quote:Originally posted by PCola77: Jenna, I could be 100% wrong on this, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my take.
Why are so many people assuming that the SEC has no proof? The way I understand things is that the SEC filed complaints against Rufus, and he had X days to respond or he would default to "guilty" Since he didn't respond in time, the SEC has no incentive to show their hand. They could have all the proof in the world, but until they are required to show it, they have no reason to.
You sometimes hear about leaks in jury trials, but for the most part, the prosecution doesn't release evidence to the public until they have to, which you have to agree is the way to go. I just think this is the same thing.
Until a judge says "Okay, SEC, Rufus countered with this evidence, where is yours", they are keeping their info close to the vest.
Would you do it any differently if you were the SEC?
In that filing from the SEC last week, or two weeks ago, they stated they're still "gathering evidence" or something to that effect.
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would assume that is just for covering their ass so if they find anything else it's still admissible. But I haven't followed this as closely as many of you, so I could just be talking out of my ass.
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what the SEC has found, but at the last court date, I don't think they had much concrete (if any) evidence. Hearing them say "we will find something" sure doesn't seem concrete!
They did talk about a P&D and were talking about Mike's wife. They said "she has a lot of shares". At the time I didn't think much about it, but since, we've found out she did sell. I would think if there has been a P&D, she will be in big trouble!
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: I'm not sure what the SEC has found, but at the last court date, I don't think they had much concrete (if any) evidence. Hearing them say "we will find something" sure doesn't seem concrete!
They did talk about a P&D and were talking about Mike's wife. They said "she has a lot of shares". At the time I didn't think much about it, but since, we've found out she did sell. I would think if there has been a P&D, she will be in big trouble!
I agree with you...I wonder, if the SEC doesn't come up with something concrete SOON does Rufus has the right to sue over malicious and libel comments?
Rufus...Just sit back and watch the SEC stumble over themselves looking for dirt that does not exist. Posts: 2498 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And someone has yet to explain logically how a hick with sketchy past business secured 5 billion in assets. I sure as hell wouldn't give him any
-------------------- Disclaimer: Not accountable for anything I say Posts: 6266 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: And someone has yet to explain logically how a hick with sketchy past business secured 5 billion in assets. I sure as hell wouldn't give him any
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: And someone has yet to explain logically how a hick with sketchy past business secured 5 billion in assets. I sure as hell wouldn't give him any
Obviously you didn't care about that when you bought this stock, so why now?
Posts: 2554 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: And someone has yet to explain logically how a hick with sketchy past business secured 5 billion in assets. I sure as hell wouldn't give him any
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: And someone has yet to explain logically how a hick with sketchy past business secured 5 billion in assets. I sure as hell wouldn't give him any
Obviously you didn't care about that when you bought this stock, so why now?
When I bought the stock, I bought in because of stupidity, because of the promise of $15, because of the promise that this could be a "life changer". I was a fool and fell for it. Looking back now with a clearer view it becomes evident that many people got tricked by the same thing.
-------------------- Disclaimer: Not accountable for anything I say Posts: 6266 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by milliam: I'm not sure what the SEC has found, but at the last court date, I don't think they had much concrete (if any) evidence. Hearing them say "we will find something" sure doesn't seem concrete!
They did talk about a P&D and were talking about Mike's wife. They said "she has a lot of shares". At the time I didn't think much about it, but since, we've found out she did sell. I would think if there has been a P&D, she will be in big trouble!
I agree with you...I wonder, if the SEC doesn't come up with something concrete SOON does Rufus has the right to sue over malicious and libel comments?
Rufus...Just sit back and watch the SEC stumble over themselves looking for dirt that does not exist.
I wouldn't expect anything soon...even though they got expedited discovery, SEC can be quite ponderous in sifting through everything. Remember CMKX, the diamond fiasco? Was a coupla years before SEC moved in on them... And no, language in lawsuits isn't subject to libel, etc...
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader2006: This isn't over, so how can you say by fact that this will not happen?
It's not over? Oh sorry, it must be barely breathing.
A stock that traded over $3 at one time now at .01
sure its not over?
It will only be over if it goes into receivership, which by the looks of the sec's lack of evidence, isn't going to happen.
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader2006: This isn't over, so how can you say by fact that this will not happen?
It's not over? Oh sorry, it must be barely breathing.
A stock that traded over $3 at one time now at .01
sure its not over?
If the glass is half empty to you, then sell and move on. And yes, I am sure it is not over - SEC case still on-going, and Rufus is still around.
Posts: 2554 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Some people here like to bash Rufus & that's your perogative....but just keep this in mind...I used to feel the same way...I was in the "Arlitt" camp, if you will...& I found out I was wrong...REALLY wrong....even when I spoke with him...he would say things, I would ask him questions, because, what he said didn't make sense, Yet he couldn't answer the question or said, "I don't know..."
I guess if it doesn't make sense, it's not true...
As far as Rufus goes....why is he still here? Why does he hang around? If he did a P&D why can't the SEC find the evidence? They have had 6 months to do it & have had the FBI involved & still nothing? Would it have been better for Rufus to take the money & go to another country? Why take the time to answer the default?
Let's just stick with the facts....Next time someone has a negative thing to say back it up....if you have proof to show that Rufus has done something wrong then show us a link, show us some proof, For god's sake the SEC could use your help!!!
By the way, Hi Source!!! (and this is not aimed at you it is for all)....
OK Jenna, time to climb back on the bandwagon. You can understand all of the skepticism around here, especially with the long wait for his response to the Default and no lawyer along with it.
Logically our only real hope of recovering from our low estate is for RPH to have what he says he has, and for him to prevail in court. If he loses in court and the company goes into receivership then that means there is nothing to be gotten anyway. Then the only solace would be to see him convicted for crime(s) and maybe sent to jail. But then still no $ return for us.
So now the main thrust of our view of RPH is, do we TRUST him? To answer this let us look at the 3 logical possibilities of his position: (1,000,000 Grace Points to whoever gets the answer to the author and name of the book where this reasoning comes from)
1) RPH is a LIAR. He knows that this is all a sham and he is pulling a Smoke and Mirrors game.
2) RPH is a LUNITIC. He is deceived about the bonds and was duped by the people around him.
3) RPH is for REAL. He truely does have the goods and his intentions are to expose illegal activity concerning CSHD stock.
There has been a lot of speculation on this board lately (mine included) that support #1 and #2. But as Jenna points out that if RPH is ready to put his family at jeopardy and stick around to face the SEC alone, it indicates to me that he must have full assurance and confidence in what he is doing. I think if he is ready to risk all for the 'common good', then we as stockholders should support him, if for no other reason than a desire to see a decent return on our investment.
OK Jenna, I'm back onboard. Hit'em where it hurts RPH. GO CSHD
IMHO
Mo
-------------------- Hi-ho Momo, awayyyy... Posts: 871 | From: So. Cal | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mo stated... "There has been a lot of speculation on this board lately (mine included) that support #1 and #2. But as Jenna points out that if RPH is ready to put his family at jeopardy and stick around to face the SEC alone, it indicates to me that he must have full assurance and confidence in what he is doing. I think if he is ready to risk all for the 'common good', then we as stockholders should support him, if for no other reason than a desire to see a decent return on our investment."
I don't need to change a word...Perfect!
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
um...hate to be a wet blanket...but, putting family at risk is not the mark of prudence. Had I only a fraction of the claimed assets, I would make darn sure my family was safely tucked away from whatever threat is being claimed... Likewise, taking "on the SEC alone" should be cause for great alarm... Think of other company leaders in the news, say, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Warren Buffet, etc... How would their companies' shareholders react if the CEO responded to such a complaint by "taking on the SEC alone"?
quote:Originally posted by T e x: um...hate to be a wet blanket...but, putting family at risk is not the mark of prudence. Had I only a fraction of the claimed assets, I would make darn sure my family was safely tucked away from whatever threat is being claimed... Likewise, taking "on the SEC alone" should be cause for great alarm... Think of other company leaders in the news, say, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Warren Buffet, etc... How would their companies' shareholders react if the CEO responded to such a complaint by "taking on the SEC alone"?
No logic in this argument...
Depends on which side of the Looking Glass you're on 'Alice'.
LOL
-------------------- Hi-ho Momo, awayyyy... Posts: 871 | From: So. Cal | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
not really...although, lol, the "wonderland" allusion is appropos...but, no, there's no legit way to justify putting one's family at risk. Poor or rich, you use whatever your best means available to ensure safety of your family. If you believed your own family was at risk, you would take measures to ensure their safety, right?
quote:Originally posted by T e x: not really...although, lol, the "wonderland" allusion is appropos...but, no, there's no legit way to justify putting one's family at risk. Poor or rich, you use whatever your best means available to ensure safety of your family. If you believed your own family was at risk, you would take measures to ensure their safety, right?
Actually I was thinking more of them (his family) losing him if he goes to jail.
So then he does not think he is putting them in jeopardy this way. i.e. he has the goods.
-------------------- Hi-ho Momo, awayyyy... Posts: 871 | From: So. Cal | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was...that there is no "other choice" at this time in the "game"...RPH has it or he doesn't... and we can only wait to see if we get... "a decent return on our investment." Alice already went down the rabbit hole...tick tock...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, if he goes to jail, it won't be via the SEC...but if that *does* happen, it would be from decisions he made, not from external or outside threats... And, once again, retaining competent counsel would be prudent, both for himself and for his family.
quote:Originally posted by T e x: well, if he goes to jail, it won't be via the SEC...but if that *does* happen, it would be from decisions he made, not from external or outside threats... And, once again, retaining competent counsel would be prudent, both for himself and for his family.
Agreed, gotta run, my house just went into escrow and I must deliver some papers to my RE agent.
TTFN
-------------------- Hi-ho Momo, awayyyy... Posts: 871 | From: So. Cal | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Alice already went down the rabbit hole...tick tock..."
lol...
quote:Alice: If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
quote:Originally posted by T e x: um...hate to be a wet blanket...but, putting family at risk is not the mark of prudence. Had I only a fraction of the claimed assets, I would make darn sure my family was safely tucked away from whatever threat is being claimed... Likewise, taking "on the SEC alone" should be cause for great alarm... Think of other company leaders in the news, say, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Warren Buffet, etc... How would their companies' shareholders react if the CEO responded to such a complaint by "taking on the SEC alone"?
No logic in this argument...
Yay, you just compared Rufus to the likes of Gates, Dell and Buffet! Enjoying the koolaide there Tex! Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: Jenna, I could be 100% wrong on this, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my take.
Why are so many people assuming that the SEC has no proof? The way I understand things is that the SEC filed complaints against Rufus, and he had X days to respond or he would default to "guilty" Since he didn't respond in time, the SEC has no incentive to show their hand. They could have all the proof in the world, but until they are required to show it, they have no reason to.
You sometimes hear about leaks in jury trials, but for the most part, the prosecution doesn't release evidence to the public until they have to, which you have to agree is the way to go. I just think this is the same thing.
Until a judge says "Okay, SEC, Rufus countered with this evidence, where is yours", they are keeping their info close to the vest.
Would you do it any differently if you were the SEC?
Yes, I would do it differently. If I had proof there was a fraud, then I would act quickly to protect the shareholders....
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Some people here like to bash Rufus & that's your perogative....but just keep this in mind...I used to feel the same way...I was in the "Arlitt" camp, if you will...& I found out I was wrong...REALLY wrong....even when I spoke with him...he would say things, I would ask him questions, because, what he said didn't make sense, Yet he couldn't answer the question or said, "I don't know..."
I guess if it doesn't make sense, it's not true...
As far as Rufus goes....why is he still here? Why does he hang around? If he did a P&D why can't the SEC find the evidence? They have had 6 months to do it & have had the FBI involved & still nothing? Would it have been better for Rufus to take the money & go to another country? Why take the time to answer the default?
Let's just stick with the facts....Next time someone has a negative thing to say back it up....if you have proof to show that Rufus has done something wrong then show us a link, show us some proof, For god's sake the SEC could use your help!!!
By the way, Hi Source!!! (and this is not aimed at you it is for all)....
OK Jenna, time to climb back on the bandwagon. You can understand all of the skepticism around here, especially with the long wait for his response to the Default and no lawyer along with it.
Logically our only real hope of recovering from our low estate is for RPH to have what he says he has, and for him to prevail in court. If he loses in court and the company goes into receivership then that means there is nothing to be gotten anyway. Then the only solace would be to see him convicted for crime(s) and maybe sent to jail. But then still no $ return for us.
So now the main thrust of our view of RPH is, do we TRUST him? To answer this let us look at the 3 logical possibilities of his position: (1,000,000 Grace Points to whoever gets the answer to the author and name of the book where this reasoning comes from)
1) RPH is a LIAR. He knows that this is all a sham and he is pulling a Smoke and Mirrors game.
2) RPH is a LUNITIC. He is deceived about the bonds and was duped by the people around him.
3) RPH is for REAL. He truely does have the goods and his intentions are to expose illegal activity concerning CSHD stock.
There has been a lot of speculation on this board lately (mine included) that support #1 and #2. But as Jenna points out that if RPH is ready to put his family at jeopardy and stick around to face the SEC alone, it indicates to me that he must have full assurance and confidence in what he is doing. I think if he is ready to risk all for the 'common good', then we as stockholders should support him, if for no other reason than a desire to see a decent return on our investment.
OK Jenna, I'm back onboard. Hit'em where it hurts RPH. GO CSHD
IMHO
Mo
With all of the good DDer's here, I am suprised that there was not one who would take up my challenge to find the book and author where the 'trilema' reasoning was made popular. So then I will give you the author's name which should make it easy to find the book's name. His name is Josh McDowell, and to some of you this may 'ring a bell'.
This may be a better question for RPH's board, but let's see if it will fly here.
Mo
-------------------- Hi-ho Momo, awayyyy... Posts: 871 | From: So. Cal | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I think you're misunderstanding the SEC. They protect the SYSTEM, not individual investors
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: Yes, I would do it differently. If I had proof there was a fraud, then I would act quickly to protect the shareholders....
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
