quote:Originally posted by Ironman64: For those that believe, there are plenty of you, I have heard from you privately....hang in there and continue to keep the faith. It will be rewarded.
Just wondering if any lawyer or court would be willing to listen to any case that RuPaul proposes in regards to "illegal naked-short selling" of shares in "his" company?
I would think that most lawyers, judges would think this guy is nuts from the get go, due to his previous actions. Any case that he would try to bring up, especially against accredited institutions, would more than likely be thrown out of court.
-------------------- Buy Low. Sell High. Posts: 9600 | From: The Land Of The Giants | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ironman64: For those that believe, there are plenty of you, I have heard from you privately....hang in there and continue to keep the faith. It will be rewarded.
Just wondering if any lawyer or court would be willing to listen to any case that RuPaul proposes in regards to "illegal naked-short selling" of shares in "his" company?
I would think that most lawyers, judges would think this guy is nuts from the get go, due to his previous actions. Any case that he would try to bring up, especially against accredited institutions, would more than likely be thrown out of court.
I don't know about any other court, but the Federal Court of Judge Cooper has had this case for a very long time and the Judge does not appear to have deemed Mr. Harris "nuts", nor has the Judge thrown the case out of court.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appologize to you bbb, as I believe that I hit a nerve with you. You are entitled to your opinion as well. I believed that Harris was nuts from the git go, well, since I heard some of his first pieces on internet radio anyhow.
What is the case number? How long has the case been sitting in front of him, and what has been done with it since in front of him?
I am trying to get a quick update, so I don't have to re-read almost two years of posts. I will research a tad as the case number is provided.
-------------------- Buy Low. Sell High. Posts: 9600 | From: The Land Of The Giants | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peaser: I appologize to you bbb, as I believe that I hit a nerve with you. You are entitled to your opinion as well. I believed that Harris was nuts from the git go, well, since I heard some of his first pieces on internet radio anyhow.
What is the case number? How long has the case been sitting in front of him, and what has been done with it since in front of him?
I am trying to get a quick update, so I don't have to re-read almost two years of posts. I will research a tad as the case number is provided.
No need to apologize to me. You didn't hit a nerve. The case No. is 1:06-cv-2568-cc.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
The other question that research should hopefully answer is when was this case sent to this court. Also, what cases are having their day in court this week and when were these cases submitted?
-------------------- Buy Low. Sell High. Posts: 9600 | From: The Land Of The Giants | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Don't laugh...200 x 6 (the 6 for 1) is 1,200 x $15.00 is $18,000. That will learn you to remember ta put your sells in as limit orders and not market orders.
I can hear old Rufus now..."You sir are an idiot".
Just having some fun. Posts: 2437 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: I'd say we play them all but when posting you need to qualify whether it's a DT, ST or position play.
Doesn't have to be pennies. With the current market there is money to be made on the bigger boards as well.
I've recently done well with UBET and the MVSN/GMST merger.
Oh, I thought you meant more like an "investment club" (but *not* a secret front-loaded deal), in which everybody brings candidates then we narrow it down to one or two, after full discussion.
In fact, to even discuss it more, we should have a new thread, as this is decidedly not CSHD discussion, even though related by virtue of all of us in-laws and outlaws
quote:How about we all get together and find some winner's. Start on oldtimer's pick thread and make some money. A year or 2 ago we were all posting and everyone gave their opinion, good bad or indifferent. I say let's revive our assembly. Glass, Tex and Pcola have stuck it out let's jooin in and make it a group effort.
There should be a set of guidelines as well to even be able to mention a stock on the board.
The stock pick should get yanked if certain criteria isn't met when listing.
Some things to consider:
Current pps, debt, cash on hand, shares being shorted. O/S, A/S + Float from the past 5 10K's. Institutions holding shares + % held, Any buy, sell, or hold recomendations and who is making the recomendation. P/E ratio.
There's a bunch more stuff to consider as well. I just wanted to add some of the major things that I look for when investing.
-------------------- Buy Low. Sell High. Posts: 9600 | From: The Land Of The Giants | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should open the thread and open discussion as to what parameters we need to look for.
Since it will be a on public board for discussion., not for front loading since the chart should tells us if that is happening hopefully we will get genuine discussion and people using their various areas of expertise such as Charting, DD and logical thinking.
We have a wealth of knowledge if it's used properly.
Call it anything you want. I propose calling it: The Stock Rating Club and rating the stocks discussed by virtue of 1 to 5 star by the members of the forum.
Posts: 3080 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely. I prefer finding undervalued big boards, but I occasionally look at undervalued OTCBB's that meet certain criteria of mine, some of which I hinted on above.
-------------------- Buy Low. Sell High. Posts: 9600 | From: The Land Of The Giants | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bbbmine: The case No. is 1:06-cv-2568-cc.
Geez, you guys coulda stopped me from wasting my time looking at this...
Seems like the verdict is already in on this case number. RuPaul did it to the shareholders again, he defaulted on the case due to not having any burden of proof to support his argument.
The 'ole they stole the proof from me line...
I'll never forget those interviews on internet radio...
What's next for RuPaul, the USSC District Courts? Good Luck.
-------------------- Buy Low. Sell High. Posts: 9600 | From: The Land Of The Giants | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)