posted
LOL it's kind of funny in a odd sort of way. Even down here in the grey market there are people trying to pain the candlestick.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Sherri? I don't think that there is a "written" time frame on any of this...
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: Someone remind me - how long did the injunction give them to find more information - 30 days?
I thought in the last SPR interview Simon said 30 days....I could be wrong...?
I haven't been able to find anything written, but I thought one of the main reasons that Rufus wanted everything in Federal court was so that it would not be dragged out indefinately. Am I getting confused?
All you have to do is read the injunction. It's pretty clear.
Or just look up at the cut and paste taxback just did.
Ouch. I was looking more for a laypersons' interpretation, but thanks anyway - I got what I needed from the question.
(Edit: I think I too am beginning to take things personally...time to get back to work)
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it.... Posts: 3903 | From: Gulf Coast | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fergalicious. Definition: make the boys go crazy.
-------------------- "I will smack you in the mouth, I'm Neil Diamond"- Will Ferrell Posts: 4190 | From: Rhode Island | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doniboy: I love it when someone is making fun of someone else and then misspells the word misspell.
quote:Originally posted by frank021474:
quote:Originally posted by thesource:
quote:Originally posted by Doniboy: I don't care how pleasant she is, she is trying to destroy the company that we have all invested in.
You guys shouldn't be pissed at her for doing her job . She is following the blood trail that all you are choosing to over look . If you should be pissed at anyone , its Dufus . He's the one responcible for this company and the crap we are in . NO ONE ELSE .......
New board rule: no calling someone a dufus and then spelling "responsible" wrong in the next sentence
wha chu talkin about willis-
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun Posts: 766 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
You lose money people... Your girlfriend is loose....
Get it straight!!!!!
quote:Originally posted by frank021474:
quote:Originally posted by Doniboy: I love it when someone is making fun of someone else and then misspells the word misspell.
quote:Originally posted by frank021474:
quote:Originally posted by thesource:
quote:Originally posted by Doniboy: I don't care how pleasant she is, she is trying to destroy the company that we have all invested in.
You guys shouldn't be pissed at her for doing her job . She is following the blood trail that all you are choosing to over look . If you should be pissed at anyone , its Dufus . He's the one responcible for this company and the crap we are in . NO ONE ELSE .......
New board rule: no calling someone a dufus and then spelling "responsible" wrong in the next sentence
wha chu talkin about willis-
-------------------- "I will smack you in the mouth, I'm Neil Diamond"- Will Ferrell Posts: 4190 | From: Rhode Island | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: You are right it is, "Not exactly "PROOF""...
...Not even remotely proof.
Its not but since Rufus or should I say Paul has never come out and denied it ........ kind of leave one to assume its true .
And if thats the case , why would anyone even think that CSHD with Rufus in charge owns what they claim to own ? No wonder the SEC is calling Bull$hit on this one . I'm sure the Judge has his doubts as well if he read this article .
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
the very last sentence in this article... "we decided it would be in the best interest of the Company to dismiss the case without prejudice"
You can argue it...and others can argue it...BUT? As I pointed out before...MY EX? filed child abuse charges against me? it was dismissed...Did I abuse my children? Absolutely not...if you search my name will the charges show up? yep! to an outsider looking in? I must have done it...RIGHT?
posted
To me this history reads that Rufus and Ben did eventually come up with the bonds, but BBAN was too greedy and impatient to wait it out.
quote: Broadband Wireless International Corporation v. Enhancement Holdings, LLC.
On May 12, 2004, we filed suit in Nevada District Court against Enhancement Holdings, LLC, Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley and John Walsh for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and rescission. The suit was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on May 19, 2004. The lawsuit arises out of an agreement between the Company and Enhancement Holdings, LLC pursuant to which Enhancement Holdings, LLC had agreed to provide a guaranty to facilitate the acquisition of a line of credit for the Company. On June 8, 2004, the court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley and John Walsh from holding themselves out as officers and/or directors of the Company and prohibiting them from selling or transferring any shares in the Company. On June 16, 2004, the court entered a preliminary injunction to the same effect. After a further hearing before the court on July 22, 2004, the court ordered that the preliminary injunction be dissolved to the extent that it prohibited Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley and John Walsh from holding themselves out as directors of the Company. The court also ordered the Company to hold a special stockholders election to determine who should serve as the Company's directors. The case was set for hearing on December 13, 2004 but was continued to February 15, 2005.
After the removal of Paul Harris, Benjamin Stanley and John Walsh from our board of directors and due to the fact that they have no assets to attach, we decided it would be in the best interest of the Company to dismiss the case without prejudice.
-------------------- Una Mas! Posts: 2717 | From: Eville,IN,USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Sherri? I don't think that there is a "written" time frame on any of this...
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: Someone remind me - how long did the injunction give them to find more information - 30 days?
it could take as long as 37 days to complete the deposition of witnesses and or defedants then they need to review thier findings and go forward or not. this part of the doc is about depostions, not the length of the investigation as you can see. this can be changed by the judge
Posts: 2503 | From: connecticut | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
read the 2nd story ..... if its a repost , sorry .
Not exactly "PROOF" of fake bonds but I have not found one single link of where Rufus has denied this claim by BBAN .
That link displays information that:
1) does not mention anything about bonds whatsoever 2) is largely from a BBAN filing (I believe in 2004) that only paints the story as viewed by managers at that time 3) does nothing to educate or otherwise provide valuable/relevant information at this juncture.
It is too bad you seem to be in need of a puddle in which to wallow with your investing misfortunes condsidering CSHD is moving forward, albeit at a pace not pleasant for people who spend eight hours a day staring at the computer screen. Please do not try to spread the gloom and doom attitude via biased info about the past; let's stick to CSHD.
There is nothing pretty about the BBAN situation but I see it as no more than a power struggle that went poorly for all involved. Both parties pulled out all the stops and that whole play is history. CSHD is the present topic.
... In My humble Opinion
Posts: 150 | From: None | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And OJ was found innocent of murder ..... anyone think he's innocent ? Whats your point 10 ?
Maybe the bonds were real but I have not found anything even remotely pointing to that . If someone can verify the bonds were infact real , please provide me a link . I have not found anything close to it so far .
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets not forget that corporte governance is much tougher now then it was then and it is unlikely that Rufus is not aware of that. Let us also not forget that in this case a temporary CEO was named, investigated the issues, and turned the company back over to RPH with a PR that indicates there are assets. I continue to believe that this transfer would not have occurred had the SEC and Mike Alexander believed that this was another BBAN.
Posts: 75 | From: Rochester | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: the very last sentence in this article... "we decided it would be in the best interest of the Company to dismiss the case without prejudice"
You can argue it...and others can argue it...BUT? As I pointed out before...MY EX? filed child abuse charges against me? it was dismissed...Did I abuse my children? Absolutely not...if you search my name will the charges show up? yep! to an outsider looking in? I must have done it...RIGHT?
read the 2nd story ..... if its a repost , sorry .
Not exactly "PROOF" of fake bonds but I have not found one single link of where Rufus has denied this claim by BBAN .
you are right 10, I have had a similar situation where I was accused of something I didn't do yet still got a fine out of it....the judge said to me that because the someone filed a complaint, someone had to pay and now it is on my record....what BS!
Posts: 1453 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 BBAN unhappy because they had no line of credit.
December 2004 and Feb 2005 still in court unhappy.
Then dismiss the case without prejudice. Why?
Oh yeah they didn't ink the deal with Banco Central de Venezeula till march of 2006... Hmm could there have been another event back in Feb -Mar of 2005? I don't know? maybe it should be DD'd. HA HA!
-------------------- Una Mas! Posts: 2717 | From: Eville,IN,USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 10of13: [QB] the very last sentence in this article... "we decided it would be in the best interest of the Company to dismiss the case without prejudice"
You can argue it...and others can argue it...BUT? As I pointed out before...MY EX? filed child abuse charges against me? it was dismissed...Did I abuse my children? Absolutely not...if you search my name will the charges show up? yep! to an outsider looking in? I must have done it...RIGHT?
you are right 10, I have had a similar situation where I was accused of something I didn't do yet still got a fine out of it....the judge said to me that because the someone filed a complaint, someone had to pay and now it is on my record....what BS!
Posts: 1453 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Sherri? I don't think that there is a "written" time frame on any of this...
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: Someone remind me - how long did the injunction give them to find more information - 30 days?
it could take as long as 37 days to complete the deposition of witnesses and or defedants then they need to review thier findings and go forward or not. this part of the doc is about depostions, not the length of the investigation as you can see. this can be changed by the judge
Thanks, Mad. That is really what I was getting at - I know the investigation can continue, but it seems to me that by the end of the 37 days they will have all of their information from the witnesses etc. Then, they have to fish or cut bait - granted, they could choose to look at the information for weeks on end, but one would hope not.
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it.... Posts: 3903 | From: Gulf Coast | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by highhopes: Lets not forget that corporte governance is much tougher now then it was then and it is unlikely that Rufus is not aware of that. Let us also not forget that in this case a temporary CEO was named, investigated the issues, and turned the company back over to RPH with a PR that indicates there are assets. I continue to believe that this transfer would not have occurred had the SEC and Mike Alexander believed that this was another BBAN.
HighHopes .... Your last two posts were right on the button. Good points....
Posts: 557 | From: UpState New York | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: I want to know what "proof" ms. Black has that they are not owned by CSHD - isn't it her job to prove her postiton also....
Lets all keep in mind the SEC has to prove fraud on the part of CSHD, so far nothing has come of that...IMO the SEC will NEVER admit fault, they will continue to state they believe there accusations are correct forever. They are the prosecution, if you can tell me the last time a prosecuter has admitted that their case was not justified let me know..even if the defendent is found not guilty by the court, the prosecution always remains adamant regarding their accusations...
I am a couple of pages back and trying to catch up - I believe mnvestor is on the right track here, my opinion is that whether the SEC is acting on behalf of individuals filing complaints or in collusion with MM's (a conjectured speculation), or both, that the SEC is taking the position as the prosecutor and (as I have posted before) they will never accept that the bonds are valid. Thus a judge will have to determine the true validity of the bonds. This means that a lenghty court case is ensueing as Alana has stated unless somehow Rufus can get the legal system to step in and put a stop to this. Maybe this is what Rufus is referring to in the hints that he has made towards a Congressional Hearing, maybe there is a way to go over the court's head and make them (the court) determine that the bonds are valid, and so negating the SEC's ability to prosecute CSHD.
Just a postulation of Rufus' position - FWIW
-------------------- Hi-ho Momo, awayyyy... Posts: 871 | From: So. Cal | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
