posted
One last thing...there were several people at the BBQ who actually know who Tut is...one who's known him for 20 years. Noone would actually give his identity though, but I think he's on the NOBO list. They all say he knows his chit and that his DD is amazing. I agree that his posts are very vague and somewhat annoying for that reason. Most everyone there also felt like he needs to shut up a bit. He's definitely in the know boat.
IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by St. Matthew: [QB] Oh damn...is there something out about how she was removed as a director? If so, I didn't know that. I can't help but wonder if some of my posts about our conversations got her in trouble. That would blow big time.[QUOTE]
quote:Originally posted by Doniboy: I believe that people feel that trading at all is a victory (or at least not a loss). I also believe that if the SEC had concrete evidence that this was a scam they could have gotten a quick summary judgement and kept it off the market all together. That's all I am saying.
Unless there is something that I am missing thats what I believe.
Take a hypothetical: If the SEC had investigated CSHD and on the first day found that Rufus had made $1 billion dollars and left the country. Also, the bonds didn't exist and Sabra was actually an alias for Mr. Elgindy, do you think that they would have allowed this to trade on the gray sheets? I don't think so. I think they would have easily gotten a judge to prevent that.
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by Doniboy: Tex,
If the SEC had discovered beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a scam/pump & dump/ or whatever would it have allowed it to trade again? I assume not. So I agree that it is probably not the sign of a big win that we traded today, but I believe that it is a sign that we have not totally lost yet, so thats something...
Doni?
The SEC requested an injunction, citing some urgency as i recall... and they got it.
Not sure how that applies to the (admittedly widespread) *feeling* that had "the SEC had discovered beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a scam/pump & dump/ or whatever . . . ."
Can you connect the dots for me?
Are peeps saying that if the SEC has questions, it should immediately revoke a stock, without a hearing?
Doni, most vets I've seen have pretty much indicated it could trade on the greys. I, for one (not saying I'm a vet or worse, lol, a "seasoned trader"--jeez, I hope I'm not "beef jerky"), have posted that I expected to see it trading gray and PERHAPS vigorously...given the example of SSTY and the much-heightened awareness versus that issue.
So, "trading at all" is simply not a concern, in my book.
Now, as far as "summary judgment" goes, it *never* got that far...as I understand the process. The defense "signed off" before that step, which in turn left the prosecution not needing that step.
make sense?
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
actually? i saw plenty of the most vocal VETS saying it would NEVER trade again Tex...
and many VETS also said that a summary judgement was imminent. i think you are way outa the loop on the general scuttlebutt..
the SEC has not proven Fraud.. that is what i said..the explanations for the the T in TRO is Temporary.. i'm not really clear on your aims here i didn't follow SSTY but i have followed a couple others that most definitely did NOT trade on the greys...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by St. Matthew: I'm just saying...Mike requested it because the SEC was the reason that they didn't have any MM's in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "Why else would they absolutely deny the request by Mike to stay halted until we hear from the judge and sign some MM's?!?! "
First, I suspect you intend the word suspended, yes?
Second, what regs allow an officer/a company to "request" further suspension?
lol...another position might be they have no MMs cuz of out-of-bounds behavior.
What I'm asking you is, which regs support a company/CEO/etc requesting the sort of outcome you propose?
ie, what makes *anyone* think the company/CEO/etc has such a route available?
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
Posted by: Our-Street In reply to: None Date:11/8/2006 12:14:25 AM Post #of 126867
Well, today's trading on the grey market kinda surprised me. More volume than I would have thought. Not sure if it's because there are still people stupid enough to think this is anything but a stock on its way to being dead or if it's shorts covering their position either because they had to or because buy-in's on the grey market can kill you because prices are so arbitrary at times. R
i can gather you a dozen others... i just picked that up on the first look... maybe even a couple dozen others posted this type of thing last week "never trade again" or "trade at sub-penny"..including from a mutual "friend"
the case was not a slam dunk...
that's what i was telling you..
and? i suspect you'll soon get to see some exposure of how the short-sellers world works pretty soon... so sit back and take notes, cuz that's what i'm gonna do...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Posted by: Our-Street In reply to: None Date:11/8/2006 12:14:25 AM Post #of 126867
Well, today's trading on the grey market kinda surprised me. More volume than I would have thought. Not sure if it's because there are still people stupid enough to think this is anything but a stock on its way to being dead or if it's shorts covering their position either because they had to or because buy-in's on the grey market can kill you because prices are so arbitrary at times. R
i can gather you a dozen others... i just picked that up on the first look... maybe even a couple dozen others posted this type of thing last week never trade again..including a mutual "friend"
the case was not a slam dunk...
that's what i was telling you..
and? i suspect you'll soon get to see some exposure of how the short-sellers world works pretty soon... so sit back and take notes, cuz that's what i'm gonna do...
More notes? I'm outta paper...Dang...this stock has many lessons...when will it end!!!??? (starts singing to self..."This is the stock that never ends, it will go on and on my friends, somebody started shorting it, not knowing what they've done...)
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: actually? i saw plenty of the most vocal VETS saying it would NEVER trade again Tex...
and many VETS also said that a summary judgement was imminent. i think you are way outa the loop on the general scuttlebutt..
the SEC has not proven Fraud.. that is what i said..the explanations for the the T in TRO is Temporary.. i'm not really clear on your aims here i didn't follow SSTY but i have followed a couple others that most definitely did NOT trade on the greys...
hey, there was a time even I thought it *might* not trade again, or at best for a long while. The more I thought about it, though, the more the SSTY example came to mind: popular support, etc.
As far as "summary judgment" goes, I *believe* I can trace the development of that train of thought to:
1) some poster, somewhere posted sumpin like, "Well, duh, just show the bond ownership" and tell the SEC to take a hike (btw...this was soon after the former CEO was either on da boards or on a netcast)
2) elsewhere, another poster mentioned that the defendant could *indeed* invoke request of a summary judgment...
3) my own research seemed to support the idea that a defendant's doing so also implied some peril, namely that the prosecution could, in turn, request same-said "summary judgment" AGAINST the defendant.
4) instead, that process seems to have been "short-circuited" ...
5) the defendants basically offered no defense to the request for the injunction.
Again! I'm outta da loop, and playing catch-up, so any solid DD is welcome...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
Posted by: Our-Street In reply to: None Date:11/8/2006 12:14:25 AM Post #of 126867
Well, today's trading on the grey market kinda surprised me. More volume than I would have thought. Not sure if it's because there are still people stupid enough to think this is anything but a stock on its way to being dead or if it's shorts covering their position either because they had to or because buy-in's on the grey market can kill you because prices are so arbitrary at times. R
i can gather you a dozen others... i just picked that up on the first look... maybe even a couple dozen others posted this type of thing last week "never trade again" or "trade at sub-penny"..including from a mutual "friend"
the case was not a slam dunk...
that's what i was telling you..
and? i suspect you'll soon get to see some exposure of how the short-sellers world works pretty soon... so sit back and take notes, cuz that's what i'm gonna do...
again, not following...
not being obtuse, either...
let's deconstruct:
"Well, today's trading on the grey market kinda surprised me. More volume than I would have thought."
well, me, too--to a certain extent: I've already posted, I woulda been surprised, etc...
"Not sure if it's because there are still people stupid enough to think this is anything but a stock on its way to being dead or if it's shorts covering . . . ."
won't comment re "stupid," but isn't this the general take on supposed shorts' covering range?
or because buy-in's on the grey market can kill you because prices are so arbitrary at times. . . .
true, I haven't seen any language suggesting that buy-ins have been suspended/protected (which we have seen), yes?
(((readers?lurkers? that means, basically, broker/dealers are off the hook when NASD includes such language in a "Special Notice to Members" alert.)))
and, I also know of no provision FORCING a buy-in of an issue on the greys... basically, the 15c2-ll question again...
make sense?
*********
Now, slam dunk?
alllz I'm saying is the SEC, here, requested a hearing--despite the then CEO's affirmations that the 6:1 would be delivered, the bonds were golden, etc, etc...
Despite his bravado on netcast "radio" and in PRs, we are where we are...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW...Rufus just let it slip...Mitch was the one that was the "turncoat"...in fact Rufus said Mitch was possibly working for the SEC as part of a plea bargin from past wrong doings...all of this was in his opinion of course...
IP: Logged |
Milliam- Can you elaborate on the court proceedings?
Some discrepancies regarding the court. Some say CSHD did not HAVE to be there and business as usual with the filings- others say the judge was "furious" and others say it was cancelled all together.
A good summary from a known allstock entity would go along ways if you could elaborate.
-fw
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun
IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Mitch was a bad apple and Sabra appears to have followed suit.
The house is cleaned...now to move on.
Remember I said to not expect hand holding via PRs as we move forward. Demanding them will not get you them.
We know it has been said Mike A. is going to Europe. I think it is pretty clear he is going to meet with his new EVP. You know all know more about the EVP thanks to RPH last night. That was far more promising then any of your imagined...I imagine...lol.
You all also know via RPh's comments over the last two nights that Mike is to "close the deals". What deals are out there to be closed? Hypothecations? JV's?
Like I have said repeatedly. Yes, it is difficult to verify bond ownership (if you do not believe legal docs representing it). The fact that Euroclear has entered them in the account is a heavy and large amount of proof.
Once in Euroclear a bond is easily hypothecated since the bank has already verified it.
The most definitive way to provide proof of a bond's existence is to hypothecate against it.
I will post more on bonds tonight if I have time...It just might be a nice evening to stay away from CSHD for once so I promise nothing.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward"
IP: Logged |
posted
another brilliant action by ma and the gang that couldn't shoot straight:
I talked with Mike about how the court went and he was pizzed that they did anything in court. His understanding was that nothing was going to happen. He said that if he knew the SEC attorneys were going to be there, he would have been there himself. He was also pizzed about his attorney not representing him on the consent. It sounded like his attorney wasn't quite sure what he was hired for. Mike said he hired him to represent the co. and the attorney felt like he was there for the audit. Either way, I think they have that worked out. Mike indeed has an attorney and is looking at hiring another firm as well.
how could anyone possibly believe this drivel??
imo the only thing that can save the "value" of this stock is 100% openness and honesty by ma and pals. no more mtpromises and we will tell you later and it will be great.
just the facts, ma'am.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 66inxs: another brilliant action by ma and the gang that couldn't shoot straight:
I talked with Mike about how the court went and he was pizzed that they did anything in court. His understanding was that nothing was going to happen. He said that if he knew the SEC attorneys were going to be there, he would have been there himself. He was also pizzed about his attorney not representing him on the consent. It sounded like his attorney wasn't quite sure what he was hired for. Mike said he hired him to represent the co. and the attorney felt like he was there for the audit. Either way, I think they have that worked out. Mike indeed has an attorney and is looking at hiring another firm as well.
how could anyone possibly believe this drivel??
imo the only thing that can save the "value" of this stock is 100% openness and honesty by ma and pals. no more mtpromises and we will tell you later and it will be great.
just the facts, ma'am.
Drivel???? It seemed correct to me. The signed consent forms just meant the SEC can continue their lawsuit/investigation. If anything, the attorney is to blame. I think Mike let him know he didn't appreciate this problem from him. I'm pretty sure he let Alana Black know he didn't appreciate them telling him there would be no hearing and then the SEC showing up to court.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 66inxs: another brilliant action by ma and the gang that couldn't shoot straight:
I talked with Mike about how the court went and he was pizzed that they did anything in court. His understanding was that nothing was going to happen. He said that if he knew the SEC attorneys were going to be there, he would have been there himself. He was also pizzed about his attorney not representing him on the consent. It sounded like his attorney wasn't quite sure what he was hired for. Mike said he hired him to represent the co. and the attorney felt like he was there for the audit. Either way, I think they have that worked out. Mike indeed has an attorney and is looking at hiring another firm as well.
how could anyone possibly believe this drivel??
imo the only thing that can save the "value" of this stock is 100% openness and honesty by ma and pals. no more mtpromises and we will tell you later and it will be great.
just the facts, ma'am.
The "value" of this stock is not in investor sentiment. The value of CSHD is in the business model, funds already raised and future business choices. None of these things hinges on our opinion of current events.
Now everyone has been provided an opportunity to sell their position and move on to less stressful hobbies. If you are still here then I would be looking forward to the next true business step - Mike's dealings in Europe. This has the potential to dismiss the SEC's claims and open the door for the transfer of money to bigger hands (that's where us little people win, you know). Come to think of it that alone might "save" this stock without 100% disclosure about the internal workings of the company. I think I prefer it this way.
posted
milliam i do appreciate your posts but sooner or later someone is going to have to take responsibility for what is happening and make sure what needs to happen - happens. "his attorney wasn't sure what he was hired for". whats with that? with my whole future at stake plus that of the stockholders, i would have made darn sure that all of the pieces were in place yesterday. someone even posted that ma did not have representation when the concent decrees were signed. think about this.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me!
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
