quote:Originally posted by a surfer: Mike alexander will be CEO for one month or less..
Mark my words.
This is a temporary solution IMO
I agree. I foresee much sooner than a month, though. Mike's roll is only to get the paperwork in order and the power seats in the company filled with people already online.
posted
So, y'all think rufus could come back soon? Could it be that they just removed him to get the s.e.c. stuff done and over with, and he'd be back afterwards? Or is mike just an interim c.e.o while they get some hot shot c.e.o ready?
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
IF the picture that circulated around was indeed Rufus, I'd believe the 68 before the 38. I'm 47 and I know what 38 and 68 look like and in the pic I saw, Rufus is no 38 I always thought the pic/age thing didn't jive.
quote:Originally posted by thesource:
quote:Originally posted by Spooky: OK, you guys ready for a stretch?
In 1958 Harris graduated from the University of Georgia and returned home to work in his family's concrete business. HMMMMM
How could Harris graduate in 1958 when he's only 38 years old ?
-------------------- I may be wrong, but I don't think so.... Posts: 837 | From: Madison, WI | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Igor R: So, y'all think rufus could come back soon? Could it be that they just removed him to get the s.e.c. stuff done and over with, and he'd be back afterwards? Or is mike just an interim c.e.o while they get some hot shot c.e.o ready?
IMHO - I think Rufus is out, except possibly as a shareholder. Mike, I think, should be a temporary until they can get someone else in, if only because he can't possibly run two companies effectively. Now, if the two merge together, I know many people that are ineffective broke, but he11 on wheels with money...
Praying for a good outcome no matter what...
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it.... Posts: 3903 | From: Gulf Coast | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
what does IMHO mean? I am not a big forum poster lately.
-------------------- ------------------------------------ Make the Time! Ett3 ------------------------------------ Posts: 37 | From: California | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
thanks, i have followed other threads and havent seen it. Thanks
-------------------- ------------------------------------ Make the Time! Ett3 ------------------------------------ Posts: 37 | From: California | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I woke up at 3:30 ET and am only on p.30, but two things are certain here:
1) Yes this is an admission of guilt. (Probably as per settlement w/SEC)
2) The 6-1 could possibly change. BUT it is just one possible allotment of the $15 per share as dictated in the 8-K, that is what we are promised that cannot be revolked I believe.
You got it surf...
-------------------- Hi-ho Momo, awayyyy... Posts: 871 | From: So. Cal | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mo-rydr: I woke up at 3:30 ET and am only on p.30, but two things are certain here:
1) Yes this is an admission of guilt. (Probably as per settlement w/SEC)
2) The 6-1 could possibly change. BUT it is just one possible allotment of the $15 per share as dictated in the 8-K, that is what we are promised that cannot be revolked I believe.
Is it possible Mo that the split could be 7-1.
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the reverse merger was never finished?
RESOLVED FURTHER, that Michael Alexander, as sole director, be authorized to cancel shares of common stock issued to the replaced board of directors and management as he deems equitable. -----------------------------------------------------
Who is loosing their shares here? Rufus and gang? Why is this sentence in here?
What if the entire reverse merger has been scrapped because of the SE allegations and M.A. is taking over his old compan? Rufus and gang loose their CSHD shares.
Or,what if Rufus and gang were fired and loose their shares but reverse merger still goes thru? What are the true assets of the combined company?
Or what if this was planned out from the beggining? That would be pretty elaborite.
If this a cancelled deal what did Rufus really try to pull off? Alot of work for nothing. I do not get it.
Posts: 354 | From: Novi, MI | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got this email back from the SEC today....
Tell Us How We’re Doing!
Thank you for recently contacting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Assistance. We would appreciate knowing if you found our services helpful and how we may improve our services to you and other investors. Please fill out the questionnaire which can be found at http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/oiea-feedback?file_num=HO1179173
If the link does not work, you can copy and paste the address into your browser.
Thank you for your time and thoughts.
Posts: 551 | From: FL | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As RPH was being shown the door the BOD, which included him at the time, had to make a choice on his replacement. Not a hell of a lot of time to go shopping for a CEO. I don't believe M. Alexander is going to be the long-term choice here. This was a "fill the void", VERY safe choice, while the dust settles.
For those of you "disappointed longs" would you have preferred the PR say the SEC owns the company, the bonds are a fraud, game over? Did you think the SEC would allow us to piss in their coffee pot and then let us watch them drink it? They've had a week to look at EVERYTHING and given RPH's lose approach to things they were bound to find little issues. This was an obvious compromise and the longs should look at as very good thing.
Posts: 386 | From: Plano, TX | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mo-rydr: I woke up at 3:30 ET and am only on p.30, but two things are certain here:
1) Yes this is an admission of guilt. (Probably as per settlement w/SEC)
2) The 6-1 could possibly change. BUT it is just one possible allotment of the $15 per share as dictated in the 8-K, that is what we are promised that cannot be revolked I believe.
Is it possible Mo that the split could be 7-1.
Perhaps this is why they need to amend the 10k section 2. The formula doesn't add up to $15 a share. Posts: 105 | From: utah | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
RESOLVED FURTHER, that Michael Alexander, as sole director, be authorized to cancel shares of common stock issued to the replaced board of directors and management as he deems equitable.
Posts: 354 | From: Novi, MI | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: As RPH was being shown the door the BOD, which included him at the time, had to make a choice on his replacement. Not a hell of a lot of time to go shopping for a CEO. I don't believe M. Alexander is going to be the long-term choice here. This was a "fill the void", VERY safe choice, while the dust settles.
For those of you "disappointed longs" would you have preferred the PR say the SEC owns the company, the bonds are a fraud, game over? Did you think the SEC would allow us to piss in their coffee pot and then let us watch them drink it? They've had a week to look at EVERYTHING and given RPH's lose approach to things they were bound to find little issues. This was an obvious compromise and the longs should look at as very good thing.
Well said! Posts: 21 | From: Allen, TX | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: As RPH was being shown the door the BOD, which included him at the time, had to make a choice on his replacement. Not a hell of a lot of time to go shopping for a CEO. I don't believe M. Alexander is going to be the long-term choice here. This was a "fill the void", VERY safe choice, while the dust settles.
For those of you "disappointed longs" would you have preferred the PR say the SEC owns the company, the bonds are a fraud, game over? Did you think the SEC would allow us to piss in their coffee pot and then let us watch them drink it? They've had a week to look at EVERYTHING and given RPH's lose approach to things they were bound to find little issues. This was an obvious compromise and the longs should look at as very good thing.
I disagree RPH is/was supposed to appear in court on the 7th by removing him the company is saying to the SEC " he screwed up so we fired him " ( witch would imply that the SEC charges have some merrit ) this is just the beginning IMO. have to wait for the 7th to see if RPH shows up or needs to be there, what action will the SEC take?. some have posted they would go to court on the 7th, I hope they still do otherwise we may not KNOW the TRUE outcome for some time as the SEC does not comment on the outcome of thier investigations unless charges are filed.
Posts: 2503 | From: connecticut | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: As RPH was being shown the door the BOD, which included him at the time, had to make a choice on his replacement. Not a hell of a lot of time to go shopping for a CEO. I don't believe M. Alexander is going to be the long-term choice here. This was a "fill the void", VERY safe choice, while the dust settles.
For those of you "disappointed longs" would you have preferred the PR say the SEC owns the company, the bonds are a fraud, game over? Did you think the SEC would allow us to piss in their coffee pot and then let us watch them drink it? They've had a week to look at EVERYTHING and given RPH's lose approach to things they were bound to find little issues. This was an obvious compromise and the longs should look at as very good thing.
Yea, "little issues". Like maybe violating the TRO?
I follow ya, good post.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: As RPH was being shown the door the BOD, which included him at the time, had to make a choice on his replacement. Not a hell of a lot of time to go shopping for a CEO. I don't believe M. Alexander is going to be the long-term choice here. This was a "fill the void", VERY safe choice, while the dust settles.
For those of you "disappointed longs" would you have preferred the PR say the SEC owns the company, the bonds are a fraud, game over? Did you think the SEC would allow us to piss in their coffee pot and then let us watch them drink it? They've had a week to look at EVERYTHING and given RPH's lose approach to things they were bound to find little issues. This was an obvious compromise and the longs should look at as very good thing.
Well said!
Big brain award....
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: As RPH was being shown the door the BOD, which included him at the time, had to make a choice on his replacement. Not a hell of a lot of time to go shopping for a CEO. I don't believe M. Alexander is going to be the long-term choice here. This was a "fill the void", VERY safe choice, while the dust settles.
For those of you "disappointed longs" would you have preferred the PR say the SEC owns the company, the bonds are a fraud, game over? Did you think the SEC would allow us to piss in their coffee pot and then let us watch them drink it? They've had a week to look at EVERYTHING and given RPH's lose approach to things they were bound to find little issues. This was an obvious compromise and the longs should look at as very good thing.
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Quite some time ago...BB, Glass, Wally and several others may remember how the DD that was done indicated that this whole thing...connections and all were set up quite some time ago...the loan that FHAL had taken that was now wiped clean with the merger...many, many things have indicated that there was a "grand scheme" and putting Mike back in the role of CEO may very well have been part of it all along...(Rufus also gave some indication of this)...the timing may have changed but just seems that alot of what has played out was all in the "grand scheme"...
Good memory....and yes....this rid FHAL of toxic funding that was dragging it down.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
JMHO, if the corp has done anything wrong firing Rufus wouldnt make a difference. Theyd still go after the corp.
Posts: 478 | From: Palm Desert, Ca. U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tut is on a posting spree if anyone cares. Baby snakes and fangs and such. And a lot of "!!!" whatever that means in cobra
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK - We saw what happened when the SEC caught wind of fraud rumors - they asked the Federal Judge to remove its officers. The Judge didn't grant them the request because it wasn't warranted at the time.
So, a week passes with the SEC knee deep in RPH's ass, the SEC knows their in trouble, so they spend ALL this time looking at EVERYTHING. The SEC would be obligated to go back to the Judge immediately if they found material evidence to substantiate their initial request. They wouldn’t let this purported fraud continue until the 7th just because that’s the court date. The lights would be shut off, servers shut down, and phone number transferred to the SEC. But, here we are still in business. Why? We OWN THE BONDS!
quote:Originally posted by madmoney:
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: As RPH was being shown the door the BOD, which included him at the time, had to make a choice on his replacement. Not a hell of a lot of time to go shopping for a CEO. I don't believe M. Alexander is going to be the long-term choice here. This was a "fill the void", VERY safe choice, while the dust settles.
For those of you "disappointed longs" would you have preferred the PR say the SEC owns the company, the bonds are a fraud, game over? Did you think the SEC would allow us to piss in their coffee pot and then let us watch them drink it? They've had a week to look at EVERYTHING and given RPH's lose approach to things they were bound to find little issues. This was an obvious compromise and the longs should look at as very good thing.
I disagree RPH is/was supposed to appear in court on the 7th by removing him the company is saying to the SEC " he screwed up so we fired him " ( witch would imply that the SEC charges have some merrit ) this is just the beginning IMO. have to wait for the 7th to see if RPH shows up or needs to be there, what action will the SEC take?. some have posted they would go to court on the 7th, I hope they still do otherwise we may not KNOW the TRUE outcome for some time as the SEC does not comment on the outcome of thier investigations unless charges are filed.
Posts: 386 | From: Plano, TX | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: OK - We saw what happened when the SEC caught wind of fraud rumors - they asked the Federal Judge to remove its officers. The Judge didn't grant them the request because it wasn't warranted at the time.
So, a week passes with the SEC knee deep in RPH's ass, the SEC knows their in trouble, so they spend ALL this time looking at EVERYTHING. The SEC would be obligated to go back to the Judge immediately if they found material evidence to substantiate their initial request. They wouldn’t let this purported fraud continue until the 7th just because that’s the court date. The lights would be shut off, servers shut down, and phone number transferred to the SEC. But, here we are still in business. Why? We OWN THE BONDS!
quote:Originally posted by madmoney:
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: As RPH was being shown the door the BOD, which included him at the time, had to make a choice on his replacement. Not a hell of a lot of time to go shopping for a CEO. I don't believe M. Alexander is going to be the long-term choice here. This was a "fill the void", VERY safe choice, while the dust settles.
For those of you "disappointed longs" would you have preferred the PR say the SEC owns the company, the bonds are a fraud, game over? Did you think the SEC would allow us to piss in their coffee pot and then let us watch them drink it? They've had a week to look at EVERYTHING and given RPH's lose approach to things they were bound to find little issues. This was an obvious compromise and the longs should look at as very good thing.
I disagree RPH is/was supposed to appear in court on the 7th by removing him the company is saying to the SEC " he screwed up so we fired him " ( witch would imply that the SEC charges have some merrit ) this is just the beginning IMO. have to wait for the 7th to see if RPH shows up or needs to be there, what action will the SEC take?. some have posted they would go to court on the 7th, I hope they still do otherwise we may not KNOW the TRUE outcome for some time as the SEC does not comment on the outcome of thier investigations unless charges are filed.
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m trying to connect Rufus Paul Harris to Joe Frank Harris and here’s what I have so far.
Frances (Morrow) Harris, mother of Joe Frank Harris, was born 11/9/1911, died 7/22/1996, buried 7/24/1996
Frank G Harris, father of Joe Frank Harris, was born 9/17/1911, died 5/9/1999, buried 5/11/1999
Joe Frank Harris was the second son, meaning he has a brother. I have not been able to find out who this brother is (was). My guess is that this brother of Joe Frank Harris is the father of Rufus Paul Harris, making the former governor Rufus’ uncle.
Probably not a terribly big DD deal at this juncture but I’m still interested in these purported “connections” RPH has and where were these connections today?
Posts: 386 | From: Plano, TX | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many concerns about the 6;1 change...but here's a possible thought...(just thought that I'd add to the couple of other dozen that are out there)
Since the trading is suspended, AND? they need to get an MM to trade for them...they must convince the MM of their financials correct? Is it not the MM and the Company that "decide" the PPS when trading starts?
Is it not possible that IF all is proven to the SEC of these bonds and CSHD's assets that this "new MM" start the trading at the $15/pps?
Would that not "cover" all promises and obligations?
10sba, 8k, 10Q and what ever other filing need to be done and the PR of a MM highered to open trading on Such and such date?
quote:Originally posted by mo-rydr: I woke up at 3:30 ET and am only on p.30, but two things are certain here:
1) Yes this is an admission of guilt. (Probably as per settlement w/SEC)
2) The 6-1 could possibly change. BUT it is just one possible allotment of the $15 per share as dictated in the 8-K, that is what we are promised that cannot be revolked I believe.
You got it surf...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 399 If you want to hear from me then calm down because everyone is going off the deep end here. This does not change things except in a good way and you will all get what you wanted here. This was necessary and a lot of you can't understand the reasoning but it will still work out in all the shareholders best interests. I will try to explain a little better later but you need to look at the "big picture" and what it holds for you all
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 399 Quote: Originally Posted by Just4Fun not bashing, but it still remains to be seen if we really have all those assets ...
now I am in this big so I hope we do. But it still remains to be seen ..
"If" we didn't have the assets do you think Mike Alexander would want to be CEO? Or anyone for that matter? Stop and think clearly. He would not want to be CEO of a disaster because then it would be on his head. Stop and think and remember your due diligence. Nothing has changed. Rufus lay the groundwork for what we are about to receive from this and we do have to thank him for that, and then to protect everything he promised you shareholders, he turned the reins over to someone else so that everything he promised he would protect for you all.
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope Mike is only temporary. Did anyone listen to him on SPR with Ruphus, Sabra and Ben? I don't think he is CEO materal. JMHO Posts: 115 | From: Michigan | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fredgrasshopper: I hope Mike is only temporary. Did anyone listen to him on SPR with Ruphus, Sabra and Ben? I don't think he is CEO materal. JMHO
Again...it is not about Mike...Mike is solid...but it is the team he puts in place....Even if Mike is Stellar...He needs a team...I am confident.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 399 Quote: Originally Posted by SimpleChineseMan Im glad that CSHD has decided to file a amended 10k and a 1OQ report immediately like they said in the PR. The sooner the better.
They have to file that because of a management change.
Today, 07:16 PM #10002 tutankhamen HSM Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 399 Quote: Originally Posted by cmed123 TUt stop leading people on, Mike wants to sell his shares, they did the change in case something goes wrong with RPH, Mike has alot of ahres and wants his money they are not dum, and most people on here are starting to see the picture now, so please your lines are getting old
Tut: As CEO his shares are restricted. You obviously don't know your facts.
" !!! "
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I always thought the pic/age thing didn't jive.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
You got it surf... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
