8-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington D.C. 20549

Form 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) July 29, 2005

CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Nevada	000-26919	90-0070390
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)	(Commission File Number)	(IRS Employer Identification No.)

4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 211 Las Vegas, Nevada	89121
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)	(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (702) 966-6328

Copies of Communications to:

Stoecklein Law Group

402 West Broadway, Suite 400

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 595-4882

Fax (619) 595-4883

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

Item 8.01 Other Events

On July 29, 2005, CMKM filed a Petition for Review of the Initial Decision and Notice of Appeal of the Administrative Proceeding pursuant to Rule 410 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. CMKM objected to various conclusions of law and findings of fact contained in the Initial Decision of Honorable Brenda P. Murray’s.

On August 8, 2005, CMKM was notified by the Office of General Counsel for the Commission of the Order Granting Petition for Review pursuant to Rule 411 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. As stipulated in the order CMKM is required to submit a brief in support of the petition for review by September 6, 2005. A brief in opposition by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement must be filed by October 6, 2005 and any reply brief after that must be filed by October 20, 2005.

Additionally, on August 8, 2005, the Division of Enforcement filed a Motion for Summary Affirmance of the Initial Decision requesting the Commission to affirm the Honorable Murray’s decision to revoke the registration of the securities of CMKM Diamonds.

A copy of the Petition for Review filed by CMKM is attached as exhibit 99.1 and a copy of the Order Granting Petition for Review is attached as exhibit 99.2.

Item 9.01 Exhibits

(c) Exhibit.

Exhibit Number	Exhibit Title of Description
99.1	Petition for Review of Initial Decision and Notice of Appeal of Respondent, CMKM Diamonds, Inc., filed on July 29, 2005.
99.2	Order Granting Petition for Review by the Office of General Counsel for the Commission, dated August 8, 2005.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.

By:/s/ Urban Casavant
	Urban Casavant,
	President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 9, 2005

EX-99

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-11858

In the Matter of:		)
		)	PETITION FOR REVIEW
CMKM Diamonds, Inc.,		)	OF INITIAL DECISION AND
		)	NOTICE OF APPEAL OF:
		)	ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
		)	PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(j) OF
		)	THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
	Respondent.	)	OF 1934

PETITION FOR COMMISSION REVIEW OF

INITIAL DECISION

AND

NOTICE OF APPEAL

OF RESPONDENT, CMKM DIAMONDS, INC.

Dated: July 29, 2005

Donald J. Stoecklein

Stoecklein Law Group

Counsel for Respondent

CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

402 West Broadway, Suite 400

San Diego, California 92101

(619) 595-4882

(619) 595-4883

Respondent CMKM Diamonds Inc. (CMKM), by its attorneys pursuant to Rule 410 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, petitions the Commission for review of the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, entered on July 12, 2005, and in support of said Petition states as follows:

        A.    This Petition is timely filed, pursuant to the order of this Commission dated July 12, 2005.

        B.    Commission’s review of this matter is appropriate under Rule 411 of the Rules of Practice in that the Initial Decision, which revokes the registration of CMKM Diamond’s securities and the Petition for Review makes a reasonable showing that prejudicial error was committed in the conduct of the proceedings and that the Initial Decision embodies findings and conclusions of material fact which are clearly erroneous, and exercises of discretion and policy and legal decisions which are important and should be reviewed by the Commission.

        C.    Respondent CMKM objects to the following conclusions of law contained in the Initial Decision as erroneous, and petitions that the Commission review those conclusions:

             a.    That “the evidence is overwhelming that CMKM Diamonds and Casavant knew or, at minimum, was reckless in not knowing, that the original Form 15 was false.”

             b.    That the conclusion was reached that “I therefore conclude that filing the false Form 15 did not suspend CMKM Diamond’s reporting obligations.”

            c.    That the Administrative Law Judge concluded 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.”

1

             d.    That if the Administrative Law Judge even accepted CMKM Diamond’s position that it acted in good faith and believed that the representations in its Form 15 were true, that “it is still in violation of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13.”

        D.    Respondent CMKM takes exception, as hereinafter set forth, to the following findings of fact contained in the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, and the inferences and conclusions drawn therefrom, as contrary to or unsupported by the evidence adduced in this case:

             a.    That “the persuasive evidence is that the Division’s inquiry to CMKM Diamond’s counsel on December 23, 2004 led CMKM Diamonds to revoke the Form 15 because it contained a materially false representation.”

             b.    That correspondence referenced in Div. Exs. 20, 21 establishes that the Commission knew in December 2004 that CMKM Diamond’s Form 15 was false.

             c.    That “the evidence establishes that CMKM Diamonds knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that it had more than 300 shareholders [sic stockholders] of record when it filed the Form 15 on July 22, 2003.”

             d.    That “the evidence is that CMKM Diamonds made no effort to confirm or verify the number of shareholders of record before filing the Form 15.”

2

            e.    That as a result of the large issuances of shares since January 2003, “CMKM Diamonds must have known that it had more than 300 shareholders [sic stockholders] of record when it filed the original Form 15.”

            f.    That “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.” [emphasis added]

WHEREFORE, respondent CMKM respectfully requests that the Commission grant its petition for review of the Initial Decision and, upon review, vacate the Initial Decision and dismiss the revocation of CMKM’s securities.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Stoecklein Law Group               

Stoecklein Law Group

and

/s/ Donald J. Stoecklein                   

Donald J. Stoecklein

Stoecklein Law Group

Counsel for Respondent

CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

402 West Broadway, Suite 400

San Diego, California 92101

(619) 595-4882

(619) 595-4883

3

Certificate of Service

I certify that on August 9, 2005, I caused the foregoing to be served on the below listed persons by being placed in the U.S. Mail postage prepaid for delivery to the following persons, and by fax as indicated.

Office of the Secretary

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5^th Street, N. W. Mail Stop 6-9

Washington D.C. 20549

(original and three copies by Fed Ex)

Honorable Brenda P. Murray

Administrative Law Judge

450 5^th Street, N.W. Mail Stop 1106

Washington D.C. 20549-1106

(and by facsimile to: 202.777.1031)

Leslie Hakala or Greg Glynn

Counsel for the Division of Enforcement

Securities and Exchange Commission

5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90036

(and by facsimile to: 323.965.3394)

Bill Frizzell

Frizzell Law Group

305 S. Broadway, Suite 302

Tyler, TX 75702

(and by facsimile to: 903.595.4383)

/s/ Andrea Vierkant                   

Andrea Vierkant

4

EX-99

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

FILE NO. 3-11858

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

August 5, 2005

  In the Matter of   CMKM DIAMONDS, INC. C/o Donald J. Stoecklein, Esq. 402 West Broadway, Suite 400 Emerald Plaza San Diego, CA 92101   ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 411 of the Rules of Practice, 1/ the petition of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. for review of the administrative law judge’s initial decision 2/is granted.

It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 450(a) of the Rules of Practice, 3/ that a brief in support of the petition for review shall be filed by September 6, 2005. A brief in opposition shall be filed by October 6, 2005, and any reply brief shall be filed by October 20, 2005. 4/ Pursuant

_____________________

1/ 17 C.F.F. § 201.411.

2/ CMKM Diamonds, Inc., Initial Decision Rel. No 291 (July 17, 2005), ___ SEC Docket.

3/ 17 C.F.R. § 201.450(a).

4/ As provided by Rule 450(a), no briefs in addition to those specified in this schedule may be filed without leave of the Commission. Attention is called to Rules 150-153, 17 C.F.R. § 201.150-201.153, with respect to form and service, and Rule 450(b) and (c), with respect to content and length limitations. Requests for extensions of time to file briefs are disfavored.

1

to Rule 180(c) of the Rules of Practice, 5/ failure to file a brief in support of the petition may result in dismissal of this review proceeding as to that petitioner.

For the commission by the Office of General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority.

Jonathan G. Katz
	Secretary

/s/ J. Lynn Taylor                   

By: J. Lynn Taylor

Assistant Secretary 

___________________

5/ 17 C.F.R. § 201.180 (c)

2