quote:Originally posted by 6digits: No not trading, but thinking about it often.
LMAO
Seriously though - with these fluctuations we see everyday - today has been between .11 and .30 for example - if you could get a pattern you could make nice change and no longer give a rat's patootie about 6:1...
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it....
IP: Logged |
posted
to da mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooN.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TexasMoney: How soon we forget …
It wasn’t that long ago that we listened to RPH on subpennyradio.com, shouting, “You’ve grabbed the wrong tiger by the tail”.
Once asked on SPR if he had a lawyer on retainer, he responded, “Yes, I have several” and elaborated that his primary attorney could not attend the first SEC hearing “because the lawyer was vacationing in Italy.”
Last night when asked if he had a lawyer on retainer, he responded, “No”.
A few weeks ago, he claimed to be on the hunt for a “bulldog” of a lawyer because we were “going on the offensive”.
When asked about the possibility of returning to the market on grey sheets, he responded “no way”.
When questioned about the possibility of a default judgment being entered he said, “We’ve signed the injunction, no further response is needed – that won’t happen”.
When asked two weeks before the 10Q due date, will the 10Q be filed on time, he answered, “absolutely”.
When asked two weeks before the 10Q due date, will the 10Q be audited, he answered, “yes it will”.
After taking back, control of the company, that same night Rufus claimed, “Our ducks are lined up” and now its time to move forward. Just two days passed, and the SEC, due to CSHD’s failure to respond, entered the default judgment.
This is a very short list of “breaches of fiduciary responsibility” over a short period; however, Rufus would have you believe that it is the SEC, NSS, DTCC, Transfer Agent, and Shareholder Committee’s fault.
Don't forget that on a recent SPR horsecrap session Rufus mentioned that he had 4 MMs that wanted to list this stock. Why are'nt they. On another session he said that Conversion had opened a line of credit to buy back the shares if things did'nt go right. On the last session, he said we would have to sue someone to get it. He also said that he was going to bring down funds on a bond, then the next time he said he would be accused of fraud if he did that. Sorry about the negativity, but I wish it was positive instead.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by trade04: to da mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooN.
If you were within striking distance, I'd smack you for that one
I would just like to see a .30 again or hey, let's aim high here, a .40
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it....
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: No not trading, but thinking about it often.
LMAO
Seriously though - with these fluctuations we see everyday - today has been between .11 and .30 for example - if you could get a pattern you could make nice change and no longer give a rat's patootie about 6:1...
two trades at .30 and three at .11 - the true range is between .22 and .27 on low volume, if you timed it PERFECT and actualy got filled on the buy and sell side for your price you might make 3 or 400,with trades comming sometimes an hour apart, or you might get stuck with it, is it worth the risk?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: No not trading, but thinking about it often.
LMAO
Seriously though - with these fluctuations we see everyday - today has been between .11 and .30 for example - if you could get a pattern you could make nice change and no longer give a rat's patootie about 6:1...
two trades at .30 and three at .11 - the true range is between .22 and .27 on low volume, if you timed it PERFECT and actualy got filled on the buy and sell side for your price you might make 3 or 400,with trades comming sometimes an hour apart, or you might get stuck with it, is it worth the risk?
No, I just wondered if anyone was trying it. I wish I could hit the .30 for a few of my shares...
(Edit: If I were going to "play" with a grey, it would be AMWS - 4900% this afternoon...)
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it....
IP: Logged |
By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch Last Update: 1:37 PM ET Dec 4, 2006
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. securities regulators voted Monday to back new rules that aim to stamp out manipulation related to short selling that occurs during stock offerings. 'The purpose of this amendment is, once and for all, to put an end to the progression of schemes that have been engineered to camouflage covering activity that's already outlawed or supposed to be outlawed.' — Christopher Cox, SEC The five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission voted unanimously to prohibit investors who have sold stocks short during a restricted period before a public offering from buying securities in that offering.
The proposal aims to outlaw "covering" of short sales with offering proceeds. "The purpose of this amendment is, once and for all, to put an end to the progression of schemes that have been engineered to camouflage covering activity that's already outlawed or supposed to be outlawed," SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said.
The SEC has brought several enforcement actions in connection with short sales and public offerings. Despite existing rules, "it appears that abuses continue in this area," said SEC Commissioner Annette Nazareth.
In short sales, which aim to reap profit from falling stock prices, investors borrow a security or futures contract from a broker and sell it with the agreement it will be bought back later and returned to the broker.
Commissioners emphasized that they are not attempting to prohibit legitimate short sales. However, Commissioner Paul Atkins said the proposed rule could affect legitimate trading by being a "trap for the unwary."
The proposals will be open for public comment and voted on for a final time at a future SEC meeting.
By unanimous vote, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission also approved a 4% increase for the fiscal 2007 budget of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Most of the board's $136.4 million budget will go toward auditors' salaries and related expenses. The board oversees more than 1,700 public accounting firms, including about 750 firms based outside the U.S.
Regulators were originally scheduled to vote on whether to propose two items that would have tightened hedge-fund rules. However, the items could now be taken up as early as the agency's Dec. 13 meeting.
Aimed at combating fraud, the rule proposals would make it more expensive to buy into hedge funds and strengthen rules about prohibiting advisers of pooled investment vehicles from making false or misleading statements to their investors.
posted
Supposedly it is ordered normally like it would if bid and ask were in use, and then whomever is on top gets the buy or sell - at least, that is what I have been told.
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it....
IP: Logged |
posted
I think we have some other bigger things going on in the background.
Do you really think that someone would issue billions to a cowboy penny stock CEO? He is most likely part of something bigger than just an OTC company.
Whoever fronted the bond deal- do you think they would be going crazy seeing a shareholders overthrow the company they have the assets parked in? These assets are worth a lot of money! Thinking that mgmt is a 3-ring circus is enough to make anyone uneasy...yet they don't say anything???
Some might suggest the inmates are running the asylum here. Nothing against joe blow the shareholder (I am one myself) but there are reasons I am not the CEO of a company. Its not my job....these folks that happen to be OTC investors or message board posters are instantly credible folks to make decisions for a corporation? For all I know the one with the most posts could be some kid flippin burgers part time and posting on message boards at night.
You have a Shareholder Committee that behind closed doors compared share counts and determined they had enough to fire the CEO? If its plain illegal (as RPH put it) how was he ousted?? why would he allow it to happen? Did they sneak in the office and change the locks on the door? How do you illegally take over a company??
I would think it would take a lot more than an overnight ousting to take over a company. To much red tape you would think (Unless the one being ousted was in on the plan somehow).
This leads me to my opinion- this thing is much bigger than RPH and the SHC. The judge didn't shut down the company for some reason- bonds are real it seems...or else this would have been over at the end of october.
Therefore its a matter of time for things to become a little more clearer to us. Either way- conspiracy theories & RICO are more fun than whats in front of us right?
1. RPH and Ben getting sued today (wonder how that went) 2. The company is on the greys with no MM 3. The SEC has defaults filed- company still has not answered?? Or did they?? 4. RPH is going on the radio calling illegal activities on the current ceo and committee.
I am sure everyone on here can add to the list-
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun
IP: Logged |
posted
SEC news could have been better. Something like "3 SEC Attorneys Ran Over By Garbage Truck Entering Atlanta Federal Court Building".
IP: Logged |
posted
I still want to know what the deal is regarding CSHD and the default and whatever the connection was with today's date. I searched through the last thread and still didn't see anything concrete...but I KNOW there was something specific to the 4th and some sort of decision.
-------------------- Study before you buy, Sell before you think about it....
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by frank021474: I think we have some other bigger things going on in the background.
Do you really think that someone would issue billions to a cowboy penny stock CEO? He is most likely part of something bigger than just an OTC company.
Whoever fronted the bond deal- do you think they would be going crazy seeing a shareholders overthrow the company they have the assets parked in? These assets are worth a lot of money! Thinking that mgmt is a 3-ring circus is enough to make anyone uneasy...yet they don't say anything???
Some might suggest the inmates are running the asylum here. Nothing against joe blow the shareholder (I am one myself) but there are reasons I am not the CEO of a company. Its not my job....these folks that happen to be OTC investors or message board posters are instantly credible folks to make decisions for a corporation? For all I know the one with the most posts could be some kid flippin burgers part time and posting on message boards at night.
You have a Shareholder Committee that behind closed doors compared share counts and determined they had enough to fire the CEO? If its plain illegal (as RPH put it) how was he ousted?? why would he allow it to happen? Did they sneak in the office and change the locks on the door? How do you illegally take over a company??
I would think it would take a lot more than an overnight ousting to take over a company. To much red tape you would think (Unless the one being ousted was in on the plan somehow).
This leads me to my opinion- this thing is much bigger than RPH and the SHC. The judge didn't shut down the company for some reason- bonds are real it seems...or else this would have been over at the end of october.
Therefore its a matter of time for things to become a little more clearer to us. Either way- conspiracy theories & RICO are more fun than whats in front of us right?
1. RPH and Ben getting sued today (wonder how that went) 2. The company is on the greys with no MM 3. The SEC has defaults filed- company still has not answered?? Or did they?? 4. RPH is going on the radio calling illegal activities on the current ceo and committee.
I am sure everyone on here can add to the list-
frank I already added mine to the above list. We could all be wrong about whats going on, but also no one is forcing a CEO to say anything that he does'nt want to. But they do anyway with frequent contradiction.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Repo -- Rutgers will be the number two team next year behind WV. I'll put you ahead of Louisville. But, the Big East put five teams in bowl games this year. Not bad.
IP: Logged |
posted
Whoever fronted the bond deal- do you think they would be going crazy seeing a shareholders overthrow the company they have the assets parked in? These assets are worth a lot of money! Thinking that mgmt is a 3-ring circus is enough to make anyone uneasy...yet they don't say anything??? you can bet your azz they would be uneasy, they would be screaming!!!! witch leads me to believe we do not own squat! JMO!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by frank021474: I think we have some other bigger things going on in the background.
Do you really think that someone would issue billions to a cowboy penny stock CEO? He is most likely part of something bigger than just an OTC company.
Whoever fronted the bond deal- do you think they would be going crazy seeing a shareholders overthrow the company they have the assets parked in? These assets are worth a lot of money! Thinking that mgmt is a 3-ring circus is enough to make anyone uneasy...yet they don't say anything???
Some might suggest the inmates are running the asylum here. Nothing against joe blow the shareholder (I am one myself) but there are reasons I am not the CEO of a company. Its not my job....these folks that happen to be OTC investors or message board posters are instantly credible folks to make decisions for a corporation? For all I know the one with the most posts could be some kid flippin burgers part time and posting on message boards at night.
You have a Shareholder Committee that behind closed doors compared share counts and determined they had enough to fire the CEO? If its plain illegal (as RPH put it) how was he ousted?? why would he allow it to happen? Did they sneak in the office and change the locks on the door? How do you illegally take over a company??
I would think it would take a lot more than an overnight ousting to take over a company. To much red tape you would think (Unless the one being ousted was in on the plan somehow).
This leads me to my opinion- this thing is much bigger than RPH and the SHC. The judge didn't shut down the company for some reason- bonds are real it seems...or else this would have been over at the end of october.
Therefore its a matter of time for things to become a little more clearer to us. Either way- conspiracy theories & RICO are more fun than whats in front of us right?
1. RPH and Ben getting sued today (wonder how that went) 2. The company is on the greys with no MM 3. The SEC has defaults filed- company still has not answered?? Or did they?? 4. RPH is going on the radio calling illegal activities on the current ceo and committee.
I am sure everyone on here can add to the list-
[image deleted for space -- tex]
Lol...lottsa confusion remaining...highlights, in no particular order:
"Whoever fronted the bond deal- do you think they would be going crazy seeing a shareholders overthrow the company they have the assets parked in? These assets are worth a lot of money!"
Reference to the "bond deal/assets" as though the former CEO's claim are true... (see following).
"The judge didn't shut down the company for some reason- bonds are real it seems...or else this would have been over at the end of october."
The judge didn't shut down the company--it was temporarily suspended by the SEC, for questions specifically relating to "the bond deal/assets" (per preceding). Deducing "the bonds are real" from the court's *inability* to make this have "been over at the end of October" doesn't make sense: the court was not ruling on revocation. Instead a default judgment was entered against the former CEO as a result of his inaction.
"You have a Shareholder Committee that behind closed doors compared share counts and determined they had enough to fire the CEO?"
Shareholder committees can make recommendations to the BOD/majority shareholders (bylaws come into play); the claim here is that the majority shareholder(s) installed the new CEO, not the committee.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
There's still one thing I'm not following in regards to the theory that Rufus had friends that were selling into the rise in PPS. While that's a possibility, doesn't the material information in the PRs and SEC filings still need to be accurate for Rufus not to end up in jail? If we find out the bonds claims are false (and perhaps along with other things stated), and Rufus goes to jail, am I really supposed to believe he did it for his friends/family? Or am I erring in my thinking on this?
IP: Logged |
What I meant in the judge shutting down the company in the end of October was this:
The SEC filed a complaint to shut the doors on CSHD and have them banned from future jobs as officers in any corp. The judge did not rule in favor of what the SEC was going for in the original complaint-
You can compare the complaint with the order to see what the SEC did not get as originally intended.
The shareholder committee can act in that regard if it has certain filings and operational status you think?
RPH designating the chairmen via a PR and then somehow other majority shareholders are moved into position unbeknownst to the other shareholders verifying anyones holdings in this company does not seem to be the valid approach.
So if it was the majority shareholders and not the "committee" then perhaps it was Mike A? Whos the BOD? Who is the Maj shareholders? If they can change CEO's they should be publicly known to the other shareholders?
-------------------- Got CSHD? Its fun
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
