quote:Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: It would be hard to prove, as long as RPH didn't leave any paper trail. It would explain a lot about his erratic behavior over the last few weeks, though. It's this type of scam--MUCH more than any "naked shorters"--that causes stocks like CSHD to rise and fall quickly like it did.
WRONG! Your lack of DD over the course of events just leaves you ill informed and looking stupid!!! I have been looking into this company for over 6 months and so i actually have an idea about what i am talking about !!!!
-------------------- 'The rewards for those that persevere, far exceed the pain that must proceed the victory!' Posts: 399 | From: leeds, england | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: The basic plan would be that he would have friends and associates who would "own" stock in the company, only for the purposes of dumping it on the way up. They sell into the rally, keeping some of the gains as their "commission" for giving him complete deniability about running a pump-and-dump scam. A scheme such as that is much more elaborate and involved than the above summation, and I can't prove this is what happened, but SOMEONE was selling into that rally, and making money all the way up. Circumstantial evidence would point to Rufus and/or other insiders.
So you think the folks involved in this company have this ring of friends who are willing to risk jailtime and be part of a stock scam?
Randy Mosely- been involved for years with corporations on the VP level. You think he risks his career and jailtime to make some money on the side pumping stock through his neighbor?
His neighbor risks jailtime and losing everything to make some "commissions" off the stock?
That sounds more ridiculous than anything I have heard as of yet.
We definately have our share of problems- the company has some rough seas its navigating through but thinking that the folks involved are hanging in there (yes hanging in because they could have left awhile ago) only to squeeze some more money out for the dump scheme as you indicate.
I know none of my colleagues/friends would be willing to risk prison or jailtime to buy and dump stock for me. Perhaps you have a different group of friends than I do....maybe thats why you even see that scenario as plausible.
For future reference- Don't drop the soap
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun Posts: 766 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both theories are plausible based on the charts. The SEC will likely determine which is true.
Kevin clearly defines the isolated scope in which he is discussing this play. Bashers do not do this.
quote:Originally posted by fhalyesss:
quote:Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: It would be hard to prove, as long as RPH didn't leave any paper trail. It would explain a lot about his erratic behavior over the last few weeks, though. It's this type of scam--MUCH more than any "naked shorters"--that causes stocks like CSHD to rise and fall quickly like it did.
WRONG! Your lack of DD over the course of events just leaves you ill informed and looking stupid!!! I have been looking into this company for over 6 months and so i actually have an idea about what i am talking about !!!!
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phheeewwwww! Just finished catching up on the HSM thread- talk about 100 pages of nothing but arguing about religion, global warming, and politics!
Good morning everyone!
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun Posts: 766 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's unfortunate that some people don't feel like ANY criticism of their stock should be allowed. And you're right as to my thoughts on the current group. While Arlitt seems to have a bit of a shady past, I think giving him the temporary benefit of the doubt is acceptable. It doesn't mean that skeptics like me are going to dive in, but people who are avowed longs on this stock (and who won't get out of it until and unless their money goes to 0) can certainly look on the firing of Rufus with excitement.
BTW, I've never heard you either confirm or deny that you are, in fact, Mark Porterfield. Are you?
-------------------- "Entrepreneurship is the last refuge of the trouble making individual."
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: That stuff about Susan Joseph is related to the BBAN issues. This has nothing to do with the SEC case or Conversion Solutions.
I suspect its just Susan Joseph wanting to get a dig in on Rufus while he is being kicked around. BBANs latest 10KSB looks a bit gloomy so maybe the timing was right for BBAN to come back after Harris and Stanley.
Why assume she's groundless, merely to wanting to get a "dig in"?
Im not assuming that. BBAN let the case go at the time, maybe they felt they didnt have a leg to stand on. Now that Rufus has more heat on him maybe she feels its a good time to strike. I support Rufus still but i can admit that some of that support is blind faith. He could have been guilty then and I guess he could be guilty now but ill let the courts decide that, im lacking too much info in both matters.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 66inxs: portman is it you that is the head of the shareholder's committee?
I think we can assume the answer to that is a no. There was nothing preventing Dogmando from coming out and saying who he really was so i would think that the new chairman would do the same. Otherwise we have another Tut scenario taking place....someone who wants to lead but is afraid to take off his mask.
It doesnt really matter anyway. Arltt appointed the new chairman and we dont even know for sure how Arlitt himself was brought into power yet. Until thats cleared up ill just assume our company is in limbo.
And Kevin, do you think that if Rufus or his friends and family made "bank" off of this he would still be calling into internet radio shows to speak out? It should be easy enough to determine i would think. Have Arlitt pull another NOBO list and see who "hit the road" since the last list.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: That stuff about Susan Joseph is related to the BBAN issues. This has nothing to do with the SEC case or Conversion Solutions.
I suspect its just Susan Joseph wanting to get a dig in on Rufus while he is being kicked around. BBANs latest 10KSB looks a bit gloomy so maybe the timing was right for BBAN to come back after Harris and Stanley.
Why assume she's groundless, merely to wanting to get a "dig in"?
Im not assuming that. BBAN let the case go at the time, maybe they felt they didnt have a leg to stand on. Now that Rufus has more heat on him maybe she feels its a good time to strike. I support Rufus still but i can admit that some of that support is blind faith. He could have been guilty then and I guess he could be guilty now but ill let the courts decide that, im lacking too much info in both matters.
as far as BBAN "not having a leg to stand on" not quite the way it went down, BBAN allowed the case to be "dismissed without predjudice" ( giving them the right to refile ) because there were no assets available AT THE TIME to pay the damages they sought!. NOW they see RPH and stanley owning stock in a company supposedly worth "billions" giving RPH and stanley assets they can now go after. IMO!
Posts: 2503 | From: connecticut | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Madmoney, you are correct...i worded that incorrectly. Not that they didnt have a leg to stand on, but that it would have gotten them nothing. As you said, they had no assets.
So, what if Arlitt pulls all of Rufus and Bens stock before the civil suit? I wonder how many times BBAN can refile?
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 66inxs: portman is it you that is the head of the shareholder's committee?
I think we can assume the answer to that is a no. There was nothing preventing Dogmando from coming out and saying who he really was so i would think that the new chairman would do the same. Otherwise we have another Tut scenario taking place....someone who wants to lead but is afraid to take off his mask.
It doesnt really matter anyway. Arltt appointed the new chairman and we dont even know for sure how Arlitt himself was brought into power yet. Until thats cleared up ill just assume our company is in limbo.
And Kevin, do you think that if Rufus or his friends and family made "bank" off of this he would still be calling into internet radio shows to speak out? It should be easy enough to determine i would think. Have Arlitt pull another NOBO list and see who "hit the road" since the last list.
i agree with your post completely, except that if it is not you, just say so. it is very simple. it might also be interesting to find out what connection mark porterfield, whomever he might really be, has to the main players, if any. if people want to play, no problem. just take your mask off and stand up to be counted imho.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me! Posts: 950 | From: Middle of Nowhere, Missouri | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: And Kevin, do you think that if Rufus or his friends and family made "bank" off of this he would still be calling into internet radio shows to speak out? It should be easy enough to determine i would think. Have Arlitt pull another NOBO list and see who "hit the road" since the last list.
Why wouldn't they? If they had enough of a degree of separation, why not call into radio shows to defend themselves and their stock. Perhaps their proxies still had some stock they needed to dump, and they felt that going on SPR would give it a bit of a bump (which has happened with the .15 to .30 move) and allow them to clear out all their positions. Who knows really? All I know is that where there's smoke, there's usually fire. And there's plenty of pump-and-dump smoke with this stock?
-------------------- "Entrepreneurship is the last refuge of the trouble making individual."
posted
HSM is like the “SETI Project” - unproductive static followed by fanatics!
quote:Originally posted by frank021474: Phheeewwwww! Just finished catching up on the HSM thread- talk about 100 pages of nothing but arguing about religion, global warming, and politics!
Good morning everyone!
Posts: 386 | From: Plano, TX | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that it HAD to happen, but I haven't heard a better explanation for why it actually DID happen. I'm sorry, but "naked shorters" don't explain the price fluctuations of this stock. Someone SOMEWHERE was dumping. Shorting the stock simply doesn't cause the dramatic runup, and precipitous fall that we've seen in this stock.
-------------------- "Entrepreneurship is the last refuge of the trouble making individual."
posted
I haven't heard the SPR interview from the other night, but I remember someone talking about what Rufus said about John's 8k. Rufus said something to the effect that John did it through the TA and that Rufus was only able to get them done through the TA as well. Is this usual business? I wouldn't think the TA would be the people to put out filings for the company.
Also, has anyone been able to confirm that the default was canceled? I've seen the postings from Pacer, but it doesn't really make anything apparent. From my talks with Alana, it would seem that the default might go away now that they hired a law firm. It would also seem that the SEC lawsuit would begin progressing.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you all seriously still questioning this after so many have confirmed it?
I thought this was settled law already. I don't read everything here because there is just not enough time.
Just be patient enough to give me some time to get a few items worked out. There will be much more I can share about the SHC next week.
Beyond this please do not expect me to talk about the SHC here. I will ignore it mostly. The best route of communication for me is the site where everyone can see it.
quote:Originally posted by 66inxs: portman is it you that is the head of the shareholder's committee?
-------------------- - "Pay it Forward" Posts: 1524 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one here had "confirmed" anything. It seemed that a lot of people were simply speculating that you were Porterfield, and you were neither confirming nor denying it. That's why I asked if you were the same person.
quote:Originally posted by portman: Are you all seriously still questioning this after so many have confirmed it?
I thought this was settled law already. I don't read everything here because there is just not enough time.
Just be patient enough to give me some time to get a few items worked out. There will be much more I can share about the SHC next week.
Beyond this please do not expect me to talk about the SHC here. I will ignore it mostly. The best route of communication for me is the site where everyone can see it.
quote:Originally posted by 66inxs: portman is it you that is the head of the shareholder's committee?
-------------------- "Entrepreneurship is the last refuge of the trouble making individual."
quote:Originally posted by Kevin Bailey: The basic plan would be that he would have friends and associates who would "own" stock in the company, only for the purposes of dumping it on the way up. They sell into the rally, keeping some of the gains as their "commission" for giving him complete deniability about running a pump-and-dump scam. A scheme such as that is much more elaborate and involved than the above summation, and I can't prove this is what happened, but SOMEONE was selling into that rally, and making money all the way up. Circumstantial evidence would point to Rufus and/or other insiders.
We have to keep our minds open....something isn't adding up.... I'm sure this wouldn't be the first time this has happened- whether we want to believe it or not this could be a possibility....isn't there a way we could check old sale? Can we check sales that were happening when it went up to 3.00 & 4.00. I would be interested to see if there were large blocks being sold....
Also, Don't forget about the Berlin Exchange- I'm curious as to why if no one from CSHD authorized this- Why didn't they work on getting it off that exchange.....When Rufus & Ben found out & were on SPR - I remember them talking about it but does anyone remember exactly what they said....I don't remember...Did they say thet were going to take care of it?
Please guys- don't take offense to what I am saying - I just think it's time we start looking into things better instead of takling Rufus'or anyones words for things....
I will try to find answers to these questions I have...any help would be appreciated...
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I do not know if some still have apprehension with the Shareholder Committee’s perceived “role” in the recent change of management. When it read that, the Committee “unanimously approved” of the change it certainly did NOT appear to me that their opinion was anything more than, well an opinion . The Committee might as well have issued a release that read we “unanimously approve” Dark Chocolate as the prettiest thoroughbred at Equine Solutions. Who cares! The point that seems to be lost by many, including RPH, is that the majority “VOTING” interest of CSHD, voted for the change, which they have the legal right to do.
Smoke em’ if you got em’!
Posts: 386 | From: Plano, TX | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenna? the Berlin Exchange? Rufus made a big "fuss" over the shares trading there...he was stating that he was wondering who authorized them to trade...he claimed that he didn't. Why would he bring attention to that it was trading there if he was trying to "dump shares"? Doesn't seem it would be him...Was it Sabra? Mitch? Just speculating here..not saying it was or wasn't...
Milliam? the thing that I remember RPH questioning about the TA was how did John get the 6:1 shares passed through the TA? RPH said he couldn't...not as a "threshold reset" RPH was questioning how did John get those? Did he do a dividend? RPH was also asking how John could get an 8K passed through the TA...meaning...John shouldn't have been recognized as the CEO..RPH was questioning how John would have gotten all this done... AGAIN...this is how I am "reading" these comments not necessarily how it is...
Portman has allot of work to do with the SHC...I most definitely would not want to be in his shoes...I believe that he will get the job done...AND? get it done the right way...
For the record...I still have concerns about John and how he "got placed as CEO"...I hope that will all be cleared up in the near future...
GLTA!
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
10 you make it sound like Conversion needs the T/A permission on how to handle the share distribution, but when I talk to them they make it sound like they are waiting for instructions from Conversion on what they should do and when..
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes..it is my understanding that the TA is to do what the company tells them...BUT? it is also my understanding that the TA says if they "can" do it legally or not...AND? RPH seems to suggest that the TA said that he couldn't do a 6:1 threshold reset...BUT he could do a 6:1 dividend...and again 6...it's the way that I am understanding it...
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: 10 you make it sound like Conversion needs the T/A permission on how to handle the share distribution, but when I talk to them they make it sound like they are waiting for instructions from Conversion on what they should do and when..
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey was december 4th just a deadline for a default response? i dont rememember but besides the trial against ben and rufus is their something CONVERSION is doing with the courts? tia
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I have'nt ever picked it up from them that there was an issue so far. Maybe they don't care to mention it.
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Yes..it is my understanding that the TA is to do what the company tells them...BUT? it is also my understanding that the TA says if they "can" do it legally or not...AND? RPH seems to suggest that the TA said that he couldn't do a 6:1 threshold reset...BUT he could do a 6:1 dividend...and again 6...it's the way that I am understanding it...
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: 10 you make it sound like Conversion needs the T/A permission on how to handle the share distribution, but when I talk to them they make it sound like they are waiting for instructions from Conversion on what they should do and when..
posted
6digits.. I haven't called the TA since the new CEO PR'd that we were getting the 6:1...but when it was said before..back in October? The TA told me that they had heard talk of it...but that to their knowledge is wasn't yet authorized...what ever that meant...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: 6digits.. I haven't called the TA since the new CEO PR'd that we were getting the 6:1...but when it was said before..back in October? The TA told me that they had heard talk of it...but that to their knowledge is wasn't yet authorized...what ever that meant...
im sure well get the 6 but not anytime soon...who cares...what are 6 shares good for if its gonna dilute the share count!! lets get the price high up first...then continue your whining for your shares..you all sound like little kids gimme gimme 6 i want six, give me 6, ive been waiting too long gimme gimme gimme...
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
