Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: I love how I pose a simple question, with a simple answer (Yes or No), and it gets spun like this. Meanwhile, I'm the one accused of "spinning." The only interest I have in this stock is as a bystander. If people want to dump their money in here, that's there own problem.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by TaxBack04:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: If this new CEO is Tut, how can that be good? Weren't a lot of you pissed off at him for posting vague platitudes to the message boards?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: Thank You, you are very generous.
Kevin Bailey I love how I pose a simple question, with a simple answer (Yes or No), and it gets spun like this. Meanwhile, I'm the one accused of "spinning." The only interest I have in this stock is as a bystander. If people want to dump their money in here, that's there own problem.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by TaxBack04:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: If this new CEO is Tut, how can that be good? Weren't a lot of you pissed off at him for posting vague platitudes to the message boards?
-------------------- "Entrepreneurship is the last refuge of the trouble making individual."
quote:Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: Thank you for a non-response.
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: Thank You, you are very generous.
Kevin Bailey I love how I pose a simple question, with a simple answer (Yes or No), and it gets spun like this. Meanwhile, I'm the one accused of "spinning." The only interest I have in this stock is as a bystander. If people want to dump their money in here, that's there own problem.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by TaxBack04:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: If this new CEO is Tut, how can that be good? Weren't a lot of you pissed off at him for posting vague platitudes to the message boards?
quote:Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: Thank you for a non-response.
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: Thank You, you are very generous.
Kevin Bailey I love how I pose a simple question, with a simple answer (Yes or No), and it gets spun like this. Meanwhile, I'm the one accused of "spinning." The only interest I have in this stock is as a bystander. If people want to dump their money in here, that's there own problem.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by TaxBack04:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: If this new CEO is Tut, how can that be good? Weren't a lot of you pissed off at him for posting vague platitudes to the message boards?
Kevin,
My spin is this; Tut AKA John Arlitt will have more of an impact on CSHD in 1 week than the previous CEO's had in 2 months.
He knows shareholders are in need of information regarding everything that has and will transpire.
Only a select few were b*tching about Tut posting.
IP: Logged |
posted
Do you even know what you wrote? You asked two questions.
" If this new CEO is Tut, how can that be good? Weren't a lot of you pissed off at him for posting vague platitudes to the message boards?"
The first one is an open ended question, the 2nd is a yes or no question.
I will answer your first question with a yes or no, you tell me if it makes sense.
"If this new CEO is Tut, how can that be good?"
Yes.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: [QB] I love how I pose a simple question, with a simple answer (Yes or No), and it gets spun like this. Meanwhile, I'm the one accused of "spinning." The only interest I have in this stock is as a bystander. If people want to dump their money in here, that's there own problem.
IP: Logged |
A r l i t t F i n a n c i a l C o r p o r a t i o n a n d Jo h n L o u i s A r l i t t
conduct: making misrepresentations with the intention of affecting a trade in a security; failure to properly designate records prepared as part of investor relations activities; advising without registration.
sanction : undertaking to comply with the legislation and policies; payment of $5,000.
--> ooooooooooo sounds ominious. NOT.
he wrote about a company after they let him go from his PR contract. big whoopie deal. most importantly HE COOPERATED WITH THE INVESTIGATORS.
here are the details for those that didnt click the link:
The following agreement has been reached between Arlitt Financial Corporation (the “Issuer”), John Louis Arlitt (“Arlitt”) and the Executive Director:
1. As the basis for the order and undertakings referred to below, the Issuer and Arlitt acknowledge the following facts as correct:
(a) the Issuer is incorporated under the Company Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 62 on July 15, 1998. John Louis Arlitt is the president of the Issuer;
(b) Arlitt utilizes the name of the Issuer on material that he disseminates;
(c) on December 8, 1998, Arlitt signed a public relations agreement, on behalf of the Issuer with Consolidated Interstat Ventures Inc. (“Interstat”), which is a reporting issuer in British Columbia;
(d) on March 17, 1998, Interstat sent a letter to the Issuer stating that the existing public relations agreement was discontinued;
(e) on February 1 and 10 , 1998 and March 1 and 10, 1998, the Issuer and Arlitt prepared and disseminated to persons in British Columbia and to others documents titled, “The Professional Trader” (the “Trader”), which related the affairs of Interstat;
(f) the Trader contained statements relating to Interstat that were made with the intention of effecting a trade in a security, which the Issuer and Arlitt knew or ought reasonably to have known were misrepresentations, contrary to section 50(1)(d) of the Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418 (the “Act”);
(g) the Trader failed to disclose that it was issued on behalf of Interstat, contrary to section 52(2) of the Act.
(h) in February and March of 1998, neither the Issuer nor Arlitt were registered in any capacity under the Act; and
(i) in March 1998, on at least two separate occasions, Arlitt advised a person to purchase the securities of Interstat, contrary to section 34(1)(a) and(c) of the Act.
(j) Staff of the British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) acknowledges that the Issuer and Arlitt have co-operated fully in providing information with respect to this matter.
2. The Issuer and Arlitt undertake to:
(a) permanently refrain from distributing any copies of the February 1 and 10, 1998 and March 1 and 10, 1998 copies of the Trader;
(b) comply fully with the provisions of the Act, Securities Rules, all applicable securities regulations, all policies, guidelines, notices and rulings issued by the British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) from the date of this agreement; and
(c) pay the sum of $5,000.00 to the Commission.
~BB
quote:Originally posted by trade04: anyone see this????? wtf?
posted
Glad you liked it Kevin... and good use of the word "spun".
You are a bystander? Last time I checked that describes a person who stands by and just watches or witnesses an event or happening. On a stock thread that is called "lurking". No I think a more appropriate term for your participation on this board is a "heckler".
That is like calling the guy in the crowd at a building blaze who is singing "The roof, the roof is on fire" offering other crowd members smokes, and squirt guns full of kerosene a bystander.
Don't get me wrong, I like your participation, but you are hardly a bystander.
posted
" If this new CEO is Tut, how can that be good? Weren't a lot of you pissed off at him for posting vague platitudes to the message boards?"
it can be good in that Tut/John/MrCEO has continued to follow, post on & support this stock through ups and downs. therefore he must have a significant interest in it, and therein lies his motivation to pick the company up out of its current puddle.
i dont believe the vague platitudes were the reason for pizzing, i believe it was the lack of information and period of silence coming from previous company mgmt during turbulent times that created anger in the shareholders - which had to be directed somewhere, hence it was directed to the only person who seemed to have any information, vague as it was.
Tut/John/MrCEO's hands have been tied much the same as our own. I'm hoping he is as happy as one of us would be to get in there and get this investment back in order.
May as well see it as a positive. There's no reason to believe otherwise, and if you do... sell
posted
(c) on December 8, 1998, Arlitt signed a public relations agreement, on behalf of the Issuer with Consolidated Interstat Ventures Inc. (“Interstat”), which is a reporting issuer in British Columbia;
(d) on March 17, 1998, Interstat sent a letter to the Issuer stating that the existing public relations agreement was discontinued;
----------------------------------------------- I may be reading this wrong but does it state that he signed the agreement after the company discontinued the agreement?
But, the bottom line is that he apparently agreed with the findings of the following:
(f) the Trader contained statements relating to Interstat that were made with the intention of effecting a trade in a security, which the Issuer and Arlitt knew or ought reasonably to have known were misrepresentations, contrary to section 50(1)(d) of the Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418 (the “Act”);
(g) the Trader failed to disclose that it was issued on behalf of Interstat, contrary to section 52(2) of the Act.
(h) in February and March of 1998, neither the Issuer nor Arlitt were registered in any capacity under the Act; and
(i) in March 1998, on at least two separate occasions, Arlitt advised a person to purchase the securities of Interstat, contrary to section 34(1)(a) and(c) of the Act.
-----------------------------------------------
He got caught and admitted it. Maybe the penalty would have been much harsher if he hadn't agreed IMO. This does not make him any less guilty. This is what I consider to be a major fact of his past that deserves to be dd'ed and brought to the table. Poo-poo the offense all you want but the phrase "Arlitt knew or ought reasonably to have known" indicates to me he did it intentionally or he's not knowledgeable as he should be in these situations -- both wrong for being a CEO of a company -- IMHO
IP: Logged |
posted
sorry to interject between waxing and babies...
BUT wv1973 it reads to me as if Arlitt promoted the stock of a company for which he was in charge of public relations without disclosing to the public he was being paid.
that's my simple input - i did my DD and came up with nothing further, not in the 8 years following...
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: Strip spin the bottle?
Hey, count me in! I just got my back hair permed, a Brazilian bikini wax, and I am feeling lucky!
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: Surf- Spin the BABY bottle?
Suddenly I see in my minds eye...
I big Texan with lipstick smeared on and wearing an off color, dirty ripped dress that doesn't fit, and wearing flats instead of the classic high-heels, -standing outside his/her..."their" trailor...
posted
betting babe said: BUT wv1973 it reads to me as if Arlitt promoted the stock of a company for which he was in charge of public relations without disclosing to the public he was being paid.
that's my simple input - i did my DD and came up with nothing further, not in the 8 years following... -----------------------------------------------
I don't follow -- paid not paid -- he made statements effecting the trade of a security which were misrepresentations. I don't know -- call me crazy -- I don't consider that minor. He violated the ACT.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by betting babe: sorry to interject between waxing and babies...
BUT wv1973 it reads to me as if Arlitt promoted the stock of a company for which he was in charge of public relations without disclosing to the public he was being paid.
that's my simple input - i did my DD and came up with nothing further, not in the 8 years following...
~BB
Like a speeding ticket ~ I didn't think it was that big a deal either...
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: He got caught and admitted it. Maybe the penalty would have been much harsher if he hadn't agreed IMO. This does not make him any less guilty. This is what I consider to be a major fact of his past that deserves to be dd'ed and brought to the table. Poo-poo the offense all you want but the phrase "Arlitt knew or ought reasonably to have known" indicates to me he did it intentionally or he's not knowledgeable as he should be in these situations -- both wrong for being a CEO of a company -- IMHO
Well then go DD it and bring back your findings if you feel the need. Or you could just ask John flat out and see if the answer he gives you is satisfactory.
I know we all had issue with Rufus's dealings with Greenleaf until the question was asked of Rufus directly. His response made sense, seemed reasonable and it left the issue in the past for many.
Or... you can publically persecute him in a forum where you know he is not going to defend himself and just asume everyone is going to eventually listen to your remarks.
We have looked into the information, the fine was miniscule, and the dispute was satisfied and fines paid.
posted
Ok, wv i can see where you are going with this. John Arlitt was fined $5000 for what i consider a fairly minor offense. So, in your opinion he is a marked man now and shouldnt be considered as CEO for CSHD?
Yea, i follow ya. Read this article just for giggles and tell me what you think.
1. Of course I expect people to listen to the remarks, but I don't expect everyone to agree. That is one of the reasons this board is in existence.
2. There were also Rufus' dealings with BBAN, but that's another issue. The point is that Rufus was a liar, conman and could come up with reasonable explanations that people wanted to hear. If history has taught you anything, it is not to go down the same path if you expect different results. Because of his past, I will not take Arlitt at his word, printed or oral, until I see positive action.
3. Presenting past facts is not publically persecuting anyone.
There are those who have also looked at the information and not considered them minor. And no matter what some of you say -- like it is "now resolved" -- it is not. There are two sides to this. I see it one way and you see it another.
posted
Not any more...now Rufus is back on the page...WTF???
quote:Originally posted by BuckyBarnes: Changes are effecting to the CVSU website on the Executives tab..........Romeo V. is no longer listed..........below is what show now. . . . "Current Directors and Officers
John L. Arlitt, Chairman and CEO
(We are currently updating our information, please be patient.)
posted
Actually WV there is nothing anywhere that states as FACT that Rufus is / was / ever intends to be a liar or a conman.
You talk about spin....THATS a spin of yours. You find me documentation where Rufus Paul Harris was found guilty of the crimes you have charged him with then we will talk.
IMO you should not be permitted to spread your version of the truth the way you have been. Longs on this board are constantly responding to your posts ONLY because they want to be sure "lurkers" are getting facts and not just what you have to say.
Not to mention, you shifted your efforts on Rufus now and we were discussing John. Did you run out of "facts" about Mr Alitt?
1. Of course I expect people to listen to the remarks, but I don't expect everyone to agree. That is one of the reasons this board is in existence.
2. There were also Rufus' dealings with BBAN, but that's another issue. The point is that Rufus was a liar, conman and could come up with reasonable explanations that people wanted to hear. If history has taught you anything, it is not to go down the same path if you expect different results. Because of his past, I will not take Arlitt at his word, printed or oral, until I see positive action.
3. Presenting past facts is not publically persecuting anyone.
There are those who have also looked at the information and not considered them minor. And no matter what some of you say -- like it is "now resolved" -- it is not. There are two sides to this. I see it one way and you see it another.
Show me da law firm.
Did you write the Scarlett Letter??
Regardless, we know your position on this issue.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by St. Matthew: Not any more...now Rufus is back on the page...WTF???
quote:Originally posted by BuckyBarnes: Changes are effecting to the CVSU website on the Executives tab..........Romeo V. is no longer listed..........below is what show now. . . . "Current Directors and Officers
John L. Arlitt, Chairman and CEO
(We are currently updating our information, please be patient.)
posted
Okay Catia and others. I see your point. So let's move forward and hope that you are correct -- nobody's perfect. Let's see the name of the law firm. Let's see the 6 to 1 in our accounts w/o hassles or excuses. WTF do we have to loose no anyway?????????????? LMAO.
I hope you don't blame me for being skeptical, but I still believe caution is the word.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by St. Matthew: Not any more...now Rufus is back on the page...WTF???
quote:Originally posted by BuckyBarnes: Changes are effecting to the CVSU website on the Executives tab..........Romeo V. is no longer listed..........below is what show now. . . . "Current Directors and Officers
John L. Arlitt, Chairman and CEO
(We are currently updating our information, please be patient.)
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
