LLP, as defendants and charges them with self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duties, constructive trusts, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, negligence-legal malpractice, negligence, and fraud.

http://www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/documents/casavant_amendment_8-13-09.pdf QUESTIONS Why have the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular failed to include D. Roger Glenn and the firm in which he was a partner at the time of the allegations, Edwards, Angell, Palmer, & Dodge, LLP, as defendants in Civil Action No. 08-CV 0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court, District of Nevada? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be aiding and abetting/protecting D. Roger Glenn because he was employed with the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the early 1980s? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #7 THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA IN PARTICULAR FAIL TO INCLUDE SILVER STATE BANK AS A DEFENDANT IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-0437, 4-7-08, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEVADA. Mark Faulk, former CMKM CEO, wrote an article entitled, "Silver State Bank: What’s Deposited in Vegas Doesn’t Stay in Vegas." Excerpts from said article:

"In yet another bizarre development in the saga of CMKM Diamonds, better known as CMKX, one of the largest financial frauds in history, Andrew McCain, the son of presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain, resigned from the Board of Directors of Henderson, Nevada based Silver State Bank, the bank where hundreds of millions of dollars was deposited as it was stolen from CMKX shareholders. "But the younger McCain, who had only been with Silver State Bank for a little over four months after Choice Bank, where McCain was director, was taken over by Silver State, might have to answer questions of his own. Silver State Bank has its own history of problems, and it appears that Andrew McCain either ignored the bank’s past woes, or didn’t properly research the company before joining the Board of Directors. "Just two months ago, one of the bank’s executive vice-presidents resigned after the company reported a massive loss for the first quarter of 2008, which the company blamed largely on the deteriorating real estate market. The bank recently announced plans to raise an additional $40 million in capital, which could be a problem, since their share price has dropped over 95% in the past year, from a high of $19.48 to July 29th’s closing price of $1.18. Their market cap has fallen from $275 million to less than $17 million. At today’s closing price, that $40 million in additional capital will more than triple the company’s current number of outstanding shares. "But a little diamond mining company from Canada that turned out to be the biggest penny stock fraud in history might become a major problem for McCain’s campaign as well. Insiders with CMKX defrauded over 50,000 shareholders of in excess of $250 million. A large portion of that money was run through a single Silver State Bank branch in Las Vegas. In all, former CMKX CEO Urban Casavant and reputed mastermind John Edwards (no, not that John Edwards) opened over 100 bank accounts at Silver State, and ran tens of millions of dollars through the bank." http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/BlogFest/1097.html

John Smith, columnist for the Las Vegas Review Journal, submitted on 2-8-05, a column entitled, "Company dangles lure of diamonds, but transactions hook SEC." Excerpts from said column: "The Securities and Exchange Commission is downright fascinated with CMKM and has begun to probe the company's numerous Southern Nevada business transactions. "The SEC has subpoenaed bank records related to CMKM's local transactions, an institutional source confirms. The company maintained nearly 100 accounts at a local branch of Silver State Bank alone. A bank employee who handled CMKM's accounts is no longer employed after suspicious activity involving a continuing circle of cashier's checks was uncovered. "By one informed estimate, CMKM is suspected of moving up to $64 million through its Silver State accounts." http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Feb-08-Tue-2005/news/25821561.html DONALD STOECKLEIN DEPOSITION, 1-24-06 In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that criminal proceedings were filed against Silver State Bank. END OF DEPOSITION QUESTIONS Why have the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular failed to include Silver State Bank in Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court, District of Nevada? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be aiding and abetting/protecting Silver State Bank because Andrew McCain, the

son of John McCain, senator/presidential candidate, was on the Board of Directors of Silver State Bank? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #8 THE WORDING THAT THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION USES IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-0437, 4-7-08, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, CONFLICTS WITH THE REGIONAL TRIAXIAL AEROMAGNETIC SURVEY ASSESSMENT WORK PROJECT BY RALPH NEWSON, WILLIAM JARVIS ON THE FORT A LA CORNE DIAMOND PROJECT. On 5-16-05, CMKM announces in a PR that it possesses the drilling report prepared by William Jarvis on the Fort a la Corne Diamond Project. The drilling report was commissioned for CMKM by 101047025 Saskatchewan Ltd. Mr. Jarvis was asked to report on and make recommendations for the kimberlite exploration program. The scope of work completed includes: 1. a review of the Geological setting as it relates to kimberlite and diamond exploration; 2. an examination of the geological and data provided by the CMKM; 3. a review of published geological reports and maps;

4. a visit to the area of the concession. The following are excerpts from Regional Triaxial Aeromagnetic Survey Assessment Work Report by N. Ralph Newson, William Jarvis on the Fort a la Corne Diamond Project: "Drilling results and additional ground magnetic and gravity surveys have shown the best known kimberlite bodies to be bedded, and to have a very different shape from most known kimberlite bodies. In most of the well-known diamond mines in Africa, for example, and in those in the NWT in Canada, the upper portions of the kimberlites bodies have been eroded, leaving only the feeder pipe, which has a "carrot" shape, getting smaller in diameter with depth. However, in the Fort à la Corne swarm, the tops of the kimberlitic volcanic edifices are COMPLETELY PRESERVED [emphasis added by author], and they are shaped more or less like a soup bowl, with two larger horizontal dimensions, and one smaller vertical dimension. Several of these have an inferred geological resource (based on a few holes and on geophysical modeling) in excess of 100 million tonnes, one has nearly a billion tons, and one group of five which are close together, or perhaps coalescing, contain about 2 billion tons of kimberlite. There are thus HUGE VOLUMES OF KIMBERLINE WITHIN A FEW HUNDRED METRES OF THE SURFACE." [emphasis added by author] "The Fort à la Corne swarm of kimberlitic bodies is the LARGEST SWARM KNOWN IN THE WORLD [emphasis added by author], and some of the bodies are the LARGEST KNOWN SUCH BODIES IN THE WORLD." [emphasis added by author] On 6-24-09, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant John Edwards (#991), Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Daryl Anderson (#102), and Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso pursuant to Civil Action No. 08- CV 0437, 4-7-08, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. In said Motion for Summary Judgment, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleges, "CMKM provided investors with phony maps and fabricated videos of alleged mineral claims in North and South

America." http://www.smad.gov.sk.ca/Pages/BasePages/Main.aspx?UseCase=ExternalSearch QUESTIONS Was Leslie Hakala or whoever wrote the said Motion for Summary Judgment aware of the Regional Triaxial Aeromagnetic Survey Assessment Work Report by N. Ralph Newson, William Jarvis on the Fort a la Corne Diamond Project on or before the filing of said Motion for Summary Judgment? If Leslie Hakala or whoever wrote said Motion for Summary Judgment was aware of the Regional Triaxial Aeromagnetic Survey Assessment Work Report by N. Ralph Newson, William Jarvis on the Fort a la Corne Diamond Project, was she/he referring to said Work Report as "phony" or "fabricated?" If Leslie Hakala or whoever wrote said Motion for Summary Judgment was aware of said Work Report, was she/he referring to its author, N. Ralph Newson, M.Sc., P. Eng., P.Geo. as "phony?" If Leslie Hakala or whoever wrote said Motion for Summary Judgment was unaware of the Regional Triaxial Aeromagnetic Survey Assessment Work Report by N. Ralph Newson, William Jarvis on the Fort a la Corne Diamond Project, could she/he be breaching her/his sworn/fiduciary duties? If Leslie Hakala or whoever wrote said Motion for Summary Judgment were aware of the Regional Triaxial Aeromagnetic Survey Assessment Work Report by N. Ralph Newson, William Jarvis on the Fort a la Corne Diamond Project and still alleged "CMKM provided investors with phony maps and fabricated videos of alleged mineral claims in North and South America," could she/he be covering up said breach? END OF QUESTIONS ***LESLIE HAKALA, THE EXAMINER IN THE DEPOSITIONS OF D.

ROGER GLENN, DONALD STOECKLEIN, BILL FRIZZELL, AND ROBERT MAHEU, IS EITHER UNAWARE OF THE LAWS UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR FEIGNS IGNORANCE; LESLIE HAKALA LACKS EITHER THE RUDIMENTARY BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE TO UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING FUNDAMENTAL BUSINESS TRUISMS OR FEIGNS IGNORANCE: Companies that have been illegally naked shorted are adversely affected in numerous ways. Under the Securities Act of 1933, publicly traded companies are the only entities that are authorized to issue stock. That Act preserves the integrity of the stock of the publicly traded companies and protects the rights of its shareholders to vote and to receive dividends. When IOUs/counterfeited shares are allowed to trade alongside legitimately registered and issued shares, the normal operation of the markets is skewed because the natural relationship between supply and demand no longer exists. Furthermore, the company that issues the legitimate stock is irrevocably harmed because that stock is its currency to be used for compensation, acquisitions, collateral for debt, capital raises, etc. When the price of a stock is depressed artificially due to IOUs/counterfeited shares increasing supply in the face of fixed or limited demand, the value of the company's stock (its currency) is depressed. That damages the company and its shareholders in precisely the same way as counterfeiting money harms the general populace. CASE IN POINT #1 DONALD STOECKLEIN DEPOSITION, 1-24-06 In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that a naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience told both Bill Frizzell and him that a 14 to 1 short position exists in CMKM stock. Leslie Hakala belittles and disregards, and because the naked short expert has never been deposed, apparently suppresses the analysis

of the naked short expert because it fails to fit neatly into her preconceived small box. END OF DEPOSITION CASE IN POINT #2 BILL FRIZZELL DEPOSITION, 1-6-06 In said deposition, Bill Frizzell testifies repeatedly that CMKM has been naked shorted. Bill Frizzell's testimony is most likely predicated upon the analysis of the naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience. Leslie Hakala belittles and disregards Bill Frizzell's testimony about naked shorts because it fails to fit neatly into her preconceived small box. END OF DEPOSITION QUESTIONS Is it the policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission to hire attorneys for the Enforcement Division like Leslie Hakala who are either unaware of fundamental securities laws or who feign ignorance? Is it the policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission to hire attorneys for the Enforcement Division like Leslie Hakala who are either devoid of rudimentary business knowledge or who feign ignorance? Is it the policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission to hire and continue to employ attorneys for the Enforcement Division like Leslie Hakala who it surmises will keep an investigation in a preconceived small box and will keep the lid on anything that could ultimately prove to be an embarrassment to it? Is it the policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid

hiring attorneys like Gary Aguirre who it suspects might not keep an investigation in a preconceived small box and might not keep the lid on anything that could ultimately prove to be an embarrassment to it? Is it the policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission to terminate attorneys like Gary Aguirre who do not keep an investigation in a preconceived small box, and who do not keep the lid on anything that could ultimately prove to be an embarrassment to it? If CMKM shareholders could choose an Enforcement Division Attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission to handle their case, would they choose Leslie Hakala or Gary Aguirre? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS ***EVEN WHEN THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA, ENFORCEMENT DIVISION ATTORNEY FOR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, IN PARTICULAR TAKE ACTION WITHIN THEIR PRECONCEIVED SMALL BOX, THEY PROVE TO BE INEPT AND THEREFORE FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR INVESTORS; FURTHERMORE, THEY APPEAR TO AID AND ABET ANY AND ALL APPARENT PERPETRATOR WHO FAIL TO FIT NEATLY INTO THEIR PRECONCEIVED SMALL BOX. CASE IN POINT #1 THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA IN

PARTICULAR FAIL TO PREVENT CMKM FOUNDER, URBAN CASAVANT, AND CMKM INSIDERS FROM ILLEGALLY ISSUING AND SELLING 662 BILLION UNREGISTERED/RESTRICTED CMKM SHARES. From August 2003 to April 2005, the average trading volume in CMKM was about twentyfold more than it was the previous eight months. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id291bpm.htm A fax dated 5-26-03, from Lindsey S. McCarthy, staff attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission, to 1st Global Stock Transfer that mentions James Kinney, a defendant in the subsequent Civil Action No. 08- CV 0437 of 4-7-08, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, proves that the Securities and Exchange Commission was aware of James Kinney's suspicious activities pertaining to CMKM FIVE YEARS BEFORE FILING SAID CIVIL ACTION AGAINST HIM. http://www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/justice/sec_ltr_bagley_5-26-04.pdf QUESTIONS Why did the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular fail to investigate the huge increase in volume in CMKM stock? Why did the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular fail to follow up on James Kinney's suspicious activities? If the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission had investigated in a timely manner both the huge increase in volume in CMKM stock and James Kinney's suspicious activities, could it have prevented the CMKM pump and dump scam and saved CMKM investors from undue hardship? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange

Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #2 THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA IN PARTICULAR ALLOW URBAN CASAVANT, CMKM FOUNDER, AND CMKM INSIDERS TO CONTINUE TO ILLEGALLY ISSUE AND SELL UNREGISTERED/RESTRICTED CMKM SHARES. John Smith, columnist for the Las Vegas Review Journal, submitted on 2-8-05, a column entitled, "Company dangles lure of diamonds, but transactions hook SEC." Excerpts from said column: "The Securities and Exchange Commission is downright fascinated with CMKM and has begun to probe the company's numerous Southern Nevada business transactions. "The SEC has subpoenaed bank records related to CMKM's local transactions, an institutional source confirms. The company maintained nearly 100 accounts at a local branch of Silver State Bank alone. A bank employee who handled CMKM's accounts is no longer employed after suspicious activity involving a continuing circle of cashier's checks was uncovered. "By one informed estimate, CMKM is suspected of moving up to $64 million through its Silver State accounts." http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Feb-08-Tue-2005/news/25821561.html

The Securities and Exchange Commission temporarily suspended the trading of the common stock of CMKM Diamonds Inc. (Pink Sheets:CMKX. This temporary suspension will expire on March 16 at 11:59 p.m. EST. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CMKM+Diamo....on.-a0129721895 On or about Oct. 28, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission, in response to CMKM's withdrawal of its appeal, declared Administrative Law Judge Brenda Murray's initial decision final. This effectively revoked CMKM's reporting status under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. As such, it is currently unlawful for any broker dealer to effectuate a trade in CMKM's common stock. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CMKM+Diamo....te.-a0138322455 Therefore from 3-17-05 to on or about 10-28-05, the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular allow Urban Casavant, CMKM founder, and CMKM insiders to continue to illegally issue and sell unregistered/restricted CMKM shares. QUESTIONS Why did the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular fail to permanently revoke the trading of CMKM's stock when it first obtained the subpoenaed Silver State Bank records which of course clearly showed suspicious activities? Why did the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular allow Urban Casavant, CMKM founder, and CMKM insiders to continue to illegally issue and sell unregistered/restricted CMKM shares for OVER SEVEN MONTHS AFTER IT OBTAINED CMKM'S SILVER STATE BANK RECORDS? How many unregistered/restricted CMKM shares did the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular allow Urban Casavant, CMKM founder,

and CMKM insiders to continue to illegally issue and sell AFTER IT SHOULD HAVE PERMANENTLY REVOKED THE TRADING OF CMKM'S STOCK ON OR BEFORE 2-8-05? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #3 D. ROGER GLENN PHONES ANDREW HILL, FORMER PUBLIC RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE FOR CMKM, CIRCA MID-04 AND ANGRILY INFORMS HIM THAT LESLIE HAKALA'S OFFICE HAD PHONED HIM ABOUT CERTAIN POSTS ON MESSAGE BOARDS AND FORUMS. The phone call proves that the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular were aware in mid-04 of CMKM in general and D. Roger Glenn's involvement with CMKM in particular but still failed to protect CMKM investors. QUESTIONS Why would Leslie Hakala monitor a CMKM-related forum or message board? Why would Leslie Hakala phone D. Roger Glenn? Could Leslie Hakala be actually aiding and abetting/protecting D. Roger Glenn because he was employed with the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the early 1980s?

Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS ***THE FOIA DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PERPETUATES THE APPARENT COVER-UP OF THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN GENERAL AND LESLIE HAKALA IN PARTICULAR BY UNJUSTLY DENYING FOIA REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY CMKM SHAREHOLDERS; AND THEN WHEN IT IS FORCED TO RELEASE THE DEPOSITIONS, IT UNDERHANDEDLY AND PURPOSELY REDACTS INFORMATION THAT MAKES THE DEPOSITIONS UNINTELLIGIBLE. CASE IN POINT #1 In March 2009, in a concerted effort to discover the truth, CMKM shareholders submit FOIA Requests for depositions for D. Roger Glenn, Donald Stoecklein, Robert Maheu, and Bill Frizzell. The FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission unjustly denies the FOIA Requests under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A): Compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings. The FOIA Requestors file Administrative Appeals. The FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission Office of the General Counsel subsequently determines that the depositions can be released under the FOIA Request. CASE IN POINT #2

The honorable US Senator John Ensign contacts the FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of a CMKM shareholder. In a 6-11-09 letter to Senator Ensign, Ollie R. Wade, Securities and Exchange Commission FOIA/Privacy Act Research Specialist, writes, "We will send these records electronically directly..." On 6-15-09, Ollie R. Wade emailed the two depositions of D. Roger Glenn except for attorney and third-party names, addresses, telephone and social security numbers, a date of birth, educational background, and other personal information, all of which is protected from release under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii). The release of the personal information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and release of the Commission staff named in the records could subject the employees to harassment from the public in the performance of their official duties. In other words, the SEC redacts all of the above in the two depositions of D. Roger Glenn and subsequently redacts the depositions of Donald Stoecklein, Robert Maheu, and Bill Frizzell in exactly the same way. The redaction of personal information such as "addresses, telephone and social security numbers, and a date of birth" should not normally cause a deposition to be unintelligible, and therefore their redaction is reasonable under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii). But the redaction of "attorney and third-party names," and "the Commission staff named in the records" does cause a deposition to become unintelligible, and therefore their redaction is unreasonable under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii). Furthermore, said redactions cause the depositions to become unintelligible --and that is unconscionable and runs contrary to the very reason that the Freedom of Information Act was enacted. The Administrative Appeals for the depositions of D. Roger Glenn,

Donald Stoecklein, Robert Maheu, and Bill Frizzell were snail-mailed on 9-5-09 -- and as of 11-02-09, 58 days have expired and the FOIA Department of the Securities and Exchange Commission has failed to reply to said Administrative Appeal. Note: Although many CMKM shareholders have contacted their congressman and senators pertaining to CMKM, John Ensign, Republican Senator for Nevada, was one of the few politicians who contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of a CMKM shareholder and was in fact instrumental in the FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission's expediting the release of the redacted depositions of D. Roger Glenn, Donald Stoecklein, and Robert Maheu, and Bill Frizzell. QUESTIONS Are "attorney and third-party names" protected under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii)? If so, can the FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission cite case law and points and authorities? Is "the Commission staff named in the records" protected under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii)? If so, can the FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission cite case law and points and authorities? Why would the "Commission staff named in the records" be subject to "harassment from the public in the performance of their official duties" if said "Commission staff" was performing his/her sworn/fiduciary duties which are to oversee the securities markets, to enforce the federal securities laws, and to protect investors? If in fact said "Commission staff" was actually performing his/her prescribed duties which are to oversee the securities markets, to enforce the federal securities laws, and to protect investors, would not said "Commission staff" be subject to "praise" "from the public?"

Have all the employees of the FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission read President Obama's instructions in his January 21, 2009, FOIA Memorandum? "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because it might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears" Could higher-ups at the FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission be broadly interpreting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), 17 CFR § 200.80(b)(7)(iii to "keep information confidential merely because it might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears?" By their broad interpretations, Could higher-ups at the SEC FOIA Department be violating President Obama's instructions in his January 21, 2009, FOIA Memorandum? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission in general and Leslie Hakala in particular be covering up said breaches? Could higher-ups at the FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission be breaching their sworn/fiduciary duties? Could higher-ups at the FOIA Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission be covering up said breaches? END OF QUESTIONS ***THE GRAND JURY SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT 2-09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ, 5-27-09, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

DISTRICT OF NEVADA, IS APPARENTLY INCOMPLETE, INACCURATE, AND INADEQUATE. CASE IN POINT #1 GRAND JURY SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT 2-09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ, 5-27-09, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEVADA, FAILS TO INCLUDE D. ROGER GLENN AND THE FIRM IN WHICH HE WAS A PARTNER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGATIONS, EDWARDS, ANGELL, PALMER, & DODGE, LLP, AS DEFENDANTS. D. ROGER GLENN DEPOSITIONS, 7-19-06 AND 10-23-07 In said depositions, D. Roger Glenn alleges that he was unaware of the CMKM pump and dump scam and that he relied on the information that Brian Dvorak presented him for writing his opinion letters. Two possibilities exist: 1. D. Roger Glenn is telling the truth which means he failed to adequately investigate the information himself BEFORE writing his opinion letters. Of course that indicates D. Roger Glenn is completely incompetent; or 2. D. Roger Glenn is lying and was part of the CMKM pump and dump scam. END OF DEPOSITIONS In Amended Civil Action No. A540161, 8-13-09, District Court, Clark County, Nevada, Bill Frizzell attorney for the current CMKM management adds D. Roger Glenn and the firm in which he was a partner at the time of the allegations, Edwards, Angell, Palmer, & Dodge, LLP, as defendants and charges them with self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duties, constructive trusts, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, negligence-legal malpractice,

negligence, and fraud. http://www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/documents/casavant_amendment_8-13-09.pdf QUESTIONS Why has said Grand Jury failed to include D. Roger Glenn and the firm in which he was a partner at the time of the allegations, Edwards, Angell, Palmer, & Dodge, LLP, as defendants in its Superseding Indictment? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #2 LESLIE HAKALA, ENFORCEMENT DIVISION ATTORNEY FOR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ALLEGES IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-0437, 4-7-08, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEVADA, THAT FROM MARCH 2003 THROUGH MAY 2005, USING APPROXIMATELY 34 DIFFERENT BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS AT NEVWEST SECURITIES CORPORATION, JOHN EDWARDS SOLD ALMOST 260 BILLION PURPORTEDLY REGISTERED/UNRESTRICTED CMKM SHARES OUT OF THE 622 BILLION PURPORTEDLY REGISTERED/UNRESTRICTED CMKM SHARES. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20519.htm That leaves approximately 362 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares that Leslie Hakala fails to account for in said civil action. In its Grand Jury Superseding Indictment 2-09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ, 5-27-09, United States District Court, District of Nevada, the Grand Jury charges that: "...To create the appearance of an active and established market for CMKM stock, and to disguise the fact that the conspirators were virtually the only sellers of CMKM stock..."

http://www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/documents/cmkm_indictments_5-27-09.pdf QUESTIONS How can "the conspirators" be "virtually the only sellers of CMKM stock," when John Edwards, "the scheme's mastermind," allegedly sold ONLY 260 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares out of the 622 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares? Who are the sellers who sold the unaccounted for 362 billion purportedly registered/unrestricted CMKM shares? Why did the Grand Jury fail to charge those sellers in its Grand Jury Superseding Indictment 2-09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ, 5-27-09, United States District Court, District of Nevada? END OF QUESTIONS CASE IN POINT #3 CASE IN POINT #3 SAID GRAND JURY APPARENTLY FAILS TO CONSIDER THE ANALYSIS OF A NAKED SHORT EXPERT WITH 25 YEARS EXPERIENCE AND A NOBO LIST THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE LIST OF 1ST GLOBAL STOCK TRANSFER. In its Grand Jury Superseding Indictment 2-09-CR-00132-RLH-RJJ, 5-27-09, United States District Court, District of Nevada, the Grand Jury charges that: "...To create the appearance of an active and established market for CMKM stock, and to disguise the fact that the conspirators were virtually the only sellers of CMKM stock..." DONALD STOECKLEIN DEPOSITION, 1-24-06 In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that a naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience told both Bill Frizzell

and him that a 14 to 1 short position exists in CMKM stock. That means that for every one legitimate share that exists, 14 naked short shares exist, which in turn means that numerous naked short sellers exist. In said deposition, Donald Stoecklein testifies that they obtained a NOBO list and the number of CMKM shares on that NOBO list exceeded the number of CMKM shares on the list of 1st Global Stock Transfer, which in turn means that naked short sellers exist. END OF DEPOSITION BILL FRIZZELL DEPOSITION, 1-6-06 In said deposition, Bill Frizzell testifies repeatedly that CMKM was naked shorted. Bill Frizzell's testimony is most likely predicated upon the analysis of the naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience and said NOBO list. END OF DEPOSITION If the analysis of the naked short expert and the NOBO list are accurate, "the conspirators were" NOT "virtually the only sellers of CMKM stock..." The analysis of the naked short expert and the NOBO list were apparently suppressed to cover up the naked shorting of CMKM stock. QUESTIONS Why was said Grand Jury NOT made aware of the analysis of the naked short expert? Why was said Grand Jury NOT made aware of the NOBO list? Why was said Grand Jury NOT made aware of the testimony of

Donald Stoecklein? Why was said Grand Jury NOT made aware of the testimony of Bill Frizzell? Why is the apparent naked shorting of CMKM stock being covered up? Who is behind the cover-up? END OF QUESTIONS As Matt Taibbi so aptly points out in his Rolling Stone 10-15-09 article/expose' entitled, "Wall Street's Naked Swindle," "...the federal government's cop on the financial beat has barely lifted a finger..." END