posted
Ya the SEC says they don't own the whole thing on any of them. Apparently other peple are dipping into the same pot that are'nt associated with Conversion. So this is the most elaborate mess that i have come across in pennyland. As far as the SEC is concerned the ball is on Conversion side of the court to prove ownership.
quote:Originally posted by Repoman75:
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: Ya I just talked to Alana Black again. What the sec is seeking is the disgorgement and a fine both of which are yet to be determined. Also no proof has been satisfied yet as to the ownership of any of the bonds and it sounds like they want proof of all of them. Thats what POs me from the stand point of the company that it has to be so difficult to prove the bonds.. Maybe it takes a court order for the SEC to look in the right place. I don't know. I hope it works out. Alana repeated to me that it will be up to the company whether or not they wish to proceed with business as usual or not. When all is said and done.
How hard can it be to prove that bonds exist?? Am I missing something here? Either they exist, or they don't. Not looking for bigfoot. What a joke!
posted
So, i guess i could jump on the anti-Rufus campaign but as ive said before ill wait for some clarification as to what he did before i pile on. For now it still appears that he made a lot of investors up to 4000% in returns but then ticked off the SEC and found himself in hot water.
Anyway, if you are all looking to focus your negative energy someplace how about the people that are currently running the show? We now have a IR firm and a SHC but i feel more in the dark now than ever. Instead of dwelling on Rufus regarding things no one knows the details of, how about putting a little pressure on "Tut the paid pumper" for a bit.
As ive said before, i will base my decisions on facts. I have no factual proof that Rufus scammed me. I have no factual proof that Arlitt is doing ANYTHING with the company right now. Ive seen 1 PR and HSM posters willing to give hints about things but nothing more. Those posters are deleted from HSM for whatever reason. Its all nonsense, not just Rufus.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish they would get the whole thing done with. Thers all kinds of stuff that the new mgmnt could be telling us right now that I feel we as shareholders have a right to know. What's so illegal or hush hush about how to tell if the bonds are legit or whatever?
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rufus was always verbally and otherwise declaring. The bonds are real, the assets are there, et,. How much can someone say. I guess he has to prove to the SEC that he was'nt lieing. It seems like in order for him to prove honesty the bonds will have to be proven along the way.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree diggy. Either the SHC has not seen proof of the bonds or the SHC is not telling us that they have. Im guessing that they have not seen the proof, and im not sure that the proof is as cut and dry as most had hoped.
The big question everyone asks "If the bonds are real then it should be easy to prove it right?" is a damn fine question. Im pretty tired of hearing how difficult it is to prove it, either CSHD is managing the bonds or theyre not. Im tired of the smoke and mirrors and even more tired in hearing about naked shorts and FTDs.
This is why i dont post much anymore. Im waiting for a clear answer as to who i can blame for this extremely poor company management.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: I agree diggy. Either the SHC has not seen proof of the bonds or the SHC is not telling us that they have. Im guessing that they have not seen the proof, and im not sure that the proof is as cut and dry as most had hoped.
The big question everyone asks "If the bonds are real then it should be easy to prove it right?" is a damn fine question. Im pretty tired of hearing how difficult it is to prove it, either CSHD is managing the bonds or theyre not. Im tired of the smoke and mirrors and even more tired in hearing about naked shorts and FTDs.
This is why i dont post much anymore. Im waiting for a clear answer as to who i can blame for this extremely poor company management.
Well said Catia. Maybe we all need to stop posting and let things take their course. It's hard not to post and try to offer the rest of us support (or try to get us out of this mess) but all the speculation does not help.
Posts: 2498 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This doesn't make any sense...there can only be a disgorgement and fine after the fact...
Them telling you this is what they want is misleading...saying this implies that fraud and ill gotten gains from the company have already been proven...which just isn't the case...
This is an end game for the SEC...NOT what they currently want...
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: What the sec is seeking is the disgorgement and a fine both of which are yet to be determined.
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya you're right thats what I mean. I guess i'll shut up and try not to post anymore. It looks like a lot of others already have. Bottom line it's my fault for still holding shares of this. I should have dumped it all when it was profitable. Let our mgmnt have their turn in the big wheely deal seat. With the closed door meetings and all that stuff.
quote:Originally posted by CRab: This doesn't make any sense...there can only be a disgorgement and fine after the fact...
Them telling you this is what they want is misleading...saying this implies that fraud and ill gotten gains from the company have already been proven...which just isn't the case...
This is an end game for the SEC...NOT what they currently want...
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: What the sec is seeking is the disgorgement and a fine both of which are yet to be determined.
posted
I meant nothing against you 6...I was just pointing out that she kinda side stepped your question answering that way...hell I've pretty much stopped posting...as has just about everyone else...
There just isn't any point now...not until something real...good or bad...comes to light...
Posts: 2024 | From: New Orleans, LA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 6digits: When I talked to the SEC people at the Kremlin I came away with the idea that it does'nt have to be the end of Conversion even if the bond issue is not accurate to their pleasing. I asked Alana Black what happens if the amount of ownership of the bond is false as far as CSHD staying in business and she said it's up to them if they want to continue in business or not. Like they are'nt going to put them out of biz. I'm not a lawyer or savvy in a lot of business situations, but that sounds rosy compared to some scenarios that have been run by me. What does everybody think of that?
just about exactly what I've been saying, lol.
they'll get revoked sooner for continued, chronic no filings than for misrepresentation/fraud, etc. Remember, Enron still trades...
posted
Thanks Tex... I must have missed something, somewhaere...I thought that the "default" was "pulled" from paser...and then the fact that JA obtained a lawyer meant that the "default" would be withdrawn... Who the hell knows...Seems the SHC is not able to get answers and the company has pretty much given up letting all know what is going on... I know many have faith in JA...BUT? I can't see "Tut" pullin' this off by NOT informing shareholders of the position that they are in with the SEC... ya know the "investor perception" thing...
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Anybody...Anything on the Default or no default? Is it filed or not filed?
Portman? Can the SHC get some answers? Can the answers be PR'd? The 6:1 stuff? Anything? Not asking for hand holding here...just some clarification!
10 of Hand-Holding,
From what I can tell, the defaults are entered; we're simply waiting on the judge to get around to issuing the order...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recieved a very nice personally written and hand signed letter from Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas tonight. Not like some of the form letter replies I recieved from other leaders. He actually did some digging, and mentioned Senator Grassley from Iowa and his position on the Senate Finance commitee, and his own personal position on the Senate Banking Comittee as SEC watchdogs. I will retype it on here in a little bit.
A man who couldn't have bought my vote in the past, has now earned it for the future. I guess my kids will just have to learn about evolution from their ape like father at home rather than in school. Posts: 2717 | From: Eville,IN,USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Whom This May Concern {anyone from SHC or from The company} All of your dedicated shareholders would or should say need SOME word on where we stand.We would appreciate ANYTHING. We have been patient as you have requested, but enough is enough.Not only do we not know if there is still a company, we are now turning against each other.As you know , some have a lot of money riding on this. Do you really think you are being fair to the loyal followers? I will repeat "enough is enough" Thank you for your time.
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
here's what you guys can do to get more info if you have an hsm account. i don't have an account with hsm, but i am certain that john's girlfriend posts on hsm. ask her for updates about john or the company.
Posts: 21 | From: us | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millionaireat30: here's what you guys can do to get more info if you have an hsm account. i don't have an account with hsm, but i am certain that john's girlfriend posts on hsm. ask her for updates about john or the company.
LOL
Thats all we need.........tuttess
I think I would prefer a P.R.
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millionaireat30: here's what you guys can do to get more info if you have an hsm account. i don't have an account with hsm, but i am certain that john's girlfriend posts on hsm. ask her for updates about john or the company.
LOL
Thats all we need.........tuttess
I think I would prefer a P.R.
lol i know. what's up with this company and everyone involved posting on chatrooms? they need to get work done!
Posts: 21 | From: us | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question? On 11-17-06 a PR was released from the company.Rufus was CEO at that time. In the release it stated that on 12-17-06, There would be an emergency shareholders meeting in Washington. Shouldn't there be a follow up PR from the company cancelling this or confirming it's still on? We assume that because no one received the e-mails 10 days prior to the 17th, that it is cancelled, but no PR? Why , once again are we not hearing anything? My main question is, can we be in more trouble from the SEC? I'm not "up" on the rules.Just seems to me that an official PR from the COMPANY , who ever is the new CEO now to date ,may have been needed or at the very least wanted from the shareholders.
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ocqueoc: I have a question? On 11-17-06 a PR was released from the company.Rufus was CEO at that time. In the release it stated that on 12-17-06, There would be an emergency shareholders meeting in Washington. Shouldn't there be a follow up PR from the company cancelling this or confirming it's still on? We assume that because no one received the e-mails 10 days prior to the 17th, that it is cancelled, but no PR? Why , once again are we not hearing anything? My main question is, can we be in more trouble from the SEC? I'm not "up" on the rules.Just seems to me that an official PR from the COMPANY , who ever is the new CEO now to date ,may have been needed or at the very least wanted from the shareholders.
prolly not major trouble--unless some do show up and have a meeting. But if no meeting, nobody's denied a meeting, eh?
btw, news out...Lee Webb article with some old threads and a coupla new players in da mix...
posted
Just read the article written by Webb. I know the history of Lee Webb with our company, however; it seems very thorough. If it is even partially correct, I suggest that we begin a "Class Action Suite" against Rufus and the company. The article has caught my attention. I hope it is very wrong, but it is beginning to look believable. Let me know if you people believe any of it.
Posts: 557 | From: UpState New York | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the transcribed letter from Senator Pat Roberts that I recieved. He does not seem to be affraid of holding the SEC's feet to the fire if they are wrong.
quote: Dear, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX
Thank you for taking the time to write regarding the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Enforcement. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
I appreciate your alerting me to your concerns regarding an SEC-ordered trading suspension for Conversion Solutions Holdings Corporation (CSHD). The SEC ordered this trading suspension from October 24 through November 6 as Release No. 34-54645. According to the SEC, its determination to suspend trading for CSHD was due to two bond issuances by the Republic of Venezuela and the company’s relationship with Deutsche Bank.
While it is the responsibility of the SEC enforce securities law and protect investors, the Senate Banking Committee has the responsibility for exercising oversight of the SEC. Please be assured, I will share your concerns with my colleagues on the committee and will keep your letter in mind should the Senate consider legislation where your concerns may be addressed. I will also keep in mind your support for Senator Charles Grassley’s efforts to review the SEC actions should the Senate Finance Committee take action on this issue.
In addition, if you have not already done so, I would encourage you to visit the SEC’s website at http://sec.gov/ to view information relating to the CSHD trading suspension. Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov. You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.
quote:Originally posted by thedoctor: Just read the article written by Webb. I know the history of Lee Webb with our company, however; it seems very thorough. If it is even partially correct, I suggest that we begin a "Class Action Suite" against Rufus and the company. The article has caught my attention. I hope it is very wrong, but it is beginning to look believable. Let me know if you people believe any of it.
TDoc, some of that DD & leads--he could've easily gotten here, in early threads...
supposedly, a class-action has already been initiated, but I've seen only two posts about it...
looking into a class-action suit is logical, to me, as well as learning as much as possible about the disgorgement process...
posted
Now THAT is an interesting article! I do think that filing a class action suit might be a bit pointless, though. It doesn't sound like RPH has much to recover, and it also doesn't seem like the fraudulent bonds have any value either. So where's the value in filing suit?
-------------------- "Entrepreneurship is the last refuge of the trouble making individual."
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
