quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Cat...you are going to complete that dot-to-dot picture aren't you!? Can't wait to see it!
trade04? a couple of pages back there is a copy of what Rufus signed...for court.. I still haven't seen what the company signed...ANYONE have that? the company didn't have to go to court...because the investigation is on going...and the article submitted to the court from Rufus and Company says they agree to continue with the investigation...(basic) But no...this isn't over...
Here are the new entries to the docket 10:
quote: 11/07/2006 6 CONSENT to entry of Order imposing Preliminary Injunction and Other Relief by Rufus Paul Harris. (received in docketing 11/9/06) (vs) (Entered: 11/09/2006) 11/07/2006 7 ORDER IMPOSING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF as to Defendant Rufus Paul Harris. Signed by Judge Clarence Cooper on 11/7/06. (vs)(received in docketing 11/9/06) (Entered: 11/09/2006) 11/07/2006 8 ORDER IMPOSING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF as to Defendant Conversion Solutions Holding Corporation. Signed by Judge Clarence Cooper on 11/7/06. (vs) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
posted
Thank you Mr. Crab Sir! I hadn't seen the one for the company...
quote:Originally posted by CRab: You can quote them all you want now...here they are, and just to clarify...it doesn't say "stop" making false claims...it says "not" to make any false claims etc.
posted
You are right 10 -- doesn't seem right, but they must believe they are not violating any regs or putting their case in jeopardy.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
IV. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commission may continue to take expedited discovery as follows: A. The Commission may take depositions upon oral examination subject to three days notice prior to expiration of 30 days after service of the Summons and Complaint upon defendant, pursuant to Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ; B. Pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants shall answer all plaintiffs interrogatories within ten days of service of such interrogatories ; C . Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, upon request of the Commission, the defendants shall produce all documents within five days
As per section b. here would the soonest court date be the 17th.???
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
1st Tax..thanks for posting the info.. Second...I am getting the feeling that the SEC is now "playing" with the shareholders...hunting for info...attempting to find more...witch hunt! WV? When you spoke to MS Black...did you identify yourself as a shareholder or what? I am really just surprised that they are blabbing as they are? Most investigation they are very tight lipped...I don't get this..but it is what it is and I should stop my ranting..it won't change anything..
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: IMO Their case is already in jeopardy they are just getting their moneys worth before the Judge ends their fun.
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unopposed...that was the technical word they told me in the elevator. That the judge ruled it unopposed. Interesting that the injunction says that Mike didn't have legal council. I thought they cleared that all up on the conference call.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking over Cristiano's decleration, I kind of wonder what exactly the charts mean. I don't know much about bonds...do you own shares in these?
Anyway, if you add up the dollar amount they owned during that time you come up with $94,492,424. This is the $700 million bond that CSHD owns $500 million of, right? So who cares if Fidelity owns a measly $95 million of it.
Looks like the SEC just doesn't have this together!
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone ever expect them to add CSHD's exhibits to these documents? I wonder if they won't because one of them was sealed.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression they had confidential company stuff...account numbers and the like...that's the reason they were never made available on PACER...I may be wrong though...
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: 1st Tax..thanks for posting the info.. Second...I am getting the feeling that the SEC is now "playing" with the shareholders...hunting for info...attempting to find more...witch hunt! WV? When you spoke to MS Black...did you identify yourself as a shareholder or what? I am really just surprised that they are blabbing as they are? Most investigation they are very tight lipped...I don't get this..but it is what it is and I should stop my ranting..it won't change anything..
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: IMO Their case is already in jeopardy they are just getting their moneys worth before the Judge ends their fun.
quote:Originally posted by CRab: I was under the impression they had confidential company stuff...account numbers and the like...that's the reason they were never made available on PACER...I may be wrong though...
You are correct sir... from the horse's mouth.. hehe
quote:Originally posted by CRab: I was under the impression they had confidential company stuff...account numbers and the like...that's the reason they were never made available on PACER...I may be wrong though...
You are correct sir... from the horse's mouth.. hehe
out of da loop, here-- who exactly is da "horse's mouth"?
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I identified myself as a shareholder. Ms. Black did not say anything that wasn't public information. Someone posted earlier today that they called as well and when certain questions were asked they said no comment. I was not told anything that couldn't be gotten from a filed public document.
This is going to come down to the court proceedings. Someone call the SEC tomorrow and asked if they have sealed documents from the company.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: The TRO basically asked that the company and Harris stop making false or misleading statements and not destroy any documents or other evidence. There were only four or five points in the TRO that was being asked for at this time, but what Harris signed had several other items added. I have all these documents at work, so I won't be able to quote chapter and verse exactly until tomorrow.
wv- I wouldnt say the court docs told them to stop- more that it told them they were not permitted.
I think there is a big difference from an injuction to STOP someone from doing something they HAVE been doing and something with a generic "Don't do" type order-
I know its trivial but it plays a key role in that MA and RPH did NOT admit to doing it in the 1st place, they were merely agreeing NOT to do it.
-fw
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun Posts: 766 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
WV? The documents had already been pulled from Pacer when she sent you the email...and it seems that she should not have sent them to you and then also said to pass them on to other shareholders that were interested...IMO heck if I want a copy of my own court stuff the police station and attorney's tell me to take my happy a$$ down to the court house and ask for a copy...and that is stuff that has to do with me...this isn't against you...I am very bothered by her sending you that email...and yes, bothered that she gives info out to shareholders over the phone also... usually info is not so easily obtained with things of this nature...IMO
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: Yes, I identified myself as a shareholder. Ms. Black did not say anything that wasn't public information. Someone posted earlier today that they called as well and when certain questions were asked they said no comment. I was not told anything that couldn't be gotten from a filed public document.
This is going to come down to the court proceedings. Someone call the SEC tomorrow and asked if they have sealed documents from the company.
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't even realize Rufus was on last night...I fell asleep i suppose about ten minutes before he came on, lol...
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, I can be persuasive - he he. I was also the one that got them to divulge Valerie Plame. My name is Bond. James Bond.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
At the very least this would appear to add legitimacy to CEOTA and the long term intentions of the initial log deal even though it fell through. I gives me a little more hope for round 2.
I got this back today. I would doubt such a quick response from a ploy website. Lets see what I get from them next. Date: 8 Nov 2006 17:39:13 -0700 To: thecon00*yahoo.com From: info*ceota.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: [Auto-Reply] donations
Thank you for your interest in CEOTA.
Your email has been received and is being forwarded to the appropriate department.
Sincerely,
CEOTA IT Staff
Mr. CATIAEngineer Member
Member Rated:
posted November 09, 2006 20:55 ________________________________________ Hey Thecon.....
Remember last night when we were playing connect the dots and we thought maybe we tracked a CEOTA persons name to a company called Tensor?
This guy below is our CFO, whatcha think?
Randy Moseley –CFO Mr. Moseley became the Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Fronthaul on December 12, 2005. Mr. Moseley is also currently Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Urban Television Network Corporation, which position he has held since 2001 when he co-founded the network. Prior to 2001, Mr. Moseley served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Tensor Information Systems, Inc., a custom software development company based in Fort Worth, Texas from November 1999 - June 2001. Prior to joining Tensor, Mr. Moseley served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for American Independent Network, Inc. (“AIN”), a network for independent Broadcast television stations and cable operators. AIN merged with Hispanic Television Network, Inc. in November 1999 and its name changed to Hispanic Television Network, Inc. Previously, Mr. Moseley held positions with Jerry Lancaster & Associates Inc. and Ernst & Young. Mr. Moseley received a bachelor's degree in business administration from Southern Methodist University and is a certified public accountant. Mr. Moseley has affiliations with the Texas Society of CPAs and the American Institute of CPAs.
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: 1st Tax..thanks for posting the info.. Second...I am getting the feeling that the SEC is now "playing" with the shareholders...hunting for info...attempting to find more...witch hunt! WV? When you spoke to MS Black...did you identify yourself as a shareholder or what? I am really just surprised that they are blabbing as they are? Most investigation they are very tight lipped...I don't get this..but it is what it is and I should stop my ranting..it won't change anything..
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: IMO Their case is already in jeopardy they are just getting their moneys worth before the Judge ends their fun.
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: Yes, I identified myself as a shareholder. Ms. Black did not say anything that wasn't public information. Someone posted earlier today that they called as well and when certain questions were asked they said no comment. I was not told anything that couldn't be gotten from a filed public document.
This is going to come down to the court proceedings. Someone call the SEC tomorrow and asked if they have sealed documents from the company.
They have "sealed documents from the company." Many of which they were asked to disprove. You see the current result.... "don't do anything bad now."
And a 30 day clause for Rufus to respond in 3 days when they ask something, and 5 days to get specific documents that they ask for. Why would Rufus provide things that they don't ask for?
In other words... we are on offense now.
Basically it's like the judge says "C'mon SEC you gotta ask better questions than this cause it looks ok from here."
Rufus already agreed to the clause. How long did it take him to respond to the TRO and complaint?
ANSWER: One day. The very next one in fact. Brought papers and submitted them by himself. Took til overnight to convince the judge to dismiss the TRO. Must have looked pretty convincing. Add 2 depo's and basically a retraction to the original deal offered to Rufus prior to the filing of the complaint.
If he had signed it outside of court..... would he have avoided further trouble? No... they would still have 30 days according to the original injunction. You know the SEC would have attacked the stock immediately based on the faulty DD they were using. Court takes time.... sometimes weeks and months. Do you think we would all be holding that long? Nope...
Doing it in court, separating Rufus from the company, and moving the business forward is only happening because the judge awarded the "fast track", based on the paperwork that Rufus signed and forced an immediate hearing that forced the SEC's hand.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
