Ice,

well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, is the NASD letter of importance, yes, is mickey holding donald down as pluto trys to give it to him 'sans lube'? quite possibly...

It's just good manners to know whose doing the fu**ing when youre being fu**ed...

Cheers, J.

Hey Ice,

Sorry for the delay in responding... the joys of dial up I'm afraid...

Come on dude, are you seriously suggesting I've got tunnel vision on this? Or am I just a little too close to zeroing in on an issue thats a little too uncomfortable for you to address?

If you find out or discover that someone may have an "AGENDA" what now? Does that ERASE the NASD letter and make it go away? Or does the VERIFIABLE DD stand on its own?

Nothing erases the NASD letter, thats quite clear and I havent tried to suggest otherwise, the content of the letter is quite specific and we are waiting to find out whether full compliance has been achieved.

What Now? are you serious? it means nothing to you what the agenda may have been of whoever wielded this letter in an attempt to destroy confidence in this stock? I'm surprised at you Ice, thats all... In my opinion, its a blinkered approach to fact finding.

And as to verifiable DD... get on the phone to Floyd Bleak, dont bother with Josh... find out what really happened in relation to the sale of the mining claims, once you have some facts, then lets talk about it again...

Cheers, J.

I agree...

I am a fair and reasonable man, if somebody presents me with facts that prove Rick Berman and RSDS are or were engaged in nefarious activities, or have led us on a wild goose chase. I will turn like a f'ckn pit bull and ravage them...

However, I have been quite careful to check a number of facts pertaining to their activities and nothing I have found to date, suggests that they have put a foot wrong.

I'll look like a complete and utter idiot if proved wrong, but I dont think thats about to happen.

Cheers, J>

Thats the spirit Abe... we need more team spirit here... that alone will deter these bas***ds from wading in...

Cheers, J.

Go Russ... sounds like a good old dawg...

Cheers, J.

Hey Abe...

Ok, new tactic, you hug 'em, and I'll kick 'em in the balls...

..but seriously mate, dont lose your sense of humor, it'll all come out in the wash, enjoy it...

Oh.. and I refer you to my previous, "dont piss on my leg..." post..

Cheers, J.

Good Dak,

How are you? Up for some fun and games today...?

Cheers, J.

Hi Eye,

appreciate your comments mate, but the phrase "dont piss on my leg and tell me its raining" could have been coined for this very episode in history.

I dont like being taken for an idiot, its not in my nature to accept that sort of thing, sorry, so if it doesnt offend too many of my fellow RSDS longs... I'll bimble on and expose these frauds for exactly what they are...

Cheers,J.

***???***

Ice,

When you arrived on the board on Friday, you quite properly identified the fact that you were behind the curve on DD with regards to RSDS, and that you had no opinion as of yet on the stock. That was a reasonable disclosure, and I thank you for that.

But something has been bothering me since you began posting and until today, I hadnt really been able to nail it down, but I think I've finally got it.

Chronologically, lets look at the recent sequence of events that led to you arriving here...

Blue_Horse_Shoe submits a series of posts to the Fact-n-Fiction board, of which you are Moderator, making various, unsubstantiated claims about RSDS and Rick Bermans activities in respect to the purchase of Mining Claims in Utah. Including the following in which Blue reports a conversation with Josh Bleak and his comments regarding the NASD:

Posted by: Blue_Horse_Shoe
In reply to: None

Date:4/18/2007 6:26:02 PM
Post # of 9921

RSDS UPDATE - I just spoke to Josh Bleak of US MINERALS, LLC in Arizona (US Minerals LLC. Josh Bleak, Mining Projects Manager Tel. 480-776-3385). They are the owners of the LEASE for East Canyon where RSDS claimed in the PR below they were going to "acquire 63 mining claims from East Canyon LLC." Josh told me that Russell Industries NEVER followed through with their agreement and did NOT complete the acquisition nor did RSDS PAY for the subsequent GEO Report from Edge Consulting who was hired by US MINERALS to conduct a GEO Report of the property. FACT: RSDS NEVER ACQUIRED THESE CLAIMS AS PR'd. Furthermore, Mr. Bleak told me the company was CURRENTLY pursing LEGAL action against RSDS and Rick Berman and mentioned also the NASD was looking into some of the claims this company has been making. More info coming.

You arrive on the RSDS board and begin to ask if board members have any updates, questioning the existence of a letter from the NASD and its content. The letter is posted after some to’ing and fro’ing by Make’s the board Mod and an all in mud wrestling match of a debate begins about NASD policy, how long ago the letter was sent, whether it is an ‘inquiry’ or a ‘routine examination’, if it has been completed, and what the outcome may have been… If Rick Berman should release a PR, the pros and cons of such a move, the voracity of e-mail messages and who like to ride scooters….( I’m exhausted just thinking about it…).

On the face of it this all sounds quite reasonable… but let’s not forget one thing… When Ice arrived on the board, he quite properly conceded that he knew virtually nothing of this stock, nothing that is, that he hadn’t already been fed by Blue_Horse_Shoe.

So given that it’s a weekend and calling the San Juan County Recorders office, the Notary Public, or any other official to verify documentation in the public domain is out of the question, and also given that the NASD letter contains a great many questions, what does Ice do in attempt to verify some of these facts and conduct general DD?

Well if we look to another board that Ice has been recently associated with: Globex Inc. – GLXI, we can see that he asked a multitude of questions, http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=18823137 questions specifically aimed at board members, in order to better familiarize himself with ‘the story so far’ so to speak. This is well reasoned approach, it may or may not be accurate information that he received in return, but it is certainly a place to start when you are looking for the full facts surrounding an issue.

Now lets turn back to RSDS, Ice arrives, concedes that he is not up on DD. In line with his previous MO in evidence on the Globex board, and in order to place the NASD letter in more complete context, it would be reasonable to presume that he now asks questions to attempt to get the full story…yes? No..! Ice asks not a single question, in two full days and one night, not a single question about what may or may not have taken place with respect to RSDS, not a single request for facts, not a single question to corroborate any facts, many posters have requested that Ice follow specific lines of enquiry to better familiarize himself and develop a fuller picture of what is occurring here, but he has chosen, at least as far as we know, not to follow a single one.

To add insult to injury, when I ask a specific and legitimate question about who leaked this letter, and what their agenda was, given what he knows about Blues contact with Josh Bleak and Josh Bleaks previous comments regarding an inquiry by the NASD, Ice’s response is “It matters not how the NASD letter became public…”

Well, I beg to differ, it matters very much and the fact that you choose to dismiss it out of hand, indicates to me that contrary to your earlier statement, you do indeed have an opinion, an opinion which seems very much to be in line with Blue_Horse_Shoe…

As far as I am concerned at this point, you have no legitimacy here, as you are simply not exercising a fair and balanced examination of the current situation. The sooner Janice Shell can find the free time to not only look at RSDS, but your luke warm attempt to get to the bottom of RSDS the better of we will all be.

Cheers, J.

Ok, but no pappayas and mangos Ok... I've got 'em growing around the house like weeds...

Cheers, J.

Hey...!

I just realized I posted message #10,000 do I get a fruit basket or something...?

Cheers,J.

Hi Kermit,

I note with interest that Blue hasnt offered the Skinny you requested, I guess he's just too busy helping old ladies across roads n'stuff...

I would advise extreme caution when making a decison to buy or sell a stock on Blues claims, please take the time to ask Why he is making them and what his agenda is... It is currently the topic of much debate.

Cheers,J.

Loof,

From what I'm led to believe a lot of that kind of action takes place offshore... I'm sure there is somebody who fits that description using these boards who might be able to help you with further information, but for the moment it escapes me who it might be...

Cheers, J.

MOD< DELETE THE POST THAT THIS LINKS TO....

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19019799

There is no place for this kind of language here... it does not represent the views of the majority of the users on this board, and is only going to cause problems...

You need to grow up and get an attitude adjusment son...

Now Ice,

this is where you have me a little confused...

You keep stating, quite adamantly that no response by the CEO to the NASD letter would be construed as a HUGE negative and cause undue concern among investors.

And yet the vast majority of the investors using this board, dont seem to agree with you. Possibly because the majority of investors on this board have conducted enough DD to be convinced that this letter is nothing but a distraction, and that it is being weilded as the death knell for RSDS by individuals who have a questionable agenda...

Despite the fact that I would like to see a PR just to put this whole issue to bed. The only reason this should be a major issue for RSDS given what we know about the status of the inquiry, which is very little. Is if the orchestrated campaign to highlight it as a significant occurance reaches enough people to cause undue concern.

My question once again, and which as yet, remains unanswered or even dismissed by high profile IHubbers such as yourself, is simple... Who is and has been coordinating a smear campaign against RSDS (and now has the NASD letter and your good self to carry it as a banner) and what is their agenda...

Would you please like to focus for one second on answering THOSE two questions, please... as you so vehemently purport to want the truth.

Cheers, J>

Further still... Who the hell IS lasernat?

Keep an open mind, lots of games being played here IMO...

Cheers, J.

Following up on that... I'm not sure I'd describe it as the most unprofessional thing I have seen a CEO do... and if Ice is truthful he would probably agree... but it is a mistake in my opinion... but pending clarification of this... we've all made them, including I'm sure Ice.

It may be an ill conceived method of dealing with the current campaign to sully RSDS here on IHub, but a thoughtful, comprehensive PR would counter not only the IHub issue, but much more at this moment in time... IMO.

Cheers, J.

I am not thrilled to read that Lasernat is ostensibly Rick Bermans 'appointed representative' on IHub, I think this is a fundamental error in judgement if true and only plays into the hands of board protagonists.

Cheers, J.

lol.. you wouldnt believe the afternoon I've had... I'm going to have to try and abbreviate some of my responses so that I can get to the top of the board before the market opens and still have time to do some personal S**t...

In answer to your question about whether I think the NASD inquiry is resolved or ongoing... the simple answer is I honestly dont know, but will make it my business to try and find out.

As to the actions of the NASD when they conduct an inquiry such as this, do they advise investors, do they gag the company involved etc.

You offered this as a response to my opinion...

***Does the SEC inform investors while doing an initial inquiry? CKYS is a perfect example.....go do a little DD on what led up to the stock HALT on that.......they REQUESTED information from the CEO months before the SEC ever stepped in and Halted the stock.....and the SEC did not PR the event..the SEC does not HALT a stock and then ask questions later..and I would imagine the NASD operates in a similar fashion....so the non-Disclosure by the NASD does not mean ALL IS WELL IN KANSAS....if all is well.......as RIGHTY has stated it is.......then all MR.BERMAN needs to do is confirm it publicly....this is not hard and I have suggested nothing here john...some seem to be putting words in my mouth........the only thing I have stated is Mr.Berman needs to clarify this situation PUBLICLY.......it matters not how the NASD letter became public......it only matters that it is.....apparently Mr.Berman did not guard his documents from prying eyes or hands very carefully or he sent it to the wrong person.....but who really cares at this point.......the focus should be if the items have been complied with or not......and Mr.Berman needs to answer those questions to his shareholders ASAP......

Two points here, the first is that you have quite clearly stated you 'imagine' that NASD conducts themselves in a similar way to the SEC... Ok, I'll give you that, its not an unreasonable leap to make, but I would prefer to nail it down for sure before we start extrapolating what is or isnt the case based on something that we imagine...

On your second point about it not mattering how the NASD letter became public, I disagree intensely...

The fact that you are dismissing this portion of the equation, is a huge red flag to me Ice and I am extremely dissapointed to hear you say that.

IF and WHEN it becomes known that this inquiry has been exhausted and RSDS vindicated, just for the sake of argument... I sincerely hope, given your desire to track down sneaky bastards and uncover fraud, that you will stick around Ice and assist in uncovering what the real issue is here. Remember please that the campaign to derail this stock started before the NASD letter raised its head, that is just another link in the chain so to speak. It has already been stated that Josh Bleak had documents which would prove to be a bombshell against RSDS and was going to release them, it makes perfect sense that this letter was it... and you know that Ice, in a previous post concerning this letter which I called you on, you suggested that it contained much more than references to just PR's which suggests you knew of its contents prior to it being posted publicly, having been advised of them.... by WHO? Blue perhaps.

Suggesting that Berman did not guard his documents from prying eyes or hands very carefully or he sent it to the wrong person is laughable, you know whats going on here Ice, but your unwillingness to attach any significance to it is disturbing.

What happened to the truth in all of this... You know very well that's what I want from Rick Berman, I've made it quite clear, in an earlier post this afternoon, I stated that given the intense speculation now about the reason for this being instigated and whether the inquiry has been exhausted, he should publicly release information pertaining to its status.

I am trying to cast a net fairly over all the facts, including how this letter was promulgated and to what ends... in other words, the whole truth... why arent you Ice, why so selective in your desire to uncover one portion of this story...?

Cheers, J.

Hi Laser,

to accurately read this e-mail (I am presuming it is an e-mail) in context, it would be helpful if you could also post the question or e-mail that led to this response and also the time and date it was sent/received.

Cheers, J.

Loof,

you make some very good points here. I think its also interesting to reflect on Rick Bermans recent addition to the board of directors of Trophy Resources PR at this link http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070419/0241150.html of note is this statement therein:

Trophy Resources, Inc. (www.trophyoil.com) is an independent natural resource company with the goal of controlling lease hold acreage and mineral rights. Trophy's oil interests are in the Fort Worth Basin in central Texas, Williston Basin, Montana and the Wind River Basin in Wyoming. Trophy expects to acquire advanced-stage projects and/or producing mines in some of the most prolific precious metal districts in the world. The Company's goal is to evaluate profitable options, build a solid foundation of assets through acquisition of land and/or leases, and explore and develop opportunities on these leases.

Although my use of this may take some of you by surprise, here is a quite excellent piece of DD by our old chum Blue_Horse_Shoe related to the acquisition of companies in the Uranium sphere which he describes as a ‘must read’ and I happen to agree; http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=17168411&txt2find=board

Cheers, J.

In light of the statement attributed to Rick Berman.

I'm unsure exactly how much information the NASD will release regarding an inquiry of this sort or the results thereof, but I have every intention of calling tomorrow to find out.

If the content of your post is an accurate and verbatim reflection of an e-mail from Rick Berman to you, then taken at face value, it certainly seems to be very positive news.

Having said that, and for no other reason at this point than the rampant speculation concerning the reason for the inquiry being instigated, I too, would like to see an official statement released from RSDS, even if it only amounts to confirmation that the NASD conducted a 'routine examination' (if that is indeed what this was, and is one of the reasons I would like to now see a statement) after the company had been trading for one year, the examination has ben concluded and there are no outstanding issues.

I would like to see a PR that confirms those points for the following reasons; If delivered, it would herald the complete vindication of RSDS, it would also expose Blue and those who have engaged in his campaign against RSDS to have done so without the necessary material facts to support their argument, and allow us to move forward, with more confidence than ever, maybe even Ice might scoop up a few shares, given its current bargain PPS.

Cheers, J.

lol...In the interest of full disclosure and in an attempt to bring a little levity to this board... I have to admit that I too ride a scooter...

In fact I admitted as much to righty a couple of nights ago, so I'm a little offended by your 'scooters are for girls' comment... sniff... Having said that, everybody rides scooters in Thailand, so its not like you can get into a pissing contest over whose performs better... and theyre far more nimble when it comes to dodging chickens and cows...

Cheers, J.

lol.. 'fireside chat'...

Actually there is a serious point here, I know theres a lot of posturing going on and emotions seem to be running high on both sides of this argument, but I would be quite pleased to see the posts besmirching individuals on this board, from both sides, end.

The facts are what we should be looking for her folks, they are the only things that matter and it is facts and facts alone that will determine the short term future for RSDS.

I'm working up the board reviewing the posts over the last 12 hours, so if my comments seem out of context or I dont answer your post immediately, my apologies.

Cheers, J.

Hi EWO,

this is an interesting point and one worthy of further investigation...

Does the NASD gag companys who full under the spotlight of such an Iquiry from releasing further PR's until such time as the Inquiry is exhausted?

Cheers, J.

Further to my last post, I dont believe Ice is referring to me when he talks about sugar coating this inquiry as a 'routine'.

He is referring to another poster who added a link to the board which seems to prove that the NASD 'do' actually carry out routine examinations, which in turn was in response to the assertion that they do not, whether that assertion was made by Ice or another poster with a dissenting opinion I quite frankly cant remember, I'll have to go back and look, but it was said somewhere.

I made my opinion quite clear in my response to the NASD letter, posted publicly to Ice and which he has chosen, as yet, not to respond to.

Cheers, J.

This is a fair and reasonable responce Ice.

Your weight as the Mod of the FnF board carries some weight, whether you are fully aware of it or not, a lot of people look to you and others such as Janice Shell appearing on boards like this as a sign to turn off the lights and go the F'ck home...

It might therefore surprise you to hear that I have in fact extended an invitation to Janice to join us here so that we can at last receive quality DD from and intelligent and unbiased individual who has not supped the Blue Beverage.

I'm not in the habit of cutting my own throat and if it turns out I am wrong I am going to be eating humble pie for the next six months, but my DD which is quite exchaustive and has not been fully revealed to date, suggests otherwise.

Cheers, J.

Ice,

With respect I dont agree.

Individuals on this board are reading and responding to your opinions and your questions, the least you can do is reciprocate, Please.

Cheers, J.

Hey Ice,

I still owe you a PM on a personal question you posed earlier, I havent forgotten and will get back to that...

Although it appears that the NASD do conduct routine assessments if the NASD Web Site posted here is taken at face value, I do not believe this inquiry by the Market Regulation department is such an inquiry, they certainly werent picked out of a hat.

It was quite obviously instigated as the result of a complaint or series of complaints relating to RSDS PR's and activities. Who leveled those complaints and what they were remains to be seen, I'm not sure we'll ever find out.

I'm smiling as I write, that I think posting that Michael J. McTavish served with the Bureau of Criminal Investigation as recently as 2005 with the Pennsylvania State Police borders on being slightly inflammatory, although couched as DD, associating the words Criminal Investigation with what we are currently discussing projects a subtle connotation I'm not sure is warranted, but maybe I'm just being a little too critical, as nothing, at this stage has been proved against RSDS.

On the Issue of this NASD letter, I responded very specifically to it by posting my thoughts publicly to you, for a reason.

I thought my comments were fair, and so were you, but you have chosen not to respond to what I had to say. I'd appreciate you reconsidering that decision, I would very much like you to respond to my previous post.

I have taken the liberty of attaching it below for your convenience.

Cheers, J.


***NASD Letter***

Having just read the letter for the first time, after only becoming aware of its existence yesterday, I'd like to offer a few comments based on my initial read through.

I have to confess that I am unsure exactly what the criteria is for the instigation of an inquiry of this type by the NASD Market Regulation department, I am thinking that perhaps a complaint by somebody named within a PR or a cascade of complaints by telephone or mail by noble citizens who feel something is amiss may suffice. If anybody has a more accurate idea, I'd love to know.

Having said that, I'm really quite thrilled to see that an inquiry has been instigated by the NASD Market Regulation department for a number of reasons...

Given what we know about the activities of Pink Sheet CEO's it would probably serve Investors well across the board, if all Pink Sheet stocks were the subject of an inquiry by the NASD Market Regulation department, what better way to validate the authenticity of a company and their business plan.

So lets take a closer look at the content of this letter. I think the first point to note would be that the NASD have quite clearly stated at the foot of the letter the following:

This inquiry should not be construed as indicating that the staff has determined that any violations of the rules of the NASD or Federal securities laws have occured, or as a reflection on the merits of the securities involved or upon any person who effected transaction in such securities.

Thats certainly a very fair comment by the NASD and rightly so, anybody can make an accusation, but that doesnt make it the truth, not without a full inquiry which looks at all the facts... which brings me to my next point.

The NASD it seems, are not focusing on one single fact here, by being alerted to possibly one or two issues, they have thrown a net over all of RSDS's public relations disclosures and activities surrounding their previous PR's and the acquisition of Mining Claims in San Juan County... I cant tell you how thrilled I am about this...

I will not engage in rumour about the possible reasons for this inquiry, but I will say the following. I believe that if RSDS has erred in either their activities or reporting of such, this inquiry will reveal that, and any injured parties will receive satisfaction... However, if this inquiry was instigated by individuals with a questionable agenda and who may have been connected at some point with RSDS's activites, this inquiry may have unintended consequences for those same instigators due to its scope.

I think its reasonable to suggest that if the NASD finds wrongdoing on the part of RSDS as a result of their inquiry, the stock will be resigned to the shit heap of history... by contrast, if RSDS are vindicated of any wrongdoing and their PR's are found to be accurate, I cant think of a better way to promote a stock. If they go through the NASD ringer and come out the other side blameless, it will do more for the PPS than a years worth of fluffy PR's and Pumpers could ever do...

Finally, RSDS were requested to respond to NASD by Wednesday, March 28th 2007, over 3 weeks ago, and we are just becoming aware of this letter now, and not through NASD. I see no reason for RSDS to release a PR, as per Icemans suggestion at this point, RSDS have not done so to date, much to their credit I feel, and until such time as NASD has fully concluded its inquiry, to release such a PR, in my opinion would be a ill conceived decision, and might possibly be viewed in a poor light by NASD as interfering with their inquiry. Once the inquiry is concluded it would be quite appropriate for the NASD and RSDS to update investors.

If it was the NASD's policy to protect investors by advising them of such an inquiry, they would have done so by now, doesnt that seem clear? but they havent, what we have is a leaked letter which was passed on by somebody who had access to a fax received from Rick Berman, which, I can only assume, was sent in an official capacity... The question therefore, should quite rightly be, who leaked this, and what was their agenda?

Protecting Investors is the domain of the NASD and is what they are in the process of doing by conducting this investigation... and they are doing so in a professional manner. Attempting to cast doubt on the integrity of this company by promulgating this NASD letter is a different ball game entirely... and the suggestion should not be made that it is anything but manipulation, the question is by who? and for what reason? perhaps the NASD need to look closely at those involved.

Good Luck to all....

Cheers, J.


Thanks for taking the time to respond Ice, I would just like to get your thoughts about my assessment on record...

Cheers, J.

***NASD Letter***

Having just read the letter for the first time, after only becoming aware of its existence yesterday, I'd like to offer a few comments based on my initial read through.

I have to confess that I am unsure exactly what the criteria is for the instigation of an inquiry of this type by the NASD Market Regulation department, I am thinking that perhaps a complaint by somebody named within a PR or a cascade of complaints by telephone or mail by noble citizens who feel something is amiss may suffice. If anybody has a more accurate idea, I'd love to know.

Having said that, I'm really quite thrilled to see that an inquiry has been instigated by the NASD Market Regulation department for a number of reasons...

Given what we know about the activities of Pink Sheet CEO's it would probably serve Investors well across the board, if all Pink Sheet stocks were the subject of an inquiry by the NASD Market Regulation department, what better way to validate the authenticity of a company and their business plan.

So lets take a closer look at the content of this letter. I think the first point to note would be that the NASD have quite clearly stated at the foot of the letter the following:

This inquiry should not be construed as indicating that the staff has determined that any violations of the rules of the NASD or Federal securities laws have occured, or as a reflection on the merits of the securities involved or upon any person who effected transaction in such securities.

Thats certainly a very fair comment by the NASD and rightly so, anybody can make an accusation, but that doesnt make it the truth, not without a full inquiry which looks at all the facts... which brings me to my next point.

The NASD it seems, are not focusing on one single fact here, by being alerted to possibly one or two issues, they have thrown a net over all of RSDS's public relations disclosures and activities surrounding their previous PR's and the acquisition of Mining Claims in San Juan County... I cant tell you how thrilled I am about this...

I will not engage in rumour about the possible reasons for this inquiry, but I will say the following. I believe that if RSDS has erred in either their activities or reporting of such, this inquiry will reveal that, and any injured parties will receive satisfaction... However, if this inquiry was instigated by individuals with a questionable agenda and who may have been connected at some point with RSDS's activites, this inquiry may have unintended consequences for those same instigators due to its scope.

I think its reasonable to suggest that if the NASD finds wrongdoing on the part of RSDS as a result of their inquiry, the stock will be resigned to the shit heap of history... by contrast, if RSDS are vindicated of any wrongdoing and their PR's are found to be accurate, I cant think of a better way to promote a stock. If they go through the NASD ringer and come out the other side blameless, it will do more for the PPS than a years worth of fluffy PR's and Pumpers could ever do...

Finally, RSDS were requested to respond to NASD by Wednesday, March 28th 2007, over 3 weeks ago, and we are just becoming aware of this letter now, and not through NASD. I see no reason for RSDS to release a PR, as per Icemans suggestion at this point, RSDS have not done so to date, much to their credit I feel, and until such time as NASD has fully concluded its inquiry, to release such a PR, in my opinion would be a ill conceived decision, and might possibly be viewed in a poor light by NASD as interfering with their inquiry. Once the inquiry is concluded it would be quite appropriate for the NASD and RSDS to update investors.

If it was the NASD's policy to protect investors by advising them of such an inquiry, they would have done so by now, doesnt that seem clear? but they havent, what we have is a leaked letter which was passed on by somebody who had access to a fax received from Rick Berman, which, I can only assume, was sent in an official capacity... The question therefore, should quite rightly be, who leaked this, and what was their agenda?

Protecting Investors is the domain of the NASD and is what they are in the process of doing by conducting this investigation... and they are doing so in a professional manner. Attempting to cast doubt on the integrity of this company by promulgating this NASD letter is a different ball game entirely... and the suggestion should not be made that it is anything but manipulation, the question is by who? and for what reason? perhaps the NASD need to look closely at those involved.

Good Luck to all....

Cheers, J.

This is where it starts to get interesting... Ice are you listening?

Which Bleak, Josh or Floyd?

If it was Josh, did Floyd know he leaked a copy of the letter?

Is Josh aware, across the board, of Floyds business dealings in respect to the proposed sale of the Pay Day Mines?

Here are two questions for Blue or one of his representatives as they purport to know so much about the facts surrounding these mining claims... we keep hearing about the fact that RSDS did not purchase these claims from East Canyon LLC, lets just look past that name for one moment...

1) Who were the named owners and I am talking about the specific individuals now... of the Pay Day Mines?

2) RSDS sounded pretty certain that that sale would be completed, the Sept 11th RSDS PR announced that the purchase would take place on Sept 15th, so what happened to that deal, why are we now being told that the purchase was never made...

Ask some questions, do some DD guys, the truth will out... and on this one its screaming to be released...

Cheers,J

Thanks Righty, but just trying to deliver a fair and factual assessment of that letter... If anybody thinks I am off base, or biased in the delivery of that assessment, please let me know.

Cheers, J.

***NASD Letter***

Having just read the letter for the first time, after only becoming aware of its existence yesterday, I'd like to offer a few comments based on my initial read through.

I have to confess that I am unsure exactly what the criteria is for the instigation of an inquiry of this type by the NASD Market Regulation department, I am thinking that perhaps a complaint by somebody named within a PR or a cascade of complaints by telephone or mail by noble citizens who feel something is amiss may suffice. If anybody has a more accurate idea, I'd love to know.

Having said that, I'm really quite thrilled to see that an inquiry has been instigated by the NASD Market Regulation department for a number of reasons...

Given what we know about the activities of Pink Sheet CEO's it would probably serve Investors well across the board, if all Pink Sheet stocks were the subject of an inquiry by the NASD Market Regulation department, what better way to validate the authenticity of a company and their business plan.

So lets take a closer look at the content of this letter. I think the first point to note would be that the NASD have quite clearly stated at the foot of the letter the following:

This inquiry should not be construed as indicating that the staff has determined that any violations of the rules of the NASD or Federal securities laws have occured, or as a reflection on the merits of the securities involved or upon any person who effected transaction in such securities.

Thats certainly a very fair comment by the NASD and rightly so, anybody can make an accusation, but that doesnt make it the truth, not without a full inquiry which looks at all the facts... which brings me to my next point.

The NASD it seems, are not focusing on one single fact here, by being alerted to possibly one or two issues, they have thrown a net over all of RSDS's public relations disclosures and activities surrounding their previous PR's and the acquisition of Mining Claims in San Juan County... I cant tell you how thrilled I am about this...

I will not engage in rumour about the possible reasons for this inquiry, but I will say the following. I believe that if RSDS has erred in either their activities or reporting of such, this inquiry will reveal that, and any injured parties will receive satisfaction... However, if this inquiry was instigated by individuals with a questionable agenda and who may have been connected at some point with RSDS's activites, this inquiry may have unintended consequences for those same instigators due to its scope.

I think its reasonable to suggest that if the NASD finds wrongdoing on the part of RSDS as a result of their inquiry, the stock will be resigned to the shit heap of history... by contrast, if RSDS are vindicated of any wrongdoing and their PR's are found to be accurate, I cant think of a better way to promote a stock. If they go through the NASD ringer and come out the other side blameless, it will do more for the PPS than a years worth of fluffy PR's and Pumpers could ever do...

Finally, RSDS were requested to respond to NASD by Wednesday, March 28th 2007, over 3 weeks ago, and we are just becoming aware of this letter now, and not through NASD. I see no reason for RSDS to release a PR, as per Icemans suggestion at this point, RSDS have not done so to date, much to their credit I feel, and until such time as NASD has fully concluded its inquiry, to release such a PR, in my opinion would be a ill conceived decision, and might possibly be viewed in a poor light by NASD as interfering with their inquiry. Once the inquiry is concluded it would be quite appropriate for the NASD and RSDS to update investors.

If it was the NASD's policy to protect investors by advising them of such an inquiry, they would have done so by now, doesnt that seem clear? but they havent, what we have is a leaked letter which was passed on by somebody who had access to a fax received from Rick Berman, which, I can only assume, was sent in an official capacity... The question therefore, should quite rightly be, who leaked this, and what was their agenda?

Protecting Investors is the domain of the NASD and is what they are in the process of doing by conducting this investigation... and they are doing so in a professional manner. Attempting to cast doubt on the integrity of this company by promulgating this NASD letter is a different ball game entirely... and the suggestion should not be made that it is anything but manipulation, the question is by who? and for what reason? perhaps the NASD need to look closely at those involved.

Good Luck to all....

Cheers, J.

...and I think I would be correct in assuming that restricted shares does not amount to immediate dilution...

Cheers,J

Roi,

This is a quite excellent and well delivered point, once the floodgates are open and we can run with information, I'd like to come back to this and discuss it in more detail. Great Post

Cheers, J.

Hi Allen,

I recall seeing at some point, a message referring to an e-mail from Rick Berman that said a R/S would not happen, I dont have it at my disposal, and cant vouch for the veracity of it, you might want to direct that question to Righty.

Cheers, J

Hi Roi...

for all posting on the board right now, forgive me if these answers are out of context I'm down at #9753 now and will be reading and answering them as I go, may take a little time as there are about 50 to go through...

Roi, with respect, I have to agree with Righty.

I have a ton of information at my fingertips now, most of which I would absolutely love to lay out on this board, but am not going to, for two specific reasons... The first is that I have been asked not to, not by a board Mod, but by the individual who gave it to me, and in an attempt to bring a little honesty and integrity to this board, I have to agree to that request, or my word is worth nothing... If you look back through my previous posts you will see that I do not deal in rumour or supposition, just facts, so i hope you will understand my decision and have patience, all will be revealed in good time. Secondly, when DD has been revealed on this board, it has been attacked by those with an agenda, but no facts at their disposal, as much as I want to help people find the answers they are looking for, I dont see why I, and others like me should do all the hard work and then be attacked for delivering factual information, seems like you'd have to be something of a sadist to enjoy doing that, and I am not.

The information is out there, I would encourage everybody to do their own DD and by the way, I have not spoken to, or had any personal contact in the form an e-mail response, other than refering me to the pink sheets for info, from Rick Berman. Based on what factual information I have, I'm not going anywhere... I'm staying right here, others can do as they see fit... Question everything.

Cheers, J.

Of further interest is how BHS's opinion on the necessity to contact Anthony Brandt seems to be changing the closer we get to the truth of whats actually going on out in Utah...

4/18 posted by BHS:

What more proof do you need righty??? Call US MINERALS!!!! They OWN the payday mining claims your CEO says HE acquired!!!!! To date the only mining claims that Mr. Berman can back up are the ones that he made with Tony Brandt. And even those are shady. I am still trying to get in touch with Mr. Brandt regarding that. But the FACT remains, (and I am getting the documents to prove it) RSDS and RICKY BERMAN DO NOT OWN THE PAYDAY CLAIMS AS PREVIOUSLY PR'd. PERIOD. :D

4/20 posted by BHS:

The following claims are NOT OWNED BY RSDS and were NEVER ACQUIRED BY THEM: 63 claims, located in Township 32 South, Range 24 East, Sections 25, 26, 35. HOWEVER they continue to tally them into their Uranium mining claims totals! They have NEVER made a PR to announce that the deal never went through due to the fact that Rick Berman the CEO failed to make payments to US MINERALS LLC (East Canyon LLC owners). This type of false and misleading information by RSDS is the MAIN reason why they are now only releasing PR's via pinksheets.com. Good luck with that diluting POS of a stock. Looks like its continuing to tank even as the kool-aid continues to thicken! ALSO Anthony Brandt seems to be on the payroll for now, so I could really care less what he has to say at this point. I am only concerned at the moment about the 63 claims that were to be acquired by RSDS as stated in the PR below. THESE I KNOW FOR CERTAIN WERE NEVER ACQUIRED BY RSDS. I am sure they are backtracking now trying to make good on their past PR's since they are being WATCHED closely by the BIG BROTHER. FWIW IMO.

I'm going to speculate a little for once and say that BHS probably got a little too cocky when he was playing RSDS, pushed his luck with the stock after being instrumental in driving it up in the first place, and was left with his balls flapping in the wind when it tanked,... I dont know about you, but I'd be angry too if I made a numb nut mistake like that...

That opinion seems to be borne out by the following post by BHS...

I used to own this stock. I got SUCKED into it just like you. After the first round of MASSIVE DILUTION I was forced to sell. I'm not trying to play "hero". But I don't feel like watching Rick Berman make more money off of investors with his rediculous PR's. The ONLY claims that can be supported by documents are the recent ones from Tony Brandt - and even those are SHADY. THE RSDS PR regarding the payday claims is what I am onto NOW. I spoke to the owners of that claim today and they said that RICK BERMAN does NOT own them. PERIOD. I WILL get the documents to prove this, however I am sure some of the people on this board will try and spin it around. LOL. At any rate, call US MINERALS and ask them about the payday claims yourself. Good luck. (and you can send this to Rick Berman if you like - seems he only likes to talk to a few posters on this board - and not any average investor). FWIW IMO.

Blue and the rest of his cohorts are not answering my questions.... WHY?

I want answers from you loud mouths... Josh Bleak is being a good grandson fellas, and he's backing up his grandfather, but that doesnt make him right... facts are facts after all... Its time to lay your cards on the table.... come on... what have you got?

Cheers, J.

I asked you an intelligent question that so far you have chosen to ignore...

I can only assume you choose to do so because you simply cannot articulate a fact based response...

Back up your bullshit...

Hi Abe,

A weak position deserves to be exposed as being just that, weak...

I have PM'd Blue with a question he has so far chosen not to answer and will continue to challenge anybody who turns up on this board to dump rumour and supposition, and ask them to back it up with facts... but I appreciate your comments.

Cheers, J.