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.
posted
Bank codes... company financial info... the SEC can look at it... we can't. It'd be like giving your personal info like your personal assets and.. bank accounts and passcodes to a public filing domain... it just isn't done.
When it is.. it was due to the discretion of the judge. The judge can seal any information that could result in injury to the company. It'd be like giving joe-the-hacker a key to your computer world. That's where this company will do it's business transactions.
Doesn't mean that there is some ultra mysterious info held in that file. It just makes sense... plus a horse told me.
quote:Originally posted by milliam: 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!
Yes, and it could become even more irrelevant if you were to read the bond(s) prospectus.
People keep thinking this is a A bond...it is an issuance of bondssssssssssssss totalling some number you can't see....you are only seeing the head of the cobra so to speak to steal a tutism.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: 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!
Yes, and it could become even more irrelevant if you were to read the bond(s) prospectus.
People keep thinking this is a A bond...it is an issuance of bondssssssssssssss totalling some number you can't see....you are only seeing the head of the cobra so to speak to steal a tutism.
Plus... if you do well with them. There is more where those came from. Institutions will be asking for their bonds to be in CSHD's asset-backed portfolio. The process of hypothecation itself is a multiplier of money power.
posted
Where did you guys learn all this stuff about the bonds? Not the actual bonds themselves, but how they work and other related items. I'd like to educate myself on that too.
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 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.
You need to read the complaint again...you are completely missing what the SEC ask for as relief. Read the Prayer for relief starting on page 12 of the complaint. The TRO is a very SMALL part of what the SEC requested.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
we have no news from the SEC as to the authenticity so until then, it is all speculation, i wish we could just know already science damnit
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This doesnt look so good anymore..its getting kinda old already =r. i say to the SEC DO SOMETHINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Originally Posted by phil CONSENT OF DEFENDANT RUFUS PAUL HARRIS 1 . Defendant Rufus Paul Harris ("Defendant" or "Harris") acknowledges service of a summons and the complaint in this action, enters a general appearance, and admits the Court's jurisdiction over Defendant and over the subject matter of this action. 2. Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint (except as to personal and subject matter jurisdiction, which Defendant admits), Defendant hereby consents to the entry of the Order Imposing Preliminary Injunction and Other Relief (the "{hdee"'), incorporated by reference herein, which, among other things: 2 (a) restrains and enjoins Defendant from violating Section i 0(b ) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C . § 78j(b)] and Rule I Ob-5 thereunder, (h) restrains and enjoins Defendant from violating Exchange Act Rule I3a-14 [17 C.F.R § 240.13a-14], (c) restrains and enjoins Defendant from aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act [15 J .S.C . § 78m(a)] and Rules 12b-20, I3a-1 and 13a-11 promulgated thereunder [ 1? C.F.R. §§ 24Q. lOb-S, 240.12b-20, 244.1 3a-1 and 240.13a-I 11; and (b) orders Defendant to preserve documents and provides for expedited discovery. 3. Defendant waives the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . 4. Defendant enters into this Consent voluntarily and represent that no threats, offers, promises, or inducements of any kind have been made by the Commission or any member, officer, employee, agent, or representative of the Commission to induce Defendant to enter into this Consent . 5. Defendant agrees that this Consent shall be incorporated into the Order with the same force and effect as if fully set forth therein. 6. Defendant will not oppose the enforcement of the Order on the ground, if any exists, that it fails to comply with Rule. 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and hereby waive any objection based thereon . 7. Defendant waives serv ice of the order and agrees that entry of the Order by the Court and filing with the Clerk of the Court will constitute notice to Defendant of its terms and conditions. Defendant further agrees to provide counsel for the Commission, within thirty days after the Order is filed with the Clerk of the Court, with an affidavit or declaration stating that Defendant has received and read a copy of the Order. 8. Defendant agrees that the Commission may present the Order to the Court for signature and entrywithout further notice. 9. Defendant agrees that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the Order and imposing further relief. ~ Dated: Monday, November ( 6, 20(? ~ 03tKs Rufus ul Harris On AI/, D 6 _, 2006, Rufus Paul Harris, a person known to me, personally appeared before me and acknowledged executing the foregoing consent.
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Igor R: Where did you guys learn all this stuff about the bonds? Not the actual bonds themselves, but how they work and other related items. I'd like to educate myself on that too.
I work in the financial industry. I am not a financial advisor and I do not trade professionally.
Most people move through the day and just get through it. Some of us immerse ourselves in our work. Not that it is the only thing we care about but the need to understand why the machine works is as important as the cold apparatus that moves it.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: 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.
Don't feel too special. You were not the only person that was offered information and documents.
This behavior needs to be documented and given to the judge. There is something very unsettling about this.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am more than happy to create a central collection site for hard information. Which would include going to a Notary and swearing out an affidavit as to a phone conversation.
Dedicated email and fax to collect is easy. PM me if anyone wants to provide information.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euroclear is protecting there clients and the SEC is trying to find any way possible not to look at the facts. In the end in my opinion I know we will be vindicated without a shadow of a doubt.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
everyone i'm connecting the dots here do you understand that the SEC is making a huge mistake on the case period. All the info is in front of them but they choose not to open there eyes. Deposition of Euroclear, Mr. Harris explained there are 113 clients of the issued bond. Thus telling them what we already know and that we are one of the clients of the bond so in my opinion thus giving them the believe that with that many clients owing parts of the bond there is no way that we can own the amount that we say we own which is false on the SEC's part. Euroclear is protecting there clients and the SEC is trying to find any way possible not to look at the facts. In the end in my opinion I know we will be vindicated without a shadow of a doubt.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by portman: I am more than happy to create a central collection site for hard information. Which would include going to a Notary and swearing out an affidavit as to a phone conversation.
Dedicated email and fax to collect is easy. PM me if anyone wants to provide information.
be a mole my friend, and seek the sec offers.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by portman: I am more than happy to create a central collection site for hard information. Which would include going to a Notary and swearing out an affidavit as to a phone conversation.
Dedicated email and fax to collect is easy. PM me if anyone wants to provide information.
posted
Sceptor -- I wasn't offered -- I asked. However, my statement was meant as a joke, a funny, something to lighten the mood before going to sleep. I am nobody special. Oh BTW, good moring to you.
Port was correct about the prayer. There were two major points that the judge did not grant. To issue an order requiring disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains from defandants' illegal conduct with prejudgement interest, and to issue an order imposing civil penalties against the defendants. The judge did not grant those and that's a good thing. I thank Port for his review.
Now, I will await the court's ruling.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was PMing this to port but no reason all shouldn't see.
unless Alana see's it. HMM.
The question I have is why would they call people back in the first place. I believe there is a motive beyond comforting shareholders.
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surfer -- in the SEC filing memorandum of law in support ...., the SEC clearly states based on declaration from Elzinga that the 5 billion venez. bonds don't even exist and follows up with "Moreover, Conversion does not even own the entirety of the much smaller 700 million bond series that does correspond to the identifying codes it published." So, yes the public is privy to this info.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Morning everyone- i trust that while I and some other veteran buddies enjoy our day golfing you will go ahead and move to the Nasdaq, and fire the SEC ATTy's for telling shareholders about the secret ongoing investigation.
If not I suppose maybe at least have some good jokes and banter to read when I get home
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun Posts: 766 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So who here listened to the SPR interview Wed? Simon said that the rumor (though I haven't heard it myself) was that Fri. we could go to the BB and would have MM's. He asked Rufus if this was true. Rufus giggled and said "No Comment". Anyone hear this or the rumor Simon was referring to?
posted
WV- its not that they are sharing information that is private. The point is as the SEC is disclosing whether or not an investigation is going on. Only words from the mouths of the SEC atty's should be "NO COMMENT"!
Does it seem that Hicks and Black are NOT sticking to this operating rule?
[PASTE from site] What happens when the ten-day suspension period ends? Will the SEC issue a statement about the status of the company after the suspension has ended?
No. The SEC will not comment publicly on the status of a company when the ten-day suspension ends because the company may still have serious legal problems. For instance, the SEC may continue to investigate a company to determine whether it has defrauded investors. The public will not know if the SEC is continuing its investigation until the SEC publicly announces an enforcement action against the company.
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun Posts: 766 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: Surfer -- in the SEC filing memorandum of law in support ...., the SEC clearly states based on declaration from Elzinga that the 5 billion venez. bonds don't even exist and follows up with "Moreover, Conversion does not even own the entirety of the much smaller 700 million bond series that does correspond to the identifying codes it published." So, yes the public is privy to this info.
Point taken. However I still believe there is motive to the returned calls.
They need facts that they don't have.
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
FYI-- Just wanted to pass information on the inside of old shareholders ( the # of shares is not really relevant but the story behind it. I hold close to 20 Million shares in another a private placement with another company I helped. I'll follow with a lose friend of these names and her account of the past events. from HSM:
9/14/06 BAKER, BARRY F.W., & DIANE, 30,000 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/12/06 PERLEY, RON & TAMERA, 75,000 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/11/06 MURRAY, HOMER L. & TERRY M., 30,000 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/7/06 JOHNSON, JOSEPH BENJAMIN, 33,750 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/7/06 JOHNSON, JOSEPH BENJAMIN, 75,000 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/7/06 BOYETT, WANDA K., 75,000 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/7/06 LUNSFORD, DARRELL, 112,668 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/6/06 STODDARD, MARION H & JUDY E., 8,334 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/6/06 STODDARD, JUDY E., CUST FOR S.L.A UND TX UTMA, 3,000 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/6/06 STODDARD, SPENCER A., 52,500 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 9/1/06 HAMMER, MICHAEL, 585,500 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 8/29/06 BRADSHAW, GINA, 15,000 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 8/28/06 CLIFTON, SAMMY PRES. HOLLY SPRINGS BAPTIST CHURCH, 75,000 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 8/28/06 HARTT, STEVE & JO, 52,500 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A 8/27/06 ALBEA, TOMMY K & M. M., 75,833 Proposed Sale (Form 144) N/A
Posts: 30 | From: Lousiniana | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will offer this frank. As far as I can see the SEC is not commenting on the status of the company. It's running, trading, has a board and officers. In fact the SEC has not commented on any of that to me. Second, the issuance of the TRO or the recent injunctions could be classified as an "enforcement action" since the company is prohibited from doing certain things. Just my opinion -- right or wrong.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From HSM: last night poster from above 144 restricted stock of old holders of 2 years: ------------------------------------------------- I have sat for months reading almost every post on here and have only posted 6-7 times.
Since 13 out of 14 names listed as "insider filers" are all close friends of mine, I can assure all that we have been far more patient than 95% of the others on here. We invested over two years ago and some of our restricted stock came off by filing 144A's as it was already two years old, while the remainder that was not quite two years old cost us $400.00 each for "legal opinions" and 144 filings. Some of those "legal opinions" are about to expire at 90 days and we have just lost $400.00 but we have still chosen not to sell. My name does not even appear on this list, as my along with some 15 other friends of mine was filed back in late July and early August right after the merger was initiated.
Yes, we simply wanted the option to sell if and when we thought it wise. Yes, a small portion of our people have sold and gotten their initial investment out, but many of us have never even done that, believing this company is truly of value and believing in Mike and Dave initially and then in Rufus as we were told "he's real" by the people we trusted.
I have sat and watched the value of my CSHD stock dwindle from well over $2,000,000 in value down to ????? I haven't even had the nerve to look this week!! It has been tough and has taken a lot of courage!
Thanks to several of you guys doing DD and teaching us, we are still holding strong and plan to continue.
posted
Surfer, you are right. that could be an angle. and why not. they are attorneys. their job is to gather info -- not neccessarily because they don't have enough -- but a little extra insurance never hurts.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: I will offer this frank. As far as I can see the SEC is not commenting on the status of the company. It's running, trading, has a board and officers. In fact the SEC has not commented on any of that to me. Second, the issuance of the TRO or the recent injunctions could be classified as an "enforcement action" since the company is prohibited from doing certain things. Just my opinion -- right or wrong.
I wasn't referring to your email instance with Alana.
If you read the many other dialogues between Alana or Bill Hicks posted on HSM or other threads you see them mentioning they are going after the full complaint and commenting that they have NOT found sufficient proof to back off (In their mind). etc. etc.
The fact they are sharing legal documents with shareholders is ridiculous. Even if they are public documents....No comment should be the only vocabulary of the SEC atty's when receive calls from shareholders.
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun Posts: 766 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, frank -- I will not base any assumptions on what other boards post, and how we "feel" about actions taken or not taken by the SEC are of no consequence in these matters. It is very evident by where this matter stands now, that the SEC believes it has a case. The defense now has to come up with its answers in a court of law. We can't tell the SEC what it should or should not say. If MA believes what the SEC is doing is wrong and hurts his case, the company's attorney should file for a gag order.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: Surfer -- in the SEC filing memorandum of law in support ...., the SEC clearly states based on declaration from Elzinga that the 5 billion venez. bonds don't even exist and follows up with "Moreover, Conversion does not even own the entirety of the much smaller 700 million bond series that does correspond to the identifying codes it published." So, yes the public is privy to this info.
Point taken. However I still believe there is motive to the returned calls.
They need facts that they don't have.
they are fishing for info and anyone who doesn't believe that shame on you.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
