quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: Tex ~ don't forget the fact that if they are cash poor, most companys like to trade shares for services... and I doubt the lawfirms were very receptive to this deal when they are this close to recievership.
What happened to all the dough?
Wasn't there supposed to be like 9 kagillion in interest payments?
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
OK...this is A THEORY; The big picture that everyone was talking about? Rufus says that over 600Million shares have traded NS shares since the company took over...and Rufus says that the responsible party is going to be the compensation to the shareholders... I think that Rufus was going after some big companies...and the SEC went after CSHD to stop all of this...Rufus knows that he is in the right...
John and this SHC? may have just screwed things up...they may have just put CSHD into recievership... Rufus made mention about John in Canada...being short...or hedge...something...John may have just saved his own financial butt...and sank everyone else...Why does his name NOT show on the NOBO list? John may be out to "help the little guy"...BUT...did he or will he "end up" hurting everyone more...in the long run... John may be doing the right thing now...but in the long run...what Rufus was appearing to "set up"...did it just get smashed?
why has the SEC not followed through? They can't...but they are waiting to...witing for someon to screw up...Did John?
Don't know... just another theory for all of you to play with...to ignore...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
posted
Did they? Maybe, maybe not...how much credibility do you give to a man who could not get lawyers in months....or one who gets them in days?
I will tell all of you what was done was done to protect each and every shareholder...
..and I think you were personally told that 10.
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Tex? Rufus pulled down on one of the bonds...from Panama... The SEc "told Rufus" that even if he pulled down on the bonds..that they would charge him with fraud... He felt stuck in a box...and no matter what he did...he was going to get charged...Why pay a lawyer? he's loosing either way...
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: I'm curious to see how the SEC can claim fraud on a bond when it's proven. I don't have a choice it looks like.
what *are* you saying?
lol, what do you think is "proven" ?
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward"
IP: Logged |
posted
Receivership??? What do you think happens once the Judge signs that default judgement?
THINK!
It's a default win for the SEC on all counts of the complaint...because the company did not respond to the accusations they are therefore assumed true.
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: OK...this is A THEORY; The big picture that everyone was talking about? Rufus says that over 600Million shares have traded NS shares since the company took over...and Rufus says that the responsible party is going to be the compensation to the shareholders... I think that Rufus was going after some big companies...and the SEC went after CSHD to stop all of this...Rufus knows that he is in the right...
John and this SHC? may have just screwed things up...they may have just put CSHD into recievership... Rufus made mention about John in Canada...being short...or hedge...something...John may have just saved his own financial butt...and sank everyone else...Why does his name NOT show on the NOBO list? John may be out to "help the little guy"...BUT...did he or will he "end up" hurting everyone more...in the long run... John may be doing the right thing now...but in the long run...what Rufus was appearing to "set up"...did it just get smashed?
why has the SEC not followed through? They can't...but they are waiting to...witing for someon to screw up...Did John?
Don't know... just another theory for all of you to play with...to ignore...
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward"
IP: Logged |
posted
Now. maybe I hear things different than most but I didn't hear Rufus say they couldn't afford a lawyer just that Tut did not have access to company funds. Which makes sense. I doubt that Tut could have access to any corporation money by putting out a PR. I have dealt with Probate situations from my family and know that banks want legal documentation to release funds.
Okay, I will state that I, as a share holder was never contacted to vote my shares. I am and alwasy have been on the NOBO list. How was Anthony able to vote his shares yet I wasn't?
Houston, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
IMO, if TUT's take over was illegal and he posted an 8K then he has given the SEC a reason to put CSHD in receivership, because CSHD.(the company) has violated the TRO and injunction.
Chart posted earlier about people who were not TUT fans. I never was and posted that. I don't care how this turns out but never thought highly of his posts. Now, his premature move to take control could be the nail in the coffin.
I could be totally wrong but sometimes a mummy needs to know it's dead.
I hope I'm wrong but I think that Tut, John Arlitt, has unwittingly played into the hands of the SEC and others that want this whole issue to sleep with the fishes.
THe preceeding message is my opinion only and NO ONE SHOULD BUY, SELL or do anything else based on my opinion.
posted
Yes, a default judgement will be much much better...yep...the stock will hit new highs when that happens.
quote:Originally posted by jm430: I'm convinced Rufus still is the key to the success of this company. How will Arlitt have the same connections to hypothecate the bonds? Sure, it's great to have a law firm, but what's the use if we can't do anything with the bonds?
None of us real shareholders (or only a select few) really know exactly what's going on. After this latest SPR talk, some see Rufus as an angry drunk...I see it as somebody who's been slapped in the face and is trying to protect his creation. Remember, he's a large shareholder and has worked on this a long time. Does he want this to fail? No. Does he have the connections to hypothecate the bonds and also to fund the JV's? Yes. Does Arlitt? Maybe.
I'm hoping all will work it's way out, but the Euroclear account will go a long way to validating everything. I think the 'shareholder's committee' jumped the gun by throwing out Rufus. Maybe not. One thing's for sure, this has totally split the investor base. We'll see what happens. My guess is that Rufus will return in some form as part of the company, when it's more apparent that he's needed.
Bottom line: Who got the bonds for the company? Who's responsible for this company? Why would he want to destroy the company? He doesn't. Why distrust him after all he's done? Please check Euroclear again. Finally, Rufus is a shareholder, just like us. He wants this to succeed. He created it.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward"
IP: Logged |
posted
Portman I saw a post on here this morning from Pacer, and I heard it from Rufas tonight that the Default was "terminated" 24 hours after it was filed. I wish my access to Pacer was still available. Did I read it right? filed on the 28th Terminated on the 29th.
posted
Rufus said that he pulled $ down...So maybe he did..maybe he didn't...I really don't know...
And I believe you 100% that the SHC thought they were doing the best thing! let's hope it all works out... Goin' to bed now... sleep well all!
quote:Originally posted by portman: Did they? Maybe, maybe not...how much credibility do you give to a man who could not get lawyers in months....or one who gets them in days?
I will tell all of you what was done was done to protect each and every shareholder...
..and I think you were personally told that 10.
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Tex? Rufus pulled down on one of the bonds...from Panama... The SEc "told Rufus" that even if he pulled down on the bonds..that they would charge him with fraud... He felt stuck in a box...and no matter what he did...he was going to get charged...Why pay a lawyer? he's loosing either way...
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: I'm curious to see how the SEC can claim fraud on a bond when it's proven. I don't have a choice it looks like.
what *are* you saying?
lol, what do you think is "proven" ?
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
posted
No offense Portman, but just because something is perceived to help, it doesn't mean that it is help.
What I mean by this is that the 'shareholder's committee' and Mr. Arlitt may have the best intentions for the shareholders, but if it was done illegally, then 10 is right...this is NOT good for us. I, unfortunately, don't know enough about this to know if it was illegal or not. It doesn't sound like the SEC even knows...
Most of us don't know what happened to really cause Rufus to be 'voted' out, but I think it was impatience. I think Rufus knew what he was doing, but that's my opinion on this. We'll all see what happens. Let's hope all turns out well. I think the Euroclear site helps us shareholders out a LOT. In fact, I'll be that's why our price has been going up lately... Well, good luck all. I'm going to hang in there and just see where this goes.
IP: Logged |
posted
I would get legal opinions on this...I think there were several on HSM this morning.
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: Portman I saw a post on here this morning from Pacer, and I heard it from Rufas tonight that the Default was "terminated" 24 hours after it was filed. I wish my access to Pacer was still available. Did I read it right? filed on the 28th Terminated on the 29th.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward"
IP: Logged |
posted
Tax – You glossed over a very important point in your statement – “Rufus could not hire an attorney because the company was cash poor as suspected.” Think about that. How does a publicly traded company that raises $150,000,000 – $200,000,000 in the market not afford an attorney?
[*]Spent too much on operations? No. [*]Spent too much hiring employees or executives? No. [*]Spent too much acquiring companies? No. [*]Spent too much developing joint ventures? No. [*]Spent too much retaining legal counsel? No. [*]Spent too much retaining PR firm? No. [*]Conducting business in KENNESAW, GA. too expensive? No.
As you stated, if they couldn’t afford an attorney, then WHERE did that money go ?
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: This is crazy... John took over the company because he did not want to wait anymore. But by not waiting he did not do it legally. Rufas was actually trying to help him take over the company legally by calling a shareholders meeting and paying for the proxy mailings. Now John has hired an attourney and Rufas says he will support him since he got an 8K out by some miracle. But hand holding support will cost him 500K in compensation for him and another 500K for Ben. (Appearantly it will take both to run the original business model) Rufas could not hire an attourney because the company was cash poor as suspected. Did not hire an attourney because he was under the impression that nothing was happening till January and it was not his highest priority.
quote:Originally posted by portman: Funny thing is...RPH says the SEC is unreachable during the holidays...but everyone seems to get through to them...even some on this board.
Who is telling the truth?
quote:Originally posted by T e x: 10 of Confusion posts:
"why has the SEC not followed through?"
alas, they have and are...
to be honest? The SEC rarely follows up to fulfill my sense of justice, but they do shut down lottsa plays...
lol.. I have *no* idea about the holiday schedule.
I've never called or e-mailed the SEC during holidays & vice versa.
During regular trading days, both channels seem to work fine--except some days they're slower to return calls than my impatient self would like...wah! pooor me, eh?
NASD/NASDAQ is far worse, imo...their attrition rate must be horrendous.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
Not only did the company deserve one, but RPH was required by law to retain one. It doesn't matter that Rufus "may" have thought it was a waste of money. The Federal Judge admonished him for not having one and demanded that he retain Legal Counsel for the company. Hence the "Breach of fiduciary responsibility"
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: Are people suggesting that John took it over to crash & burn it???? C'mon.....
Where were we headed with no attorney? If Rufus didn't want one fine but doesn't the company deserve one?
posted
The market perception was positive or did you miss that?
You are free to do you own research and let us know why Mr. Harris would endorse a default judgement...ask a lawyer or two what your PPS valuation would be then?
quote:Originally posted by jm430: No offense Portman, but just because something is perceived to help, it doesn't mean that it is help.
What I mean by this is that the 'shareholder's committee' and Mr. Arlitt may have the best intentions for the shareholders, but if it was done illegally, then 10 is right...this is NOT good for us. I, unfortunately, don't know enough about this to know if it was illegal or not. It doesn't sound like the SEC even knows...
Most of us don't know what happened to really cause Rufus to be 'voted' out, but I think it was impatience. I think Rufus knew what he was doing, but that's my opinion on this. We'll all see what happens. Let's hope all turns out well. I think the Euroclear site helps us shareholders out a LOT. In fact, I'll be that's why our price has been going up lately... Well, good luck all. I'm going to hang in there and just see where this goes.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward"
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: Are people suggesting that John took it over to crash & burn it???? C'mon.....
Where were we headed with no attorney? If Rufus didn't want one fine but doesn't the company deserve one?
I am not suggesting this Jenna, I am wondering if this was a powerplay for some external entity. It is almost like you can see two invisible giants fighting it out and here comes here comes this little guy who jumps in and you are wondering what giant he is working for, or is he just working for himself.
posted
Portman, I don't have a legal background but what would the default judgement do to the company? Would this delist the company totally?
I thought somebody here on allstocks talked to Alana Black, and it seemed like the company wouldn't be doomed. Anybody have a link? If that bought us time to prove that the SEC's claims were unjustified, then Rufus was in fact correct with his plan.
I'm not saying what the committee did was absolutely wrong. They may have been correct in what they did (my opinion is they jumped the gun). All I'm saying is that people shouldn't trash Rufus just yet. He might know what he's talking about afterall. So far, he seems to know his stuff.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Rufus said that he pulled $ down...So maybe he did..maybe he didn't...I really don't know...
And I believe you 100% that the SHC thought they were doing the best thing! let's hope it all works out... Goin' to bed now... sleep well all!
quote:Originally posted by portman: Did they? Maybe, maybe not...how much credibility do you give to a man who could not get lawyers in months....or one who gets them in days?
I will tell all of you what was done was done to protect each and every shareholder...
..and I think you were personally told that 10.
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Tex? Rufus pulled down on one of the bonds...from Panama... The SEc "told Rufus" that even if he pulled down on the bonds..that they would charge him with fraud... He felt stuck in a box...and no matter what he did...he was going to get charged...Why pay a lawyer? he's loosing either way...
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: I'm curious to see how the SEC can claim fraud on a bond when it's proven. I don't have a choice it looks like.
what *are* you saying?
lol, what do you think is "proven" ?
10?
not following...
repost tomorrow?
will look for it...
along with new firewood
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get something (I'm sure many are not surprised) Rufus said if he hypothicated the bonds he would be charged with fraud but then he said to look at Euroclear website because he pulled down a bond....which is it? Did I miss something?
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: Are people suggesting that John took it over to crash & burn it???? C'mon.....
Where were we headed with no attorney? If Rufus didn't want one fine but doesn't the company deserve one?
I haven't gotten that impression. I think like 10 of 13 does. They had good intentions but may have done the wrong thing.
How many people here were given the chance to vote on the removal of Rufus? I know I wasn't and was taken aback by Anthony stating that he voted but was not on the SHC. Something doesn't ring true here.
Many here say that Rufus stated that the company could not afford a lawyer but I still never heard that. What I heard was that John "TUT" Arlitt didn't have access to the funds in order to do that. I will try to get clarification on this point.
I just hope that the actions that have been taken are not unwittingly doing us harm.
I believe I have posted my concerns with the path that Rufus has taken so I am not a proponent of his but a proponent of us the shareholders. I just want to make sure that everything is done above board, legally and has no ill effects towards the final outcome.
posted
Wally - he did say there was no funds to get a lawyer....then he asked if John has access to that money....If I have 3 hours of my life to waist tomorrow I may listen again just to be 100% sure but as of right now I'm 95% sure he said it like that....
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!!
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
