posted
the docs on the site are as real as they can be. rufus can't make up the rules in a court proceeding. that bit about not coming to the sec meeting cuz of a gag order by a united nations ambassador will probably really piss the judge off, as well as appearing without representation. read item VII where rufus can be prohibited from ever serving as a officer or director of any corporation publically trading stock. rufus aka paul that is.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me!
IP: Logged |
I have this...which is just a modified link that someone posted earlier...I'm under the impression though...after calling this court it's not the same place...
Rufus said he was going to the Russell building...this place is down the street though...I just can't seem to figure out if they are related filing wise...
posted
Welcome Ett3!!! All you need is right here, baby, * Allstocks!!!
quote:Originally posted by Ett3Forever: Ladies and Gentlemen (Fellow Longs),
I ahve been observing everyones messages for the past two weeks and am oblivious why i never just registered to actually be able to communicate. But I finally did that today as you can all see. Forgive me for presenting the obvious.
I am a long and have been since July. Does anyone have any other forums that might be good to look at also? I have been doing DD on cshd for a while and it has been an educating process. If CSHD fails (which i have every reason to believe that it will not), i just paid for a very expensive education in reverse mergers and Penny stock risks. But my optimism is keeping myself and my team's hopes alive. Til further communication...
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!!
IP: Logged |
posted
This is getting scary. I think the SEC is questioning the authenticity of the bonds. Rufus had better have the necessary documents to support his case (proof of ownership). I don't think it was a wise decision on Rufus part to go to court without legal representation. There is nothing that we can do at this time but wait and hope for the best. This is going to be a long drawn out process to resolve this issue. IMO
IP: Logged |
posted
You are correct, Rufus said that he had been waiting for "it"(the suspension and investigation to go public)...hoping for it...AND? Now that they did...he was not willing to just send in anything...he wanted it hand delivered...in front of a judge and on file...Rufus din't request the investigation...he was hoping that it would happen...and was not going to just send over info...wanted it in front of a judge when it was delivered...that is the way that I understood what he was trying to relay...AND? by doing it this way...noone can claim he didn't cooperate, or that he was hiding or anything else...he MADE the exchange of INFO public and documented...IMO... Yeah..this is serious...none of it is BS...and all we can do is wait...
quote:Originally posted by thesource:
quote:Originally posted by CRab: He is the one that requested all this be brought to court...all they(SEC) asked for(according to Rufus' interview last night) was a letter stating that he would not break any SEC regs...
He requested they go to court so everything would be formal and transparent...so we the shareholders could see everything...
Yeah thats what I read as well but think its bull$hit . These are serious charges brought up in Federal court . I believe this would have happened with or without Rufus's request for it to go to court .
I'm long in this but must admit , this looks very , very bad right now . I cannot see what the SEC would have to gain by filing this in a Federal court if they did not think it had merit .
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by djg7: This is getting scary. I think the SEC is questioning the authenticity of the bonds. Rufus had better have the necessary documents to support his case (proof of ownership). I don't think it was a wise decision on Rufus part to go to court without legal representation. There is nothing that we can do at this time but wait and hope for the best. This is going to be a long drawn out process to resolve this issue. IMO
Yes I agree , this is not going to be wrapped up in 10 days or less . The proof of the bonds is going to be a major hurdle and just might very well be the nail in the coffin for this stock .
As I stated before , the Federal government does not just whip up charges on someone because they are bored .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
posted
All I can say at this point is, if Rufus knowingly defrauded investors, and then walks into a Federal Court to fight charges he can't possibly beat, he is quite certifiably insane. Nothing I have seen or heard over the last few months would ever lead me to that conclusion, however, at this point, it cannot be entirely discounted. Keeping my fingers crossed.
IP: Logged |
posted
The Bonds exist, that's not the problem. The question is how much, if any, belongs to CSHD, IMO.
quote:Originally posted by djg7: This is getting scary. I think the SEC is questioning the authenticity of the bonds. Rufus had better have the necessary documents to support his case (proof of ownership). I don't think it was a wise decision on Rufus part to go to court without legal representation. There is nothing that we can do at this time but wait and hope for the best. This is going to be a long drawn out process to resolve this issue. IMO
-------------------- I may be wrong, but I don't think so....
IP: Logged |
posted
That SOB saul last night said his freind works at the SEC & tried to verify the bond ownership with the Bloomberg site & couldn't find it.... I wonder if this guy is Saul's buddy!!!
By the way, don't worry about this Bull, Rufus addressed this last night something about you can't get the info about the bonds from that Bloomberg system & that he doesn't need to explain how to find the info to Saul because he won't understand it anyway & that he will bring the info needed to verify the bond to the judge...
quote:Originally posted by BULListic: Well, I'm long into Rufus and the plan, but this is the part that is disturbing, assuming you buy into that the guy knows what he's talking about.
quote:Originally posted by BULListic: The Bonds exist, that's not the problem. The question is how much, if any, belongs to CSHD, IMO.
quote:Originally posted by djg7: This is getting scary. I think the SEC is questioning the authenticity of the bonds. Rufus had better have the necessary documents to support his case (proof of ownership). I don't think it was a wise decision on Rufus part to go to court without legal representation. There is nothing that we can do at this time but wait and hope for the best. This is going to be a long drawn out process to resolve this issue. IMO
You are exactly correct .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
posted
Calm down... everyone claiming to have a law degree... please raise your hand. Now slap yourself in the mouth.
Fact is proof of ownership is just that. I own it. Bloomberg is showing people who are investing either for or against the performance of that bond. bloomberg will not show you the ownership of that bond and by the limited power invested in me I deem David an "Idiot" and quite possibly a freelancing crook waving Federal credentials.
Really read the document, the guy is a self proclaimed trained expert in using Bloomberg? Then why does he not know that a Venezuelan Bond is not individually or partnership owned by a single entity? Heck it would atleast be more believable if he was claiming ownership of the bond to be the Republic of Venezela or Hugo Chavez.
His opinion that the bond would not be trading? Oh yeah that is how things work. Boy I bet a non-trading bond would have a stellar performance and credit record. What is your return? 0% Excellent! This guy does not know his bonds and he is the one halting our security so that Rufus can explain it to him.
posted
Do any of the longs here think this is a scam - really, deep down in your gut - still trust Rufus? We're obviously all still in and all holding - almost hard to know who to trust. We've done the DD, but then we have done due diligence on what was presented...by Rufus. My heart says CSHD is the real deal, but my head is screaming "dipsh--, this is the SEC taking him to federal court". I'm still going with my heart because it has served me well, but I wondered your own heartfelt opinions...?
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it....
IP: Logged |
posted
Jenna -- I understand why RPH wouldn't tell Saul. Testostogen levels being what they were. But, he does owe it to his stockholders unless he thinks we are too ignorant.
IP: Logged |
posted
I have never claimed to be a legal expert but have had several (more than 50) experiences with both criminal and civil filings . The one thing that is 100% certain , this filing was not of Rufus's doing . He had ZERO part of it and therefore should not spin it by saying that he requested it to be taken to court . This was out of his hands .
Now , if he does have the proof , which I certainly hope that he does , now is the time to show it . He cannot hide behind his desk and say that he doesn't want shorty or the MM's to see his cards . They are no longer asking , they are demanding to see his cards . The game is over and its time to pay up or collect you winnings .
Its that simple .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: Do any of the longs here think this is a scam - really, deep down in your gut - still trust Rufus? We're obviously all still in and all holding - almost hard to know who to trust. We've done the DD, but then we have done due diligence on what was presented...by Rufus. My heart says CSHD is the real deal, but my head is screaming "dipsh--, this is the SEC taking him to federal court". I'm still going with my heart because it has served me well, but I wondered your own heartfelt opinions...?
Sherri:
I read the SEC document, some pretty scarry accusations in there. I too would like to give CSHD the benefit of the doubt based on all of the great DD dones on this site but us longs. Maybe the little man will prevail but I guess we have to wait and see.
IP: Logged |
posted
After reading that letter from that staff accountant(David),(doesn't even mention if he's a CPA,CIA,CFE) it doesn't look like he did much more than any of us as far as researching the bonds...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by djg7: This is getting scary. I think the SEC is questioning the authenticity of the bonds. Rufus had better have the necessary documents to support his case (proof of ownership). I don't think it was a wise decision on Rufus part to go to court without legal representation. There is nothing that we can do at this time but wait and hope for the best. This is going to be a long drawn out process to resolve this issue. IMO
sometimes cases are dismissed after a hearing no?
IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in what the company is claiming...What I am concerened about? The SEC will not view the information the way that the company does. AND? I believe that there are people within the SEC and other places that are not good and will help the darkside win...bottom line? Money talks...period! End result? i do not think that we will win...unfortuately...i hope we do...but not my expectation...
Rufus? Get the lawyer...
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: Do any of the longs here think this is a scam - really, deep down in your gut - still trust Rufus? We're obviously all still in and all holding - almost hard to know who to trust. We've done the DD, but then we have done due diligence on what was presented...by Rufus. My heart says CSHD is the real deal, but my head is screaming "dipsh--, this is the SEC taking him to federal court". I'm still going with my heart because it has served me well, but I wondered your own heartfelt opinions...?
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sandusky: WTF is the SEC praying for in that doc? LOL
No idea what that's about but it's funny as hell. A federal agency states they're praying for a certain action by a court in a formal complaint.
I bet there's a lot of praying on all sides going on about this company lately. LOL!
Its a legal term , do some reasearch on it before you open your mouth . Basically , they are asking something from the court and thats the way you do it in a legal filing .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
posted
Morty ~ No he does not owe it to us. He put it very well last night when he compared it to BofA.
Would Bank of America display their portfolios? No Is it required for Bank of America to report their codes in an SEC filing? No Conversion Solutions is classified as a Conglomerate, they have the ability to take deposits. If they filed with the board of govenors they would be a fully functioning institution. They are bound by several of the laws and requirements that govern US financial institution currently. They don't own us one thing that could jepordize their funding or contractual agreements with the Caracus Group.
posted
Good post from H S M: Originally Posted by some_extra_dough Please note that the following consists of solely my opinions and is not meant in any way to be considered investment or legal advice:
I have reviewed the Complaint.. First, you have to understand that just because allegations are contained in a complaint doesn't mean that they are true (or even that the plaintiff) necessarily believes that they will be able to prove them.. One indication of this in the SEC Complaint is the following language used with respect to Deutsche Bank: "On information and belief.." That language is typically included when a plaintiff doesn't really have any proof, but simply suspects the allegation to be true... I've included such language in numerous complaints (even though I don't do securities law).. I can also say that it is not unusual for allegations in a complaint to be made that appear to be fact.. That is simply the atty. doing his/her job. Remember, his or her job is to prove their client's case, and you don't get off to a very good start by saying "it may be true" or "it's possible that".. You include very strong language as was done here.
I also reviewed the Affidavit attached to the Complaint. Although the Affidavit is written well, it is lacking in substance.. As another poster noted, it is very weak when it comes to DD... Bloomberg - give me a break.. I would guess that most of the longs here have done better and more in depth DD than the affiant.
I have not reviewed (and maybe it's not available yet) any entry from the Court as to today's hearing... If, what I've heard from this board is true - that the SEC was given 10 days to disprove the info./docs. provided today by Rufus, I think that is a HUGE plus for us.. In my experience, a judge would only do that if they tended to believe the party offering the docs. (RPH) and thought this whole thing was being blown out of proportion (or that no basis existed for the Complaint)... Another possibility is that the judge realizes what is at stake here and is reluctant to grant the TRO without any evidence from the SEC. I am anxious to see how any such Entry was worded as the 10 day period is not typical.. It would have been more common for the Court to have set other deadlines.
After listening to Rufus's interview last night and reviewing the above documents, I am not worried in the least about the allegations being made by the SEC.. I think those allegations will be proven false, and that the SEC will file a F.R.C.P. 41(A) voluntary dismissal of its case in the near future.
Again, all of the above are solely my opinions..
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: That SOB saul last night said his freind works at the SEC & tried to verify the bond ownership with the Bloomberg site & couldn't find it.... I wonder if this guy is Saul's buddy!!!
By the way, don't worry about this Bull, Rufus addressed this last night something about you can't get the info about the bonds from that Bloomberg system & that he doesn't need to explain how to find the info to Saul because he won't understand it anyway & that he will bring the info needed to verify the bond to the judge...
quote:Originally posted by BULListic: Well, I'm long into Rufus and the plan, but this is the part that is disturbing, assuming you buy into that the guy knows what he's talking about.
"works at the SEC & tried to verify the bond ownership with the Bloomberg site & couldn't find it..."
this would be a crucial piece of evidence that the doc was extremely biased. are you sure you cant find it on bloomberg? according to the doc they found everything through bloomberg
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
