Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Hot Stocks Free for All ! » CSHD: The Never-ending Story (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 34 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  32  33  34   
Author Topic: CSHD: The Never-ending Story
Igor R
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Igor R     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thesource:
But does anyone have anything new or constructive ? All I see are repost of info from Dufus or James G. in which one side is calling the other side a liar and a scammer yet people cannot get enough of it . None of it really matters as I've said before , the company has a default judgement against it and thats that . Rufus should have ante'd up and got a lawyer this time last year or honestly should have had one on retainer since day 1 .

I agree with you there hasn't really been anything constructive to come out as of like the last half year but nevertheless your posting is equally as nonconstructive as theirs.
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LT
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for LT     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thesource:
But does anyone have anything new or constructive ? All I see are repost of info from Dufus or James G. in which one side is calling the other side a liar and a scammer yet people cannot get enough of it . None of it really matters as I've said before , the company has a default judgement against it and thats that . Rufus should have ante'd up and got a lawyer this time last year or honestly should have had one on retainer since day 1 .

Sour-source . since the stock still trades , it isn't in recievership..has an active court case...it has Shareholders which most hold HCC's.... there is a reason to post new DD , pacer filings , postings from the CEO..etc.... your post's are NON-Constructive and frankly the same crap everyday .... so i'll ask again why do you spend so much time wasted on a stock that you have no intrest in ( shares )... is it to make fun or be-little the shareholders that are here ?....what a waste of time...get a life.. [Big Grin]
Posts: 65 | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr. CATIAEngineer
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. CATIAEngineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thesource:
But does anyone have anything new or constructive ? All I see are repost of info from Dufus or James G. in which one side is calling the other side a liar and a scammer yet people cannot get enough of it . None of it really matters as I've said before , the company has a default judgement against it and thats that . Rufus should have ante'd up and got a lawyer this time last year or honestly should have had one on retainer since day 1 .

Well his explanation for not having a lawyer is that the lawyers wanted him to back out of the merger. I suspect they know what he knows and didnt think he should tangle with the guys that were running the show when Rufus came along. Obviously backing out of the merger was not what he wanted to do so hence no lawyer. That and he said "I have the information....they dont!".

Ok, now that ive brought you up to date on the lawyer thing did you get a chance to look over those documents i put a link up for today?

Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LT
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for LT     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer:
quote:
Originally posted by thesource:
But does anyone have anything new or constructive ? All I see are repost of info from Dufus or James G. in which one side is calling the other side a liar and a scammer yet people cannot get enough of it . None of it really matters as I've said before , the company has a default judgement against it and thats that . Rufus should have ante'd up and got a lawyer this time last year or honestly should have had one on retainer since day 1 .

Well his explanation for not having a lawyer is that the lawyers wanted him to back out of the merger. I suspect they know what he knows and didnt think he should tangle with the guys that were running the show when Rufus came along. Obviously backing out of the merger was not what he wanted to do so hence no lawyer. That and he said "I have the information....they dont!".

Ok, now that ive brought you up to date on the lawyer thing did you get a chance to look over those documents i put a link up for today?

hes looked... hes prolly trying to find a way to spin it...lol...j/k source.... many more to come also ...keep watching !!...this is just the start !..also keep your eye on Pacer !
Posts: 65 | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thesource
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for thesource     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rufus can come up with as many excuses for not having legal counsel as the share holders are willing to listen to but the law is the law . The only way a person can represent themself is a term called PRO SE . You cannot represent anyone but yourself . If the company was Rufus P. Harris D.B.A Conversion Solutions Holdings then it would be a sole proprietorship and a totally different situation but this is not the case and has never been .

Rufus has tried from the beginning to seperate himself from the company to represent himself but continues to file motions that include the company . This will not fly in Federal court or even in a simple small claims court of law . He's too damn stupid and stubborn to admit it . The company has not gone into receivership LT and I have never said it has . The next step after the default is going to be to divide up the assets if the company actually has any which I will bet you azz they do not and the company will be put into receivership . As for the actual shell itself , it might continue to trade or it might not . I am not experienced with that part of a publically traded company . I would assume that will be up to the person or persons in charge of the receivership process .

As for PACER , Dufus can file anything he'd like at this point but its merely in vain . As I've said before , a default judgement is non appealable and I am not aware of any situations where it can be put aside especially for some lame azz excuse like Dufus has come up with so far . I am sure the judge is getting a real kick from this idiot and his little games .

--------------------
----- Game Over -----

Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
a surfer
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for a surfer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer:
Source....if you are still so interested in CSHD even after selling you can find some interesting reading here......

http://www.gabreeders.com/interestingandcool.html

I know you are going to say "those are just documents" but there are some new names thrown into the mix to DD if you are bored. Enjoy.

Hmmm.
Posts: 6409 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TimW
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimW     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Theres a bond listed for 1.5 billion euro.. todays value would put that at 2.1 billion US.

Has no CSHD/CVSU/Rufus name anywhere in the doc though.

--------------------
Buy high, sell higher.

Posts: 869 | From: Az | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TimW
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimW     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do believe our discovery deadline is coming up (January 22nd, 2008), before it enters trial.

Wonder what evidence the SEC can gather in one month because as of now they really squat.

--------------------
Buy high, sell higher.

Posts: 869 | From: Az | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thesource
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for thesource     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Orig. State
GA Orig. Juris.

none found
User Desig.
0100 Agency Case No.

Name Arrestee Used
HARRIS, RUFUS JR Date of Arrest
Sep 12 2005 Offender Tracking No.
001


Judicial Record

Judicial Agency
COLQUITT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Case Number
Date Case Appealed
Judicial Court Count
01
Court Count 1
01 Court Disp. Date
Feb 15 2006 Judicial Citation
40-5-58(C) General Offense

none found

Judicial Offense
HABITUAL VIOLATOR Offense Literal
Court Provision Code
Court Disposition
CONVICTED
Suspended Sentence
Confinement Sentence
120D-365D Probation Sentence
5Y Fine Sentence

--------------------
----- Game Over -----

Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TimW
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimW     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you trying to say the SEC will come to court with an arrest for a DUI over 2 years earlier than the trial day?

Thatd be pretty funny.

Your honor, we the SEC would like you to rule in our favor becaues Rufus was arrested 2 years ago for a DUI.

Dismissed.

--------------------
Buy high, sell higher.

Posts: 869 | From: Az | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thesource
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for thesource     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No but he could very well be picked up at court if he's got a bench warrant from the failure to appear on his last DUI court setting . I would also bet they are going to MTR (motion to revoke) his current probation since he's received another DUI charge .

None of this has anything to do with the SEC case , I just thought it was funny where it said "HABITUAL VIOLATOR" . That sounds like Dufus to me ........

--------------------
----- Game Over -----

Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL source sounds like you have spent too much time in the system [Big Grin]

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thesource
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for thesource     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Owning several businesses and dealing with legal issues though out my life , I've picked up a few things along the way . I am very famaliar with suits (mainly in the small claims courts of Texas) but some bigger ones as well . Now days , no one can deal with each other person to person and figure things out , everyone files suit against each other and clogs up the civil courts with B/S suits . I am sure the SEC has a crap load of suits filed against publically traded companies and CSHD is just one of a whole bunch just in the Georgia district alone .

--------------------
----- Game Over -----

Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am sure the SEC has a crap load of suits filed against publically traded companies and CSHD is just one of a whole bunch just in the Georgia district alone .

hint:

there is a place where you can actually look that up instead of guessing...

i for one expect the SEC to make a good case in spite of the fact that Rufufu doesn't follow process.

you haven't got a clue just how many "dirty tricks" are played in the market do you?

you have focused on this one because you feel burned, but there's a hundred a day that people just ignore.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thesource
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for thesource     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh I have no doubt about the number of cases filed daily or weekly with the SEC .

--------------------
----- Game Over -----

Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
there's hundreds that go by unnoticed by the SEC, or uncomplained about to the SEC too...

if i could make a suggestion? being rude to people for sticking to this play is bad karma.

they are either going to win or lose and you're uh,less than polite input odds no value to the board...

if people were promising, say 15$ dollars a share, [Big Grin] ? then you would be adding value by trying to point out that it prolly won't happen. some of us actually did that, and recommended taking profits and protecting capital as it went up... others were determined to stay in for the "reset"...

currently? this thing is pretty dead, and more than a few of us are interested to see the final disposition, even if we don't have any $ to gain out of it...
Rufufu? he's lost IMO... but there's other issues here....

esp if the bonds did exist at one time, or are still there...

the SEC is run by people... say you wanna short a stock? and you have a pretty good idea that something is wrong? it doesn't hurt to report them to the SEC does it? the SEC should be able to make its case no problem if things are as bad they appear...
people do make mistakes on occasion, and no i'm not saying they did or didn't here, but i wanna see the goods laid out on the table...

and that will only happen if peopl keep pushing...

scamsters depend on people not admitting they got scammed, or and they depend on the system to not follow thru cuz there's other stuff that's more important, but it's really all important...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ocqueoc
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ocqueoc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glassman,
Thank you, thank you!!
I do not post very often anymore because there was a source of irritation on here "all the time"
I will not add more because I do not want to be rude.

Miss chatting with most of ya.

Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LT
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for LT     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pacer Filings !!!

VERIFIED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE


COMES NOW the Defendant, RUFUS PAUL HARRIS, a/k/a

PAUL RUFUS HARRIS, and moves this Court to compel discovery/

disclosure and allow this defendant all allowable discovery

prior to a hearing on the pending motions, also to further

expand the time allowed for the Defendant to file pleadings

and affidavits to supplement his Motion For Reconsideration

until such time as the Plaintiffs produce all discovery

contemplated under Rules 26, 27, 30, 34, 36 and 45 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Federal Rules

26, 26.1, 26.3, 30, 37, 37.1, and further moves this Court to

impose sanctions against the Plaintiff and its individual

Attorneys, including, but not limited to a dismissal of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and in support thereof states the

following under oath:

1) The Defendant, Rufus Paul Harris made a general

appearance in this case before this Court on October 30,

2006, submitted documents to this Court as a defense to

Plaintiff’s Complaint, said defense documents were placed

under seal by this Court and executed a Consent agreement

with the Plaintiff, also filed with the Court on November

7, 2006.

2) Rule 26 F.R.C.P. provides, in part as follows:
(a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover
Additional Matter.
(1) Initial Disclosures.
Except in categories of proceedings specified in
Rule 26(a)(1)(E), or to the extent otherwise
stipulated or directed by order, a party must,
without awaiting a discovery request, provide to
other parties:
(A) the name and, if known, the address and
telephone number of each individual likely to
have discoverable information that the disclosing
party may use to support its claims or defenses,
unless solely for impeachment, identifying the
subjects of the information;
(B) a copy of, or a description by category and
location of, all documents, electronically stored
information, and tangible things that are in the
possession, custody, or control of the party and
that the disclosing party may use to support its
claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment;
(C) a computation of any category of damages
claimed by the disclosing party, making available
for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, the
documents or other evidentiary material, not
privileged or protected from disclosure, on which
such computation is based, including materials
bearing on the nature and extent of injuries
suffered.
A party must make its initial disclosures based on
the information then reasonably available to it and
is not excused from making its disclosures because
it has not fully completed its investigation of the
case or because it challenges the sufficiency of
another party's disclosures or because another
party has not made its disclosures.
(Emphasis added)


3) Pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Plaintiff’s attorneys and the Defendant talked

on November 3rd & 6th 2006 to consider the nature and basis of

their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt

settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange

for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), to discuss

any issues relating to preserving discoverable information,

and to develop a proposed discovery plan.

4) Pursuant to the agreement at the aforesaid Rule 26

meeting, the Defendant furnished a deposition and provided

all relevant information and documents in the Defendant’s

possession to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff agreed to obtain

the trading records for the Defendant corporation (CSHD)

and further promised to send the Defendant a copy of his

and/or allowing the Defendant a copy of all depositions,

affidavits, statements and other documentation obtained

from any other source, including third parties.

5) The Plaintiff and its attorneys failed to disclose

or furnish anything at all to the Defendant at the initial

meeting as they are required to do, including, but not

limited to the disclosure of everything that could have led

to halting the trading of Conversion Solutions stock in the

first place; said halt causing the loss to CSHD shareholders

of hundreds of millions of dollars and raising more than mere

suspicions that the halt by the Plaintiff was for improper

reasons with no evidentiary basis at all.

6) The Plaintiff and its attorneys, with total

disregard for Rule 26 F.R.C.P., have failed to disclose,

furnish or provide anything to the Defendant pursuant to the

agreement at said Rule 26 meeting and in fact, the attorneys

for the Plaintiff kept the Defendant in negotiations by

promising to provide trading records and other disclosure

until after they caused the Clerk to improperly file a

default against the Defendant, contrary to the agreement at

said meeting, contrary to the provisions of Rule 26 F.R.C.P

and contrary to the fact that this Defendant had made an

appearance before this Court, submitted evidence in his

defense to the Court and filed pleadings in this case in the

form of the consent agreement filed with the Court. All of

the foregoing actually constituted enough appearance, filing

of pleadings and defense evidence filed with the Court to

preclude the entry of a default by the Clerk. Any default

against the Defendant must have come out of a noticed hearing

and an order from this Court, not from the Clerk.

7) The failure of the Plaintiff to obtain and disclose

the trading records for the Defendant Corporation (CSHD)

shows a material and intentional disregard for the rights

of the Defendant and the shareholders of CSHD, or in the

alternative, those records would vindicate this

Defendant and the corporation and would actually show that

the Plaintiff had absolutely no reason to halt the stock

from trading and had no reason for the filing of the

lawsuit, especially when those very trading records are

needed by the Plaintiff to prove the largest allegation of

their complaint, which was a “pump and dump” scheme by this

Defendant.

8) The Plaintiff and its attorneys have done all they

could to deny this Defendant his “due process” and in doing

so have violated Rule 26, F.R C.P as well as Local Court

rule 26 by withholding any and all information, documents,

records or anything else of an evidentiary nature that this

Defendant would have needed to file an answer, defenses and

counterclaims.

9) Rule 26(a)(1) requires all disclosure to be

furnished by the Plaintiff and its attorneys even without a

discovery request from this Defendant and is further

required to supplement that disclosure as it is obtained

under Rule 26(e), F.R.C.P.. The Plaintiff and its attorneys

did none of the above; instead of furnishing any disclosure

to the Defendant, they just withheld disclosure and tricked

him into a default situation so he wouldn’t be able to file

an answer. The Plaintiff’s attorneys still continued to

negotiate with the Defendant thereafter for an extended

period of time until he attempted to file his first answer

and then dropped any and all communications with said

Defendant by using the Clerk’s default as a shield.

10) The Defendant needs the opportunity to have the

Plaintiff and its attorneys deposed to verify the facts

contained in this motion, as well as secure the disclosure

that he has been denied due to the unethical practices of

the Plaintiff’s attorneys. Defendant is guaranteed these

rights even after the default because no Default Judgment

was entered by the Clerk and all further proceedings needed

to be done before this Court and the Defendant is entitled to

discovery to prepare for the final hearing.

11) The Plaintiff had seized the records of the

Defendant and would not grant the Defendant access to those

records or any other records in the possession or control

of the Plaintiff, thus denying the Defendant the ability to

file his answer in the past or even now without disclosure

by the Plaintiff.

12) The Defendant hereby certifies that he has made a

good faith attempt on multiple occasions, pursuant to Rule

37(a)(2), F.R.C.P., and Local Rule 37 to confer with Alana

Black and other attorneys in the office of the Plaintiff in

an effort to resolve the discovery dispute and secure copies

of the CSHD trading records, depositions, statements and/or

affidavits without Court action but all efforts have been

repulsed or just ignored by the Plaintiff’s attorneys,

contrary to the provisions of Rule 26 F.R.C.P and Local Rule

26.

13) This is a case of great public interest which

affects thousands of innocent shareholders as well as the

integrity of the Plaintiff and its attorneys. To avoid the

appearance of any impropriety, favor or prejudice, this

Court must allow proper discovery and hold the Plaintiff’s

attorneys accountable should it become known that this

entire lawsuit was filed to protect large naked short

sellers rather than to protect the innocent shareholders of

CSHD.

14) The actions and the integrity of the Plaintiff

(SEC) and its attorneys have come into public scrutiny

recently and this case is a classic example of the SEC

“unclean hands” and of some of the abuses of the Court

process that come into question. The failure of the Plaintiff

and its attorneys to allow or furnish any required disclosure

to the Defendant, as required by Rule 26 F.R.C.P as well as

other discovery Rules should be dealt with harshly by this

Court in the form of appropriate sanctions, fines, dismissal

of the case or any such other punishment deemed appropriate

by this Court, along with a referral to the U.S. Attorney

General and the Georgia Bar Association for Investigation.

15) The Defendant requires an extended period beyond his

previously requested January 2nd 2008 date to supplement his

initial Motion to Set Aside Default and Motion For

Reconsideration because of the time involved for discovery.

The time extension needed is for 60 days after the Plaintiff

complies with and furnishes the discovery allowed under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

15) The Defendant requests an open hearing before this

Court, as due process requires, and an opportunity to argue

and defend this Defendant’s position.

WHEREFORE, THE Defendant, RUFUS PAUL HARRIS, a/k/a

PAUL RUFUS HARRIS, moves this Court for an Order compelling

discovery from the Plaintiff, including, but not limited to

taking the depositions of Officers of the Plaintiff and

Plaintiff’s attorneys and an extension of time to supplement

previous pleadings; Plaintiff further moves for sanctions to

be entered against the Plaintiff and its attorneys for

refusing to allow the Defendant any discovery further.


I, RUFUS PAUL HARRIS a/k/a PAUL RUFUS HARRIS, after

being duly sworn according to law, do state and affirm,

under penalty of perjury, that the facts set forth in

the foregoing VERIFIED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE are true and

correct to my best knowledge and belief.

Posts: 65 | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LT
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for LT     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Second filing!!!

SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW


COMES NOW the Defendant, RUFUS PAUL HARRIS, a/k/a

PAUL RUFUS HARRIS, and, after being duly sworn, states

that the following statements and facts are true and

correct to the best of his knowledge and belief:

1) General Affirmations:

A) This Defendant has a meritorious defense to

all of the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s

Complaint; however, all of the Defendant’s records were

seized and are in the possession and control of the

Plaintiff and its attorneys. The Defendant has been

prevented from properly formulating any timely answer

due to the refusal and/or failure of the Plaintiff and

its attorneys to make required disclosures to the

defendant.
B) F.R.C.P.Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment
Provides in part:
(a) Entering a Default.
When a party against whom a judgment for
affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or
otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by
affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the
party’s default.

The Defendant, Rufus Paul Harris made a general

appearance in this case before this Court on October 30,

2006, submitted documents to this Court as a defense to

Plaintiff’s Complaint which were placed under seal by this

Court. Defendant also executed a Consent agreement

with the Plaintiff which was filed with the Court on November

7, 2006. It is this Defendant’s opinion that he has defended

within the provisions of Rule 55(a) to preclude the entry of

a default by the Clerk and has been denied due process under

the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


C) On or about the 30th day of October and the

1st day of November 2006, the Defendant furnished a

deposition and otherwise provided all relevant information

and documents in the Defendants possession to the

Plaintiff. On or about the above stated dates, the

Plaintiff agreed to obtain the trading records for the

Defendant corporation (CSHD) and further promised to send

the Defendant a copy of his deposition for reading and

signing, further more the Plaintiff agreed to furnish the

Defendant a copy of all depositions, affidavits, statements

and other documentation obtained from any other source,

including third parties.


2) The Plaintiff and its attorneys failed to disclose

or furnish anything at all to the Defendant at the initial

meeting or subsequent thereto as they are required to do,

including, but not limited to the disclosure of everything

that could possibly have led to halting the trading of

Conversion Solutions stock (CSHD)in the first place. The halt

by the Plaintiff and its attorneys has caused the loss to

CSHD shareholders of hundreds of millions of dollars and it

also raises more than mere suspicions that the halt by the

Plaintiff was for improper reasons with no evidentiary basis

at all.


3) Conversion Solutions (CSHD) had merged with Fronthaul

Group, Inc. (FHAL) and shareholders of FHAL and CSHD who held

shares prior to October 16, 2006 of either corporation were

to receive an additional 6 shares of Conversion (CSHD) stock

for each one they held prior to that date via the Merger

agreement. The NASD dividends department and the SEC

contacted me and requested to make the 6 to 1 issuance a

forward dividend with a Ex-Dividend date forward for 45 days.

I refused to do so and was then contacted by the Atlanta

Enforcement Office with accusation of a “Pump and Dump”

scheme.


4) The entire float of FHAL and CSHD was completely sold

out prior to the merger completion. The merger and

the 6 additional shares, as I had it set up, would have

exposed those who had “Naked Shorted” hundreds of millions of

illegal shares of FHAL and CSHD and further exposed the fact

that the SEC has knowingly allowed this practice to go on

unregulated and with no prosecutions and just looked the

other way.


5) The 6 for 1 forward split would have protected the

influential “Naked Short Sellers” and also saved the SEC from

embarrassment for allowing it to go on, so they halted the

stock (CSHD) and allowed those participating in the illegal

activity to get rich, protecting those involved in the

illegal activity, all at the expense of the innocent

shareholders.


6) I was engaged in settlement talks with the attorneys

for the Plaintiff (SEC) prior to and after the default was

entered by the Clerk about settlement of the case. Alana

Black and Bill Hicks told me that if I agreed to return the

CSHD Convertible Note Holders money that they would drop

everything and dismiss the case. I responded by asking her to

provide me the violated regulation by and through issuing the

Convertible Notes. She never returned or discussed the issue

again.

7)Rule 15c2-11 of the General Rules and Regulations
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
requires specified information by market makers prior to
initiation or resumption of quotations for stocks.
The Plaintiff and its attorneys allowed the shares of

Conversion Solutions (CSHD) to resume trading after the halt

without enforcing the compliance with Rule 15c2-11. If

discovery is allowed I can prove that the current trading

Market Makers and Broker dealers are still trading CSHD

through the quotation process in direct violation of

this rule and that the Plaintiffs knowingly have ignored this

illegal practice. The Plaintiffs and its attorneys allowed

the trading of CSHD to resume even though I requested that

the halt remain in place to the SEC and this Court the first

day of proceedings. The resumption in trading allowed more

naked shorting and trading of illegal shares that did not

exist and caused the innocent shareholders further losses.


8) During the negotiations with Alana Black and Bill

Hicks, I told Alana Black that I was going to draw down on

one of the bonds in question to prove it was real and valid,

But Alana told me that it would still be considered as fraud

If I tried to do that.


9) At one point during the negotiations, I supplied

$2,000,000,000.00 in treasury checks to Alana Black and her

assistant, I asked Alana to work with me and place them

into CSHD to fund it and she stated that she would talk with

the higher up’s and contact me back. She never made the

return call or followed up.


10) The SEC, Alana Black and Bill Hicks filed the

complaint against Conversion Solutions and myself alleging a

“pump and dump” scheme without even having obtained the

necessary trading records for FHAL or Conversion (CSHD). On

the same day that I gave them my deposition and furnished

them with other Rule 26 documentation, they admitted that

they had not subpoenaed or obtained the trading records but

promised that they would obtain them and furnish them to me

as soon as possible. I needed the trading records to prove my

innocence. I supplied the entire Market via Press releases

and public web site to include the Security Exchange

Commission via 8K with proof that the entire float of the

stock was dried up within the first two stock CUSIP number

changes associated with FHAL and CVSU (CSHD predecessor)

which would be proven by acquiring the trading records, which

they did not do.


11) The Plaintiff’s poor effort to prove the

allegation of “Pump and Dump” filed against the defendant via

the obtaining of trading records which is necessary to prove

the selling of illegal shares of the corporation is

evident through the plaintiffs own comment in the “Plaintiffs

brief to opposition” filed on the 16th day of November as

followed “There is uncertainty about how many shares of

Conversion’s shares are outstanding”.


12) By Alana Black admittance that they don’t know how

many shares of Conversion (CSHD) actually exist,

which the trading records would show, The Plaintiff either

has not obtained the trading records as promised or has

concealed them and those trading records will show that

Conversion Solutions (CSHD) and myself have a valid defense

to the Complaint that was filed.


13) This Court entered a consent order on November 7,

2006, allowing CSHD and myself to continue in business as

usual subject to certain restrictions, however, the Transfer

Agent, Atlanta SEC, Alana Black and Bill Hicks would not

release the EDGAR codes to me so we could continue normal

business without them and the Transfer Agent would not

recognize me as the CEO without the EDGAR Codes, further

harming the interests of the shareholders and violating the

disclosure requirements of Rule 26 F.R.C.P. Multiple

accesses to the filing codes were requested via telephone and

via the EDGAR filing site to obtain the codes prior to the

halt and thereafter.


14) The sealed envelope that I presented to and was

accepted by this Court included a trading/handling contract

with one of the largest bond traders which included

contracted bank accounts for the bonds. This accepted

evidence was one of the many evidentiary defenses to the

complaint filed by the Plaintiff (SEC).


15) The SEC, Alana Black and Bill Hicks have, at all

times material hereto, refused to provide me with any

discovery, including but not limited to the trading

information which will show who actually sold shares that did

not exist and who profited at the expense of the innocent

shareholders.


16) The failure to file an answer by Conversion

Solutions and myself was not due to excusable neglect or

inadvertence but was a result of the unethical and

inappropriate actions of the Plaintiff, Alana Black and Bill

Hicks in order to prevent me from obtaining the information

necessary to file an answer and defenses and they kept the

negotiations open until well after they obtained the

unauthorized default.


The following affirmations pertain to the Motion For

Default Judgment and supporting memorandum of law with Alana

Black’s mistaken version of the Factual Allegation, filed by

Alana Black in November 2007:


17) The allegations of the complaint are not true and

should not be accepted as true because the default entered by

the clerk was unauthorized and did not conform to Rule 55

F.R.C.P.


18) Factual allegation # 4:

None of the documents referred to in #4 overstated

Conversion,s assets. Everything contained on all reports

referred to therein were true and correct to my best

knowledge and belief at the time they were prepared.


19) Factual allegations #5 and #6:

None of the allegations referred to in #5 and #6 are false.

The September 26 Form 8-K that stated that “Conversion’s

Board of Directors has approved a contract extension with the

Caracas Group and accepted into its Asset Management

Portfolio an additional 5 Billion Euro denominated

Global Bonds on the Republic of Venezuela with an 11% annual

coupon.” Everything contained in or referred to therein were

true and correct to my best knowledge and belief at that

time.


20) Factual allegation # 9:

This allegation is being misstated. This is not what the

September 26 8-K says. The initial validation was for 700

million and the 5 billion was a contract extension. The Court

has these sealed documents in its possession to prove her

allegations false.


21) Factual allegations # 10-12:

The 5 billion was a contract extension that was taken into

the portfolio as previously stated. The authorization was for

up to 1.4 billion by the Venezuelan State Department, not 700

million, it was a best efforts offering. I even supplied

copies of the bar codes and a letter from the Ambassador.


22) Factual allegations # 13-16:

Alana’s facts are on “information and belief” which are

wrong, she doesn’t understand what she is reading. All

supporting evidence is in the sealed envelope in

the Courts possession and everything contained in or referred

to in the sealed envelope in evidence was true and correct to

my best knowledge and belief at that time.


23) Factual allegation # 18:

The bond was authorized up to 2 billion dollars. Our bond was

only 500 million of the original 2 billion authorized. Alana

is talking about something different. Everything contained in

or referred to in factual allegations #16 and #17 was

true and correct to my best knowledge and belief at that time.


continued below...

Posts: 65 | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LT
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for LT     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
24) Factual allegation # 19:

See answer to # 24 hereinabove.


25) Factual allegations #20-24:

These factual allegations appear to be accurate and contain

no allegation of any wrongdoing by Conversion or myself and

neither Conversion or myself sold any shares during the price

increase.


26) Factual allegations # 25-27:

Nothing fraudulent was ever released. Everything contained in

any release was true and correct to my best knowledge and

belief at the time of any release.


27) Factual allegations # 28-33:

These allegations by Alana Black are totally false,

inaccurate, self-serving and fraudulent. All filings, reports

and releases by Conversion Solutions and myself were honest,

accurate, correct and not misleading to my best knowledge and

belief at the time they were filed or reported.


28) Factual allegations # 34-35:

Alana’s statement is untrue; documents proving Conversion and

myself innocent, including the Euroclear printouts were

inside the sealed envelope accepted into evidence by the

Court.


Section C Violations.

29) Allegation of Fraud # 1:

There were no instances of fraud, misleading information,

misrepresentations or omissions on the part of Conversion

Solutions and/or myself. Nothing Alana Black alleges in # 1

is true as far as Conversion Solutions or myself is

concerned. Everything contained in any filings, reports or

releases was true and correct to my best knowledge and belief

at the time they were filed. I have proof and witnesses to

verify this fact.


30) Allegation of reporting violations # 2:

Alana Black’s allegations are false. My auditor was not an SEC

auditor so he submitted the reports to the SEC oversight

committee who approved and signed off on the reports in

question. To the best knowledge and belief of Conversion

Solutions and me, all reports were true and correct at the

time that they were filed.


31) Allegation # 3: Harris Aided and Abetted

Conversion’s Reporting Violations.

To the best knowledge and belief of Conversion Solutions and

me, all reports were true and correct at the time that they

were filed.


32) Allegation #4: Harris Falsely Certified Reports

No certified fraudulent financial statements ever existed or

were filed. To the best knowledge and belief of Conversion

Solutions and me, all certified financial statements were

true and correct at the time that they were filed. I am not a

CPA and would have no knowledge of any misstatements in

financial statements.


Allegation D: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

33) Alana Black is attempting to allege self-serving

facts that do not apply to Conversion Solutions or to me.

There was no massive fraudulent scheme on the part of

Conversion Solutions or me. Everything contained in any

filings, reports or releases was true and correct to the best

knowledge and belief of Conversion Solutions and myself at

the time they were filed. I have proof and witnesses to

substantiate the truthfulness of every release, report and

filing.


Allegation E: HARRIS SHOULD BE BARRED FROM ACTING AS AN
OFFICER OR DIRECTOR IN THE FUTURE


34) This is an allegation that has no merit. This Court

entered an order allowing Conversion Solutions and me to

continue operating the Corporation as usual. Nothing has

transpired to change the reason for allowing me to continue

as before. The fact is that the Plaintiff (SEC) and the

Plaintiff’s attorneys have prevented Conversion Solutions and

me from doing any further business because they seized all

company records and will not grant me access to those

records.


Allegation F: CIVIL PENALTIES SHOULD BE IMPOSED

35) I have no knowledge of any misstatements,

omissions, fraud or any security violations committed

by me that would give rise to any civil penalties. The

only losses sustained by shareholders were caused by

the SEC and its attorneys when they filed a lawsuit

that is without merit and halted trading of the CSHD

stock and then allowed it to later continue trading

without enforcing any compliance with Rule 15c2-11 of the
General Rules and Regulations promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this can be proved via
discovery. Alana Black prevented me from drawing down on the
bonds which would have funded the business. Alana Black is
responsible for any shareholder loss.

Allegation G: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING

36) Alana Black makes an erroneous statement that there
were fraudulent misrepresentations that caused shareholder
losses rather than her own unethical and fraudulent actions.
I also request a hearing to present witness testimony to show
that all filings, reports and releases were truthful and
accurate and that no fraud or misrepresentation was done by
Conversion Solutions or by me, as well as testimony to show
that any and all shareholder loss was due to the unethical
actions of the Plaintiff and especially attorneys Alana Black
and Bill Hicks.

37) Due to the refusal of the Plaintiff and its
attorneys to furnish any disclosure required by Rule 26
F.R.C.P., this Defendant needs additional time for preparing
and filing supplemental affidavits and documentation beyond
the originally requested January 2, 2008 date. The
enlargement needed is 30 days from the date that the
Plaintiff completes all discovery allowed under all Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.


I, RUFUS PAUL HARRIS a/k/a PAUL RUFUS HARRIS, after

being duly sworn according to law, do state and affirm,

under penalty of perjury, that the facts set forth in

the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

are true and correct to my best knowledge and belief.


----------------------------------------------


Oh yeah everything was copied to the following;

United States Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001


Office of the Attorney General
State of Georgia
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334


There has also been another filing sudmitted and 2 more to follow!!!

Posts: 65 | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LT
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for LT     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Now if someone wants to write letters to the SEC now, just take the FACTS provided in the filing and see if you get a response to them!!!!

What you will get is another poor attempt to point everything at me as a “PLAN” to scheme!!!!

I am going to start a signature letter to go to a few selected individuals on the Hill, It will be posted on my site Gabreeders.com via PDF, WORD and works, if interested print it out, sign and fax it to the numbers provided!!!

It is now time to flood the fires with gasoline and end this illegal activity!!!!

Rufus Paul Harris

P.S. Yes the filing was received by the clerk but just has not made it to the Pacer system for some reason!!!! Where is that person that always called the clerk to see if anything has been received in the past!!! What hapen to you!!!"

Posts: 65 | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LT
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for LT     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This, to me, is the most telling point in the filing...

"I was engaged in settlement talks with the attorneys

for the Plaintiff (SEC) prior to and after the default was

entered by the Clerk about settlement of the case. Alana

Black and Bill Hicks told me that if I agreed to return the

CSHD Convertible Note Holders money that they would drop

everything and dismiss the case. I responded by asking her to

provide me the violated regulation by and through issuing the

Convertible Notes. She never returned or discussed the issue

again."



Now it doesn't get any worse than this. They are wanting the convertible noteholders money returned!!! Not one damm word about the shareholders money. We see who they care about, and who they are protecting, and it sure as hell ain't us. Of course, we knew this.... it smells of bribery.

Posts: 65 | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Igor R
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Igor R     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now if the filings arent on pacer, how did you get them?
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
milliam
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for milliam     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RPH posted them on his site.
Posts: 1028 | From: Georgia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stockstar69
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Stockstar69     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This actually looks very compelling! The statements made by Rufus make him sound like Perry Mason! If true, and I think that many of them are since some of the claims and presentations do make a lot of sense, this could drag on for years in the courts.

The saga continues.

Godspeed!

Posts: 2498 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thesource
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for thesource     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once again with no legal counsel to represent CSHD , these documents are not worth the paper they were written on .

RPH cannot file motions in behalf of the company plain and simple ......

--------------------
----- Game Over -----

Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TimW
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimW     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lawyers are corrupt, I think he wants to go as far as he can alone. Plus they always want a HUGE piece of the pie..

And thats the shareholders pie [Smile]

[Big Grin]

Its america, its apple pie, and its made with GOLDEN delicious! Rufus for president!

^lol
Darn i think i should go get some koolaid for lunch.

Posts: 869 | From: Az | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr. CATIAEngineer
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. CATIAEngineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thesource:
No but he could very well be picked up at court if he's got a bench warrant from the failure to appear on his last DUI court setting . I would also bet they are going to MTR (motion to revoke) his current probation since he's received another DUI charge .

None of this has anything to do with the SEC case , I just thought it was funny where it said "HABITUAL VIOLATOR" . That sounds like Dufus to me ........

You are seriously reaching now........

So, did you get that Pacer account like I suggested some time ago? Theres a new filing to check out.

edit : never mind I see LT helped out. Thanks LT [Smile]

Posts: 2308 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Igor R
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Igor R     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought there was another one after the 2 she posted?
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stockstar69
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Stockstar69     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TimW:
Lawyers are corrupt, I think he wants to go as far as he can alone. Plus they always want a HUGE piece of the pie..

And thats the shareholders pie [Smile]

[Big Grin]

Its america, its apple pie, and its made with GOLDEN delicious! Rufus for president!

^lol
Darn i think i should go get some koolaid for lunch.

Well, he could use the excuse that since the SEC is holding the the company assets and/or bond he has no funds to hire a lawyer?? [Big Grin]
Posts: 2498 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Igor R
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Igor R     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well the SEC didn't allow him to draw down on the bonds, so yea wheres he going to get funds for a lawyer from?
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TimW
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimW     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
tis true tis true
Posts: 869 | From: Az | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thesource
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for thesource     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thats his problem . When the IRS comes in and seizes accounts from businesses , the fact that they are cash broke so they cannot hire legal counsel does not fly in court . Its just like ignorance of the law is not an defense either .

--------------------
----- Game Over -----

Posts: 1536 | From: San Antonio - Texas | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Igor R
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Igor R     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So how else is rufus going to get legal counsel without funds? Going to give them magic fairy dust?
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ocqueoc
Member


Rate Member
Icon 7 posted      Profile for Ocqueoc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. CATIAEngineer:
quote:
Originally posted by thesource:
No but he could very well be picked up at court if he's got a bench warrant from the failure to appear on his last DUI court setting . I would also bet they are going to MTR (motion to revoke) his current probation since he's received another DUI charge .

None of this has anything to do with the SEC case , I just thought it was funny where it said "HABITUAL VIOLATOR" . That sounds like Dufus to me ........

You are seriously reaching now........

So, did you get that Pacer account like I suggested some time ago? Theres a new filing to check out.

edit : never mind I see LT helped out. Thanks LT [Smile]

IMO
please do not waste anymore time responding to him.If EVERYONE ignores him, maybe he will go away.I doubt it because he seems to like to argue.He has stated he has no shares, no interest blah , blah, so let him go to a board of one of the other places that he was pumping awhile back.He can no longer say that he is "protecting" other people from buying in.If the SEC had requested RPH's request to kept this on halt, than we would all be in a better place.

Have a great day!

Posts: 360 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 34 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  32  33  34   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2013 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share