quote:Originally posted by a surfer: Maybe those that moved on found the perfect patsy in Rufus because the all seem to have landed very lightly and Rufus just keeps falling lower and lower. I guess Rufus just believed his BS to be bible while the others took the money and ran.
Well said Wally.
Agreed....thats not a bad guess. It still makes me wonder (hope i guess) if Rufus knew they were posturing him as the patsy so he covered his butt along the way and documented everything. The thing is though, they obviously never took him serious. He was stating very openly on SPR one night that "bad people" had their hands in the CSHD cookie jar but they werent going to get away with the same crimes that they pulled off in BBAN. I asked Poetter in PM once if the T/A knew that the float was allegedly locked up someplace why would that T/A play along with this game.....he should have known a LONG time ago where this would end up. Poetter basically responded "well i guess it all depends whether or not the T/A is legit". I let it go at that although i wasnt satisfied with the response. Again....the T/A MUST have known if Rufus had a case here and he must have known well before the merger announcement.
Anyway, im rambling.....i need more coffee
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
CONVERSION SOLUTIONS HOLDING : CORPORATION and RUFUS PAUL : HARRIS a/k/a PAUL RUFUS HARRIS, : : Defendants. :
ORDER
This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer [Doc. No. 15] and Defendant Rufus Paul Harris’ Motion to Set Aside the Entry of Default [Doc. No. 17]. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filed this action on October 24, 2006, alleging that Defendants violated certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. On the same day, the SEC filed a motion for temporary restraining order, and this Court heard oral argument on the SEC’s motion on October 25, 2006. Defendant Rufus Paul Harris appeared at oral argument and argued against the entry of a temporary restraining order. After considering the applicable law and the arguments of the parties, the Court orally granted the SEC’s motion and entered a temporary restraining order on October 26, 2006. On November 7, 2006, Defendant Harris filed in the Clerk’s Office a document reflecting his consent to the entry of a preliminary injunction in this case. Notwithstanding his participation in the October 25, 2006 hearing and the filing of the consent document, Defendant Harris did not file a response to the SEC’s Complaint in this action, and, on November 29, 2006, the Clerk of Court entered default against him.
Case 1:06-cv-02568-CC Document 19 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 2 of 5
Nearly five months later, on April 24, 2007, Defendant Harris filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, which appears to be filed on behalf of himself and Defendant Conversion Solutions Holding Corporation (“Conversion”). The SEC thereafter moved to strike this answer on the grounds that it was filed out of time, that the Clerk had entered default against Mr. Harris, and, to the extent that the answer purported to be filed on behalf of Defendant Conversion, Mr. Harris was not authorized to file an answer on Conversion’s behalf. Mr. Harris then filed a motion to set aside the Clerk’s entry of default and filed another answer to the SEC’s Complaint on the same day.
As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s position that Mr. Harris’ April 24, 2007 answer was filed grossly out of time and is due to be stricken. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A), Defendant Harris’ answer was due within twenty (20) days after he was served with the summons and Complaint in this action. The SEC filed proof of service indicating that Defendant Harris was served with the summons and Complaint on November 4, 2006. Accordingly, Mr. Harris’ answer was due long before April 24, 2007. In addition, although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate that enlargements of time periods may be warranted in some cases, Mr. Harris did not file a motion for enlargement of time prior to filing the April 24, 2007 answer, pursuant to Rule 6(b). Accordingly, the SEC’s motion to strike is hereby GRANTED.1
As previously noted, Mr. Harris has moved to set aside the default entered against him by the Clerk of Court. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a
1
The Court moreover agrees with the SEC’s position that Mr. Harris was not authorized to file an answer on behalf of Defendant Conversion, insofar as there is no indication that Mr. Harris is a licensed attorney in this state. See Local Rule 83.1E(2)(b)(I).
- 2
Case 1:06-cv-02568-CC Document 19 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 3 of 5
court to set aside an entry of default for “good cause shown.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).2 As the Eleventh Circuit has explained,
Good cause is a mutable standard, varying from situation to situation.
It is also a liberal one – but not so elastic as to be devoid of substance.
We recognize that good cause is not susceptible to a precise formula, but some general guidelines are commonly applied. Courts have considered whether the default was culpable or willful, whethersetting it aside would prejudice the adversary, and whether thedefaulting party presents a meritorious defense. We note, however, that these factors are not talismanic, and that courts have examinedother factors, including whether the public interest was implicated, whether there was significant financial loss to the defaulting party, and whether the defaulting party acted promptly to correct thedefault. Whatever factors are employed, the imperative is that they beregarded simply as a means of identifying circumstances whichwarrant the finding of good cause to set aside a default. However, ifa party willfully defaults by displaying either an intentional orreckless disregard for the judicial proceedings, the court need make noother findings in denying relief.
Compania Interamericana Export-Import, S.A. v. Compania Dominicana De
Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951-52 (1996) (citations and internal marks omitted). Having
applied this standard, the Court concludes that Defendant Harris has failed to
establish good cause for setting aside the entry of default in this case. In his motion,
Defendant Harris contends that he should be allowed to defend the claims in this
action because of the seriousness of the allegations, references the availability of
newly-discovered evidence, and states that he has fully cooperated with the SEC and
has provided records showing no receipt of ill-gotten gains. Defendant also takes
issue with certain statements made in the SEC’s motion to strike.3
Defendant offers no explanation for his failure to timely file a response to the
2 The Court notes that Defendant Harris references Rule 60 as authority for his
motion; however, the Court considers Rule 55(c) to provide the appropriate standard in
light of the relief sought by Defendant.
3 These disputed matters, however, are immaterial to the Court’s conclusion that
Defendant Harris’ April 24, 2007 answer was untimely filed, without leave of Court, and
should be stricken. The Court therefore will not address these disputes here.
- 3
Case 1:06-cv-02568-CC Document 19 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 4 of 5
SEC’s Complaint. Defendant Harris cannot claim that he was unaware of the
Complaint or the seriousness of the allegations because he participated in the
hearing on the motion for temporary restraining order in October 2007, where the
nature of this action was thoroughly discussed. Mr. Harris was present when the
Court orally announced that the motion for temporary restraining order was due to
be granted, indicating that the SEC had established a prima facie case of securities
law violations. The Court therefore is unpersuaded that the seriousness of the
allegations in some way excuses Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the
Complaint or that Defendant was unaware of the seriousness of this case prior to
April 2007.
Defendant Harris furthermore provides no substantive information regarding
the nature of the purported newly-discovered evidence he references in his motion.
He does not explain how or when the evidence was obtained, the nature of the
evidence, or how the evidence impacts the instant litigation. While Defendant states
that he has fully cooperated with the SEC and has provided evidence that he did not
receive any ill-gotten gains, Defendant does not explain how this fact, even if true,
establishes good cause to set aside the entry of default.
In sum, the Court concludes that Defendant Harris was well aware of the
seriousness of this action but nonetheless waited nearly five months after the Clerk
entered default against him to respond to the Complaint. Defendant has offered no
explanation for this lengthy delay. The Court, having considered the grounds for
setting aside the default raised by Defendant Harris and having considered the
factors addressed in the Compania decision, concludes that Defendant Harris has
failed to establish that good cause exists for setting aside the entry of default in this
case. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to set aside the default.
- 4
Case 1:06-cv-02568-CC Document 19 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 5 of 5
Im curious to see what follows. Although im not experienced in this type of thing im thinking there is no "and then". However, it doesnt explain why the company continues to trade. Very confusing.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
SEC now cleared for civil suit: might ask for disgorgement, barring from public companies, etc etc. If the company goes long enough without filing, it probably will be delisted.
Any criminal charges will originate with either the DOJ or some state's AG, most likely of course would be Georgia's...
quote:Originally posted by T e x: SEC now cleared for civil suit: might ask for disgorgement, barring from public companies, etc etc. If the company goes long enough without filing, it probably will be delisted.
Any criminal charges will originate with either the DOJ or some state's AG, most likely of course would be Georgia's...
Might ask for disgorgement? From whom?
Im not so sure this is "cut and dry". The Judge took several months to come up with that response? I think its all pretty weak IMO. At least maybe now the SEC can make their move...whatever that move may be.
Personally i think they (the SEC) are just as uneducated about the situation as they were a year ago. Id be surprised if they even have a plan.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too bad that wasn't entered in tomorrow, would've made for a fun halloween present, NOT! haha
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: SEC now cleared for civil suit: might ask for disgorgement, barring from public companies, etc etc. If the company goes long enough without filing, it probably will be delisted.
Any criminal charges will originate with either the DOJ or some state's AG, most likely of course would be Georgia's...
Might ask for disgorgement? From whom?
Im not so sure this is "cut and dry". The Judge took several months to come up with that response? I think its all pretty weak IMO. At least maybe now the SEC can make their move...whatever that move may be.
Personally i think they (the SEC) are just as uneducated about the situation as they were a year ago. Id be surprised if they even have a plan.
I agree. I still find it amazing that the SEC can have no case but make Rufus and the company prove they are innocent. I thought you were innocent until proven guilty???
And after a year nothing really settled but because Rufus took his time the default makes them AUTOMATICALLY guilty?
What a bunch of BS. The judge needs to throw the case out!
It seems obvious that if the company did something really wrong the SEC should have delisted them ASAP but the fact that we are still trading, even if on the grays, tells me the SEC didn't have enough proof to delist them.
quote:Originally posted by T e x: SEC now cleared for civil suit: might ask for disgorgement, barring from public companies, etc etc. If the company goes long enough without filing, it probably will be delisted.
Any criminal charges will originate with either the DOJ or some state's AG, most likely of course would be Georgia's...
Might ask for disgorgement? From whom?
Im not so sure this is "cut and dry". The Judge took several months to come up with that response? I think its all pretty weak IMO. At least maybe now the SEC can make their move...whatever that move may be.
Personally i think they (the SEC) are just as uneducated about the situation as they were a year ago. Id be surprised if they even have a plan.
From anybody involved...eg, Alexander cleared 6 to 7 mil, that we know of...
Actually, it's a pretty articulate response, given the mishmash that Harris filed. Whoever wrote it used great restraint: "intentional or reckless disregard . . . . indeed. And, no, the judge didn't spend months figuring out a response: the issues are pretty clear. Doubtful it's a high priority item for a federal judge.
Uneducated? lol...about what? They asked for TRO and got it; got the default; then asked for the set aside, and got that, too.
quote:Originally posted by T e x: SEC now cleared for civil suit: might ask for disgorgement, barring from public companies, etc etc. If the company goes long enough without filing, it probably will be delisted.
Any criminal charges will originate with either the DOJ or some state's AG, most likely of course would be Georgia's...
Might ask for disgorgement? From whom?
Im not so sure this is "cut and dry". The Judge took several months to come up with that response? I think its all pretty weak IMO. At least maybe now the SEC can make their move...whatever that move may be.
Personally i think they (the SEC) are just as uneducated about the situation as they were a year ago. Id be surprised if they even have a plan.
I agree. I still find it amazing that the SEC can have no case but make Rufus and the company prove they are innocent. I thought you were innocent until proven guilty???
And after a year nothing really settled but because Rufus took his time the default makes them AUTOMATICALLY guilty?
What a bunch of BS. The judge needs to throw the case out!
It seems obvious that if the company did something really wrong the SEC should have delisted them ASAP but the fact that we are still trading, even if on the grays, tells me the SEC didn't have enough proof to delist them.
Yes, I'm off my soapbox, for now.
Godspeed!
lawzy...
this again?
remember Enron?
Delisting will come soon enough--if the company continues to be delinquent in filing. As I recall, trading on greys does not waive filing requirements.
posted
Yes uneducated (or at least IMO they currently have that appearance). Until they can show me where the money went...the are uneducated IMO. Youve stated a couple of times now that Alexander cleared 6 to 7 million yet i dont see any action being taken by the SEC against him. The default is against RPH and CSHD....yet, IMO, the crime took place in FHAL.
Maybe this is all going on behind the scenes already. Some have said that RPH may have worked WITH the SEC to find "the dump", I certainly hope so. Maybe the evidence was there June of last year and the following months only added to the evidence.
What you say is true, the SEC got everything they asked for.....I hope the F'ing do something with it now! IMO the SEC had NO "visible" reason to allow CSHD to continue trading after the suspension...yet it still trades today. As far as I can tell, its now back in the hands of the SEC. If they have been doing their homework they should have an action already in place now that the Judge has ruled. If we dont see anything from them, I would think its safe to assume they have an empty file and we have gotten nowhere in a year.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how different people can read the same thing and come to completely different conclusions.
I read it and said "Well, that's it, it's all over now. Rufus' response is stricken, the SEC won and the erally don't have to do anythign now"
Then I read your response and you're of the opinion that if they don't do anythign it proves they didn't know anything.
I'm far from a lawyer, so i may be totally wrong, but my gut feeling was that this was the last nail in the coffin, and this is officially a write-off now (if there was any hope previously).
quote:Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer: Yes uneducated (or at least IMO they currently have that appearance). Until they can show me where the money went...the are uneducated IMO. Youve stated a couple of times now that Alexander cleared 6 to 7 million yet i dont see any action being taken by the SEC against him. The default is against RPH and CSHD....yet, IMO, the crime took place in FHAL.
Maybe this is all going on behind the scenes already. Some have said that RPH may have worked WITH the SEC to find "the dump", I certainly hope so. Maybe the evidence was there June of last year and the following months only added to the evidence.
What you say is true, the SEC got everything they asked for.....I hope the F'ing do something with it now! IMO the SEC had NO "visible" reason to allow CSHD to continue trading after the suspension...yet it still trades today. As far as I can tell, its now back in the hands of the SEC. If they have been doing their homework they should have an action already in place now that the Judge has ruled. If we dont see anything from them, I would think its safe to assume they have an empty file and we have gotten nowhere in a year.
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As posted elsewhere, I get the idea some believe this is somehow a criminal proceeding. It's just simple, civil stuff... On a timeline, a chart, this would be about step 1 and a half... say, 1-b... In other words, since the TRO, all that's really happened is the customary default, which Harris in effect agreed to... Subsequently, he responded late (and not well) so the default remains in place...
If he were gonna fight for the company and shareholder value, he would've gotten an attorney for the company, another for himself, and made sure the company continued to file its reports.
As mentioned before, the SEC used to de facto de-list companies by issuing serial suspensions, one after another. Congress decided that was too much power and busted 'em back to one suspension, unless they find new reasons. That is, SEC *can* order another suspension, but it must be for something other than what the preceding one was for.
And, yes, there are "emergency" steps that can be taken, such as seizing assets and so forth, but from what I've seen that's usually used with foreign companies--and, of course, there have to be assets.
Also, yes, it's ponderously slow. Look how long it took to shut down CMKX... Don't get me wrong: I'm not necessarily "defending" the system. I think deep, structural changes need to made. But stamping one's feet and demanding that unless a company is shut down proves "something"...? That's simply displaying one doesn't understand the process that--good or bad--*is* in place.
Shoot, look at BCIT. Two years in limbo, and there's not nearly as much due process at work in that case as there is this one. DTCC put a "global lock" on shares, and no one can get 'em to budge despite two lawsuits and hundreds of trader complaints. No explanations, no hearings, no rulings, no trading...nothing.
posted
First off, I thought there were no filings with Pink Sheets, so why would there be filings needed with a lowly gray sheet?
As for this being over...I felt that way too, but one thing might help out here. Now that the SEC has won, won't they need to figure out how much the digorgements are from the pump and dump? Looking into that, I would hope would show just what happened in all of this. Then again, they could just bar RPH from any officer positition and forget about everything else. Who knows?
The MA profits and his incredibly late Form 4 is one of the reasons I have stayed faithful that this will work out for us. I think this kind of stuff pretty much shows that there are crooks here and that justice will be given. If this falls through, I'm up for doing whatever needed to see to it that MA and his gang is brought to justice or at least proven not guilty.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pcola, i know where you are coming from....and i dont blame you for feeling the way you do. But, this was the judgement for the default. So yes, Rufus has a fight on his hands and the company remains in default. BUT, there is no doubt there was a pump and dump somewhere along the line. If the SEC wants to pursue RPH for the claims they have made against him then im sure they have done their homework and they are likely preparing their case against him. I dont see it as the final nail in the coffin because now they need to discover where the dump went. Thats where our money is IMO. As Tex said, the word on the street is that MA made upwards of 6 mil off of this...but what about those other 50 million shares that were gifted away? Personally i think they found their way into the market. Someone needs to sit down and start counting shares...20 mil, 30 mil, etc. I think it will end up somewhere around 80 million....far more than there should be. Where did the shares come from and who made money from them? Someone will have to pay and im sorry if i still feel that Rufus has those answers.....and had them all along.
IMO the judges response should have been anticipated. Now the SEC can hopefully look past Mr Harris and locate the cash. They might want to start with the T/A i suppose? Im no lawyer either but this is what makes sense to lil ole me.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: SEC now cleared for civil suit: might ask for disgorgement, barring from public companies, etc etc. If the company goes long enough without filing, it probably will be delisted.
Any criminal charges will originate with either the DOJ or some state's AG, most likely of course would be Georgia's...
That judgment/filing means game over for CSHD even if they were to come up with an attorney . Its too late ...... actually its way past too late and has been for a long time . As said above , the company had 20 days to file their motions .
I can hear it now from the Rufus camp about all these conspiracy theories and how the naked shorters and the SEC bribed the judge .
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its a bit ironic but I sold off ECFL today for a huge gain and made back all of the loses I lost on CSHD + some extra $$$ . Its was just around this time last year we all got whacked in the head with this POS .
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
to clarify...my assumption is that traders/investors want the company returned to OTCBB. Further, I'm assuming the stock was registered in the first place re: 12-g requirements. (Well, there's a different route, there, too: 300 or 500 shareholders, at different asset levels.)
First, as has been discussed, the company must get an MM on board via 15c2-11. Then OTCCBB has its reporting requirements, breaching which leads to the "E" designation for delinquent. If delinquent too often, the company gets booted to pinks.
Aside from that, SEC can revoke a stock's registration if the company gets too far behind in filing. The company might be involved in all sorts of shenanigans, but keeping the filings up to date prevents revocation. But a pinkie with unregistered stock could hang on for years to come...(unless SEC can show it should've been registered, I think.)
I think you're right: "they could just bar RPH from any officer positition and forget about everything else."
I, too, hope they move for disgorgement and shareholder recovery, too. But the latter takes years and years...
quote:Originally posted by thesource: Its a bit ironic but I sold off ECFL today for a huge gain and made back all of the loses I lost on CSHD + some extra $$$ . Its was just around this time last year we all got whacked in the head with this POS .
quote:Originally posted by thesource: Its a bit ironic but I sold off ECFL today for a huge gain and made back all of the loses I lost on CSHD + some extra $$$ . Its was just around this time last year we all got whacked in the head with this POS .
great! good for you
It feels good to be on the profitting side of things for a change .
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, the next step will be receivership. I could be wrong but I believe that is the only course left. For anyone thinking that the SEC will somehow magically reverse their position and use this case to pursue anyone who actually received Ill Gotten gains, think again. That would be a separate action. This case was about RPH and CSHD. If the SEC decided that MA, Sabra and the rest of the usual suspects received Ill Gotten gains they would have to file a new action against them.
As they say in Spanish: "Se Acabo".
I think this sums it up pretty well:
************************************************
Originally Posted by TNTrader View Post Actually, the ruling allows the default to stand. CSHD and Rufus have lost the case,by default. That was the point of entering the default. The SEC has won due to Rufus' refusal to answer in accordence with rule 55 and the judges order. What remains is the actuation of the relief sought by the SEC in its original complaint. Civil discovery is over, though the investigation may continue to tie up any remaining questions. As to delisting, CSHD was delisted when it went to the gray's, that is what delisting is, removal from a quoted issue market. The shares trade because the government cannot take your property(your shares) without a court order. They now have that order and will likely halt trading very soon as a first act of recievership.
Good Luck
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to a securities fraud agent I spoke to here in Texas several months ago , receivership is probably exactly whats going to happen . The problem is the company has no assets to seize and distribute so everyone basically gets an IOU for their losses . Its kind of like placing a lien against someone that does not have a pot to piss in to begin with .
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: According to a securities fraud agent I spoke to here in Texas several months ago , receivership is probably exactly whats going to happen . The problem is the company has no assets to seize and distribute so everyone basically gets an IOU for their losses . Its kind of like placing a lien against someone that does not have a pot to piss in to begin with .
Yup...making ity easier to file for bankruptcy, which if granted is quite a monkey wrench.
There's still disgorgement, though--which is no guarantee of any funds going to investors, but that could happen.
posted
I don't think CSHD will bother filing bankruptcy . I doubt Dufus will be a free man in the next few months . If he skipped out on the DUI hearing and has a bench warrant for failure to appear that means his bond will get revoked and probably his probation for the 1st DUI will get revoked as well .
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hail Hail, the gangs all here. Good to see so many familiar names back on this board.
As far as counting shares...remember the original NOBO list from last year? Now, if we catch MA and throw him in Jail, recoup the cash he got from the the P & D and distribute it to all us shareholders as a divy...there's our 6 for 1.
I can't stop laughing at this point. Or is that crying?
Posts: 2498 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: I don't think CSHD will bother filing bankruptcy . I doubt Dufus will be a free man in the next few months . If he skipped out on the DUI hearing and has a bench warrant for failure to appear that means his bond will get revoked and probably his probation for the 1st DUI will get revoked as well .
He may find himself doing time for the DUI. I dont believe he will spend a single day behind bars for any of the CSHD stuff however. If the SEC continues to go after him even though they apparently have no money trail leading to him then we can all burn our certs IMO. They need to follow the money and so far it doesnt look like they can do it alone...IMO they need him and they are gonna have to face it.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: So, who's starting the PRXT thread? It's up like 400% this week.
Greed sure makes me want to play but distrust for the folks running the show prevent me from buying in. Personally i think its going up so quickly because they have a captive audience.......I hope people are being careful.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: I don't think CSHD will bother filing bankruptcy . I doubt Dufus will be a free man in the next few months . If he skipped out on the DUI hearing and has a bench warrant for failure to appear that means his bond will get revoked and probably his probation for the 1st DUI will get revoked as well .
He may find himself doing time for the DUI. I dont believe he will spend a single day behind bars for any of the CSHD stuff however. If the SEC continues to go after him even though they apparently have no money trail leading to him then we can all burn our certs IMO. They need to follow the money and so far it doesnt look like they can do it alone...IMO they need him and they are gonna have to face it.
I'd rather him spend time for the DUI than some white collar crime . County and state jails are much nicer than ClubFed
-------------------- ----- Game Over ----- Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally would like the person or people that made a lot of money off of this ( by pumping and dumping, not day traders) pay for this.
Source, you always make it sound like only one person did all this. Shouldn't the guilty pay? We may or may not ever know , who all the "bad" guys were, but I still believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If and when we know, I'll keep my condemnation to myself. IMO
Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow...still others speculate at this actually going some where...at least on that other board...I couldn't take the BS any more and posted this over there...and asked RPH to be up front for the love of GOD...Yes...it was some what "emotional"...but I am not emotional about the STOCK...just the people and animals that have been hurt and played with! OK...I'm over it now...need to go...have a good one all!
"OMG...unreal.... What kind of speculation and false hopes will innocent people get fed now? People need to just stop... I have sat and watched and read for a year at all of the "Holy God Blesses" and God Speeds...it sickens me that any human would use God, their family, their children and their animals as a means of "gathering a false following" in the manner of which the so called "leader" of this stock scam has done. I am not a bull shooter, liar or basher on message boards or in real life...and my "frustration", disappointment and anger at the happenings and behavior of the "players" in this stock are enough to make any true Christian or human in general have disgust and boarder line "hate" for so many.
I have watched and listened to the horrible roller coaster ride of emotions flood through so many good people...it's nothing less than pathetic and disheartening! Rufus or Paul or what ever name you wish to go by...you have financially and emotionally harmed many with your empty promises and deceiving riddles that you fed...it matters not if you to were "suckered" but your preaching of the "golden" and the things that you promised and in the "Oh so matter of fact" verbiage...it's too bad that those things alone are not punishable in our society...regardless of the angle that you attempt to defend yourself...and regardless of who really "dumped"...you did the "pump"...you are and have been wrong in the way that you have handled things and in the way you have so willingly mislead people!
For those of you that have lost and those that have suffered...take comfort in knowing that you have been rewarded in other ways...and may your line be the shortest as you wait your turn...because your turn will come...and this "stock" will matter no more...Thank GOD!
Just put the dang stock to rest and let people move on with their lives...too much time was wasted...admit that it is done RPH...and let people move on..."
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still trying to figure out how to recover my $30K losses. Working on it $1K at a time... Don't fret I made more than that on USXP in the past! But still haven't told hubby...
Posts: 942 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
thanks New2...not sure i want to go over to the other board a read how i am a "traitor"...or out to do "no good"...Haha...oh well...if it makes one person let go of the BS...then it wasn't a waste of my time...
Nel...you'll get it back...and I'm with you on the not telling hubby thing...!!!
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
