-------------------- "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 milliam: From what I'm hearing about Rufus on SPR...he is basically saying CSHD can't do their business without him and Ben. How exactly can this be? I haven't seen the contracts for the bonds, but I assume they are with CSHD and not Rufus personally.
When Mike came back as CEO, he told me he had drawn on a bond. I guess that didn't actually happen. A thought I had was that Mike was having trouble drawing on the bond and put Rufus back in as CEO because he could do it. Why would Rufus be able to draw on a bond and not the current CEO?
it may have something to do with how the contract was drafted
Posts: 603 | From: Plymouth, MN | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: From what I'm hearing about Rufus on SPR...he is basically saying CSHD can't do their business without him and Ben. How exactly can this be? I haven't seen the contracts for the bonds, but I assume they are with CSHD and not Rufus personally.
When Mike came back as CEO, he told me he had drawn on a bond. I guess that didn't actually happen. A thought I had was that Mike was having trouble drawing on the bond and put Rufus back in as CEO because he could do it. Why would Rufus be able to draw on a bond and not the current CEO?
I am guessing knowledge of and signatory contract with Euroclear. From what I can tell, Rufus' signature and passport number may be the only way to access those bonds.
I think Mike may have pursued trying to monetize a chunk of the bond and realized the hurdles - an interesting insurance policy by Rufus if this is true that he and he alone (and maybe Ben) can pull the strings.
I keep asking myself what steps I woud have taken to prevent being thrown out if I were Rufus. This would be an obvious one.
.. In My humble Opinion
Posts: 150 | From: None | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good morning board. OK, 8 minutes into the day and a mighty 100 shares have traded (oh, and the price went up .01 to .30). Up is up!
Posts: 2498 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: From what I'm hearing about Rufus on SPR...he is basically saying CSHD can't do their business without him and Ben. How exactly can this be? I haven't seen the contracts for the bonds, but I assume they are with CSHD and not Rufus personally.
When Mike came back as CEO, he told me he had drawn on a bond. I guess that didn't actually happen. A thought I had was that Mike was having trouble drawing on the bond and put Rufus back in as CEO because he could do it. Why would Rufus be able to draw on a bond and not the current CEO?
I am guessing knowledge of and signatory contract with Euroclear. From what I can tell, Rufus' signature and passport number may be the only way to access those bonds.
I think Mike may have pursued trying to monetize a chunk of the bond and realized the hurdles - an interesting insurance policy by Rufus if this is true that he and he alone (and maybe Ben) can pull the strings.
I keep asking myself what steps I woud have taken to prevent being thrown out if I were Rufus. This would be an obvious one.
.. In My humble Opinion
so you are basicaly saying RPH has illeagaly denied the company access to thier assets? more likely in my mind, when the BOD realized there were no bond assets ( or MUTCH MUTCH less } than RPH led them to believe they resigned to avoid being charged with fraud as RUFUS was!
Posts: 2503 | From: connecticut | Registered: Mar 2005
| 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.
Kevin ..... I don't usually agree with your opinions .... HOWEVER ..........I agree with this one. I have suspected this for quite some time (as I have suggested in PM's to some of you). Rufus has done so many unexplained things in the past that make no sense, this opinion leans in the direction of that results. I still think that we have a strong possibility that CSHD is going to be very successful, but I think we have been "used" by Rufus and ALSO Ben. All one has to do is look at the conduct of Rufus. Does a CEO, who wants his company to succeed; perform the way he has been? The answer simply is NO. ........... Let's look forward now and give John the support he needs to make this work for us and the company.
Posts: 557 | From: UpState New York | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: From what I'm hearing about Rufus on SPR...he is basically saying CSHD can't do their business without him and Ben. How exactly can this be? I haven't seen the contracts for the bonds, but I assume they are with CSHD and not Rufus personally.
When Mike came back as CEO, he told me he had drawn on a bond. I guess that didn't actually happen. A thought I had was that Mike was having trouble drawing on the bond and put Rufus back in as CEO because he could do it. Why would Rufus be able to draw on a bond and not the current CEO?
I am guessing knowledge of and signatory contract with Euroclear. From what I can tell, Rufus' signature and passport number may be the only way to access those bonds.
I think Mike may have pursued trying to monetize a chunk of the bond and realized the hurdles - an interesting insurance policy by Rufus if this is true that he and he alone (and maybe Ben) can pull the strings.
I keep asking myself what steps I woud have taken to prevent being thrown out if I were Rufus. This would be an obvious one.
.. In My humble Opinion
so you are basicaly saying RPH has illeagaly denied the company access to thier assets? more likely in my mind, when the BOD realized there were no bond assets ( or MUTCH MUTCH less } than RPH led them to believe they resigned to avoid being charged with fraud as RUFUS was!
So along comes John Arlitt to take the blame for fraud? I could be wrong but it seems like that type of charge would stick to Rufus. Being as he is the one who made the claims and filings.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: From what I'm hearing about Rufus on SPR...he is basically saying CSHD can't do their business without him and Ben. How exactly can this be? I haven't seen the contracts for the bonds, but I assume they are with CSHD and not Rufus personally.
When Mike came back as CEO, he told me he had drawn on a bond. I guess that didn't actually happen. A thought I had was that Mike was having trouble drawing on the bond and put Rufus back in as CEO because he could do it. Why would Rufus be able to draw on a bond and not the current CEO?
I am guessing knowledge of and signatory contract with Euroclear. From what I can tell, Rufus' signature and passport number may be the only way to access those bonds.
I think Mike may have pursued trying to monetize a chunk of the bond and realized the hurdles - an interesting insurance policy by Rufus if this is true that he and he alone (and maybe Ben) can pull the strings.
I keep asking myself what steps I woud have taken to prevent being thrown out if I were Rufus. This would be an obvious one.
.. In My humble Opinion
so you are basicaly saying RPH has illeagaly denied the company access to thier assets? more likely in my mind, when the BOD realized there were no bond assets ( or MUTCH MUTCH less } than RPH led them to believe they resigned to avoid being charged with fraud as RUFUS was!
So along comes John Arlitt to take the blame for fraud? I could be wrong but it seems like that type of charge would stick to Rufus. Being as he is the one who made the claims and filings.
Arlitt can blame RUFUS and prior management for EVERYTHING, IF there are no or very low value bond assets he can blame RPH and his team for the deception and take steps to restructure the company or even change the buisness plan.
Posts: 2503 | From: connecticut | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rufus said he and company thought out every step of this process while forming this company. He must have missed some important point where the SEC is concerned with his claim that the SEC is charging him with fraud whether he monetizes a bond or it just sits there. I'll be glad when some one gets around to facts about all of this. I'm tired of just seeing a bunch of big numbers get thrown around and nobody is ever factually doing something about it. Harris says he always puts a short time frame on things, but more times than not he takes a very long time getting things done. IMO
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trying to get back to the old thread, but can't get it to come up for me. I know there was some importance for Dec. 4th for the case - I bothered to write it on my calendar...
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it.... Posts: 3903 | From: Gulf Coast | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: I was trying to get back to the old thread, but can't get it to come up for me. I know there was some importance for Dec. 4th for the case - I bothered to write it on my calendar...
yes exactly! the only thing i know for sure is today is rufus and bens trial. but i thought CSHD had some legal business as well
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: I was trying to get back to the old thread, but can't get it to come up for me. I know there was some importance for Dec. 4th for the case - I bothered to write it on my calendar...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
the single link that I posted? that one works...but for some reason you can not copy and paste links from a page to a page..You have to copy from the tool bar onto the post..it's really odd...
quote:Originally posted by a surfer:
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: Thanks, 10 - I tried to use the link on page 1 and couldn't get it to pop up. This one worked fine though!
The links on page one don't work.
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That occurs because they are to long to put on a single line automatically...it puts a space in between the break from one line to the next...gotta delete that space to make it work...
quote:so you are basicaly saying RPH has illeagaly denied the company access to thier assets? more likely in my mind, when the BOD realized there were no bond assets ( or MUTCH MUTCH less } than RPH led them to believe they resigned to avoid being charged with fraud as RUFUS was!
No, that was what you said. I was referring to the Euroclear account acting like a corporate bank account. There are a limited number of signatory agents to any financial account. If the majority shareholders want to dismiss those agents I hope they had a plan to transfer that authority.
Additionally, one of the criteria of having a Euroclear account is the knowledge of how to use that account. It seems that there be more to it than accessing a personal bank account.
... In My humble Opinion
Posts: 150 | From: None | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:so you are basicaly saying RPH has illeagaly denied the company access to thier assets? more likely in my mind, when the BOD realized there were no bond assets ( or MUTCH MUTCH less } than RPH led them to believe they resigned to avoid being charged with fraud as RUFUS was!
No, that was what you said. I was referring to the Euroclear account acting like a corporate bank account. There are a limited number of signatory agents to any financial account. If the majority shareholders want to dismiss those agents I hope they had a plan to transfer that authority.
Additionally, one of the criteria of having a Euroclear account is the knowledge of how to use that account. It seems that there be more to it than accessing a personal bank account.
... In My humble Opinion
if euroclear is like a corporate bank account, the first thing the corporation would do upon fireing the CEO would be to block that person from ANY access to the companies assets and accounts to keep that person from plundering those accounts, no? IF RPH had some kind of exlusive access would he not be compelled BY LAW to relinquish such access to the company?
Posts: 2503 | From: connecticut | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:so you are basicaly saying RPH has illeagaly denied the company access to thier assets? more likely in my mind, when the BOD realized there were no bond assets ( or MUTCH MUTCH less } than RPH led them to believe they resigned to avoid being charged with fraud as RUFUS was!
No, that was what you said. I was referring to the Euroclear account acting like a corporate bank account. There are a limited number of signatory agents to any financial account. If the majority shareholders want to dismiss those agents I hope they had a plan to transfer that authority.
Additionally, one of the criteria of having a Euroclear account is the knowledge of how to use that account. It seems that there be more to it than accessing a personal bank account.
... In My humble Opinion
if euroclear is like a corporate bank account, the first thing the corporation would do upon fireing the CEO would be to block that person from ANY access to the companies assets and accounts to keep that person from plundering those accounts, no? IF RPH had some kind of exlusive access would he not be compelled BY LAW to relinquish such access to the company?
That is a good question. None of us knows much about how Euroclear works or how much flexibility/exclusivity can be built into contracts related to accounts. My point is that there may be more to this than we know because of the unique nature of Euroclear. Remember, this institution holds funds for some very rich and powerful people, as well as international companies and even governments. Many of these entities would want to provide themselves some protection against a coup, so to speak.
When we talk about the law compelling RPH to do something relative to Euroclear, there needs to be some sort of jurisdiction to do that. RPH might give them a number that only works for RPH. That being the case, he will have complied with local law and yet no one can touch the money.
I remember the word "irrevocable" being used by RPH and that might be the road block that the majority shareholders did not expect. I want the best for the company and us little guys. I just fear that if too many people cry out to banish Rufus there might be an unintended consequence.
FWIW, I think Rufus knows all of this and is just waiting for everyone else to figure it out - hence the relaxed radio interview on Nov 30th.
... In My humble Opinion
Posts: 150 | From: None | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish they would a) figure out who is/has to be CEO to conduct business effectively, and b) get the SEC out of the way, and c) issue the 6 shares before the price goes back up (assuming it does).
Don't mean to whine - I was just thinking about the fact that I was nervous about the stock resetting to $15 the day of my child's kindergarten orientation - IN AUGUST. Patience I have, but this has gotten stupid...
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it.... Posts: 3903 | From: Gulf Coast | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree SherriT. I think most here do. No doubt the major shareholders would like to see all of this resolved also, being as they have a lot to gain. I have the impression that they want to do what ever is neccessary as fast as possible to get this stock into some kind of normal progressiver mode. I don't know about all the big guns behind this stock succeeding, I don't see the results of it. It looks to me like the company is on it's own. If anybody big exists behind this it seems more like the stuff where they have to deny your existence if you ever get busted. No record of our existence and such.
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: I just wish they would a) figure out who is/has to be CEO to conduct business effectively, and b) get the SEC out of the way, and c) issue the 6 shares before the price goes back up (assuming it does).
Don't mean to whine - I was just thinking about the fact that I was nervous about the stock resetting to $15 the day of my child's kindergarten orientation - IN AUGUST. Patience I have, but this has gotten stupid...
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: I agree SherriT. I think most here do. No doubt the major shareholders would like to see all of this resolved also, being as they have a lot to gain. I have the impression that they want to do what ever is neccessary as fast as possible to get this stock into some kind of normal progressiver mode. I don't know about all the big guns behind this stock succeeding, I don't see the results of it. It looks to me like the company is on it's own. If anybody big exists behind this it seems more like the stuff where they have to deny your existence if you ever get busted. No record of our existence and such.
quote:Originally posted by SherriT: I just wish they would a) figure out who is/has to be CEO to conduct business effectively, and b) get the SEC out of the way, and c) issue the 6 shares before the price goes back up (assuming it does).
Don't mean to whine - I was just thinking about the fact that I was nervous about the stock resetting to $15 the day of my child's kindergarten orientation - IN AUGUST. Patience I have, but this has gotten stupid...
Regardless of whether you are a big player or a little fish (just call me Nemo...), I think everyone would at least like to get back to where we were before the halt, and trading on a real exchange. I hope you are right about seeing progress soon...I truly hope John is in there legally and can continue moving us forward....and hopefully Rufus is thinking about his own shares being very valuable instead of standing in the way if in fact he is the only one with "access" to the bonds...
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it.... Posts: 3903 | From: Gulf Coast | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya Rufus is my biggest concern right now. I don't want him to be suicidal and take us all with him.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeese...I sure wish I knew who was trading these big groups...it sure would be telling...
I know from buying in the last few days that these large transactions are not "regular" folks...hell I couldn't get 10k shares for .20 over the current price...
My best guess? Either the T/A is moving shares back and forth for some reason or a Broker/Dealer is doing the same...I can't rationalize anything else...
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |