Thats the exact response I figured the SEC would file against Rufus's wanna be answer . Its over guys . Notice how they said he had until "x" date to respond ? Thats why this is in default . Now all the SEC is doing behind the scenes is gathering evidence for a criminal case against Rufus and probably Michael Alexander not to mention the people that directly profitted from this scam .
I am glad Rufus filed that stupid answer because it forced the SEC to show us their hand . Before they couldn't do it because it was not public knowledge ........
Its time for me to go ahead and file my suit against the company since I foresee this company going into receivership probably by the end of the year . Without an attorney , I will win the suit by default , just not sure what exactly there is to be had anymore .
I went ahead and passed this on to "the man" for ya. Judging by your post you know exactly what the SEC and FBI are doing so you are either "in the know" with one of the government agencies or totally "full of it". In either case im sure you will get the answers you are looking for.
Good luck to ya!
To tha man huh ??? Who exactly might that be might I ask ??? I hope you are not referencing to Rufus as the man .......
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you Milliam. Lots to talk about and the future will be interesting.
quote:Originally posted by milliam: Over? Here's my usual response:
Over? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?....
I think it might finally be the beginning. We might finally get to see who's really right and who's really wrong. I'm pretty sure it isn't over by a long shot. If nothing else, we'll have plenty to talk about.
posted
With all the DD you've invested in this company , you guys should do yourself a favor and do some on the legal system and how civil and criminal procedures work . Once you do that , you will see just how full of crap Rufus is .
Default Judgement :
At trial, a decision awarded to the plaintiff when a defendant fails to contest the case. To appeal a default judgment, a defendant must first file a motion in the court that issued it to have the default vacated (set aside).
Pro Se :
A Latin phrase meaning "for himself" or "in one's own behalf." This term denotes a person who represents herself in court. It is used in some states in place of "in pro per" and has the same meaning.
quote:Originally posted by thesource: With all the DD you've invested in this company , you guys should do yourself a favor and do some on the legal system and how civil and criminal procedures work . Once you do that , you will see just how full of crap Rufus is .
Default Judgement :
At trial, a decision awarded to the plaintiff when a defendant fails to contest the case. To appeal a default judgment, a defendant must first file a motion in the court that issued it to have the default vacated (set aside).
Pro Se :
A Latin phrase meaning "for himself" or "in one's own behalf." This term denotes a person who represents herself in court. It is used in some states in place of "in pro per" and has the same meaning.
posted
You know it is interesting how the SEC can not read a simple Docket report.
Because Item 14 filed 4/24/2007 clearly states that the answer filed was for Defendant Rufus Paul Harris. It makes no mention of Defendant Conversion Solutions, and yet they are still confused enought to add this to their fact list as to reasons the Answer should be striken.
"04/24/2007 14 ANSWER to Complaint by Rufus Paul Harris.Discovery ends on 1/22/2008.(vs) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 04/25/2007)"
And before you go and say the docket says "by" and not for, you should familiarize yourself with a docket report. "by" is the party in reguards. While "as to" is the party as which it pertains. Here are some other examples from the same report.
"11/16/2006 10 MOTION for Clerk's Entry of Default as to defendant Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Black, Alana) (Entered: 11/16/2006)"
"11/28/2006 12 MOTION for Clerk's Entry of Default as to Defendant Rufus Paul Harris by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Black, Alana) (Entered: 11/28/2006)"
"05/11/2007 15 MOTION to Strike 14 Answer to Complaint with Brief In Support by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Black, Alana) (Entered: 05/11/2007)"
There is no confusion when you look at it from the docket report? Why is the SEC playing dumb in the motion when they wrote this?
"ARGUMENT While the document that Harris filed on April 24, 2007 is somewhat garbled, Plaintiff’s understanding is that Harris is attempting to answer both on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of Conversion."
posted
IMO the docket entry on 4/24 would have to read as the following to be an answer for both defendants.
"04/24/2007 14 ANSWER to Complaint as to defendant Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp and Defendant Rufus Paul Harris by Rufus Paul Harris.Discovery ends on 1/22/2008.(vs) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 04/25/2007)"
The docket report is specifically formated for this purpose... to remove confusion.
posted
The simple fact is , no matter if the SEC is in error , Rufus still does not have an attorney to make this point for him and there for the judge will likely grant the SEC's motion to strike it down .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: not following you, there, TaxBack...
RPH's response dated 4-24 has this as a header:
"DEFENDANT CONVERSION SOLUTIONS HOLDING'S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF"
Yes that is the title of the document imediately followed by "COMES NOW, RUFUS PAUL HARRIS, ("Defendant"}, in the above styled action, and hereby files its Defenses and Answer to the plaintiff's Complaint showing the Court as follows :", but I am talking the manner in which it is filed and reported on the docket itself.
"04/24/2007 14 ANSWER to Complaint by Rufus Paul Harris.Discovery ends on 1/22/2008." If it was filed for Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp it would say so right here. It does not. It is like a reciept given out at the end of a transaction. It says what was filed when it was filed for whom it was filed, who filed it, and who filed it for them in their behalf. The way it reads it was an answer to the complaint for Defendant Rufus Paul Harris... No mention of "as to Defendant Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp" or "()" at the end denoting an attourney responsible for the filing.
quote:Originally posted by thesource: The simple fact is , no matter if the SEC is in error , Rufus still does not have an attorney to make this point for him and there for the judge will likely grant the SEC's motion to strike it down .
That is not true. Harris can represent HIMSELF against the SEC. (It is not smart to do so. IMO) If the filed answer is infact filed in response to the complaint for Mr. Harris ONLY. There would be no reason to strike except for the timelyness of the answer itself. And that is a poor reason to strike IMO. It is not like the SEC has been real speedy in their "expidited" discovery.
posted
Ok Tax, if you're correct...what about the company? Is Rufus just going to answer for himself and forget about the company?
I kind of agree that the SEC's answer isn't the best thing they could do (or maybe it is ), but I still think we need a lawyer. I really hate to agree with thesource....REALLY .
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: Ok Tax, if you're correct...what about the company? Is Rufus just going to answer for himself and forget about the company?
I kind of agree that the SEC's answer isn't the best thing they could do (or maybe it is ), but I still think we need a lawyer. I really hate to agree with thesource....REALLY .
My thoughts are that Mr. Harris realy believes a quick win of his case clears up any wrong doing of the company. I personally think the approach is risky, but if you got an ace up your sleeve. The risk is greatly reduced.
I don't know how this is going to end, but it would not surprise me if the motion to strike gets granted. The default IMO should have never been granted either but it was the very next day.
The court case does not seem to be very clean. Filings and case evidence from both parties seem very sloppy. While the judge has done nothing to try and clean up the proceedings.
I know Mr. Harris's excuse since he has yet to reveal a legal team, but what excuse does the SEC have?
I just got the financial statement from Penson (Choicetrade's financial people), they have a large amount of "securities sold, not yet purchased"...$15,605,307 worth. I guess "shorting" a stock in this way doesn't add fake shares to the market, but it does put fake shares into someone's account. This would take buyers out of the market without actually taking shares out. I would think this would let the price slide. I assume this is legal, but should it really be? They do at least show these under "liabilites".
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: Ok Tax, if you're correct...what about the company? Is Rufus just going to answer for himself and forget about the company?
I kind of agree that the SEC's answer isn't the best thing they could do (or maybe it is ), but I still think we need a lawyer. I really hate to agree with thesource....REALLY .
My thoughts are that Mr. Harris realy believes a quick win of his case clears up any wrong doing of the company. I personally think the approach is risky, but if you got an ace up your sleeve. The risk is greatly reduced.
I don't know how this is going to end, but it would not surprise me if the motion to strike gets granted. The default IMO should have never been granted either but it was the very next day.
The court case does not seem to be very clean. Filings and case evidence from both parties seem very sloppy. While the judge has done nothing to try and clean up the proceedings.
I know Mr. Harris's excuse since he has yet to reveal a legal team, but what excuse does the SEC have?
Ace up his sleeve = "sealed" envelope he gave the Judge as evidence?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: Ok Tax, if you're correct...what about the company? Is Rufus just going to answer for himself and forget about the company?
I kind of agree that the SEC's answer isn't the best thing they could do (or maybe it is ), but I still think we need a lawyer. I really hate to agree with thesource....REALLY .
My thoughts are that Mr. Harris realy believes a quick win of his case clears up any wrong doing of the company. I personally think the approach is risky, but if you got an ace up your sleeve. The risk is greatly reduced.
I don't know how this is going to end, but it would not surprise me if the motion to strike gets granted. The default IMO should have never been granted either but it was the very next day.
The court case does not seem to be very clean. Filings and case evidence from both parties seem very sloppy. While the judge has done nothing to try and clean up the proceedings.
I know Mr. Harris's excuse since he has yet to reveal a legal team, but what excuse does the SEC have?
lotsa confusion here... 1) I think you're talking about, maybe, a clerical error...at worst re whatever clerk typed up the docket. That may lead back to the "answer" itself, in that RPH does attempt to answer for both himself *and* the company. That alone is sufficient grounds for the strike.
2) What RPH "believes" has nothing whatsoever to do with it...court procedure is what it is, regardless of anyone's beliefs...to be able to answer (for himself, not the company) he would first have to enter a motion to set aside the default...with an argument compelling enough to have the motion granted.
3) The default was granted because no one bothered to respond, for whatever reason. It was a slam dunk.
4) What can the judge "clean up"? The SEC asked for what it wanted and got it without a fight...
5) What excuse? The SEC made its request, the request was granted, and they continue to compile evidence for whatever further actions they're contemplating, which at *the least* seem to be an order for disgorgement.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
I think Harris's ace is "transparency"... so simple it is just too stupid to not be true.
Here is the thing... If Mr. Harris is honest in his claims on SPR that he went home after the original hearing in Oct and told all the Board members to leave the office and not return until instructed to do so after the SEC case. Then how did all the other happenings in company occur? The CEO was ousted the main office moved to Dallas, several filings including an 8K and a few Form 4's, PR's including a return of all November board members. If Mr. Harris is sitting on his hands with the office keys in his pocket, Ben is at home, the lights on the office are dark, and the phone ringing off the hook. How has any of this other stuff transpired?
If he get's his day in court and he reveals "transparent honesty", meaning he kept all his reciepts so to speak. The contracts with signatures are blown up in high resolution on the court projector, he has dotted all the (i)'s and crosed all the (t)'s, and sits up there and gives straight forward verifyable/indisputable fact as his defense. The SEC is going to look like a conspiracy theorist with their lack of evidence and Tim Miles theory.
You can't trump honesty, you can try and spin it and even dispute it as fiction. But I see Mr. Harris as extreemly confident, and this is indicitive of someone who has something worth fighting for, knows they are right, and who feels they can win.
If he is a liar, and a cheat, and CSHD is nothing but a stack of made up Photoshopped Euroclear screen printouts as some are saying. Then I would have to say he is the most confident liar and cheat holding nothing but air I have ever witnessed. Because he is about neck deep in a situation where only an honest man is going to prevail, and he is about 6 months late on his plane trip to a non-extradition soverign.
Oh yeah I still believe the SEC does not want this case to make trial. I don't think they can afford for it to make trial when they still have little or nothing. IMO the motion to strike was the next logical step in attempting to put this case to bed without a court date.
My favorite part and the REAL Question is however... that the last request in Mr. Harris's answer was "a give me a trial?" And the SEC is saying please strike this we are still gathering evidence to proove our case. If I were Judge I would think that due process means that if the Defendant wants a trail, and the Plaintif wants to say we are right so strike this. Then I would say fine let's sent this too court and see what evidence the Plaintif has to proove they are right.
Honestly, I never thought six months down the road Paul would be begging for a trial and the SEC is playing dumb and trying to get the case closed on no evidence.
quote:Originally posted by milliam: Ok Tax, if you're correct...what about the company? Is Rufus just going to answer for himself and forget about the company?
I kind of agree that the SEC's answer isn't the best thing they could do (or maybe it is ), but I still think we need a lawyer. I really hate to agree with thesource....REALLY .
My thoughts are that Mr. Harris realy believes a quick win of his case clears up any wrong doing of the company. I personally think the approach is risky, but if you got an ace up your sleeve. The risk is greatly reduced.
I don't know how this is going to end, but it would not surprise me if the motion to strike gets granted. The default IMO should have never been granted either but it was the very next day.
The court case does not seem to be very clean. Filings and case evidence from both parties seem very sloppy. While the judge has done nothing to try and clean up the proceedings.
I know Mr. Harris's excuse since he has yet to reveal a legal team, but what excuse does the SEC have?
lotsa confusion here... 1) I think you're talking about, maybe, a clerical error...at worst re whatever clerk typed up the docket. That may lead back to the "answer" itself, in that RPH does attempt to answer for both himself *and* the company. That alone is sufficient grounds for the strike.
2) What RPH "believes" has nothing whatsoever to do with it...court procedure is what it is, regardless of anyone's beliefs...to be able to answer (for himself, not the company) he would first have to enter a motion to set aside the default...with an argument compelling enough to have the motion granted.
3) The default was granted because no one bothered to respond, for whatever reason. It was a slam dunk.
4) What can the judge "clean up"? The SEC asked for what it wanted and got it without a fight...
5) What excuse? The SEC made its request, the request was granted, and they continue to compile evidence for whatever further actions they're contemplating, which at *the least* seem to be an order for disgorgement.
1a.)"a clerical error...at worst" That is one heck of a clerical error. HAHA!! Your funny.
2a.)"What RPH "believes" has nothing whatsoever to do with it..." In the context above it make alot of since. Especially since it is in reguards to how Mr. Harris is approaching his own legal defense if any at all.
3a.)"The default was granted because no one bothered to respond, for whatever reason." I do not have enough information to know if it was that cut and dried. I hear rumor that both CSHD and Mr. Harris were not served properly in the first place. Then you have the fact that Mr. Harris did show up in court and provided evidence on site, so it is not like he was totally ignoring the complaint. Default is usually reserved for cases where NO response is given. Showing up to court and putting evidence in hand is not a formal write up but should have been enough to stave off a Default Motion.
4a.)"What can the judge "clean up"?" HIS PROCEEDINGS... I did not studder. If someone brought a case to me and said this person stole money, but we have no evidence. And the other guy says I don't have an attourney. And I say to one party... "Quick go get edvidence and be back soon." and then say to the other party... "Quick go get an attourney and be back soon." And then 6 months later both return and neither has done what I had asked. As a Federal Judge I would either throw them both in jail or throw them both out. This case is in a sad state for both parties and the Judge is somewhat responsible because he is ignoring it.
5a.) "What excuse?" Your right ther is no excuse for the SEC not having ANY evidence at this point. They should have went for damages the day after the default was granted. Why wait? What is the hold up?
Why am I debating this with you of ALL people TEX?
I am not near this battle field, and from my perspective I have very little idea of the strategy and status of either of the opposing sides. I qualified my statements with "My thoughts" and they are based on what "I have witnessed" which I admit freely is very limited. You on the other hand speak as if you know the strategies of this case as fact. How close are you to the battle field? Personally, I am willing to gamble that you are no closer than I, and are just being combative because of emotion, or motive/agenda. Which basically means ANY debate is a total waste of time, I don't feel your emotion if you have any, and I definitely do not share your motive/agenda if you have any.
I just want to see the case end, and justice served. As a proud shareholder, ofcourse I would like to see CSHD prevail, but if wrong was done then action should be taken good or bad.
posted
Its pretty simple guys . You can paint the picture anyways you'd like but in the end it comes down to this and this alone .
The SEC has charged CSHD and Paul Harris with fraud and running a P&D . They have the attorneys to represent them and CSHD does not .
Let me ask you guys something , has anyone hear ever heard of the ACLU ? They are well known for screwing over smaller companies and or extorting companies for money . Most of the time the end results are leaving the company in ruins . Does anyone know why they end up winning most of their cases ? They have a damn good legal team and for the defendants to even defend themselves cost sometimes more than it would to settle out of court with the ACLU . So if they can wipe out a company that has a legal team , what the heck makes you think some stupid azz Georgia hill billy that can't even spell worth a crap stands a snow balls chance in hell ???
Do some research on the ACLU if you get the chance .........
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: Its pretty simple guys . You can paint the picture anyways you'd like but in the end it comes down to this and this alone .
The SEC has charged CSHD and Paul Harris with fraud and running a P&D . They have the attorneys to represent them and CSHD does not .
Let me ask you guys something , has anyone hear ever heard of the ACLU ? They are well known for screwing over smaller companies and or extorting companies for money . Most of the time the end results are leaving the company in ruins . Does anyone know why they end up winning most of their cases ? They have a damn good legal team and for the defendants to even defend themselves cost sometimes more than it would to settle out of court with the ACLU . So if they can wipe out a company that has a legal team , what the heck makes you think some stupid azz Georgia hill billy that can't even spell worth a crap stands a snow balls chance in hell ???
Do some research on the ACLU if you get the chance .........
Uuugh... well I could just take your rhetoric as absolute and agree... Or I could answer that question the way it should be answered and say. I think it is pretty obvious by the fact that this company is still trading, and the fact that this CEO is still raising horses, and the fact that this case is still ongoing... is plenty enough fact to at the very least suggest that this "stupid azz Georgia hill billy that can't even spell worth a crap" DOES stands a snow balls chance in hell???
quote:Originally posted by TimW: Whats comical is how people can believe any document posted on the internet, especially from a non official source.
I could write up any court appeal i feel like and post it on my website and that makes it valid... how?
What document are you talking about? I have recieved all my documents from the ECF site from the Northern Georgia District Federal Court site. (None of which I have posted here since it is a pay site and it is against the TOS rules and reg.) It seems a pretty reliable source to me, and the docs seem to match up with all I have seen posted from other outside sources.
Click on "Links to PACER websites" and go from there. The login is free, but they do charge $0.08 per page for reports.
Not looking forward to Mr. Harris's next set of filings. It is rumored the next two filings are 270 pages long. 20 for the first, and 250 for the second. Mr. Harris said this morning that there should be four filings from him this week. GLTA
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: Uuugh... well I could just take your rhetoric as absolute and agree... Or I could answer that question the way it should be answered and say. I think it is pretty obvious by the fact that this company is still trading, and the fact that this CEO is still raising horses, and the fact that this case is still ongoing... is plenty enough fact to at the very least suggest that this "stupid azz Georgia hill billy that can't even spell worth a crap" DOES stands a snow balls chance in hell???
Believe me , the SEC would have stopped trading completely if they could have . The cannot under the current law . The only thing they can do is halt it for 10 days and let it burn to hell on the grey markets . Look at CKYS , their CEO was arrested by the FBI and the SEC has an on going case against them but the stock is still traded . Hell , look at Eron , I believe its still trading !!!
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
posted
Mark this post !!! This company will end up in receivership before its all over . Rufus might get lucky though and walk away with a slap on the wrist but he's right about one thing . I don't think any of us will ever forget his name .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TaxBack04: Uuugh... well I could just take your rhetoric as absolute and agree... Or I could answer that question the way it should be answered and say. I think it is pretty obvious by the fact that this company is still trading, and the fact that this CEO is still raising horses, and the fact that this case is still ongoing... is plenty enough fact to at the very least suggest that this "stupid azz Georgia hill billy that can't even spell worth a crap" DOES stands a snow balls chance in hell???
Believe me , the SEC would have stopped trading completely if they could have . The cannot under the current law . The only thing they can do is halt it for 10 days and let it burn to hell on the grey markets . Look at CKYS , their CEO was arrested by the FBI and the SEC has an on going case against them but the stock is still traded . Hell , look at Eron , I believe its still trading !!!
Why should I or anyone for that mater believe you? Are you closer to this case than us? Do you have some fact we have not seen that you can deliver that we can verify? I will believe you if you can provide reason, rather than reasonable doubt. Personally I do not and have always told others NOT TO BELIEVE A WORD YOU HEAR ON THE MESSAGE BOARDS FROM A MESSAGE BOARD POSTER. Speculation, emotion, agenda, lazy due dillengence are all great reasons to have, make, and believe yourself and yourself alone on these boards. Yet here you are a seemingly experienced poster asking me and others to "believe" you.
I will say it again do not base your decisions on the words of a stock message board poster. Verify the information delivered on these sites for yourself, and make your own desicions based on your own information.
But your last post is most definitely "marked", but please don't mind me if I mark it as your opinion.
posted
I personally don't care if "you" believe a word I am writting . Its kind of like going to church to listen to the preacher preach or picking up the book and reading it yourself .
You either continue to listen to the preacher preach and hope he's right or you can pick the book up and read it yourself . Its all there in black and white . The rules of civil procedure are available as well as the laws regulating the SEC and their powers . Trust me , you will me a wiser person for it instead of wasting your time doing DD on some make believe bonds .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: I personally don't care if "you" believe a word I am writting . Its kind of like going to church to listen to the preacher preach or picking up the book and reading it yourself .
You either continue to listen to the preacher preach and hope he's right or you can pick the book up and read it yourself . Its all there in black and white . The rules of civil procedure are available as well as the laws regulating the SEC and their powers . Trust me, you will me a wiser person for it instead of wasting your time doing DD on some make believe bonds .
Now you go straight from saying "Believe Me", to "Trust Me". Not only that! You follow up the request for people's trust by pointing out pure speculation. Unless ofcouse you have some actual proof that the bonds are "make believe".
You see a veteran poster that really wanted anothers trust would say DD everything, the rules of civil procedure, the bonds, each and everyone directly and indirectly involved and even other posters who make radical proclimations either bad or good on this and every other site available. And when you think you are done. Look at it all again, because until you see the whole picture you will not be able to see the forest for the trees.
But the last thing that veteran poster would ever say is "trust me" or even "believe me". Because that poster would have learned long ago that these words are useless on a message board.
posted
Like I said , I personally could not care less if you believe or trust me . Here's something to think about though . I have not cost you a single dime of your money nor have I profitted in any way from this stock going down . But you'd rather listen and believe some bumbling fool who claims to have won the republican of the year award , been involved with special mandates from the U.S government , has bonds worth billions of dollars , has friends in high places such as the U.N and congress , claims to have shorty by the nuts , will bring down the SEC , will right all the wrongs of the world and claims to raise race horses without a single shred of proof on anything . I could go on and on and on .
You people that continue to bury heads and not learn from this will be doomed to repeat it on something else . All I can say is better you than me .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
Hey Catia! Hows it going? You know a guy comes back to read a few posts, makes a simple comment. One person asks you for your opinion, you give it and then it becomes a whole day affair. Just crazy. HAHA!!
posted
thesource states: "You either continue to listen to the preacher preach and hope he's right or you can pick the book up and read it yourself . Its all there in black and white . The rules of civil procedure are available as well as the laws regulating the SEC and their powers ."
Here's the thing...and this is obviously IMO...both the preacher and "the book" are viewed by others in different ways...AND...even laws that regulate the SEC or anything are also written and viewed in different ways...things are not always as simple as black and white...there are loop-holes in most every written book/law...I am thinking that we (CSHD) are about to see a few of those Loop-holes and different views...
(for the record...I do wish the fat lady would sing...one way or another...)
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
), but I still think we need a lawyer. I really hate to agree with thesource....REALLY ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
