posted
You could be right 10, but I thought Rufus did say we had some cash on hand.
I think the lack of a legal team is derived from a conspiracy theory. BUT, if all that has gone on is true, I can't blame Rufus for feeling this way!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: I don't think it will be set aside for 2 reasons :
(1)Judge gave specific orders to not come back without a lawyer
(2)Any filings that include CSHD in them must be filed with an attorney signature attached to them or they are basically voided .
"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."
quote:Originally posted by 66inxs: 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.
Thats correct , its procedure . The Judge was just making Dufus aware of it . The case against CSHD and against Rufus are one in the same . The only reason Rufus is listed on it is because he's the CEO of the company .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: I don't think it will be set aside for 2 reasons :
(1)Judge gave specific orders to not come back without a lawyer
(2)Any filings that include CSHD in them must be filed with an attorney signature attached to them or they are basically voided .
"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."
See above post for link.
Wally
Thats fine but the company still has no one to answer for it there for cannot proceed with any filings or court dates . If CSHD does not have an attorney , the judge cannot and will not grant the motions on the behalf of the company . If anything , its slap in his face since Rufus did not follow his orders to come back with legal counsel .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
posted
thesource says: "Thats fine but the company still has no one to answer for it there for cannot proceed with any filings or court dates . If CSHD does not have an attorney , the judge cannot and will not grant the motions on the behalf of the company . If anything , its slap in his face since Rufus did not follow his orders to come back with legal counsel"
Well source...i guess we will find out within the near future what the judge has to say...good, bad or indifferent...we shall see...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that the cases are one in the same. There's no doubt they are both about the exact same thing, but one is against CSHD and the other is against Rufus.
Technically, Rufus can go to court on his own behalf. It is going to be hard to divide the case between him and CSHD, but others have mentioned that this might be part of his plan. If he can prove his innocense without a lawyer, then it automatically proves CSHD's innocense.
Maybe, just maybe this is better for the shareholders. If Rufus goes to court on is own and fails, then maybe the door will be open for CSHD to go to court with a lawyer.
IP: Logged |
posted
No it is the same . They are filed together under the same suit # . The judge didn't tell Rufus he could represent himself and the company must come back with a lawyer . He said don't come back without a lawyer . Rufus continues to snuff his noise at the court but thinks the judge will grant him some leinancy ??
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
posted
Lets just say for the sake of arguement that the judge allows Rufus to represent himself and go foward with the suit against him personally . That still leaves the state of default in place for the company because the company has failed to respond to its part of the suit and there for cannot proceed any further . The only that might happen is Rufus is cleared of the suit but CSHD still remains on it and in default .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: Lets just say for the sake of arguement that the judge allows Rufus to represent himself and go foward with the suit against him personally . That still leaves the state of default in place for the company because the company has failed to respond to its part of the suit and there for cannot proceed any further . The only that might happen is Rufus is cleared of the suit but CSHD still remains on it and in default .
Correct-a-mongo. The only thing rufie is trying for is getting the judge to obtain proof from the SEC, which they have no proof.. Thats all hes banking on now it sounds like. If the SEC has any evidence, then he would need to defend himself. He cant defend himself against accusations if theres no evidence to begin with! Thats why he doesnt have a lawyer yet.
posted
In a law suit , things are not the same as in a criminal case . The burden of proof is not solely on the plantiffs hands . If I were to sue you on what ever grounds , you must provide reasonable proof of your own that the claims made in the suit do not have a bases to move foward . In this case the SEC has presented the suit against CSHD and now its up to CSHD to defend itself . I've used this analogy before and it fits nicely .
Imagine this as a poker hand . Both people think they have a winning hand or atleast a good chance of bluffing their way to a win . The SEC has placed their bet and now Rufus must check it or raise it to see the SEC's cards . If he cannot or will not , he's forced to fold and the SEC wins . If he places the bet and forces the SEC to show their hand then its over , completely over one way or the other . Now that brings up the question of why would Rufus drags this out , risk his family and his own freedom to play this hand . He's been told to get a lawyer but still has not . According to those who believe his story , CSHD is golden and should have billions at its disposal . Why would Rufus print up some crappy motions and file them under his name if the company was loaded . Hell its a tax write off anyways and this thing would be trading alot higher by now if the company answered the default .
The thing is , CSHD is broke . Rufus is broke . CSHD has no bonds or JV's . The company is in default and the people holding stock in this company are just wishfull thinking that this will ever get any better . The saying "If its too good to be true " really applies to this stock .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
posted
The burden of proof is not solely on the plantiffs hands . If I were to sue you on what ever grounds , you must provide reasonable proof of your own that the claims made in the suit do not have a bases to move foward . In this case the SEC has presented the suit against CSHD and now its up to CSHD to defend itself . I've used this analogy before and it fits nicely .
that's bullcrap....
In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
The burden of proof must be distinguished from the "burden of going forward," which simply refers to the sequence of proof, as between the plaintiff and defendant. The two concepts are often confused.
i got one word for you: Nifong
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I'm not going to make any guesses as to what the Judge will or will not due or even how this will turn out...There are LOOP HOLES in everything...most of all written laws, rules and regulations...
So we shall see...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
posted
it allways come back to the same question. IF cshd has billions of dollars in assets WHY have they not hired a kick azz leagle team to blow the doors off the SEC`s allegations??? every month this drags out decreases the credibility of this company. what happened to the politicos and diplomats who were alledgedly behind the scenes? a multi BILLION dollar company would be a powerhouse with a STAFF of eager layers just itching to rip the throat out of some(smalltime cant make it in the real world) SEC lawyer!. but no lawyer?? spin the situation anyway you like but the trueth is there is NO GOOD REASON for not having a GREAT law firm representing them IF they have billions of dollars in assets! NONE!!! and any argument against this reality is just silly IMO!!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by madmoney: it allways come back to the same question. IF cshd has billions of dollars in assets WHY have they not hired a kick azz leagle team to blow the doors off the SEC`s allegations??? every month this drags out decreases the credibility of this company. what happened to the politicos and diplomats who were alledgedly behind the scenes? a multi BILLION dollar company would be a powerhouse with a STAFF of eager layers just itching to rip the throat out of some(smalltime cant make it in the real world) SEC lawyer!. but no lawyer?? spin the situation anyway you like but the trueth is there is NO GOOD REASON for not having a GREAT law firm representing them IF they have billions of dollars in assets! NONE!!! and any argument against this reality is just silly IMO!!
maybe they made a sure bet and shorted?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
The burden of proof is only on the plantiffs hands if the defendant responds to the intial suit . CSHD did not and is now in default . That means the SEC does not have to do a damn thing from this point on until the default is either set aside or enforced . Since you are so good at looking things up , go do some research on the term default judgement .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by madmoney: it allways come back to the same question. IF cshd has billions of dollars in assets WHY have they not hired a kick azz leagle team to blow the doors off the SEC`s allegations??? every month this drags out decreases the credibility of this company. what happened to the politicos and diplomats who were alledgedly behind the scenes? a multi BILLION dollar company would be a powerhouse with a STAFF of eager layers just itching to rip the throat out of some(smalltime cant make it in the real world) SEC lawyer!. but no lawyer?? spin the situation anyway you like but the trueth is there is NO GOOD REASON for not having a GREAT law firm representing them IF they have billions of dollars in assets! NONE!!! and any argument against this reality is just silly IMO!!
you are completely correct and have said that for a while now
-------------------- Disclaimer: Not accountable for anything I say
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by madmoney: it allways come back to the same question. IF cshd has billions of dollars in assets WHY have they not hired a kick azz leagle team to blow the doors off the SEC`s allegations??? every month this drags out decreases the credibility of this company. what happened to the politicos and diplomats who were alledgedly behind the scenes? a multi BILLION dollar company would be a powerhouse with a STAFF of eager layers just itching to rip the throat out of some(smalltime cant make it in the real world) SEC lawyer!. but no lawyer?? spin the situation anyway you like but the trueth is there is NO GOOD REASON for not having a GREAT law firm representing them IF they have billions of dollars in assets! NONE!!! and any argument against this reality is just silly IMO!!
you are completely correct and have said that for a while now
I know and it bears repeating, so many posters try to explain why it makes sense that they have no lawyer and it simply does not! ( make sense )
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: The burden of proof is only on the plantiffs hands if the defendant responds to the intial suit . CSHD did not and is now in default . That means the SEC does not have to do a damn thing from this point on until the default is either set aside or enforced . Since you are so good at looking things up , go do some research on the term default judgement .
LOL... i already know what a default judgement is hence my description of Rufus as mishanlding just about everything involving CSHD...
the SEC does have an obligation to shareholders and taxpayers to "get it right". if they don't? then you should be leaning on your elected representatives...
whether you care or not is evident in your overall attitude, and you'll be burned over and over again until the SEC starts doing it's job.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
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 .
Ok, so help me out here thesource. Where is that post where you state youre not even a shareholder? Then explain to the class what you meant by your post above. I'll give you all night...im going to go for a few drinks.
When you are done with that, help me find the one where you said you werent going to post here anymore, oh "unless Rufus says something stupid again" or something along those lines.
I wont jump on the bandwagon stating that you have some "agenda" here like you are a paid basher or something...there is no way to really prove that anyway. There is a lot of proof, however, that you just cant mind your own business. You just cant stay away when you know just a few chioce works might get under someones skin and possibly hurt their feelings. That would be "inconsiderate"....since we are looking up words ill add that one.
posted
I was a share holder and under the laws in Texas . I have the rights to file suit against CSHD for misrepresentation of the facts . The way I understood it to read is I must be able to show a physical loss of money to be entitled to any gains from the suit . So I sold off my shares for pennies on the dollar and will try and recoup them through court although I believe this is in vain and there is no money or assets to be had from this $hit hole of a company .
If you have a copy of the share holders list from Oct . My name is on that list for whats its worth ......... maybe CSHD could sell off investor info to other P&D scams to create enough income to hire an attorney .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by madmoney: it allways come back to the same question. IF cshd has billions of dollars in assets WHY have they not hired a kick azz leagle team to blow the doors off the SEC`s allegations??? every month this drags out decreases the credibility of this company. what happened to the politicos and diplomats who were alledgedly behind the scenes? a multi BILLION dollar company would be a powerhouse with a STAFF of eager layers just itching to rip the throat out of some(smalltime cant make it in the real world) SEC lawyer!. but no lawyer?? spin the situation anyway you like but the trueth is there is NO GOOD REASON for not having a GREAT law firm representing them IF they have billions of dollars in assets! NONE!!! and any argument against this reality is just silly IMO!!
You are right on the money . Anyone who disagrees with this is just plain ignorant .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: Was it actually written in and order for the Company to seek and obtain legal representation?
I'm looking for "WRITTEN".... I do not have a copy of the Docs...TIA
Just out of curiosity...could that sealed doc given to the judge be "financial info" saying that the Company had no funds to hire a lawyer?
10 of Enquiring Minds,
Don't have a defintive answer, but as I recall from the motion to strike rph's first response, the SEC mentioned the no-attorney deal and cited the (first?) injunction (which was maybe the TRO?). Just remember thinking it must be "embedded" somewhere in the court documents, then...
As far as the sealed exhibit, the most logical speculation I've seen came from a poster on i-hub. "She" (who knows, lol...had a femme nick) claimed to "know" that it was personal account info--I can't remember whether it was bank or trading account. Although I don't believe she had personal knowledge, it *does* make sense, and is a logical, simple explanation. For instance--and maybe Glassy can weigh in--when I was a defendant in the recent BCIT case, there was a time when peeps' personal data was showing up on the court Web site. Poor form, if you catch my drift... One thing for the guv to give the plaintiff his day in court, but quite another to have addresses, etc "out there." In other words, it may well be pertinent to the case, yet not "fair game" as public info...
*********
Others wonder about pro se defense: can't take away an invidual's right to decline an attorney. Indeed, there are some impressive cases of individuals litigating in their own behalf.
On the other hand, many (most?) courts disallow when "legal person = corporation." As I understand it, the philosophy hinges on who is allowed to "practice law." I may not articulate this very well, but it goes alla way back to how we're set up as a country, the fundamentals; on the one hand, the government can't compel me to accept a given attorney--or even *any* attorney.
The judge *can* grill me, in order to make sure I'm not some nutball who really needs medical treatment, for example. But if I "pass muster" as reasonable, etc...not only do I get to represent myself, I'm pretty much stuck with my decision...
Contrariwise, a corporation presumably involves other folks, a group. Further, that group may well have shareholders who are *not* insiders, as well as employees, etc. Thus, a balance is necessary: Even though a "legal person," the corporation can *not* be represented in court by someone who is not qualified to practice law.
So basically, individual rights vs common good: guv can't take away rph's right to appear pro se, but he can't take away the group's right to have the company represented by counsel in good standing with the court.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
please correct me if i am wrong but isn't there just one case styled SEC vs CSHD and rufus paul harris? this would mean to me that the sec was taking steps to ensure that rufus would be held personally accountable even if the corp was insolvent. i would doubt that the courts would split this action into 2 seperate trials just so rufus could represent himself. if the case was just against rufus i could see the pro se but not as the case was originally filed.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me!
IP: Logged |
posted
i agree exactly with your theory that the govt can't take away an individual's right to appear pro se in court. however, rufus is named as a codefendant his defense is "married" to that of the corporation and probably would not be seperated by the courts, thus preventing the pro se appearance by rufus. my belief is that the reason that the case was styled the was it was is so that they wouldn't have to retry rufus when the corporation was found to be insolvent. they are going to hold him personally responsible for this if they get their way.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me!
IP: Logged |
Back when RPH exposed Ameritrade along w others as to being grossly short shares, TDA called my room mate who had a large number of shares and told him to sell do to them viewing this as a very 'high risk' situation. it was the first time I have ever seen a discount broker call a client to give advise. he had only been trading 9 months at the time and had multiplied his cash by 4or5 times. what is even more strange is they did not call me when i had 5 times the number of shares and held a position worth over $100k at one point. i had been a client for three plus years at the time and have since taken my shares in hard cert. after moving all of them to choicetrade. this stock has been a great story and learning experience if nothing else. i am ready for the finally. i say if the judge doesn't let RPH have his day in court, then RPH has probably not showed him any real evidence and has been blowing smoke. if RPH really has something i think we go to trial, lawyer or not! - CON
PS-ARTLIT SIGNED MY CERT ALSO
TimW Member
Member Rated: posted June 14, 2007 12:26 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Broker called me and wants to restructure my account.. First thing that came to mind is they want my CSHD shares.. muahaha.
I find it weird that i dont get any calls from them for 9 months until yesterday... and they want to help me out.
This is all too much of a kawinky dink... Im confused as ever.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 66inxs: please correct me if i am wrong but isn't there just one case styled SEC vs CSHD and rufus paul harris? this would mean to me that the sec was taking steps to ensure that rufus would be held personally accountable even if the corp was insolvent. i would doubt that the courts would split this action into 2 seperate trials just so rufus could represent himself. if the case was just against rufus i could see the pro se but not as the case was originally filed.
to be honest 66? i think the SEC "went after" Rufufu personally because he was gettin' on the SPR and posting on-line, making outrageous claims... they may not have made the case in court to say that, but???
IMO? there's other people that actually did commit quite a few crimes here... Rufufu? i think he's their judas goat, and may not even know what really happened... that's just my opinion after listening to him on SPR a few times...
somebody reported him to the SEC and the SEC probably looked at the situation for very little while and said this guy's nut's, we need to shut him down...
but? i think the SEC missed (so far) the real (brains) crooks that set this thing up...
somebody was making fun of Rufus after hearing him talk the first time? i gots news ferya, they's lots foke dat talk lak heyim, where he comes from...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
glass, i agree that rufus was(is) a high profile target and was probably reported to the sec by someone. rufus imho did not act alone, but the sec won by getting the stock delisted to the greys and put the world on notice that "something ain't right". no real reason to rush now. i hope all of the major players are made to make restitution to the people they harmed.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me!
IP: Logged |
they want rph to answer, *and* they want an answer from the company...
Those answers could easily diverge...
Of course, much overlap *would* obtain. bonds' claims, public record of PRs, etc (not to mention SEC filings ), yet clearly the CEO is *not* the company, et al... Yes to his fiduciary responsibilties. But with all the questions? The need for intervention is obvious.
Your belief is your belief--just as some believe the world will shift its axis when rph finally delivers.
As many have posted here and elsewhere, Enron still trades. Some "longs" want to have the fact that rph, ma, etc are not in jail is "proof" of no problem, at all. Some detractors ("bashers" as popularly styled) seem to believe this shouldn't even get due process.
Too bad--this country is based on due process. "The King" ain't supposed to be able to just come get your stuff...
lol, just been fighting my own lil IRS dealie...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 66inxs: glass, i agree that rufus was(is) a high profile target and was probably reported to the sec by someone. rufus imho did not act alone, but the sec won by getting the stock delisted to the greys and put the world on notice that "something ain't right". no real reason to rush now. i hope all of the major players are made to make restitution to the people they harmed.
to that end, the most recent SPR appearance that I'm aware of? rph said the whole deal had been in planning for four years...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
even after rufus' experiences with bban and cshd, he is probably trying to dream up another scheme to get back on top again. too bad he doesn't apply his high intelligence and time into some type of honest work. probably likes the thrill of living on the edge too much.
-------------------- I'm from Missouri - Show Me!
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
), yet clearly the CEO is *not* the company, et al... Yes to his fiduciary responsibilties. But with all the questions? The need for intervention is obvious.
