posted
Well, Texas, one answer which is pure speculation to your question is that they didn't get the chance to complete the fraud -- thus they didn't benefit financially -- they goofed.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'll ask again what NONE of you bashing, one-dimensional shorts can't or won't answer.
When and how have Rufus, Mike Alexander, Sabra Dabbs, and Ben Stanley benefited financially from this purporte fraud? It's only one question and its a pretty simple one.
Good luck answering it and be careful not to embarass yourself
You do realize I'm not a basher right?
I'm not sure why I picked out your name. Feel free to copy and paste the question to the appropriate person(s). Its one that drives them insane!
Posts: 386 | From: Plano, TX | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Well, Texas, one answer which is pure speculation to your question is that they didn't get the chance to complete the fraud -- thus they didn't benefit financially -- they goofed.
their shares are restricted for 2 years. Mike A's were the only ones that would have been tradable and he still would have had to file a form 144 and get an opinion from the company atty and approved by the transfer agaent before being allowed.
You need to debate with knowledge.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What continues to be ignored by those who are now negative is that there is no value to CSHD unless it has assets.
Therefore, no reason to step in and save it.
I will not tell anyone not to sell. If you follow the tenets of trading penny stocks this process is a whole lot less stressful folks.
While I do not like the time line or going to court I do not plan to sell one share next week if we open on Tuesday. If it falls low enough I may buy more.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Should be a very simple answer. I'm waiting
While you are waiting, read the merger 8-k and answer your question for yourself. This isn't kindergarten, you are expected to be up on the issues if you want to debate them.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Who restricted the shares?
lol...I know you are going to tell us they planned to dillute and unrestrict everything right after the price zoomed....the .12 to $2-$3 range with volume was not enough right?
If this were a pump and dump...again no reason to save the company...they could all walk away. Mike A. has another company to run now.
Not to mention that based on the number of shares held by Mike A he could only sell 1% a month.
Now they are pulling back all those restricted shares from the board so your argument loses even more credibility.
Not to mention...I know exactly where Mike A's shares are sitting.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Can anyone, in your opinion rushdabus, be angry at what has happened and not be a shortie?
It's that your anger is without any true purpose other than to ridicule. (ie: we're all in la la land - remember?) I want FACTS and not rhetoric; I look for Due Diligence, not Fear Mongering. All I'm saying is let's wait until this settlement is reached. Am I optomistic? Sure! But what other choice do I have at this point? My optimism comes from the fact that the company is choosing to reorganize its BOD, which usually comes as a provision of a settlement. I've dealt with government agancies before and, believe me, they hate to admit mistakes (sorry, oversights) and love to reach settlements where the defendant admits guilt in some form. This is what gives me hope, but I feel does not make me a cultist.
Shortie wants panic and the grey sheets; but who else would? Be angry about what is happening, but don't levy your anger on the optomists.
Does that sound good to you?
Posts: 88 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Always the same comeback.
That is correct. Because it is the correct comeback for bashers. Read the 8-k, it is clearly defined in it. Trying to make negative accusations against the company and then demanding others to support the facts to refute those claims is the standard method used by bashers.
How about taking your pumped stock and head back on over there and stop bashing this one. You arent here to determine anything about this one that much is obvious.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we talking about the same 8K that had the average closing price adjustment section? Yeah, portman, I am eluding to the fact that this fraudlent document was written by the same people who could change it to their advantage in the future by controlling over 50 percent of the stock.
I don't believe the 8k, 10k and to comeback in your words, I don't believe you and your knowledge of Mike A.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Always the same comeback.
That is correct. Because it is the correct comeback for bashers. Read the 8-k, it is clearly defined in it. Trying to make negative accusations against the company and then demanding others to support the facts to refute those claims is the standard method used by bashers.
How about taking your pumped stock and head back on over there and stop bashing this one. You arent here to determine anything about this one that much is obvious.
Always questions from these types...notice how they never answer questions posed to them with anything other than more questions and comments that are either not researched or speculation intended to seed FUD.
That is IF they answer the questions at all.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sceptor, I believe the 8k was fraudulent, so I can't come to the same conclusion as you. It was written and filed by people with questionable pasts.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Sceptor, I believe the 8k was fraudulent, so I can't come to the same conclusion as you. It was written and filed by people with questionable pasts.
Well, I guess we are questioning both your past and motives. Therefore, all you post is questionable.
Are you willing to allow me to DD you?
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read the documents and seen how this has played out, and I can come to no other conclusion not to believe in the accuracy of the 8k or 10k.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you can dd me. It's my picture in the dictionary beside -- stupid stock investor. Lol. And that's the simple truth.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Are we talking about the same 8K that had the average closing price adjustment section? Yeah, portman, I am eluding to the fact that this fraudlent document was written by the same people who could change it to their advantage in the future by controlling over 50 percent of the stock.
I don't believe the 8k, 10k and to comeback in your words, I don't believe you and your knowledge of Mike A.
You assume it's the closing price adjustment that the latest 8-k was referring to. We dont believe you know that to be the case either.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Yes, you can dd me. It's my picture in the dictionary beside -- stupid stock investor. Lol. And that's the simple truth.
IM me your real name...I will be happy to complete it and provide it back to you and of course this thread.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Yes, you can dd me. It's my picture in the dictionary beside -- stupid stock investor. Lol. And that's the simple truth.
So we are to trust the interpretations of a stupid stock investor? Sorry dude, you really do need to head back on over to your other stock and start pumping it there.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't concluded anything. I just do not believe the dd in the 8k and 10k because there are some serious questions on the table about them now.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was a joke sceptor. You shouldn't trust the interpretations of anyone. Only a fool would not do the proper dd on their own -- right?
Posts: 77 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well you seem to be doing something quite foolish now. You are assuming the hearing will go badly for them because you dont believe any of the filed documents. You are also assuming that the closing price adjustment is what the latest 8-k referred to in it. There is nothing to support that assumption.
The charges were that cshd didnt own all of the $800 million dollar bond. cshd never purported to own all of it, they said they owned $500 million of it. there was no deceipt at all on their part, it was nothing more than a poorly thought out accusation by the sec. they simply didnt do enough of their own DD like they should have.
The court will validate or refute this tuesday. You should save your condemnation of cshd until then.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey guys, all the bashing aside. Does anyone have links to where a penny stock newbie can start doing dd on pennies? I have a financial background and work for a online brokerage house. I have only done my DD on big board companies. I only need more info on where to research these. I reviewed the balance sheet in the 10k and the format is correct. The bonds are reported correctly. But we still are not 100% certain that the bonds are legit. I guess we shall know something after Tuesday on that.
Posts: 21 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mantux: Hey guys, all the bashing aside. Does anyone have links to where a penny stock newbie can start doing dd on pennies? I have a financial background and work for a online brokerage house. I have only done my DD on big board companies. I only need more info on where to research these. I reviewed the balance sheet in the 10k and the format is correct. The bonds are reported correctly. But we still are not 100% certain that the bonds are legit. I guess we shall know something after Tuesday on that.
you can go to gsccca.og and search for conversion solutions in the "real estate" section and view the bond ownership transferrance and it's agreement on there. $5 for 4 hours or $9 for a monthly fee. I would suggest the $9 so you can have enough time to absorb it all (there is a lot up there). You can always cancel the sub.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sceptor, I havn't assumed anything of the sort. I just asked the question if that was the correct 8k and made reference to one section. You assume the SEC botched its dd. I assume it did not. But, I do believe that the sec also mentioned fraudulent statements made that would pump the stock. Please, if I used the wrong words, don't hang me. Your get my meaning.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Sceptor, I havn't assumed anything of the sort. I just asked the question if that was the correct 8k and made reference to one section. You assume the SEC botched its dd. I assume it did not. But, I do believe that the sec also mentioned fraudulent statements made that would pump the stock. Please, if I used the wrong words, don't hang me. Your get my meaning.
When you accuse people of being in la la land and of being fictional novelists, you dont generally get a lot of slack when using a poor choice of words. You should learn to either not insult others or use the correct words to present your beliefs.
The reason I think the sec goofed is because they claim cshd said they own the whole bond. cshd has never said they own the "whole" bond, they said they own $500 million. The sec never went further than the bloomberg screens to determine if the bond had multiple owners or not. Bloomberg wont show that, it only shows that it is being traded.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Sceptor, I havn't assumed anything of the sort. I just asked the question if that was the correct 8k and made reference to one section. You assume the SEC botched its dd. I assume it did not. But, I do believe that the sec also mentioned fraudulent statements made that would pump the stock. Please, if I used the wrong words, don't hang me. Your get my meaning.
No one is hanging you on this thread...you are doing a very good job yourself.
You see you mention this 51+% who can change the docs at will. This clearly tells me you do not understand the process. Not only that it tells me you do not know who the 51% is. If you did you might understand. Then again you do not know the process.
You are assuming several things that may or may not be true. You also provide us your sources which are already suspect at best.
So even if you are legit you have provided a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
But you continue to avoid answering real questions.
If this is a failed attempt to pump and dump...why would there be an attempt to save the company at this late juncture? The damage is done and just let it fade away. It has no value to save remember...it's all fake...
Or is it all fake?
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I guess I'm learning that dd means something different to everyone. An infamous person once said "it depends on what your definition of "is" is."
The latest story posted by Webb. Take the story paragraph by paragraph since it seems it is a chronological sequence of events. Is it inaccurate -- not because the site is a rag or the reporter is a known basher -- but is it inaccurate?
If the answer is yes, then what evidence is there to refute those statements -- remember opinions of the rag and reporter aside? Also, individual ideas, speculation, conjecture and conspiracy theories to spin a yarn good enough for soap opera tv cannot be considered "good" dd. It is trying to turn a negative into a positive w/o fact.
So, in reality, you are left with company-filed documents -- unaudited and audited (which is questionable) -- statements made in public, on radio and over the telephone (I have noticed -- although I may have missed them if so please repost) -- that not once did anyone post an official email from one of the officers, and the internal belief that these are true.
RPH had a checkered past but for some reason(s) many on this board overlooked those events and explained them away. My bad for not doing that dd. Like 3403 I failed in that area.
So, sceptor, I assume you did dd on the company assets. I would assume you believed the company-produced documents. That's all anyone could do if you have the internal need or belief that they were true. With the amount of back pedaling on these posts, a number here are starting to question the 8k and 10k validity as well. I can see by the number of speculations on this board on how this will play out -- many are now attempting to pave the way for a longer battle with a positive spin.
The one thing I can say positive on many on this board is that you have missed your calling -- you could be best-selling fiction novelists.
Sceptor, where do I accuse people of being in la-la land? Also, I was only complimenting those on this board for their creative writing ability.
I know this may sound absurd, but the SEC has been around for a very, very long time and probably knows how to do proper research. It also knows how to not show its hole cards. If that is all they had, the SEC, too, would know that is flimsy -- and no I won't buy into an argument that the SEC is in on the conspiracy. Remember, too, there were other allegations other that the bonds.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by voyager1951: Sceptor, I havn't assumed anything of the sort. I just asked the question if that was the correct 8k and made reference to one section. You assume the SEC botched its dd. I assume it did not. But, I do believe that the sec also mentioned fraudulent statements made that would pump the stock. Please, if I used the wrong words, don't hang me. Your get my meaning.
Please as another important question. Please explain to me what is provided as far a bond information in the Bloomberg system?
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
