Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 349 I just talked with Ben again and asked if there was a ruling and he said yes there was a ruling and it was positive and what they expected. Yes I am positive and if I didn't sound it in the last post, I am very positive that Conversion is winning because from what Ben says the ruling was positive. I say they obviously showed enough to the judge to satisfy him that Conversion Solutions has shown legitimacy to what it claims. He said the due diligence was part of the discovery and from how I understand it now it would be up to the SEC to prove otherwise and that would be a difficult task for them and maybe not worth the effort. My understanding of this is that then the SEC may have overstepped its authority by suspending trading.
-------------------- "No nation was ever ruined by trade." Benjamin Franklin Posts: 533 | From: Dooville, Indiana | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: source ~ You are right calling a cop a moron may get you a few minutes in handcuffs. So I ask what is the equivalent from the SEC? They threaten halt. So what happens when you tell that cop "Fine take me to jail you stupid..." Well in the SEC world they halt you and threaten litigation. Rufus calls them on it again, saying "fine with me let's go to court I have done nothing wrong." Next thing you know the SEC has three lawyers sitting in a court room, "Saying show me the money."
Fact is if Rufus just called a cop a name, I doubt they are going to book him. But then again, I went to Panama City, FL for one of my college spring breaks. I have seen stranger things happen. Gotta great picture of my friend getting arrested.
I'm just calling this as I see it . I hope Rufus shows them whats up and this stock trades at $30.00 a share when it opens . I personally think that there is other info the SEC has of which we cannot see right now . Its definately David vs. Goliath but remember who won that fight ......... anythings possible right now !!
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BuckyBarnes: From HSM this evening:
Today, 05:59 PM #5803 tutankhamen HSM Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 349 I just talked with Ben again and asked if there was a ruling and he said yes there was a ruling and it was positive and what they expected. Yes I am positive and if I didn't sound it in the last post, I am very positive that Conversion is winning because from what Ben says the ruling was positive. I say they obviously showed enough to the judge to satisfy him that Conversion Solutions has shown legitimacy to what it claims. He said the due diligence was part of the discovery and from how I understand it now it would be up to the SEC to prove otherwise and that would be a difficult task for them and maybe not worth the effort. My understanding of this is that then the SEC may have overstepped its authority by suspending trading.
quote:Originally posted by BuckyBarnes: From HSM this evening:
Today, 05:59 PM #5803 tutankhamen HSM Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 349 I just talked with Ben again and asked if there was a ruling and he said yes there was a ruling and it was positive and what they expected. Yes I am positive and if I didn't sound it in the last post, I am very positive that Conversion is winning because from what Ben says the ruling was positive. I say they obviously showed enough to the judge to satisfy him that Conversion Solutions has shown legitimacy to what it claims. He said the due diligence was part of the discovery and from how I understand it now it would be up to the SEC to prove otherwise and that would be a difficult task for them and maybe not worth the effort. My understanding of this is that then the SEC may have overstepped its authority by suspending trading.
Great, thx for the repost.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: GD... another anonymous female poster is revealed.. i'm beginning to wonder if us guys aren't really outnumbered here after all?
You wish Glass!
hey a guy can dream can't he?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if that is really what the judge ruled then the SEC is up a creek I think I can safely assume. If they would have had something solid they would have included it with thier initial complaint. They should have anyway, right?
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CRab: Well if that is really what the judge ruled then the SEC is up a creek I think I can safely assume. If they would have had something solid they would have included it with thier initial complaint. They should have anyway, right?
Apparently, they have a bunch of accusations, and no proof. They can't just say that they don't have the bonds, they have to prove it.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats what I'm saying though...it appears as if that is precisely what they did...made the accusations not expecting Rufus et al to have adequate proof of ownership...
Which is what most of us were thinking anyway...
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by a surfer: Source... Give it a rest for now please.
You have posted your opinion thoroughly. We get your point.
The future never lies.
I'm sorry guys if my opinion isn't what you guys want to hear . After last nights Subpenny show I thought we were good to go ........ until I read the filings this morning . I'll leave it here and say no more about it until more info is available .
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
I have put together a list of reasons why i have 100% faith in this company, things that dont make sense, if this was a scam.
TD Amitrades silence on the pr? If it was your company and you had done nothing wrong, you would have at least put out a response refuting the claim if not threatened legal action. I know i would!
Why does the company never put a disclaimer at the bottom of their press releases? I cannot think of another company on the OTCBB that does not use the forward looking statement on their PR's. If the company was dodgy i would of thought they would be trying to cover themselves as much as possible.
Why do bashers spend up to 20 hours a day on some boards trying to help people from being scammed? If i knew for sure a company was a scam then, i would try to let people know but, on the other hand at a certain point i would just let people learn from their own mistakes. I am not going to try and tell them over and over again for 4 months, 10-20 hours a day!
If it is a scam, how did CSHD manage to get a highly respected auditer to confirm their financials. My thinking is either he would of quit half way through if he got a wiff of something fishy, or he wants to risk his liberty and reputation for some quick cash? Surely he is comfortable in his line of work without risking everything?
Why did M N 1 post the first PR with a "Kennesaw, Georgia" heading, when all their PR's start with "Dallas, Texas", unless they were trying to con people into thinking the release was from CSHD. We all witnessed the bashing fest soon after!
Why would the stock have held its price for so long despite all the bashing if someone was not supporting it? I was in XSNX when stock-fruit bashed them from $2.50 to .70. Only constant buying pressure from "big" buyers could of kept the price of this stock up when in threatened to crash. These people dont buy without knowledge!
Why would the company go to all the effort of filing all their documents on the Georgia site if it was a scam, this would help anyone trying to prosecute them!
I could go on with this list all night but am not going to, but i think you got the idea!!!
-------------------- 'The rewards for those that persevere, far exceed the pain that must proceed the victory!' Posts: 399 | From: leeds, england | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CRab: Well if that is really what the judge ruled then the SEC is up a creek I think I can safely assume. If they would have had something solid they would have included it with thier initial complaint. They should have anyway, right?
Apparently, they have a bunch of accusations, and no proof. They can't just say that they don't have the bonds, they have to prove it.
Yes and no. In civil suits, the burden of proof is really on the defendant to prove that the accusations of the complaint are not true. As long as the SEC team can show at least a modest amount of sincerity and diligence in their complaint, the summons will be served and Rufus will have to answer each accusation to the satisfaction of the judge in hopes of getting a quick summary judgement in favor of not continuing the suit - basically a dismissal before the trial ever gets started. If Rufus has the goods, this is what we will be watching for.
The discovery phase of a pre-trial hearing can and often does take more than one day. However, the very early docket time for this case could allow for a one day turn around. IF their is going to be a summary judgement and IF everything was available to answer the complaint there might be a judgement handed down late today or as soon as tomorrow. However, the SEC must now be given time to research anything CSHD has presented and could drag their feet for a few days in typical government agency fashion.
At the end of the day, I really do see this as Rufus forcing the hands of the SEC. By not answering their inquiries in the normal forum, they had no choice but to take him to court. If this is what he wanted he knew it would happen.
The only real surprise here is the speed at which things are happening. Remember, a plaintiff presents a complaint and then a judge must read it and deem it worthy of a summons. The summons must be issued and served by a law enforcement official to the company's registered agent. The defendant then has ample time to respond and even more ample ways to delay the process (in most cases). This process usually takes several days.
The fact that this complaint was dated Oct 24th and they were in court at 9am on Oct 25th tells me that this is not anywhere near what could be considered a normal proceeding. Here's hoping that means something good for shareholders.
... In My humble Opinion
Posts: 150 | From: None | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i agree with taxback about going to court before admitting any guilt and making the judge decide, but to go without a lawyer? the truth will come out publically eventually but i think it was a bad sign then the government acted so swiftly. our government doesn't ever seem to move fast on anything imho.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me! Posts: 950 | From: Middle of Nowhere, Missouri | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Rufus going to be on subpennyradio tonight?
-------------------- "I will smack you in the mouth, I'm Neil Diamond"- Will Ferrell Posts: 4190 | From: Rhode Island | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was involved in a civil suit that took 2 1/2 years before the summary judgement was even rendered. It had nothing to do with stocks though.
-------------------- "I will smack you in the mouth, I'm Neil Diamond"- Will Ferrell Posts: 4190 | From: Rhode Island | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree that for legal proceedings , they seem to be rolling pretty quickly so far . Lets see if they keep up the pace with this or if one side or the other starts dragging their feet .
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...this is gonna get boring if we don't all have something to argue about soon, lol...
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me for asking this, but I missed the post where someone stated that Rufus did not bring a lawyer. It's taken as a fact in many of the posts I have read, but was there some sort of confirmation of this? Again, I do not yet even know who stated it to begin with, so please take no offense to this question.
Posts: 228 | From: Denver | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey chart! ... battle scars my friend! ... I knew when it happened to me. This site rocks chart and you are the rock here! If I could give you another 5, I would! Still long! GLTY!
-------------------- ... make you're decisions only on you're own DD ... Posts: 348 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Spooky: Forgive me for asking this, but I missed the post where someone stated that Rufus did not bring a lawyer. It's taken as a fact in many of the posts I have read, but was there some sort of confirmation of this? Again, I do not yet even know who stated it to begin with, so please take no offense to this question.
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think alot of folks took Rufus saying that to heart, when in fact I'm pretty sure he was just trying to downplay the SEC's allegations...thats how I took it anyway. Not to downplay the whole situation, just let everyone know he's not as worried as some might think.
If all of the other officers were in court today, I'd be suprised if the lawyer(s) was(were) not present...
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
well great job guys. Hopefully we something from the company soon. I would love to see the SEC drop the case due to overwhelming evidence provided from cshd. I just have to say if we come out of this latest bump in the road and are better for it, and everything Rufus said will happen happens this will be the hardest money I've ever made in my life
quote:Originally posted by Spooky: Forgive me for asking this, but I missed the post where someone stated that Rufus did not bring a lawyer. It's taken as a fact in many of the posts I have read, but was there some sort of confirmation of this? Again, I do not yet even know who stated it to begin with, so please take no offense to this question.
Hey Spooky ~ A. Well Rufus said he had a bunch of special SEC lawyers, can't imagine that he would not bring at leat ONE to a FEDERAL hearing to see if he goes to jail or not... Can you?!!
and now....
The other "school of thought" (there are ALWAYS TWO) begs to ask if Rufus really did this!??
What ya think of this?....
B. What if Rufus has some HUGE secret supports and is just a piece in someone's well thought out master plan game of chess?... And REALLY KNOWS it cause he was TOLD it?...
quote:Originally posted by cool AZ: Hey chart! ... battle scars my friend! ... I knew when it happened to me. This site rocks chart and you are the rock here! If I could give you another 5, I would! Still long! GLTY!