1. Kevin you tell us CMKX has no claims, no money no nothing, yet in Feb 2008 you claim CMKX has acquired assets to allow it to trade.... what assets were you speaking about and what is the status of these assets?

A) I can only assume that you are quoting the statement made in the DeSormeau case amendment filed on February 20, 2008 on page 4 and under #14 that reads "Although great damage has been caused to CMKM by the Defendants and others, CMKM acquired assets that will allow it to return to trading status".

If this is your question, then you will note the exact same wording was used on the initial lawsuit filing on March 30, 2007 on page 6 under #13. Because the initial lawsuit was only amended to add Eton Properties as a defendant, the wording of the lawsuit in general was not changed or we would have had to start the service process all over again on all defendants. At the time the original lawsuit was filed, CMKM had full control of 45 million shares of Entourage Mining that had substantial value at that time. This was the reason for the statement in the petition that was filed. Entourage has filed suit in a Canadian Court to cancel that certificate. We have hired very competent counsel to represent us in Canada and the case in the early discovery stage.

2. Why is the ETGMF master cert (for the shareholders) NOT in your possession and what are you doing about it? Do you plan to take legal action against Donald Stoecklein for possession of the cert?

A) The ETGMF certificate is being held by Donald Stoecklein because he was initially entrusted with its care by CMKM and Entourage Mining. Mr. Stoecklein has made known to current management that he will release the certificate to the Company with a court order to do so. The certificate cannot be negotiated in any way because it is restricted and it is also involved in a legal dispute. The certificate is in the name of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. No one, except CMKM Diamonds, Inc. can negotiate this certificate. Securities Law Institute is simply named as the custodian. Securities Law Institute has no ownership interest in the certificate or the shares it purports to represent. At this time, there is no need to ask any court for an order to take physical possession of this certificate.

3. I, as well as many others purchased the bulk of our CMKX shares due to the company announcements of D Roger Glenn and Maheu coming on-board, and also due to the PRs and statements from both gentlemen in regards to their intentions to bring the company into full compliance and fully reporting. Why have you brought suit against other former insiders and attorneys of the company but not these two men?

A) As we have stated many times in the past, there will be new defendants added to our lawsuits in the future. This is the reason for the many does and roes you see in both lawsuits. As CEO of this Company, I have a fiduciary duty to the Company and its shareholders to do what is in the best interest of the Company. These lawsuits had to be brought in the best interest of the Company and it would be negligent for a company officer involved in litigation to give out any information that may be detrimental to the case. Because of this reason and under strict advice of counsel, the Company will not go into detail about who will or will not be added to lawsuits in the future. As parties are added, the Company will update the website with copies of filed amendments.

I believe that most shareholders have some idea of how big of a task this has been to not only compile the evidence but to be able to put everything together in a way that legitimate lawsuits can be filed with merit. However, some of our shareholders have not yet realized that because of the enormous size of the CMKM case, what would seemingly be normal litigation to a non attorney takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to compile, organize and fully prepare to take before a judge or jury.

As CEO of CMKM, I am under constant fire and pressure from our shareholders to make decisions on matters that could affect the very fate of this Company. My fiduciary duty to this Company is to make the best possible decisions that can be made within all extenuating circumstances at the time.

I am explaining in the only way I know how that I cannot in a public forum start explaining the company’s strategies or the thought processes for taking or not taking certain legal actions. You will continue to see this answer if your questions demand that I divulge legally strategic matters. I would encourage you that are troubled with this explanation to call an attorney that handles litigation and ask your attorney to explain to you the legal obligations of a CEO when it comes to litigation matters.

Many of you have made demands on our company attorney to explain certain matters. If you were CEO and you hired an attorney in a very sensitive complex legal matter you would expect the attorney to handle company legal matters confidentially. The attorney is duty bound not to discuss company business in a public forum especially matters involving company litigation. He has a duty of confidentiality to the corporation and is not at liberty to discuss matters with shareholders or make statements that will be publicized on the internet or elsewhere.

4. Have you been in contact with Urban Casavant, Donald Stoecklein, or Robert Maheu, in the past year and if so, did you discuss CMKM business, the ETGMF cert, and assets of the company?

A) I have not talked to Urban Casavant since April of 2007. I have briefly talked to Don Stoecklein on a few occasions to discuss matters concerning past representation of the Company and dealings with others associated with the Company. I have not personally talked to Mr. Maheu since April of 2006. I have written to Mr. Maheu and have been acknowledged by his attorney this year about a subject not tied to any litigation in any way.

5. Why won't you let the shareholders in on exactly what you think can be expected for a ROI since you have locked all of us into this situation by not deeming the company worthless so we can take the tax write off? Do you realistically believe that you can bring a ROI to the shareholders that would be more than we could recoup from a tax loss write-off?

A) All shareholders are free to contact their tax advisors and get information from them on how to write-off an investment on their taxes. The Company cannot and will not offer any kind of legal or tax advice to shareholders.

No company officer or director in their right mind would declare a company worthless when they are doing all they can to try to turn a company around. It would not make sense in any scenario to do such a thing. As I have stated many times in the past, the "ONLY" way that this Company can have a chance to one day produce any kind of possible return on shareholder investments is to be able to recover enough assets to build a business. Current management did not have anything to do with taking your investment dollars and converting them for personal benefit. The very last legal advice given to the Company by previous Corporate Attorney JT Moran lll during the last week of March, 2007 was to put this Company into bankruptcy. I declined to do so. I am very confident that our lawsuits are valuable assets to this company and will provide the resources to bring this company back.

6. Since the company and shareholders will have to pay back any moneys that have been lent to the company or paid to you, Frizzell, Hodges, Trimbath, other legal counsel, the TA, and whomever else is on the payroll to include the future BOD you wish to appoint, should you not reveal who is footing the bill and how much in the hole we are already? Are you keeping financials that we can view?

A) Shareholders are not responsible for any debts of the Company. As has been stated many times in the past, Bill Frizzell has personally guaranteed and received all monies used for the litigation of this Company. Out of this money, Mr. Frizzell has made small loans to the Company to enable me to take a partial salary. To date, there have been no revenues or settlements generated or received by the Company. I also view this information as material that should be kept confidential by the company. I am duty bound not to divulge company financial information that could be used by our opponents in any way.

7. Can you post the Company Policies on the Website?

A) If and when assets are recovered that would give this Company the financial means to move ahead with building a business, a board of directors will be appointed to run the Company and do such things as draw up a list of Company policies that may be posted for public viewing.

8. Why haven't you pursued criminal charges against those that have defrauded the shareholders?

A) Criminal charges are usually brought by state and federal government in cases such as this. Since I took office I have cooperated with every regulatory agency and law enforcement agency that is investigating the activities of former management and their associates. The company has no ability to influence the investigatory process or in any way expedite the process that results in criminal charges. While I fully understand the demand many of you have for criminal charges being brought by law enforcement, my job is to take actions which will result in bringing resources to the company. I cannot spend my time on matters that do not have some possibility of recovering assets or acquiring assets for the company.

9. Why are you asking for so little in your suit against John Edwards since it's apparent he stole much, much, more?

A) The question of damages is a legal matter entrusted to our attorneys. I cannot comment on the thought processes, strategies and legal reasons for decisions that are being made. You should call your own personal attorney and ask him or her to explain the realities involved in lawsuits against those that commit and engage in securities violations. I can tell you there is a litigation plan which was designed to maximize the recoveries from all parties that might be liable to the company.

10. When can we expect to read an official PR from you and or the company? Other then FAQ’s printed on the website.

A) When the Company has any significant news that would be required to be disseminated in a press release it will do so. All CEO updates and questions answered on the FAQ pages of the Company website should be considered as official company news.

11. Rumor is that one or more very large CMKM shareholders may be paying your salary and expenses. Is there any truth to these rumors? If so, how can the rest of the shareholders trust that you have their best interests in mind and not that of just those paying you?

A) The wording of the letter leading up to these answered questions that was sent to the Company in many various forms actually states "With Recent FAQ postings surrounding more content debunking rumors then any facts that would actually appease the masses". It does not surprise me that questions that are then asked by the same letter would ask me to debunk even more rumors.

As explained in question #6 above and in the first question on the FAQ for August 23, 2007, the Company has received small loans from Bill Frizzell that allow me to draw a limited salary. Although some shareholders have helped by providing loans to Mr. Frizzell for litigation expenses, no shareholders are paying my salary or any expenses of the Company. I have not accepted any personal loans or any other type of gifts or compensation for anything remotely related to my position with CMKM. Some shareholders choose to trust me, some do not. I have accepted this as going with the territory and will continue to do my job to the best of my abilities for the Company and the entire group of shareholders as a whole.

12. When can the shareholders realistically expect to see a ROI for all they have done and according to past and current company instructions?

A) The company has no basis for providing any time frame in answer to this question.

13. Have you received the requested documents from Entourage and what is the status of their suit against CMKM Diamonds?

A) The Entourage suit is still in the discovery stage and we have not yet received documents from the other parties. There is no change in status on this lawsuit as there are still communications going back and forth between the attorneys from all named parties. If and when there is anything of significance to report, the Company will notify shareholders of such events.

14. Isn't there supposed to be a shareholders' meeting each year? Since we've never been asked to vote on anything the company has ever done, is there someone other than the shareholders who holds the majority of the shares?

A) No shareholder, group of shareholders or any other person or entity owns the majority of shares in this Company. The company is not able to identify all of its shareholders at this time. It is clear to the company that many shareholders exist whose names are not on the official list of the transfer agent. The company does not have the financial resources due to the fraudulent acts of prior management to call an annual meeting. The cost of sending notice of a shareholders meeting to this large number of shareholders in the customary manner is prohibitive at this time. As resources allow me to do so, I look forward to a general shareholders meeting. I continue our efforts to complete a shareholder audit so all shareholders can be properly notified of our first meeting.

15. What does Kevin make of John Edwards Plea? Or, Urban's Plea?

A) I will not use this forum to make comments that rely fully on personal opinions to such questions. I have looked at a document that was provided in the SEC lawsuit as being an answer from John Edwards but have not yet been shown any documents that were produced as an answer from Urban Casavant. As far as I know, Mr. Casavant has only produced a waiver of summons. These documents are what they are and the Company has no intimate knowledge of the reasons for such.

16. Why is Helen Begley still being paid by CMKX to serve as our Transfer Agent since she was one of the people indicted in the SEC's law suit?

A) 1st Global Stock Transfer was retained on a contract due for renewal in October, 2008 and has been paid in full per this agreement.

17. I would love to know the real deal on the interpleader filing. Yes or No. Somehow, this important agenda item disappeared off the radar.

A) The Interpleader was supposed to be worked on, completed and filed by former CMKM Corporate Attorney, JT Moran lll in late 2006 and into early 2007 before Mr. Casavant signed the Company over to me. Mr. Moran refused to turn over company files to me. I filed a grievance with the State Bar of Nevada on May 11, 2007 and included 150 pages of exhibits complaining of Mr. Moran’s refusal to render an accounting of his fees and to return to the company a copy of our records. This would have included any work that he did (or did not do) on the Interpleader matter. To date, the Company has not been able to obtain its file from Mr. Moran. On January 31, 2008, nearly 8 months after filing my grievance, I received a three paragraph letter from the State Bar of Nevada that simply said "there is no substantial evidence of professional misconduct by the attorney". I have linked one of the last few email correspondences with Mr. Moran over this subject for your perusal, here.

At this time, there is nothing to Interplead. The Entourage certificate is held up in a court action as described in question # 1 above. I will continue my efforts to obtain our file from Mr. Moran so I can give you more information regarding the interpleader.

18. Should Mr. Frizzell be sued for statements during Phase I and Phase II regarding NSS that attracted more investors hoping to capitalize on the reported broker's alleged illegal activities? Or is there in fact proof of the NSS that we shareholders can still hold in our poker hands?

A) Should Mr. Frizzell be sued you ask? The man that has gone to bat for this Company lock, stock and barrel? Do you realize that without Bill Frizzell and a few shareholders that stepped up to the plate as early as March, 2007 that this Company would have gone into bankruptcy as per the legal advice of then Corporate attorney JT Moran lll? When Urban Casavant asked me to take over this Company on March 28, 2007 I turned to Mr. Frizzell and told him that I would not do it unless he would commit to help me. Had Bill not committed, The Company would have been left in the hands of Mr. Casavant and his legal advisors.

Mr. Frizzell has gone way beyond the call of duty to try and keep the hope of this Company alive. He has not only pledged basically everything he owns to personally guarantee loans but he is in his office working from early in the morning until late in the evenings…. During the work week and on the weekends too! There are many armchair quarterbacks sitting behind their computers trying to find every fault they can with how they believe things should be done. However, there has only been a handful of shareholders come forward with genuine offers to help…. some with both time and money and they are deeply appreciated.

I am sometimes puzzled when I read questions from shareholders like this. You may remember that Bill intervened in the SEC hearing for John Martin as a representative shareholder. You should remember the fax in campaign when the shareholders faxed in broker statements to Bill’s office. Bill devoted his entire staff and even hired some temporary help for several months in an effort to develop our first real evidence of the potential deliver failures in this stock. Bill then goes to bat as best he can for us at the SEC hearing. Shareholders have never in the history of the SEC been represented at a 12J proceeding until Bill convinced Judge Murray to let the shareholders have a seat at counsel table. Bill then goes to the SEC offices the day after the hearing with Bob Maheu, Don Stoecklein and Mike Williams and attempts to hand deliver a copy on a CD of every broker statement that had been faxed to his office. He was also carrying the NOBO list. His office had received broker statements from 5,020 shareholders representing 320 billion shares. I remember how tedious a task it was for his staff trying to verify the faxed in broker statements against the NOBO list so the numbers would be accurate. The NOBO list showed there were approximately 60,000 "accounts" in the brokerage houses that reported to the DTCC. The trillion number figure given was a simple math extrapolation but it was based on hard facts. Those same faxed in statements have recently been delivered to my office. Three years have now passed since those numbers were talked about. A suggestion that Bill should be sued because he reported exactly what came in to his office is outrageous in my mind.

As for the failure to deliver issue, we do have proof of fails to deliver stock in this security that exist at this time. We do not know the totals that exist in the brokerage houses. It may take a long time and more litigation to find out who all of our shareholders are. You should understand that most of our efforts are devoted to rebuilding the company. When this company can stand on its own, then the issue of delivery failures will be attended to.

19. Are the certificates that we received legitimate proof of ownership for CMKM Diamonds Inc.? And does that make us "Bonified" ?

A) If you received a certificate from 1st Global Stock Transfer for shares that you bought through your brokerage house, then most likely you are a bona fide shareholder of CMKM stock. If you have purchased stock that was legally obtained and you paid real consideration for that stock, then you are most likely a bona fide shareholder.

20. What are the results of the share audit? We want a complete count of the total shares sold since you told a judge in a court of law that there are trillions.

A) The shareholder audit is ongoing and unfortunately may be ongoing for quite some time. Please reread answer to question # 18.

21. How can you return to trading if Brokerage firms and jurisdictions have sanctions against CMKM Diamonds trading again ( e.g. AB, et al )?

A) As stated many times in the past, there are numerous ways to put tradable securities into the hands of shareholders when that time comes. As CEO I will not share with the general public any plans the company has or any ideas that are being considered in this regard. These are not matters that can or should be discussed in general at this time. I am presently, and will continue to do so, discussing with some very savvy securities professionals several ways to return this stock to trading status. This Company must first recover assets that will allow it to build a business with forseeable revenues at the very least, before it would ever be a candidate to become public. Sanctions against this company have been levied because of illegal acts of former management. There are procedures for companies to obtain relief from sanctions. These matters will be addressed in due course.

22. Back when Bill Frizzell went to Washington and stayed with Optimisstic... is it true that Bill attended a meeting with those interested in forcing the company into receivership or taking over the company? What role do those people play now?

A) Bill made a trip to Washington D.C. when he met first met Judge Murray as he was preparing for the SEC hearing. He has no idea what this question refers to. He does not recall meeting anyone that intended to put this company into a receivership or taking over the company.

23a) Being that Bill Frizzell could NOT have possibly researched, written, and had Kevin West sign the notarized lawsuit, CMKM Diamonds, Inc. vs. Dave Desormeau; John Edwards, Case No. A538649, District Court, Clark County, Nevada, in one day, 3-30-07, who wrote said lawsuit?

23b) Being that the lawsuit, CMKM Diamonds, Inc. vs. Dave Desormeau; John Edwards, Case No. A538649, District Court, Clark County, Nevada, could NOT have possibly been written in one day, 3-30-07, when was said lawsuit written?

23c) If Bill Frizzell did in fact research and write the lawsuit, CMKM Diamonds, Inc. vs. Dave Desormeau; John Edwards, Case No. A538649, District Court, Clark County, Nevada, when did he begin researching and writing said lawsuit?

23d) If Bill Frizzell did in fact research and write the lawsuit, CMKM Diamonds, Inc. vs. Dave Desormeau; John Edwards, Case No. A538649, District Court, Clark County, Nevada, before 3-30-07, how did Bill Frizzell know that Kevin West was going to be appointed CMKM Chairman of the Board and in turn hire him to represent CMKM?

A) Bill Frizzell, on behalf of John Martin and other shareholders, made numerous demands on the company to sue John Edwards, Dave DeSormeau and others. It was clear that Urban was not going to take this action. Bill spoke to me about this while I was interim CEO. Bill made it very clear to Urban Casavant during the week before he resigned that he had prepared a shareholder derivative suit and that he had hired local counsel to file suit against John Edwards and others. The first suit was going to be filed with or without the consent of CMKM. A lot of things occurred during the week Bill was in Vegas to file the Edwards suit as a shareholder derivative suit. Urban resigned and I took office. I was in full agreement with the filing of this suit and asked Bill if he would file this lawsuit on behalf of the company and not as a derivative suit. From a paperwork standpoint, it was a simple matter to change the name of Plaintiff. We (CMKM) are very fortunate to have been able to acquire Bill’s help and his quick aggressive action in obtaining injunctive relief from the Courts at least as to the initial defendants. I was left with no funds nor any means to begin trying to protect the interests of the company. These are comments that are frankly not appropriate for me to make as a public statement, because they involve matters that may some day be an issue in this case. I am doing so because such matters need to be put to rest.

24a) In no more than two days (from 4-17-07 to 4-19-07), how could Bill Frizzell possibly have had the time to review the contents of "several boxes of Company documents" and then write and have Kevin West sign the notarized said 19-page lawsuit?

24b) In no more than two days (from 4-17-07 to 4-19-07), how could Bill Frizzell possibly have had the time to review the contents of "several boxes of Company documents" and then write and have Kevin West sign the notarized said 18-page Application for TRO?

A) On April 04, 2007 Bill Frizzell received seven boxes containing CMKM corporate documents that I requested from one of Urban Casavant’s personal attorneys. Upon the arrival of these materials and after having had a full day to go through them with Bill, it was obvious that the Company had some significant claims against Mr. Casavant and other insiders. I had absolutely no intentions of suing Urban Casavant when I initially took office. I was a believer and follower of Urban Casavant when I was being told by others that I was ignoring the facts. After reviewing the materials and learning from Urban that there were no funds to run the company, it was clear that I had no choice but to seek help from the Courts.

It does appear they are doing everything in their power to obtain the companies assets back. They are correct in a lot of way, that having people sit in Jail while they keep our money defies the whole purpose of what we are trying to do. We want CMKX to go back to a reporting company, to get our assets back, and to have the SEC take responsibility for their failure to take action and to realize what was going on.

The SEC now realizes and admits to their failure and are thefore doing everything in their power to assist CMKX.

This is very positive !!!

CMKX To DA MOON.