Nockname, I apologise - it is not your error as CMQ's 4th...

Nockname, I apologise - it is not your error as CMQ's 4th quarter report clearly showed total sales receipts of $289,000. These people appeared to be incompetent at the very best? In the Appendix4C report for 31 May, it clearly showed $150,000 for 'Period to date - 11 months'. The $58,000 receipt for June should bring this to a total of $208,000 and NOT $289,000. How many sets of accounts are these people keeping to bring about such discrepancies or are they just incompetent?

Notwithstanding whether it is $208K or $289K, it is high time CMQ explain whether they have been financing the $1.4M SA sales CONTRARY to the public report that the sale was unconditional and NOT FINANCED by CMQ and on NORMAL COMMERCIAL TERMS. Is CMQ's definition of normal commercial terms for delivery in 2005 to be paid as and when the distributors want to pay or what? The delay in reporting the satisfaction of the $4M revenue covenant and the reported CREDIT of only $3M in Appendix 4C report should alert all shareholders and potential investors of the obvious.

In addition, I could not read any remorse what-so-ever in Mr Williams ASX announcement on the ASIC case while it was reported in the newspapers that CMQ lawyers submitted that CMQ showed remorse for the non-disclosure failures and no CMQ directors beneffited. Is this correct? Was it not a FACT, the beloved CMQ Executive Chairman Dr Graham Melrose underwrote the rights issue? After the rights issue had closed, on the day the USA patent was announced to the market CMQ sp rose by 60% and I bet shareholders who did not subcribed to the rights issue would like to know how it could be reported that CMQ lawyers told the court no one beneffited?

Is this the NEW LEVEL of CORPORATE GOVERNANCE at CMQ under Mr Williams?

Cheers