posted
Submission of 15 MOTION to Strike 14 Answer to Complaint, 17 MOTION to Set Aside Default, submitted to District Judge Clarence Cooper. (vs) (Entered: 06/13/2007) This is whats posted on HSM so far.
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
James Gee posts: Phil I forget how smart you are. Here is how it happened? Rufus created Wattle share certificates from his computer on the 25th of Sept and sent them to the TA with instructions to issues CSHD certs. Rufus sent along with the certs an excel spreadsheet to show who gets shares and who doesnt. Want to know the interesting thing about all of this is that the signed merger document wasnt created until November 27th. This was on his computer. The terms of the merger showed a restrictive stamp to be on the certs dated June 2004. That is why they were free trading.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And another JG post: According to the signed document in Rufus computer the merger doc was created on Nov 27th and signed the same day and faxed in. Rufus signed for both Waatle and CVSU as CEO of both. The certs, created from his computer had a creation date of Sept 25th. They should have been exchanged but never did. They should have been issued as Waatle then CVSU then CSHD. It didnt happen that way. They went straight from being Waatle to CSHD. Here is the restriction stamp.
Any transfer or other disposition of the shares represented by this certificate is subject to the provisions of an Asset Acquisition Agreement dated as of June 9, 2004, among CVSU, Inc. (the “Corporation”), and Waatle Holdings Corp. The shares of stock represented by this Certificate have not been registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”), and may be transferred only if (i) registered under the Act and the requirements of any state having jurisdiction are complied with or (ii) the transfer is exempt from such registration and state requirements and counsel reasonably acceptable to the Corporation has delivered to the Corporation a written opinion reasonably acceptable to the Corporation setting forth the basis for such exemption.”
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Igor R: Submission of 15 MOTION to Strike 14 Answer to Complaint, 17 MOTION to Set Aside Default, submitted to District Judge Clarence Cooper. (vs) (Entered: 06/13/2007) This is whats posted on HSM so far.
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
7 or 8 months ago James Gee would have cleared the house had he dropped those bombs on us. Its all a good story but its AMAZING that those details havent leaked out in one way or another until now. For that reason I will need to disbelieve what he is writing. If he isnt lying about this, God help him....the people that lost A LOT of money down south are looking for someone to pay very badly.
He's screwed either way IMO.
Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dogdoo- are you kidding me with this rookie job certificate?
This has to be the most pathetic job I have ever seen- you claim you scanned this copy or what?????
You say you "copied it" the document you posted is NOT a copy. as you indicate.
Explain the source of this POS! (Below are the layers broke out- you cannot break out layers of images in a word document if it was a "scanned image")
***edit notice whoever the idiot was who made it put the company name in two locations on top of eachother. But because they covered the images on top of eachother it was not something you could see unless you broke the layers out***
"
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed the same thing too Igor- that was just sad...My neighbor's 4 year old can cut and paste better than that.
Posts: 949 | From: Little Rock, AR | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought he copied everything from Rufus' computer during that bar-b-que. Wouldn't he then have whatever version was on Rufus' computer?
If he said he "copied" it, I would assume he meant electronically, not a photocopy.
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm thinking that it simply means that the judge now has all the information that RPH and SEC has submitted in front of him... My guess is that the next step would be that the judge would "rule" on what is next...
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: Whats that new pacer document say/mean?
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: I'm thinking that it simply means that the judge now has all the information that RPH and SEC has submitted in front of him... My guess is that the next step would be that the judge would "rule" on what is next...
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: Whats that new pacer document say/mean?
I think you are absolutely right 10. Those documents posted are now in front of the Judge to rule on.
Interesting to me is that there is one document that I was unaware of. The motion to set aside the default. We knew Rufus answered and that the SEc moved to strike but the motion regarding the default is new to me. Of course I have been out of pocket a while so it may have happened when I wasn't looking.
So the Judge could strike Rufus's answer but set aside the default which would then allow Rufus to answer. I know it doesn't make sense when looking at it logically but from a legal point of view it might.
I will allow those more versed in the legal arena to answer that.
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Igor R: Submission of 15 MOTION to Strike 14 Answer to Complaint, 17 MOTION to Set Aside Default, submitted to District Judge Clarence Cooper. (vs) (Entered: 06/13/2007) This is whats posted on HSM so far.
I believe this really needs to be looked at as 3 separate events.
(1) 15 Submission to Strike
(2) 14 Answer to Complaint
(3) 17 Motion to Set Aside Default
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Explain the source of this POS! (Below are the layers broke out- you cannot break out layers of images in a word document if it was a "scanned image")
Depends on what was the intention of this. It is a stock certificate that has been edited to remove the existing content. If you blow it up you can see the blending/cloning of textures aroundd where signatures should be and where the numbers should be.
Looks like it was just "depersonalized" and some text boxes placed over the top.
In other words, hopefully its a joke.
Im sure the text was just put in there as a joke.. I think the original point is just to prove he has a copy of a cert. It definetly was not a "blank cert" or copied from the source.. as when you zoom in you can tell it was edited.
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: I'm thinking that it simply means that the judge now has all the information that RPH and SEC has submitted in front of him... My guess is that the next step would be that the judge would "rule" on what is next...
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: Whats that new pacer document say/mean?
I think you are absolutely right 10. Those documents posted are now in front of the Judge to rule on.
Interesting to me is that there is one document that I was unaware of. The motion to set aside the default. We knew Rufus answered and that the SEc moved to strike but the motion regarding the default is new to me. Of course I have been out of pocket a while so it may have happened when I wasn't looking.
So the Judge could strike Rufus's answer but set aside the default which would then allow Rufus to answer. I know it doesn't make sense when looking at it logically but from a legal point of view it might.
I will allow those more versed in the legal arena to answer that.
Wally
Wally-san...
rph answered, late--as we know--subsequently, the SEC filed motion to strike re timeliness, etc. Then rph submitted again, the "set-aside" motion...
I don't *think* the SEC can move against that. ie, would be "presumptuous" toward the court.
However, *if* the motion to strike first reply is upheld, is not good for the "set-aside," imo.
Two issues remain a "stickler." Timeliness and mixed replies between personal and company.
That being said, it sure would be fun if the default *were* set aside.
That would open--or at least lead to-- the "discovery phase," if I understand the process correctly...
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: I'm thinking that it simply means that the judge now has all the information that RPH and SEC has submitted in front of him... My guess is that the next step would be that the judge would "rule" on what is next...
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: Whats that new pacer document say/mean?
I think you are absolutely right 10. Those documents posted are now in front of the Judge to rule on.
Interesting to me is that there is one document that I was unaware of. The motion to set aside the default. We knew Rufus answered and that the SEc moved to strike but the motion regarding the default is new to me. Of course I have been out of pocket a while so it may have happened when I wasn't looking.
So the Judge could strike Rufus's answer but set aside the default which would then allow Rufus to answer. I know it doesn't make sense when looking at it logically but from a legal point of view it might.
I will allow those more versed in the legal arena to answer that.
Wally
Wally-san...
rph answered, late--as we know--subsequently, the SEC filed motion to strike re timeliness, etc. Then rph submitted again, the "set-aside" motion...
I don't *think* the SEC can move against that. ie, would be "presumptuous" toward the court.
However, *if* the motion to strike first reply is upheld, is not good for the "set-aside," imo.
Two issues remain a "stickler." Timeliness and mixed replies between personal and company.
That being said, it sure would be fun if the default *were* set aside.
That would open--or at least lead to-- the "discovery phase," if I understand the process correctly...
I hear Ya Tex.
Yet, if I remember correctly one of the tests as to where a default judgement will be set aside is the impact that it has on the case and not the timeliness of it being filed.
I completely expect/expected the answer to be stricken because it was out of order. Therefore it would not be a surprise.
I hope the Judge does allow the shareholders the day in court so that all the discovery sees the light of day. This would end all the speculation and if not completely provide proof of innocence than point the fingers in the right direction. I say fingers, plural, since I believe more than one person is guilty.
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yet, if I remember correctly one of the tests as to where a default judgement will be set aside is the impact that it has on the case and not the timeliness of it being filed."
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "Yet, if I remember correctly one of the tests as to where a default judgement will be set aside is the impact that it has on the case and not the timeliness of it being filed."
a test? kewl... would love to read up on that...
for sure woulda helped me on another matter
For your reading pleasure. Not sure if this one in particular deals with unfair advantage but I think you can get a general drift on it.
Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Legal Topics > Personal Injury and Health > Injury Accidents > Personal Injury
What is a Default Judgment?
When you are sued by someone, you must file an answer with the court, which includes your response to the allegations made against you. If you fail to so do within the time period alloted, or if you fail to appear in court to answer the plaintiff's complaint, a judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff. This is called a default judgment.
What Can I Do if a Default Judgment Has Been Entered Against Me?
In order to have the default judgment vacated, or set aside, you must file a motion to vacate the judgment with the court. In filing your motion, you must generally cite one of the following reasons for why you failed to answer the complaint in a timely manner:
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; new evidence has been discovered; fraud the judgment is void; judgment was satisfied or discharged; some other reason that would justify your failure to answer The court will hold a hearing on your motion, and determine whether or not to vacate the judgment. Though the success rate of these motions will vary quite a bit from court to court, they are fairly liberally granted. Courts are more inclined to give each party the opportunity to argue their side of the case based on its merits, rather than allowing a judgment by default to stand.
It is important to remember that just because your motion to vacate is granted, you have not won the case. Setting aside the default judgment simply gives you the opportunity to file your answer to the original complaint made against you by the plaintiff.
Should I Consult An Attorney? Any time you are being sued, you will want to have an experienced attorney defending you. If a default judgment has been entered against you, an attorney will be able to represent you and help you prove that the judgment should be vacated or set aside.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: also, an odd thing--to me at least--
notice the numbering: 14, 15, 17
what happened to 16?
am not saying the sky is falling, or this proves conspiracy...
still, the sequence is at least worth noting
Now I did notice that too but did not want to feed the Conspiracy theorist nor the chicken littles.
I wonder what 16 was all about? Maybe just an amendment to 14 or 15 or the holy grail. Stay tuned.
Wally
Ohhh...the 16...that's 16 billion like what we're all going to have, or maybe its 160 billion....whoa.
Sorry...just poking a little fun at RPH's board. They take any numbers that show up and try to figure out where they fit in.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would you think the default wouldn't be set aside?
Indeed the co. does need legal representation, but I think RPH has made it pretty clear that he's not going to get any for himself or the company, but he can go to court for himself. I'm not sure what that does for the co. though.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gotcha...I do remember RPH's answer mentioning the corp. probably too much, but I don't remember how his plea for the default to be opened was.
RPH can represent himself in court without a lawyer, but I agree that the corp. has to have a lawyer. Now, is there anyway that RPH can go into court for himself and not really bring CSHD into this? Its pretty much the same case. I assume the case against him was made so that he didn't just quit being the CEO and get off.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
it does not have to be written - FRP - Federal Rules and Procedures states that a corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney and a court will not deviate one iota from those rules. you goof - you get tossed and the other side wins. the courts do not accept excuses or lateness or invalid pleadings. it is either done their way or it is not done. that simple.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me! Posts: 950 | From: Middle of Nowhere, Missouri | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its actually a law that a corp. has to be represented by a lawyer.
I would imagine that a lawyer would be appointed if the corp. doesn't have the funds to hire one. I highly doubt the sealed doc was financial info showing the corp. didn't have the funds for a lawyer. At the time when that went down, I think Rufus was still saying we had a bunch of cash. I would think a document saying we were broke would have went towards showing that the SEC was right in their accusations.
I think all of this just stems from RPH not liking lawyers and figuring that none of them would understand what he's trying to do. I think he feels that a lawyer would try to talk him into settling for less than he feels is due. I think he might also be afraid that a lawyer could be paid by the bad guys to screw him. It all pretty much comes down to RPH wanting to be in control of his case...if he/we had a lawyer, he wouldn't be in total control.
He has said in the past that bascially the SEC has lawyers, let them find the pump and dump.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Milliam.. I thought that Cshd was pretty much a "bond" oriented business..and they didn't have "cash on hand" so to speak..and the way things were written/structured for the bonds was that they couldn't be drawn upon unless to fund JV's... If that was the case then perhaps they truly didn't have "funds" for a lawyer...just a thought...
And it could very well be that RPH simply wasn't taking any chances that a lawyer would get "bought out" by someone...it seems to be his "thinking"
-------------------- #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
