Did you guys see my "safe" pick today? I called Mastercard at $44 and it was where I have been putting any profits I made. I always said that I would ride it to $80, but it stayed in the high $60's low $70's for a long time. Well their financials just came out and they look really good. It just hit a 52 week high of $86.65.
Too bad I sold some to get more CSHD. But hopefully my play will pay off in the long run.
wow you slob Doni, nice one! Congrads!
A friend of mine just asked for an option play, I told him it looked like the "cubes" (QQQQ) are about ready to go south! Sure looks prime to drop http://stockcharts.com/gallery/?qqqq We'll see what the next month brings.
posted
After the discovery period there should be a summary judgement decision. That decision is almost always public. Since they are moving at a fast pace anyway I hope that the summary judgement decision is published quickly. We do not have enough information right now.
-------------------- "I will smack you in the mouth, I'm Neil Diamond"- Will Ferrell
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
You have never been to one apparently. The judge isnt setting anything up, he reviews testimony and judges based on that. The judge allows both sides to depose witnesses.
The sec is doing accelerated discovery, they are doing what they can to build their case against rufus and cshd. They will not be deposing people or organizations they think are friendly to cshd. That is the job of rufus's side.
You can bet the sec was hoping they would get euroclear to deny knowledge of Rufus.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by a surfer: I have called both #'s to the SEC that were provided and have only received answering machines.
So I left a message that said whats up biooootch.
Something along those lines......
66 if you get Sabra I am sure she will make you feel good about the current situation.
I have spoken to her twice. She is truly a class act.
FWI...if the SEC is in the building, she will not tell you anything...trust me, I tried on Monday.
Tried Sabra myself, long message from some guy stating that they are working with the SEC and to watch the website for updates. IMO this is exactly the response we should all be receiving until this court stuff is finished. Id like to speak with her myself but for now im happy with them keeping quiet.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
Wasn't the depo suposed to be by phone at 1:00?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
But if Rufus HAS the bonds how could that "helped" the SEC?...
posted
Perspective... it is all just a matter of perspective.
Has anyone else looked into Euroclear?
Straight from their Perspect...us.
quote: Euroclear plc consolidated
For the year ended 31 December (€ million) 2005
Operating income 963.0 Operating expenses, provisions1 and other operating charges (595.7) Operating profit before goodwill amortisation 367.3 Group profit/(loss) attributable to the shareholders 210.5 Net earnings per share 55.1 Adjusted earnings per share2 70.6 Dividend per share 21.4 Total assets 11,222.0 Subordinated liabilities 546.7 Redeemable preference shares 0.1 Shareholders’ funds3 2,557.2 Shareholders’ funds/Total assets 22.8%
1. Refers to the provision for bad and doubtful debts. 2. Excluding goodwill amortisation, based on average outstanding shares. 3. As a result of changes to UK generally accepted accounting principles, dividends are only to be recognised as a liability following authorisation by shareholders. To take account of this change in accounting policy, the amount for Shareholders’ funds reflects a restatement of the data included in the previous consolidated financial statements relating to the dividends proposed by Euroclear plc. Furthermore, the €0.1 million of Preferred, non voting, redeemable shares have been reclassified out of Shareholders’ funds.
They are not even a U.S. entity and they answer to a European Market and Commission. Why does the SEC believe they can Bully everyone?
Oh yeah... probably because they have internally run amuck since the success they had with Enron. They are reaching through a fence and grabing a bull by the horn here.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RyanPBF: preponderance of the evidence n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended . Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.
Agreed. In this case, since it is supposed to be about the bonds, you would think a definitive answer from Euroclear, the U.S. Treasury, and/or Rufus submitting proof of ownership in some other form would be the "one clearly knowledgeable witness". Yes, the SEC has less to prove than in a criminal trial, but Rufus SHOULD be able to hit this one out of the park unless there is a mighty big scam running (which none of us believe).
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it....
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
You have never been to one apparently. The judge isnt setting anything up, he reviews testimony and judges based on that. The judge allows both sides to depose witnesses.
The sec is doing accelerated discovery, they are doing what they can to build their case against rufus and cshd. They will not be deposing people or organizations they think are friendly to cshd. That is the job of rufus's side.
You can bet the sec was hoping they would get euroclear to deny knowledge of Rufus.
I beg to differ with you. I have been an expert wittness in several. In my opinion, Euroclear would not ignore any court activity concerning CSHD if they had it scheduled.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
Wasn't the depo suposed to be by phone at 1:00?
Yea, i still feel a bit out of touch after being gone for a while but werent they supposed to do their deposition by phone? Im also confused by the no show comment, wouldnt that be no call?
IP: Logged |
posted
I would think that the SEC would depose all relevant witnesses. That way they will know what Rufus has as far as proof. They need to build their case not only to attack Rufus but also to combat his rebuttle. Of course I would feel meuch better if Rufus PR'd that he has "hired a law firm to combat these unjust charges brought forth by the SEC". I would like to know that Rufus is actually fighting this rather than just hoping tht his evidence will speak for itself.
-------------------- "I will smack you in the mouth, I'm Neil Diamond"- Will Ferrell
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
Wasn't the depo suposed to be by phone at 1:00?
Yea, i still feel a bit out of touch after being gone for a while but werent they supposed to do their deposition by phone? Im also confused by the no show comment, wouldnt that be no call?
If Euroclear had something bad to say they would appear and if they were to support CSHD claims, they would also appear. They would not disrespect any Federal Court activity. They must have been told it wasn't necessary or they did it by phone.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
Wasn't the depo suposed to be by phone at 1:00?
Yea, i still feel a bit out of touch after being gone for a while but werent they supposed to do their deposition by phone? Im also confused by the no show comment, wouldnt that be no call?
I believe Rufus said it was via video conference, or possibly phone conference durring the SPR interview. I either case if they don't call in. "No Show" still works and is a common comment.
quote:Originally posted by Doniboy: I would think that the SEC would depose all relevant witnesses. That way they will know what Rufus has as far as proof. They need to build their case not only to attack Rufus but also to combat his rebuttle. Of course I would feel meuch better if Rufus PR'd that he has "hired a law firm to combat these unjust charges brought forth by the SEC". I would like to know that Rufus is actually fighting this rather than just hoping tht his evidence will speak for itself.
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
Wasn't the depo suposed to be by phone at 1:00?
Yea, i still feel a bit out of touch after being gone for a while but werent they supposed to do their deposition by phone? Im also confused by the no show comment, wouldnt that be no call?
I believe Rufus said it was via video conference, or possibly phone conference durring the SPR interview. I either case if they don't call in. "No Show" still works and is a common comment.
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
Wasn't the depo suposed to be by phone at 1:00?
Yea, i still feel a bit out of touch after being gone for a while but werent they supposed to do their deposition by phone? Im also confused by the no show comment, wouldnt that be no call?
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
Wasn't the depo suposed to be by phone at 1:00?
Yea, i still feel a bit out of touch after being gone for a while but werent they supposed to do their deposition by phone? Im also confused by the no show comment, wouldnt that be no call?
If Euroclear had something bad to say they would appear and if they were to support CSHD claims, they would also appear. They would not disrespect any Federal Court activity. They must have been told it wasn't necessary or they did it by phone.
"They would not disrespect any Federal Court" Yeah Right! Federal Court in what country?
You or I would not disrespect a Federal Court, but I know if I was served a supeana to present a deposition on a valued customer for the Prosecution in a Forgein Federal Court, when there is no law saying I had too. I think I might turn my nose up at the request.
Why help them, why hurt my customer, why waste my valuable time, why?
How big a number is 963,000,000 Euro? What is the USD conversion? This is their operating income for last year alone.
posted
To clarify my earlier post, when i called Sabra i did it through the office number. The lady that answers the phones answered as normal and transferred me to Sabra, where i got the message instead of Sabra. The message was not a result of calling the main number. Just FYI
IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Igor for answering the retorical question. LOL
Point is it is a lot of money, and they do not feel they answer to the SEC or the US court system.
I would think there would be instant animosity if the SEC asked for a Depo. Euroclear answered flat "No". Then the SEC said well then we will subpeana you for the Depo, and then actually did it.
If Euroclear has a reason why they do not want to participate in a SEC Investigation against one of their "valued" (this is speculatory) customers. Then they are not going to talk.
The SEC will just have to look somewhere else for their evidence.
quote:Originally posted by sceptor: Try and think of the euroclear no show in this manner.
The sec wanted to depose them. the sec is the prosecution. the sec does not want to help cshd in proving they are innocent. the sec wanted euroclear as a witness against cshd and rufus so it would bolster their other testimony they have against them.
the no show failed to add to the sec's case against cshd. for that reason it is a good thing.
Sceptor the deposition probably was to be held in the office of one of the lawyers but was part of the court hearing. The judge is the person who set up the deposition for evidence. The ONLY way it would be good for us by them not appearing is because the depo was no longer needed or it was accepted by phone. I believe that they found enough evidence that the bonds were ours so the depo wasn't necessary.
Wasn't the depo suposed to be by phone at 1:00?
Yea, i still feel a bit out of touch after being gone for a while but werent they supposed to do their deposition by phone? Im also confused by the no show comment, wouldnt that be no call?
If Euroclear had something bad to say they would appear and if they were to support CSHD claims, they would also appear. They would not disrespect any Federal Court activity. They must have been told it wasn't necessary or they did it by phone.
"They would not disrespect any Federal Court" Yeah Right! Federal Court in what country?
You or I would not disrespect a Federal Court, but I know if I was served a supeana to present a deposition on a valued customer for the Prosecution in a Forgein Federal Court, when there is no law saying I had too. I think I might turn my nose up at the request.
Why help them, why hurt my customer, why waste my valuable time, why?
How big a number is 963,000,000 Euro? What is the USD conversion? This is their operating income for last year alone.
How would it be helping to hurt your customer? If everything that the customer said they had proof of they had, and you being Euroclear were able to verify it. I would see that as helping your client or customer. Not helping the agency to hurt your client.
quote:Originally posted by 3403: Is there anything scheduled for this circus today?
Why yes - Rufus is going to walk across the high wire with no balancing stick, jump through flaming hoops, and lead the elephants around the arena for all the boys & girls to see.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doniboy: I would think that the SEC would depose all relevant witnesses. That way they will know what Rufus has as far as proof. They need to build their case not only to attack Rufus but also to combat his rebuttle. Of course I would feel meuch better if Rufus PR'd that he has "hired a law firm to combat these unjust charges brought forth by the SEC". I would like to know that Rufus is actually fighting this rather than just hoping tht his evidence will speak for itself.
I agree with you Doni
ditto
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it....
IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan ~ The SEC is the prosecution. Euroclear shouldn't talk to them. If Euroclear wanted to present Rufus with a stack of evidence to enter at the next hearing then they very well can do it.
This is already in court. it is too late for people to assume that giving the SEC proof will cause them to "back-off". (It should but you can't assume that.) This is going to come down to what each side lays in front of the judge at the hearing.
It is like being in a murder trial and having your allibi testifying for the prosecution. If they would have checked your alibi before taking you to court then you probably would not be there.
posted
Maybe if Rufus had a lawyer, then HIS lawyer could have been the one Depo-ing Euroclear .....but of course he already has the evidence he needs to prove ownership.
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!!
IP: Logged |
"They would not disrespect any Federal Court" Yeah Right! Federal Court in what country?
You or I would not disrespect a Federal Court, but I know if I was served a supeana to present a deposition on a valued customer for the Prosecution in a Forgein Federal Court, when there is no law saying I had too. I think I might turn my nose up at the request.
Why help them, why hurt my customer, why waste my valuable time, why?
How big a number is 963,000,000 Euro? What is the USD conversion? This is their operating income for last year alone.
-------------------- If I had a "valued customer" and I was subpoenaed to support my valued customer, I would be there whether they had juristiction or not over me. Think about it .... why would they not show .... to be arrogant .... I don't think so .... to much professionalism involved. I think it wasn't necessary or cancelled. I may be very wrong but it just doesn't make sense to me any other way.
IP: Logged |
"They would not disrespect any Federal Court" Yeah Right! Federal Court in what country?
You or I would not disrespect a Federal Court, but I know if I was served a supeana to present a deposition on a valued customer for the Prosecution in a Forgein Federal Court, when there is no law saying I had too. I think I might turn my nose up at the request.
Why help them, why hurt my customer, why waste my valuable time, why?
How big a number is 963,000,000 Euro? What is the USD conversion? This is their operating income for last year alone.
-------------------- If I had a "valued customer" and I was subpoenaed to support my valued customer, I would be there whether they had juristiction or not over me. Think about it .... why would they not show .... to be arrogant .... I don't think so .... to much professionalism involved. I think it wasn't necessary or cancelled. I may be very wrong but it just doesn't make sense to me any other way.
Well I hope you are right... not like we can do anything here but debate theory. In either case I think the "No Show" is a good thing. We should hear more soon.
"They would not disrespect any Federal Court" Yeah Right! Federal Court in what country?
You or I would not disrespect a Federal Court, but I know if I was served a supeana to present a deposition on a valued customer for the Prosecution in a Forgein Federal Court, when there is no law saying I had too. I think I might turn my nose up at the request.
Why help them, why hurt my customer, why waste my valuable time, why?
How big a number is 963,000,000 Euro? What is the USD conversion? This is their operating income for last year alone.
-------------------- If I had a "valued customer" and I was subpoenaed to support my valued customer, I would be there whether they had juristiction or not over me. Think about it .... why would they not show .... to be arrogant .... I don't think so .... to much professionalism involved. I think it wasn't necessary or cancelled. I may be very wrong but it just doesn't make sense to me any other way.
Well I hope you are right... not like we can do anything here but debate theory. In either case I think the "No Show" is a good thing. We should hear more soon.
Yes.. We agree .... Just a couple more days till this is resolved. Keep your fingers crossed .
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm of the opinion all of this is a moot point anyway...I think all is well and Rufus is just playing a role for us at this point...I'm really not concerned with any of this right now...
Has anyone thought about the possibility that Euroclear simply gave the SEC whatever they(Euroclear) thought necessary...in doing that not going to the dep...the SEC then simply says Euroclear was a no show and decides not to use that info?
I mean...if the prosecution in the OJ trial found definitive proof that OJ didn't do it...ya think they would have volunteered that info?
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Oh yeah they changed their symbol it's USSE now. 
