quote:Originally posted by 10of13: On another board..I saw someone mention about restricted shares being sold...? Maybe the end is so near that those are being sold to get out with something? I don't know...just a thought..
if restricted shares were sold? either a TA or a broker are also involved.... unless? the shares were "created" on a PC? who had the certificate template?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Here is a law firm that I called today. The law firm told me if they get a large number of people that owned CSHD shares. They will represent us and filed a lawsuit to get our money back. Spread the word!! Too many of us lost our money! http://www.dreierllp.com/practices-10.html
Here is a law firm that I called today. The law firm told me if they get a large number of people that owned CSHD shares. They will represent us and filed a lawsuit to get our money back. Spread the word!! Too many of us lost our money! http://www.dreierllp.com/practices-10.html
Its sad when a majority of people think that CSHD has no money or assets and then still want to sue them. What would you get out of it if CSHD is broke?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: we just want rufus in jail
What would your case be? Its no doubt Rufus painted a pretty picture, and right now its pretty ugly. But no one held a gun to your head and forced you to buy in. Not that im supporting him or anything, but there just wouldn't be a point in wasting your time pursuing that.
IP: Logged |
quote:Its sad when a majority of people think that CSHD has no money or assets and then still want to sue them. What would you get out of it if CSHD is broke?
good point...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Rufus didnt screw around? How about him proclaiming that he had a 100million estate fund or something like that. Where is that money now? The corporation never had any cash, he lied about everything he claimed. why shouldnt he be in jail?
-------------------- Disclaimer: Not accountable for anything I say
IP: Logged |
posted
Mike A. is the one who probably profitted the most out of this scam . As far as filing suit , I have all the papers on my desk filled out and ready to file but haven't yet . Why ? Because I truely believe this company is flat azz broke . Maybe Rufus didn't directly profit from it but he still needs to be thrown in jail along with his side kick Ben for fraud . They committed fraud against the shareholders of CSHD . Maybe a little jail time will make them think twice about pulling the crap again or maybe it will just give them more time to plot their next scam .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: Rufus didnt screw around? How about him proclaiming that he had a 100million estate fund or something like that. Where is that money now? The corporation never had any cash, he lied about everything he claimed. why shouldnt he be in jail?
unfortunately? lying isn't a crime.. unless it's under oath.... that's why the politicians do it so often
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Thats correct , he filed fraudulent docs with the GA. courts as well . Remember those contracts for the bonds ??? I'm sure they are fake as hell and the paper they are written on is worth more than the actual contracts .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: his filings through the SEC were lies, the bonds were not legit. thats fraud. he should be in jail with all his pals.
the first 10Q filing declaring they had "control" of the Venezualan bond is what i've been waiting for him to be charged with fraud on...
if it was a lie it was pretty blatant...
and? the SEC don't seem to be in much of ahurry do they? makes me wonder... we may be waiting a long time..
i expect them to do their job too...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: Thats correct , he filed fraudulent docs with the GA. courts as well . Remember those contracts for the bonds ??? I'm sure they are fake as hell and the paper they are written on is worth more than the actual contracts .
Do you have physical concrete proof theyre fraudulent? And you're sure theyre "fake as hell", but once again wheres the proof? Unless the court finally determines whether rufus is a liar or not, and the documents are bs or not, its all speculation till then.
IP: Logged |
posted
No I don't, but neither do you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to support the company or anything, but no one besides rufus and a couple other players and the court actually know whats going on. So till the court releases something, its useless to speculate imo.
IP: Logged |
posted
there's no proof either way...for anything... And? as Tex said...seems MA would be the one to "go after"...might be "quicker"...but it seems you first would have to wait for the SEC to say yeah it was MA...he was in the wrong...AND then go after MA...dunno...
is there a CSHD? well? right now it's "trading"...that is the most "proof" i've seen as far as it "being"...hell it's the most proof for anything where this stock is concerned...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO ......... They won't have to call CSHD into court . Unless CSHD responds to the default judgement and has it set aside , games over for the company anyways .
You people keep thinking that its burden of proof on the SEC or this will all just go away and you are dead wrong . The SEC has the company in checkmate unless the company produces a lawyer and can defend itself accordingly . You might be a prize fighter with a knock out punch but if you never step into the ring , you will still lose by default .
As for Rufus , he's the only person associated with CSHD so basically he is the company . They are one in the same at this point .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
posted
Last I looked Most here, Rufus and CSHD live here in The USA. I say that because in our justice system there is a presumption of Innocence until proven guilty.
No one here on this board knows what went on and who the guilty parties are. Why? because we have not seen the evidence.
The calls for lawsuits and jailing Rufus are premature. Many like to speculate because that is all we have but those who Laugh at the rest and proclaim guilt rile me.
First, it's not a laughing matter. Some people have lost a sizable amount of money.
Secondly, to proclaim the knowledge of knowing not speculating about guilt without ever seeing the evidence is ludicrous. We just don't know.
thesource, where did you get your law degree. You seem pretty certain of what you say and belittle others that see it differently.
I will do the only that can be done and that is to wait and see what the evidence is, not just the charges.
The default must be set aside in order to move forward, I think we all agree on that count. The clock is ticking but from what I have read getting a default set aside happens more often than not.
Joined: Feb 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,551 Location: Cartersville, Georgia Karma: 2,900,001,799 [ Exalt | Smite ] Re: Tuesday, June 19th The rumblings have started « Reply #123 on Today at 1:14am »
Court sides with Wall Street banks By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Mon Jun 18, 11:30 AM ET
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to investors suing over their losses in the crash of technology stocks seven years ago.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a 7-1 decision, the court sided with Wall Street banks that allegedly conspired to drive up prices on 900 newly issued stocks.
The justices reversed a federal appeals court decision that would have enabled investors to pursue their case for anticompetitive practices.
The case deals with alleged industry misconduct during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.
The outcome of the antitrust case was vital to Wall Street because damages in antitrust cases are tripled, in contrast to penalties under the securities laws.
The question was whether conduct that is the focus of extensive federal regulation under securities laws is immune from liability under federal antitrust laws.
An antitrust action raises "a substantial risk of injury to the securities market," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. He said there is "a serious conflict" between applying antitrust law to the case and proper enforcement of the securities law.
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the securities laws contain language that preserves the right to bring the kind of lawsuit investors filed against the Wall Street investment banks.
In 2005, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the conduct alleged in the case is a means of "dangerous manipulation" and that there is no indication Congress contemplated repealing the antitrust laws to protect it.
Investors allege that the investment banks, including Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, agreed to impose illegal tie-ins, or "laddering" arrangements. Favored customers were able to obtain highly sought-after new stock issues in exchange for promises to make subsequent purchases at escalating prices. The investment banks allegedly conspired to levy additional charges for the stock.
As a result of the conspiracy, the investors say, the average price increase on the first day of trading was more than 70 percent in 1999-2000, 8 1/2 times the level from 1981 to 1996.
Private class-action lawsuits, say plaintiffs' attorneys, provide a significant supplement to the limited resources available to the Justice Department to enforce the antitrust laws.
Lawyers for Wall Street investment banks say it is a highly technical matter where the line is drawn between legal and illegal activity in the sale of newly issued stock. It must be left to highly trained securities regulators to decide, rather than to courtroom juries in antitrust lawsuits brought by investors, the industry says.
The Supreme Court concluded that "antitrust courts are likely to make unusually serious mistakes" that hurt defendants. As a result, investment banks must avoid "a wide range of joint conduct that the securities law permits or encourages."
In other action, the court also added one case to its calendar for next term. It will consider whether an investor in a large 401k retirement plan can sue to recover losses to his individual account that are the fault of the plan's manager.
Other Wall Street institutions in the case before the Supreme Court were Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Comerica Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Fidelity Distributors Corp.; Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC; Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Co. Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; Janus Capital Management LLC; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; Robertson Stephens Inc.; Van Wagoner Capital Management Inc.; and Van Wagoner Funds Inc.
quote:Originally posted by stocktrader22: his filings through the SEC were lies, the bonds were not legit. thats fraud. he should be in jail with all his pals.
Wow, there are a lot of "matter of fact" posts here today. Rufus lied in filings....MA banked 6-7 million...bonds are not legit. Maybe someone should contact James Gee and see if they can get you guys a seat at the deposition.
But seriously, IMO it might be best to wait until after the Federal court hearing before initiating any lawsuits. I suspect more evidence might surface that could support a good suit. Dont ya think?
IP: Logged |
posted
Good point--I was mostly responding to the idea that "no assets" are available. In that sense, the sooner the better, I would think... If disgorgement actions are successful, unlikely that much if any would be returned to shareholders. But your point about "more evidence" is well taken...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Good point--I was mostly responding to the idea that "no assets" are available. In that sense, the sooner the better, I would think... If disgorgement actions are successful, unlikely that much if any would be returned to shareholders. But your point about "more evidence" is well taken...
Its you that enforced the idea on me long ago (almost a year now!) to post only facts....although I slip from time to time I try to stick by it today.
Thats why i just HAD to add your comment
It sure would be nice to pin something on whomever banked on this though. Everyone definitely wants someone to blame...in a financial sense.
IP: Logged |
posted
As said before , there is not one single positive reason for CSHD not to have legal counsel . I would think a multibillion dollar company would have a legal team on hand all the time to deal with daily issues and drawing up contracts .
You guys can continue to burry your heads and hope things get better but from where I stand , things are pretty much over and done with . Now the only hope is that the responsible people get a free stay at ClubFed .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: As said before , there is not one single positive reason for CSHD not to have legal counsel . I would think a multibillion dollar company would have a legal team on hand all the time to deal with daily issues and drawing up contracts .
You guys can continue to burry your heads and hope things get better but from where I stand , things are pretty much over and done with . Now the only hope is that the responsible people get a free stay at ClubFed .
Im glad I dont stand where you stand. Where I stand there is still a legal system in which we can only hope will prevail.
IP: Logged |
posted
The legal system has prevailed . Its kept this scam from really getting out of hand and people to lose huge amounts of money versus a few grand .
-------------------- ----- Game Over -----
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thesource: The legal system has prevailed . Its kept this scam from really getting out of hand and people to lose huge amounts of money versus a few grand .
Personally, I don't feel one bit of remorse for anyone who lost more than a couple grand. If you're going to invest all of your savings in one stock, not to mention how some people took out second mortgages, then you deserve to lose it.
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
