quote:Originally posted by Jenna: 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?
Jenna ~ a lot of people have been saying this. I did not hear this from Rufus. I heard that they said "it did not matter if" he pulled down the bond or not they were continuing with the Frawd complaint.
-------------------- Una Mas! Posts: 2717 | From: Eville,IN,USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: 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?
Jenna ~ a lot of people have been saying this. I did not hear this from Rufus. I heard that they said "it did not matter if" he pulled down the bond or not they were continuing with the Frawd complaint.
Now, if I heard Rufus properly, he stated that the SEC told him if he pulled down anything from the bonds they would consider it fraud. That's what I heard. My ears may not be working properly.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: 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?
possibly...
let's look at it this way:
you've seen/heard *everything" the former CEO has to say about bonds, yes?
If it were *your* company, ie, you were in charge? Wouldn't you make sure that *everybody* understood the bond questions?
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.
GLTA Wally
"What I heard was that John "TUT" Arlitt didn't have access to the funds in order to do that. "
yikes...how is it the CEO has no access to funds ?
to hire a lawyer? right?
for a company that needs to answer, quickly...
Lol, what's the use of being Boss, if you cain't boss?
posted
The SEC may then request the Revocation Process to begin. Then a hearing, then a ruling from a judge.
Look at the SEC regs...but it would be months in limbo.
quote:Originally posted by jm430: 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.
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: 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?
possibly...
let's look at it this way:
you've seen/heard *everything" the former CEO has to say about bonds, yes?
If it were *your* company, ie, you were in charge? Wouldn't you make sure that *everybody* understood the bond questions?
make sense?
Right TEX
The whole idea, IMO, was that Rufus was trying to state was the fact that Conversion Solutions had access to Euroclear and that in order to do this they would need to have a minimum of $200 Million in assests. Those assests are based on the bonds.
Does this put an end to all the questions here? No. But it does lend some credence to his claims.
Much is still to be determined and only time will tell us the full story. I'll sit here with beer at night or a cup of coffee in the morning and see what happens.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chart is really going to be upset tomorrow that he missed all of this, hope he gets his computor fixed.
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| 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.
GLTA Wally
"What I heard was that John "TUT" Arlitt didn't have access to the funds in order to do that. "
yikes...how is it the CEO has no access to funds ?
to hire a lawyer? right?
for a company that needs to answer, quickly...
Lol, what's the use of being Boss, if you cain't boss?
The real question is? Who is the boss? How can someone come in state they are taking over and automatically have access to funds?
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by portman: None taken....this is a discussion...read the SEC rules as to what will happen when the default gets signed.
quote:Originally posted by jm430: Thanks wallymac...I agree with you and 10of13.
Portman, no offense to you whatsoever. This was the point I was trying to make. I think I'll leave the eloquence to 10of13 and wallymac.
We all just want the same thing...
Just to let you know. I do respect you and your opinion Portman. You have done a lot of great DD on this play. I have always found you to be balanced in your views and appreciated it.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| 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.
GLTA Wally
"What I heard was that John "TUT" Arlitt didn't have access to the funds in order to do that. "
yikes...how is it the CEO has no access to funds ?
to hire a lawyer? right?
for a company that needs to answer, quickly...
Lol, what's the use of being Boss, if you cain't boss?
The real question is? Who is the boss? How can someone come in state they are taking over and automatically have access to funds?
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.
GLTA Wally
"What I heard was that John "TUT" Arlitt didn't have access to the funds in order to do that. "
yikes...how is it the CEO has no access to funds ?
to hire a lawyer? right?
for a company that needs to answer, quickly...
Lol, what's the use of being Boss, if you cain't boss?
The real question is? Who is the boss? How can someone come in state they are taking over and automatically have access to funds?
GLTA Wally
so, you're positing an illegitamate take-over?
wow!
It's a possibility. I think we all need to take a step back and really analyze what is going on here. Why did Randy agree to come back as CFO but only with B&O insurance? He has a vested interest so I can see him comming back but requiring that he is insured brings questions to my mind as to his feelings when it comes to the take over. Just some thoughts.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That respect would be mutual and you have done some fine work as well..
Remember too if the action was illegal RPH will be in charge if not...you may have been saved from delisting.
quote:Originally posted by wallymac:
quote:Originally posted by portman: None taken....this is a discussion...read the SEC rules as to what will happen when the default gets signed.
quote:Originally posted by jm430: Thanks wallymac...I agree with you and 10of13.
Portman, no offense to you whatsoever. This was the point I was trying to make. I think I'll leave the eloquence to 10of13 and wallymac.
We all just want the same thing...
Just to let you know. I do respect you and your opinion Portman. You have done a lot of great DD on this play. I have always found you to be balanced in your views and appreciated it.
GLTA Wally
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by portman: D&O insurance is a basic requirement for people in a public company...The fact that RPH did not have it was considered highly questionable.
not to mention his posting on boards, PRs without disclaimers, etc...
posted
We as shareholders really need to stop for a second and not get entrenched in one camp or the other. This isn't about who is right or wrong it's about protecting our investment. As I stated previously, maybe a bit facitiously, I don't care who runs the company(BONZO, for those too young Bonzo was a monkey in a Ronald Reagan movie, I just want to see the right things get done.
I'm on the outside looking in, no inside info, not part of the "Know Boat", but I do have a mind and can look at things logically.
There was a big difference in Mike Alexander taking control and the situation we now find ourselves in. Mike talked to Rufus, explained what he was going to do and went forward with Rufus as his ally. The action taken by the SHC and John "TUT" Arlitt was back door. Rufus was not informed and not brought on board. In fact listening to him tonight, I'd say that much more was going on behind the scenes than anyone knows. The SEC, the T/A who knows.
Please take a step back, look at things logically. Let's work as a group to piece this together. Remember that the easiest way to defeat an opponent is to divide and conquer. Stick together and we might just get a good idea of what is really happening here.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like the SEC is breaking the law or obstructing justice if the bond is visible and they still say it's fraud. That does'nt make sense. A lawyer should know that. which I am not. But I know it too.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't get the impression I hate RPH. Personally I think he is brilliant in many respects. I also repsect Mr. Arlitt and find him to be a very good businessman. If I have misjudged either...time will tell.
My intrest is in the shareholders who are long.
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: We as shareholders really need to stop for a second and not get entrenched in one camp or the other. This isn't about who is right or wrong it's about protecting our investment. As I stated previously, maybe a bit facitiously, I don't care who runs the company(BONZO, for those too young Bonzo was a monkey in a Ronald Reagan movie, I just want to see the right things get done.
I'm on the outside looking in, no inside info, not part of the "Know Boat", but I do have a mind and can look at things logically.
There was a big difference in Mike Alexander taking control and the situation we now find ourselves in. Mike talked to Rufus, explained what he was going to do and went forward with Rufus as his ally. The action taken by the SHC and John "TUT" Arlitt was back door. Rufus was not informed and not brought on board. In fact listening to him tonight, I'd say that much more was going on behind the scenes than anyone knows. The SEC, the T/A who knows.
Please take a step back, look at things logically. Let's work as a group to piece this together. Remember that the easiest way to defeat an opponent is to divide and conquer. Stick together and we might just get a good idea of what is really happening here.
GLTA Wally
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by portman: Don't get the impression I hate RPH. Personally I think he is brilliant in many respects. I also repsect Mr. Arlitt and find him to be a very good businessman. If I have misjudged either...time will tell.
My intrest is in the shareholders who are long.
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: We as shareholders really need to stop for a second and not get entrenched in one camp or the other. This isn't about who is right or wrong it's about protecting our investment. As I stated previously, maybe a bit facitiously, I don't care who runs the company(BONZO, for those too young Bonzo was a monkey in a Ronald Reagan movie, I just want to see the right things get done.
I'm on the outside looking in, no inside info, not part of the "Know Boat", but I do have a mind and can look at things logically.
There was a big difference in Mike Alexander taking control and the situation we now find ourselves in. Mike talked to Rufus, explained what he was going to do and went forward with Rufus as his ally. The action taken by the SHC and John "TUT" Arlitt was back door. Rufus was not informed and not brought on board. In fact listening to him tonight, I'd say that much more was going on behind the scenes than anyone knows. The SEC, the T/A who knows.
Please take a step back, look at things logically. Let's work as a group to piece this together. Remember that the easiest way to defeat an opponent is to divide and conquer. Stick together and we might just get a good idea of what is really happening here.
GLTA Wally
Well, there aren't really any short term shareholders imo. Almost everyones pretty much a long now, unless they want to sell for a loss.
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
A lot of talk last night eh? I find it interesting how some peoples opinions still skirt around the issue that there was no proxy to legally do what just happened. Should Arlitt be in charge? Should Rufus be in charge? Rufus himself said weeks ago that the shareholders should ne in charge. Now, if we just go through the PROPER PROCESS to do so maybe that can happen
In the meantime i suggest we all get used to the idea of Rufus fighting Arlitt because Arlitt (who has tons of experience) just possibly led a small group of our shareholers into an illegal hostile takeover. I never voted and im quite sure 99.8% of the other shareholders never voted either so do i have to say it?
"I want a Do-over!"
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember three clues from the past (and I do hate that clues are all we have but it is the best we've got right now):
1) Rufus always considered it very important to have your certs in hand.
2) Before most of us even dreamed about pulling logs out of the Amazon, Rufus indicated that a trust bought up some or all of the float.
3) There was a comment made very late one evening while Rufus was on SPR to the effect of, "We already puled all of the slips from the DTC." Forgive the paraphrasing but I could not find the exact quote on a search.
As I watch all of this unfold. Every question about who is in charge, and the SHC, and whether recent actions by some shareholders is legal, each of these questions hinges directly on one really big question:
Who are legal shareholders in CSHD?
So my questions. With the latest clue dropped of 600 million shares traded, would that mean that there is a 'majority' of shares in the naked/counterfeit pool? Does having a majority of shares in online trading accounts give me majority shareholder rights?
If, and I say IF, this is Rufus' truly bullet proof way of knowing he is right he still needs to prove it properly through the system. As the legal axiom goes, "Its not what you know, its what you can prove."
There are so many possibilities here. With so much time to plan this, so much mystery access to money (see Euroclear reqs) and alleged powerful people, my money and faith are still in Rufus' camp. My only concern is that this is yet another delay. I'll wait.
... In My humble Opinion
Posts: 150 | From: None | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: Good morning folks!!!
A lot of talk last night eh? I find it interesting how some peoples opinions still skirt around the issue that there was no proxy to legally do what just happened. Should Arlitt be in charge? Should Rufus be in charge? Rufus himself said weeks ago that the shareholders should ne in charge. Now, if we just go through the PROPER PROCESS to do so maybe that can happen
In the meantime i suggest we all get used to the idea of Rufus fighting Arlitt because Arlitt (who has tons of experience) just possibly led a small group of our shareholers into an illegal hostile takeover. I never voted and im quite sure 99.8% of the other shareholders never voted either so do i have to say it?
"I want a Do-over!"
Like I said above this can be resolved.
The two need to work TOGETHER. If they don't we should all sell this today and get whats left out of it.
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good morning. A lot has happened over the night and I have taken the time to read the thread. The question I have is why was this particular law firm retained?
Fields, Howell, Athans & McLaughlin, LLP practices in the following areas of law: Complex Insurance Matters, Commercial Litigation, including Products Liability, Aviation, Professional Liability and Class Actions.
I see the CYA words class action. Am I wrong on this?
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, my head hurts. Barnum & Bailey needs to step back because a new five-ring circus has stepped to the forefront. This is like the Hatfields and McCoys. What truly solid companies would want to business with CSHD until all the management in-fighting, perported durnken rantings on public radio, and SEC problems are resolved? Can anyone here believe that those issues can be resolved in a timely fashion?
Posts: 276 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wv1973: Also, my head hurts. Barnum & Bailey needs to step back because a new five-ring circus has stepped to the forefront. This is like the Hatfields and McCoys. What truly solid companies would want to business with CSHD until all the management in-fighting, perported durnken rantings on public radio, and SEC problems are resolved? Can anyone here believe that those issues can be resolved in a timely fashion?
Like I stated above wv if these two can work with each other and bring out each others forte we could resolve this.
posted
so basically rufus is gonna be a little kid and say something like u guys need us to run things because WE set up euroclear, etc...now we want a million dollars....does this guy see why he isnt CEO...what a joke, i have no respect for that guy anymore...
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
