Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
IMHO, not too much to worry about here folks, anybody whose been following ALRY for a while knows the potential value of the company given their recent operations not to mention the experience and committment of Larry Sandford...
I would attribute the current sell off more to inexperienced traders spooked by the Regdex, and more experienced traders selling to take advantage of the actions of those same inexperienced traders, knowing that a rebound is inevitable when it bottoms out and the bargain basement buying begins, given all we know about ALRY...
Again, in my humble opinion, nothing has changed here, the fundamentals are sound and all indicators (not necessarily technical, but historical and current), point north...
My confidence is high in the mid to long term future for ALRY and I would encourage anybody thinking of selling at this level based purely on the recent drop in PPS to hold... Only my opinion of course... please do your own DD and dont take my word for it.
Cheers, J.
Now, now, boys and girls... we shouldnt be suggesting or condoning that kind of behaviour, although I can appreciate how some of those residing in the US (where this particular phenomenon seems most prevelant), and who may potentially have the capacity to go 'postal', may be feeling rather frisky at the moment....
As happy as I am not to be living in the great United States of America, this is one of those rare occasions when I wish I was... I would very much like to engage our 'responsible', 'shareholder caring', CEO in a toe to toe interview which I rather feel he would be compelled to take, like it or not...
Mr. Berman has levelled some quite serious allegations in my direction, and now scurries away and hides from anything that resembles constructive dialogue....
You do not know me Mr. Berman, do not presume to do so, you do not possess the capacity to conjur up a ball park estimate of what kind of a man I am... I have been ultimately fair and quite reasonable in my conduct on this board in my private e-mails with you.... (please feel free to read each of my posts, public and private to you if you have any doubts in that regard)... your own conduct...? Hmmm...? it certainly does seem to reflect the manner of the man we are attempting to deal with, and the representation is ultimately quite shabby....
There is little left to say here, but what comes around; goes around... you will receive your just reward for your conduct, and the way in which you have treated (for the most part), the honest shareholders here... how will that 'penance' manifest itself...? who knows... but as a faith based, 'god fearing' man (that is an area of your life where you dont play games is it not Mr. Berman? and in which you actually possess some legitimate belief...? Helping all those infirmed individuals and thier families to place their finances in your safe hands... in league with your methodist colleagues... which would include one 'Mr. Russell' would it not Mr. Berman...? such an admirable calling... I wonder if anybody has taken the time to look at just where all that money was invested...?), it will happen, I feel quite sure about that... and for the record, I'm an agnostic....
Cheers, J.
How could they NOT KNOW if they received approval? ... further who was that approval granted by, and for what???
After all the truly commendable DD conducted on the activities of RSDS management and this stock in general, I'm afraid it seems that we are left with one inescapable fact ladies and gents....
The individuals steering this ship shouldnt be let loose with a carefully folded paper boat on a small pond, in light winds....
Further to the opinion of the Forest Service that RSDS (Management!) Misunderstood the proper authorizations that were needed to begin operations... I would like to offer you this for those who perhaps werent around or who have forgotten just where we began and what spurred us on toward this campaign for the truth....
The following (please bear in mind that the quite flattering nature of the e-mails was due to the the fact, that at the point in time in question, RSDS seemed very much to be making all the right moves...)... represent a short string of e-mails between Mr. Rick Berman and myself regarding the time line for their PR suggesting a projected date for the start of mining operations and my concerns regarding such.
Mr. Bermans e-mails are in bold for the sake of clarity (with the exception of statements requiring emphasis).
Rick,
as a courtesy to you, I would like to offer you a further summary of the information currently available and in the public domain with respect to the activities of Russell Industries and your projected plan (as per your May 02nd PR) to begin Mining Operations in May.
Although I am keeping one eye on the Public Forum RSDS discussion on IHub, I am now considered (amongst certain board members) to be bashing the stock, as I have not fallen into the ranks who are screaming at the top of their lungs for a PR detailing the completion of the 504 or a definitive date on when trucks full of Uranium Ore will be rolling to White Mesa Mill... In my humble opinion, these are incidental points at present, the 504 will be completed, well, when its complete, you have made your point quite clearly on that. As for the commercial sale of Uranium and Vanadium Ore, the masses seem to be conveniently skipping over the fact that it needs to be proved, accessed and extracted upon full permitting (quite probably an exploratory mining permit rolled into a small mine permit in my opinion...). Either way the discussion board is no longer a forum for reasoned debate related to Russell Industries current and projected activities.
I sincerely hope that you will understand my reason for conducting this due dilligence, as an investor in a Pink Sheet stock, it certainly reinforces my faith in your operations to be able to confirm the details you have promulgated to date.
As mentioned in an earlier communication, the State Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals were kind enough to provide me with the criteria for the application of Mining Permits in the State of Utah. They added that both a State and Federal Permit is required prior to the start of Mining Operations.
On the State side of things, they have confirmed that as of May 14th Russell Industries IS now registered with the Division of Corporations in Utah, a prerequisite for submitting a notice of intention for an Exploratory Mining Permit for Mining Operations within the state, but as of May 21st, No such Notice of Intention has been received by this department, this does indeed cast some doubt in my opinion, on whether Exploratory Mining Operations will indeed begin prior to the end of May, at least from the perspective of State Sanctioned Authority.
On the Federal side, I know that it is the US Forest Service and not the Bureau of Land Management who are the custodians of the land upon which these specific claims PR'd sit, and that the Federal application for a Mining permit has to be submitted to them. Further I now know that US Forest HAS received a notice of intention for an Exploratory Mining Permit, this is very good news indeed congratulations, however there are a couple of caveats to this information.
I am not requesting that you confirm or deny the following, nor that you offer any explantion of what you intend to do, again, this is simply to make you aware that the information is available to the general public. Having said that, I have not heard this from any other sources to date and have not propogated it myself into the public forum, as this is not confirmed and only from one source I have no wish to pre-empt you by revealing it.
US Forest has additionally revealed that the mine you are focused on exploring is partly filled with water, and that any discharge for the purpose of dewatering the mine, will have to be permitted with the Division of Water Quality, further to this, any work involving mechanized equipment, even for the purposes of exploration, has to go out to public comment which could certainly stretch out the permit application process.
To reiterate, this is for your information only, I am not requesting confirmation or explanation, this is simply to advise you what is out there for public consumption. I still firmly believe that your plan to conduct Exploratory Mining Operations, prove these resources and exploit them which ever way you see fit is quite viable, unfortunatley the 5 minute mind investors, have taken the content of your last PR to mean quite literally that commercial quanities or Ore are going to be rolling in May. I believe this to be short sighted... if only Mining Operations could leap into action so quickly... I guess it would save us all, not least of all you, an awful lot of grief.
Good luck Rick, I and a number of other good folks are watching closely and believe very much that you are making headway. Congratulations on the results you have achieved to date, and good luck for the future.
Cheers, J.
Rusind@aol.com wrote:
John,
Obviously I am aware of all of the necessary hurdles that need to faced before we receive permission to drill. Call the U.S. Forestry Service next week to check on our application.
Regards,
Well, I did check, and it will come as no surprise to anybody here now to know that these permits were not approved as infered in the PR.
My own personal opinion, which I have offered before, is that had Mr. Berman bothered to spend less time following the every post of IHub Posters, left Texas and traveled to Utah in order to oversee the permit approval process (not such a tall request for a man in receipt of such a handsome remuneration package), and even educated himself somewhat as to the requirements necesssary for permit approval, this problem could have been avoided... as it was, he left all this legwork to his 'registered agent in Utah', a man who previously owned, and sold the Rage claims to RSDS, and yet had to be told by the Federal Bureau of Land Management that permission to conduct exploration there was required from US Forest.... Knowledge.... Experience... Responsible Management....
....Really?
Cheers J.
sorry chaps, but this tedious back and forth about whether Mr. Berman will or will not respond to his shareholders questions is at the same time, patently ridiculous, and ultimately quite shamefull...
The facts quite simply are that people have invested their money in a stock which has underperformed (no issue there), but have been offered no explanation as to the reasons for that underperformance, nor the questionable statements and actions which have taken place since...
A sincere, reasonable and 'responsible' (as stated by Mr. Berman himself), CEO, would be doing all he could at this point, including taking advantage of this magnificent forum, within which the majority of shareholding individuals are actively communincating to address those issues....
Mr. Berman has chosen not to... draw your own conclusions from that....
Cheers, J.
Bri, please re-read my public posting of the string of communication between Mr.Berman and myself... I attempted to lay out quite reasonable questions, that (in my humble opinion), any CEO stating that shareholders will remain the number one concern of the company, would be more than willing to answer, there were no curve balls in there).... you can see that Mr. Berman seems dead set against not only responding to my questions, but has now refused to recognize me.
I have to confess that i am a little dissapointed that the exchange broke down, Mr. Berman seems to hold me personally responsible for having a detrimental affect on the RSDS share price after discussing a dewatering issue (part of the reason that RSDS's original NOI was suspended from further review), and information that was willingly provided by the Division of Oil, Gas and Mineras in Utah... who have nothing to hide... real transparency in action... his own actions and statements which may have had a detrimental affect, are of course not a subject for discussion.... regardless... the answer to your question is that I have attempted to respectfully address Mr. Berman... and NO, he is not willing to communicate with us (IMO)... if you have seen anything on the board that proves otherwise, please direct me to the post.
Cheers, J.
Uranium/Vanadium or not (and we are still waiting on some potentially, very positive lab reports of samples taken in January from the Pay Day Claims...), there are just some very simple steps that the CEO could take at this point in time to rebuild, then reinforce investor confidence in this stock (I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall by spelling this out once again...)
The thing that amazes me most, is that these very simple moves, which would do much to benefit RSDS Stock and inject a shot of confidence in the arm of RSDS shareholders.... seem to be lost on Mr. Berman... That our CEO does not have the common sense to see the benefit in these simple measures speaks volumes about him, and unfortunately, the future of this stock.
Cheers J
...Theres an echo in here...!
Agreed...
The fact that issues related to Mr. Bermans statements and actions remain unanswered will no doubt affect the decision of individuals not already 'invested' (I know, I'm laughing too...), in this stock, to make any future potential 'investment', in the short term at least.
As each day passes, the existing shareholders, are, I believe becoming more used to the idea that their 'investment' is worthless and has little chance of being resurected without significant input and action from the CEO.... This fact should set alarm bells ringing like f**k in 'Chez Berman' as once the majority of those same shareholders become totally resigned to being out of pocket on this... their attention will (possibly has) turn(ed) to what legal avenues exist to level the playing field somewhat... in the case of certain individuals... 'just for kicks' maybe...
You would think that these quite obvious facts wouldnt need spelling out... but it takes some people a little longer than others to see the light and catch on... call it what you will... ego, arrogance, simple ignorance perhaps? who knows? but I would hate for anybody to look back on this particular period of time in regret at a missed opportunity...
Cheers, J.
Oh so Yummier still, would be if the one poster who has a direct line to Mr. Berman (one which he will respond to that is...), thats you by the way, just to save any confusion... would make some effort to show that he supports the questions posed by shareholders here... but you wouldnt want to jeopardize the insignificant compensation you're receiving for your Web Master skills, or your relationship with Mr. Berman by asking any of those akward questions now would you...?
Any board participant who posts directly that Mr. Berman has committed Fraud, will be put through a 'rather more heavily-springed ringer'... I'm sure you can appreciate the reason for that... further Makes was informed of the direction this board would take and what our intention was when he stepped down as Mod on this board... he seems to be drifting off course a little, a request for a course correction seems quite reasonable given our stated intentions.
I would like to echo Rightys request to know just how much of an effort you have made to appeal to Mr. Berman to answer some of these reasonable requests for information...
Cheers, J.
Makes, whilst I can understand you have strong feelings on this matter (I am only surprised you failed to stand up a little sooner to be honest). Unless you have cast iron proof that Mr Berman has committed Fraud please keep those accusations to yourself.
I made it quite clear when you stepped down the direction this board needed to go in... I have the support of Matt in attempting to clean this board up and provide (despite his recent statement that he will no longer recognize me...) Mr. Berman, an opportunity to respond to the reasonable questions shareholders have relating to his stated claims and actions.
That will continue to be the aim of the Mods on this board, until such time as we feel our efforts have been completely exhausted... I know it may seem like a waste of time and effort (speaking of effort, I'm sure you can all see why Righty was reinstalled as a Mod on this board...), but there is method to this madness...
Please, help, dont hinder, it would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers, J.
Regardless of amount, you are still in the paid employ of Mr. Berman... your statement that you therefore; "have no more or less chance of influencing Rick Berman than you or anyone else."... seems just a tad disingenuous.
Cheers, J.
Try not to get too confused Aware...
It would help if you could appeal to Mr. Berman to consider offering a response to some of the questions posed by Righty, it would go a long way to improving the impression shareholders currently seem to have (judging by the recent posts), of our CEO.
Otherwise, keep one eye on the board, and I'm sure Mr. Berman will contact you in an official capacity should any 'significant' news need to be aired on the web site.
Cheers, J.
I've posted this before, but am having trouble finding a reference to the post... for anybody who doesnt know what an 'adit' is... here is a link to Wikipedia's description of an adit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adit
I know we are stressing factual information be posted for the most part on the board now, in an attempt to reduce the amount of supposition and innuendo that has taken place in the past... but unless another Mine type entrance exists within the rage claim area, from whence these tailings could have been extracted, the adit, as previously mentioned, does seem like the most obvious source.
The tailings which are readily accessible, are a good start indeed, they seem to prove the existence of uranium within the claim area.... what then for extracting further ore... IMHO further serious consideration should be given to the number of options, and financial viability of dewatering that adit, regardless of the lead time for permit approval.
Cheers, J.
Hi Downriver,
I wouldnt blame yourself for poor DD, myself and others conducted some quite thorough DD (at least what could be conducted prior to recent events), and it all pointed to significant potential for RSDS.
Potential which I may add, I believe still exists... the issue is the strategy management embarks upon, and how it is exercised. This includes the timing and of course the accuracy of information contained in their PR's, but more importantly still, communicating with investors and providing factual evidence actions that inspire confidence in the stock.
Cheers, J.
"Where did it come fom?"
If we are talking about the area of exploration covered by the amended NOI, then its more than likely that the tailings came from the water filled adit mentioned therein.
"Is there any more?"
Quite possibly, the chances are good, which could account in large part for RSDS's desire to dewater that addit get in there and do some further exploration.
The holes currently being drilled certainly seem to bear out the fact that it didnt herald from any of the areas theyre conducting exploratory drilling in... the Adit seems like the most likely answer.
Cheers, J.
Your opinion is duly noted, but I refer you to my previous answer.
We will be moving on regardless, whether Mr. Berman decides to pay some deference to the requests of his shareholders, and join the majority of shareholders on this board calling for the creation of a reasonable Q & A session or not...
Cheers, J.
They are fair game blue, but it is my hope that the users of this board can rise above the benchmark level set by our CEO and conduct ourselves with a little dignity and respect.... the facts are still the facts regardless of whether we descend to name calling or not.... I would prefer we stick to the latter and engage in a concerted effort to uncover as much fact as possible about RSDS and its principals (whilst still holding out hope of them in fact capitulating somewhat and making a decision to willingly share information which could in fact benefit the stock and support the PPS... perish the thought).
Cheers, J.
Clear, concise, and unerringly accurate, I heartily agree.
Cheers, J.
Pulitzer material... I agree... !
Cheers, J.
I dont play games, I dont seek to suggest that I own something I do not...
As I explained to Mr. Berman, if an appropriate authority requires me to provide evidence of my shareholding in RSDS, I will be only to happy to do so.
I am an RSDS Shareholder, Mr. Berman suggest he has a list of all RSDS shareholders, if that is indeed the case, he should take another good read of it, carefully, because my name is there.
Given his manner in responding to my quite resonable e-mails, I feel no compunction to divulge any further personal information to Mr. Berman until he begins to display behaviour that does in fact inspire confidence.
Cheers, J
Agreed, as far as I am concerned, this should be water under the bridge, but most definately lesson learnt...
If potential truly does exist for RSDS and their projected current operations, Mr. Berman, could immediately ressurect his image and create significant support by simply taking a deep breath and using this board to his advantage.
Mr. Berman has suggested that the comments of posters on this board have had a detrimental effect on the PPS of RSDS.... well if that is true, then conversely, any positive IR carried out by the CEO to better inform investors and improve confidence, would have stimulated interest and possibly increased the price... Quad, Erat, Demonstratum... or is that just a little too simplistic...
Cheers, J.
The answer to your question 500_and_Long is contained in my preious post... please take the time to read it thoroughly if you dont mind...
If you are unsure of 'my point'... again I would refer you to the last 6 months of posts before you begin to question who is attempting to make a point and just what it might be... no disrespect intended, but as the posts on these boards fly by and are promptly relegated to the anals of history, the memory of posters begins to get somewhat misty.... the posts are still there however for all to read... and interesting reading they make.
Cheers, J.
What follows is not intended to cite further contempt for Mr. Berman, nor whip the board into a frenzy... if we are about transparency, and if Mr. Berman truly regards himself as a responsible CEO, he will understand why I am posting this. I am requesting, once again, that he treat the many genuine shareholders on this board with a little respect and consider revisiting the issue of communicating with us on an altogether more professional level.
I am afraid that Mr. Berman has failed to impress me with his response to my sincere attempt to reach out and bring some sense and sensibility to this board (please read my initial offering, as some of what follows may seem somewhat argumentative, believe me, that was not my intention….)….
What follows is a complete compilation of e-mail communications between Mr. R. Berman and my self over the past few days….
For those of you who are primed to assault me with Mr. Bermans confidentiality clause attached to his e-mails… please note the following opinion regarding such, offered by Mr. Michael Chissick, Head of Internet Law at Field Fisher Waterhouse.
'The disclaimers added to the end of emails are not legally binding, but it's always good practice to try and disclaim liability'.
Michael Chissick, Head of Internet law at Field Fisher Waterhouse (March 2000 Internet Magazine, 'All work and no play')
From this point on, Mr. Bermans e-mails are highlighted in Bold for the sake of clarity. There have been no deletions or additions to any of the e-mails, these are all verbatim as they were sent and received.
Dear Mr.Berman,
I appreciate (at least it is my belief), that you do not like to be lectured to, nor told what to do, or indeed how to direct your business affairs, as CEO of Russell Industries.
Please do not regard this communication as such, it is simply a reasonable request from an RSDS shareholder; An appeal to the CEO of the company in which he is invested, to read and respond to a few thoughts.
It comes as no surprise to you, I'm sure, that many investors are concerned by recent developments regarding RSDS. The considerable raise in AS, the Reg D filing and massive dumping of shares at 0.0002... the curious story of AUMN and retired shares, are but a few of the events which have caused considerable concern.
I understand that you had certain 'issues' with the IHub RSDS Stock board and certain regular users of that board; some of the posts have been less than reasonable (although many others have been quite reasonable indeed), and I have tried to take steps remedy this.
I lobbied Makesumgravy to make me Asst Mod, he has stepped down and inserted as Moderator of the board... a couple of weeks ago, I posted this message http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22596611 in an attempt to support RSDS's stated claims (not blindly, but as a last ditch effort to give a little credence to your stated claims), and rally shareholders to support another appeal for you to enter into a moderated exchange of reasonable questions with board holders.
The regular users of the IHub RSDS Stock board represent a large percentage of those holding stock in RSDS, and as you do not use the services of an Investor Relations firm, it seems like a perfect opportunity and forum for you to conduct your IR.
I am not suggesting an exchange which descends into finger pointing and name calling, but rather a weekly exchange of questions and answers, which, regardless of the Pink Sheet Status of RSDS, any reasonable CEO with a modicum of respect for his shareholders, would, in my humble opinion, be willing to engage in.
I am not suggesting it take place live even, we can submit a list of reasonable questions to you, allow you time to formulate a response, which you could then deliver to the board in person a few days later... follow up questions to your responses could be handled in the same manner. Direct questioning and answering does not have to take place and any personal attacks on you would be deleted immediately, in order to allow the moderated exchange to take place.
You are under no obligation to do any of this Mr. Berman.... but you yourself suggested that 'the shareholders would remain your number one priority' and further that you yourself 'act in a responsible manner'... unlike other less discerning CEO's, well... to date, those two statements are looking decidedly shakey, and the number of posts suggesting that you are engaged in a strategy to defraud investors are growing.
To date I have not submitted one post suggesting that you have (even potentially), engaged, or are engaging in any illegal activity, I have always walked a line very carefully to attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, whilst asking some very probing questions; questions incidentally which raised the hackles of some of your previous supporters... I might add that those same supporters are now screaming at the top of their lungs, claiming that the only strategy to have taken place, was one that moved their speculative investment into your hands, and further, requesting an explanation of your actions.
Mr. Berman... the decisions we make, and our subsequent actions define the type of people we are, calling yourself a responsible CEO does not necessarily make it so... we need you to step up to the plate and back up your previous statements hailing the importance of responsibility and the priority of the Shareholder instead of standing in the shadows ignoring the Shareholders calls for transparency and explanation.
If you decide to ignore this e-mail, I will post it in full in the public forum and then offer the position of Moderator to anybody who may wish to fill it....
Regards,
J. Shanahan
(RSDS Stockholder)
Please send me your name, address and telephone number.
Regards,
Rick Berman
9595 Six Pines Drive, Suite 8210
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Tel - (832) 631-6074
Fax - (832) 631-6274
rusind@aol.com
Mr. Berman,
you have chosen, once again, to ignore the content of a quite reasonable communication from me and in response are requesting my personal information.
My name, you have already; my address and phone number I will quite willingly provide to you, if you will do me the courtesy of explaining precisely why you want it.
I may be slightly off base with this train of thought, but it looks very much like you are attempting to 'brow beat' or 'threaten' IHub users with some type of legal action as a result of their posts.
You have made references to doing precisely this before, and I have to tell you that it is the most disingenuous tactic you could possibly adopt.
We are shareholders Mr. Berman; with respect Sir, you should concentrate a little more on effectively managing RSDS, your string of contradictory and erronous PR's, your previous statements regarding the esteem you hold for your shareholders, and a little less on the substance of posts on a public forum discussion board.... unless of course you would like to engage those posters in a positive manner and actually work to erase the awful perception which you have managed to create of your good self and the way in which you are managing RSDS.
Rgds,
John Shanahan.
If I remember correctly, did you not post misleading statements regarding a water issue and that it would seriously hamper the ability for RSDS to have its first drilling permit accepted? If it was not you then do you remember who it was? Of course, this turned out to be false, incorrect and harmed the company's stock because it was in fact, a lie.
Regards,
Rick Berman
9595 Six Pines Drive, Suite 8210
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Tel - (832) 631-6074
Fax - (832) 631-6274
rusind@aol.com
Harmed the company's stock...! you really are quite shameless Sir... and misleading statements is your forte Mr.Berman, not mine.... but lets not descend into petty arguement....
In answer to your specific question I did post some 'Facts' on the RSDS IHub board in relating to a dewatering issue, that is correct, in fact, for your convenience, here is the post... http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=21353352
Now... as I have answered your question in full, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer mine....
Are you suggesting that the Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals, did not suspend further review of your Noitice of Intention, filed with the aforementioned division on May 25th 2007 for the Rage Claims E0370123 Task1835 in San Juan County (we wont even get into your PR suggesting Mining Operations would begin in May, given the general extrapolated timeline for a permit to be issued and the May 25th submission this was a patently misleading statement if ever there was one...), as a result of (amongst other issues), an item in your submitted NOI stating the following; "water in one of the adits that will have to be pumped out", further, that "this may require water sampling and a discharge permit from the Division of Water Quality"
Further is it your suggestion that pumping water from this adit, does not amount to a dewatering issue. And finally Mr. Berman, if pumping water from this adit was 'not' in fact an issue, why was it removed from your amended and resubmitted NOI?
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
Rgds,
John Shanahan.
I believe you have not answered my question. Please refer to my email and answer my question. I believe we both know the answer to my question. After I receive your answer I will discuss with you the exercise of appointing one of your IHUBers to act in the IR position for 30 days as a trial. If it works we will continue the project.
Regards,
Rick Berman
9595 Six Pines Drive, Suite 8210
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Tel - (832) 631-6074
Fax - (832) 631-6274
rusind@aol.com
Mr. Berman,
If you have read the substance of my e-mails and posts on the board, you will, (I hope) understand that I am more in favor of working to further the aspirations of RSDS than against them...
In the event that you are responding to my last e-mail, please do not take the silence over the next few hours as a signal that I no longer wish to continue communicating with you, but I am not at home and the internet cafe I am using is closing (22:00 hrs Local).
Rgds,
John Shanahan.
You have not answered my question in full. Do you know for a fact that the application for permit was held up because of a "dewatering issues". Please answer yes or no.
Regards,
Rick Berman
9595 Six Pines Drive, Suite 8210
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Tel - (832) 631-6074
Fax - (832) 631-6274
rusind@aol.com
...and you have not answered my question 'AT ALL'.....
....as to your request for facts, I'll type this slowly as you obviously have some issues with English comprehension....
Fact; June 19th 2007, Susan White, the Mining Program Coordinator for the Division of OGM in Utah sent a 'Deficient Notice of Intention to Conduct Exploration', to Mr. Richard Berman the CEO of Russell Industries.
Fact: Item 4, of that 'Deficient Notice of Intention to Conduct Exploration', requests information or correspondence from the Division of Water Quality showing that you (RSDS) has met the requirement, or that a discharge permit is not required in respect to the following statement from your NOI:
There is water in one of the adits that will have to be pumped out. This may require water sampling and a discharge permit from the Division of Water Quality
Fact; The Deficient Notice of Intention to Conduct Exploration then goes on to state: The division will suspend further review and await your amended Notice of Intention
Does 'Suspension of further review' mean the same to you as it does to me Mr. Berman...? That the Permit has been held up?... I concede that this issue was one of four raised by OGM, but it is an issue non the less.
Now, Mr. Berman, I hope that this represents the 'full' answer you requested... personally I dont understand your confusion....now, as I have taken the time to answer your question more fully, perhaps you could parse yourself from the IHub board for a few minutes to more fully answer mine...
Regards,
John Shanahan.
SEE PREVIOUS EMAIL
Rick Berman
9595 Six Pines Drive, Suite 8210
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Tel - (832) 631-6074
Fax - (832) 631-6274
rusind@aol.com
You just stated that it was one of four issues. However, you did not state that earlier and in fact, implied it was the reason for a delay. If you do not think your inaccurate statements have had a deleterious effect on RSDS stock, then you do not have the capacity to communicate with me.
Regards,
Rick Berman
9595 Six Pines Drive, Suite 8210
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Tel - (832) 631-6074
Fax - (832) 631-6274
rusind@aol.com
In short, the fact that there were in fact 4 issues which accounted for the suspension of review did not come to light until the letter was released by OGM, at which time the full information was released to the board.
Prior to that OGM did in fact release information pertaining to a dewatering issue, I have kept all these e-mails and am not playing games with you Mr. Berman.... as I conducted my DD and information became available to me, I initially advised you (check back through your e-mails from me please), and informed you that I would not release the dewatering information to the board or pre-empt its release by you if you felt fit.... when it became public knowledge I discussed it... this is fact, please read back.
Having said all of this, what does it benefit you, RSDS or your shareholders to continue on this particular tack? In my opinion, and as per my earlier e-mail to you, much more could be achieved by rising above this issue and working to promote RSDS, with respect Mr. Berman your focus is blurred by arguing the toss over this....
Rgds,
John Shanahan.
Incidentally, I will take your answer as a yes, you did in fact, mis-state the facts.
Regards,
Rick Berman
9595 Six Pines Drive, Suite 8210
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Tel - (832) 631-6074
Fax - (832) 631-6274
rusind@aol.com
I'm afraid this will be my final offering for the night as this (second cafe) is about to close also.
One question Mr. Berman... do you have any desire to communicate more fully through this board with your shareholders? The same shareholders who have paid for all of your recent acquisitions and your remuneration.... I have no desire to spar with you... I would rather spend my time working toward a more positive outcome for this stock.
Regards,
John Shanahan.
It is time to qualify yourself, John(?),
By the way, I do not have your address and telephone number. I do not see your name on the current RSDS Shareholder List. Are you a current shareholder? Please provide documentation. I think we both know you are not a current shareholder, but I want you to admit that you are not.
Have you ever been a Russell Industries shareholder? If so, please provide documentation as to when, how long and how may times you have been a shareholder. Also, what price you bought the stock and what price you sold the stock.
If you are not a current shareholder, you better have a real good explanation for what you are doing.
I suggest you give this request the attention it deserves.
Regards,
Rick Berman
9595 Six Pines Drive, Suite 8210
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Tel - (832) 631-6074
Fax - (832) 631-6274
rusind@aol.com
Unlike you Sir, I do not make mis-leading statements.
I am a current RSDS shareholder, if and when a moment in time arises when a legitimate authority requests evidence of that, I will happily provide it to them, but as you have attempted to brow beat, threaten (with legal action), and dismiss in general, the concerns of RSDS shareholders, you will forgive me if I deliver the sum total of zero to a man who has given very little in the way of information to his shareholders, but asks for much in return....
It would appear Mr. Berman that you are now engaging in an attempt to frighten users of this board through the use of vague and obscure references to what they may be doing wrong (from a legal perspective)...
That is your prerogotive, but I believe it is a foolish approach.... I can only speak for myself, but to me you sound like a man who has been overcharged on his last telephone bill and is bellowing his dissatisfaction in the face of the postman who delivered it...
The facts I have posted on this board were provided willingly by the agencies involved in the permit approval process... and were not elicited as a result of any kind of subterfuge on my
part. I have copies of all of those e-mails, and believe me, I am on solid ground fact wise...
If you believe that acting as a responsible CEO and ensuring that your shareholders remain your number one focus equates to this kind of behavior, you have a very strange take on business management.
Regardless, if you insist on continuing to suggest that I, and I presume others on this board, have fallen foul of a particular securities law or regulation, I would encourage you to follow that up vigorously... at this point I am beginning to relish the idea that all will be put through the ringer... (you particularly), perhaps we will get some transparancey and a better idea of just what your strategy was after all.... requesting reasonable dialogue doesnt seem to do the trick, so perhaps a more rigorous solution is required.
Regards,
John Shanahan.
That is what I thought. You are not a shareholder and you are a fraud. Apparently you do not live in the United States. Youa re not an American citizen and you do not want to disclose your identity and the con you are trying to run. It will not work at RSDS. You are still subject to SEC Violations. Until you identify yourself, I will not recognize you. Until then you have been outed as a fraud.
Rick Berman
9595 Six Pines Drive, Suite 8210
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Tel - (832) 631-6074
Fax - (832) 631-6274
rusind@aol.com
I would advise you to be very careful with your accusations of fraudulent behaviour Mr. Berman... I have yet to level any language of that nature in your direction, but if an unbiased observer were to look at the facts to date, and had to consider if either of us are perpetuating a fraud... I feel very confident that the hammer would not fall on me Sir.
No, I do not live in the United States, (you were already aware of that as a result of a personal e-mail I sent to you a few months ago, e-mails, which I believe you are sharing with other IHub users now.... interesting.... ), nor am I an American Citizen, I was not aware that such a requirement existed for trading Pink Sheet stocks; given your vast regulatory experience you would know this of course, so your point is what exactly?
I am a shareholder Mr. Berman, and am less than impressed that the CEO of the company in which I hold stock is calling me a fraud and making allegations that I am involved in some sort of 'con'.
SEC Violations... yes, I'm glad that you're aware they exist. Facts and details proving your allegation would be greatly appreciated. Please take your time, as soon as your fervent imagination has rustled something up, I'd be only to happy to read what you come up with.
Regards,
John Shanahan
I am still awaiting a response to this last message
Cheers, J.
Well regardless of Mr. Bermans strategy vis-a-vis RSDS, his strategy in respect to his personal communications with IHub users is quite curious indeed.... I quite honestly dont put a lot of stock in his confidentiality statement which accompanies his e-mails given their subject matter and am on the verge of posting a complete list, arranged chronologically of communications between he and I over the past few days....
I dont like being called a fraud, or being accused of perpetuating a con... If those accusations can be corroborated fine... if not, then look out....
I was on the cusp, based on my previous post stating that lack of support would lead to my stepping down as Mod.... of resigning as Mod... but Mr. Bermans accusations have lit something of a fire under my arse.... If you dont mind (board members)... I've changed my mind... it will take a particularly pissed off charging waterbuffalo (or Matt) to move me from this slot now....
If you thought that I had an interest in the facts pertaining to the statements and activities of RSDS previously... that was nothing.... now I'm really interested...
Cheers, J.
I have to agree... given the propensity for US Citizens to go postal, divulging personal information about this CEO which is not available through normal channels should be discouraged... A lot of people are bent out of shape and I would not like to see retribution taken as a result of any post on this or any other IHub board...
Blue... youre on thin ice mate... I dont want to lobby to have you banned, but if you continue in this vein, thats wherer we'll be....
Cheers, J.
It isnt on Topic loof, its an invasion of privacy regardless of your views on Mr. Berman and its been deleted....
I apologize for not being on top of every post, but if you (or any other user) sees a post which smacks of being a violation of the TOU, please advise me, Righty or Faz and we will take care of it...
This board is going to be centered and tbe BS is going to stop if I have anything to do with it.
Blue.... stop the BS... its out of order and you know it... you know where I'm coming from here.... I understand your point of view, but help, dont hinder, Please...
Cheers, J.
Numbers are the long and short of it I agree...
Cheers, J.
I have just received an invitation to visit this board and cant tell you how utterly thrilled I am, not only that it exists, but that its Moderated by Matt with the assistance of Churak.... I only wish I'd stumbled upon it months ago....
Thats enough ass kissing, look forward to stopping by on a regular basis to 'share' whatever issues are rattling me....
...before I address your specific post Riskybiz1, I'd like to apologize for my lack of posts recently, especially to loof who has asked about my absence.
A couple of weeks ago, I posted this....
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22596611
To date, I have received 12 responses..., although they have been from the most prolific and prominent users of this board, with boardmarks in the high 200's, its not the kind of support I was hoping for....
Regardless, I have been attempting to communicate with out CEO by e-mail, and I will have more to add on that in the next few days.
I will say this however, I refuse, absolutely, to be brow beaten or submit to 'suggestions' that I may be the focus of legal action as a result of anything I have posted in this forum, by any individual.
I am quite confident, (with one exception, a post which I submitted in a hurry and subsequently apologized and retracted portions of)... in the facts that I have posted on this board, as almost without exception, they were furnished to me by State or Federal Officials, and were not supposition or inuendo on my part (I have a large file of e-mails to support this...)
Further, I would strongly suggest that no other IHub poster submit to any kind of scare tactics in a similar vein.... we are, I feel (with some quite specific exceptions from posters who were patently wrong and quite out of order in their submissions), on quite solid ground here, and we, collectively, as a group of RSDS investors, should not be the individuals held to account here... that fact, to me, is quite obvious.
Now, to your post....
I'm not sure the clock issue on a 504 is quite a clearly defined and understood as we may think it is..., I'm not suggesting I have an answer for you, but below is a message I sent to a very knowledgable individual who is 'in the business' asking for clarification and his response.... I'm still not absolutely sure what the answer is, but please feel free to expand on my thought process below if you feel so inclined.
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi xxxx,
I've managed to tie myself into something of a knot in an attempt to interpret one particular aspect of Regulation D, Rule 504 and was hoping you might be able to help me unpick it...
On the SECs web page, covering Rule 504 of Regulation D, http://www.sec.gov/answers/rule504.htm the first paragraph they describe the exemption from registration requirements as follows:
Rule 504 of Regulation D provides an exemption from the registration requirements of the federal securities laws for some companies when they offer and sell up to $1,000,000 of their securities in any 12-month period.
It clearly states 'in any 12-month period'. The SECs Rule 504 of Regulation D web page links to The University of Cincinnati College of Law, Secutires Lawyer's Deskbook web pages, where
I subsequently read through the Rule 501 Definitions and Terms used in Regulation D http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule501.html the Rule 502 General Conditions to be met http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule502.html and their own Rule 504 Web Page http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule504.html .
I am struggling on two fronts, the first is the calculation of the aggregate offering price under Rule 504 from the following page http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule504.html :
2. The aggregate offering price for an offering of securities under this Rule 504, as defined in Rule 501(c), shall not exceed $1,000,000, less the aggregate offering price for all securities sold within the twelve months before the start of and during the offering of securities under this Rule 504, in reliance on any exemption under section 3(b), or in violation of section 5(a) of the Securities Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The calculation of the aggregate offering price is illustrated as follows:
If an issuer sold $900,000 on June 1, 1987 under this Rule 504 and an additional $4,100,000 on December 1, 1987 under Rule 505, the issuer could not sell any of its securities under this Rule 504 until December 1, 1988. Until then the issuer must count the December 1, 1987 sale towards the $1,000,000 limit within the preceding twelve months.
Note 2: If a transaction under Rule 504 fails to meet the limitation on the aggregate offering price, it does not affect the availability of this Rule 504 for the other transactions considered in applying such limitation. For example, if an issuer sold $1,000,000 worth of its securities on January 1, 1988 under this Rule 504 and an additional $500,000 worth on July 1, 1988, this Rule 504 would not be available for the later sale, but would still be applicable to the January 1, 1988 sale.[/b/
On the face of it, that seems quite clear, but then I read the following and it only served to confuse my understanding of the calculation of the aggregate offering price. This is from the Rule 502 General Conditions to Be Met page http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule502.html
The following conditions shall be applicable to offers and sales made under Regulation D:
Integration. All sales that are part of the same Regulation D offering must meet all of the terms and conditions of Regulation D. Offers and sales that are made more than six months before the start of a Regulation D offering or are made more than six months after completion of a Regulation D offering will not be considered part of that Regulation D offering, so long as during those six month periods there are no offers or sales of securities by or for the issuer that are of the same or a similar class as those offered or sold under Regulation D, other than those offers or sales of securities under an employee benefit plan as defined in rule 405 under the Act.
The former seems to indicate a 12 month period from the first registered sale of securities under a specific Reg D Rule 504, whereas the latter seems to suggest a period covering 6 months prior to the start of a Reg D offering and 6 months after its completion.
I am trying to understand the following hypothetical situation; If a Company instigates a Reg D offering begining on June 1st 2007 and sells securities under Rule 504, culminating in a final sale which totals $1 million, and exhausts that particular Reg D offering on March 1st 2008, a period of 9 months from start to finish, on what date could they legally begin to offer securities for sale under a new Reg D Rule 504 Offering...?
I understand that securities sold under Rule 505 and 506 could run concurrently with a Rule 504 offering, but I dont believe that to be an issue here, my focus therefore is squarely on Rule 504.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond (at your convenience as always), to this question Mark.
Cheers, J.
.... and his response.....
John, I'm sorry. There's no way I can get around to even reading this carefully, much less responding, until next weekend at best. I've got projects from employees, plus two new business projects, that require my attention. A quick glance at your question seems to indicate that it's about time clocks on Section 504's. I don't think I have the answer off the top of my head, I may have it in one of my reference texts, but, if not, I'll get it from one of our attorneys.
Once again, I apologize.
I will endeavour to post more in the next few days....
Cheers, J.
Hi TekNuLoof,
thanks for your support and as per your suggestion(not to spam)... here is a complete repost, bold and italics included of my original post on the RSDS board...
I intend to let this gestate for a week or so, in order that all interested parties have an opportunity to voice their support, prior to taking the next step...
Cheers, J.
Hi Dak
I'm not sure many would describe me as a pumper of this stock (although Ironman does not refer specifically to me)... I understand the reasons for your recent shift in opinion... it may very well be the case that investors have been duped here... or not...!! (and fair, reasonable, individuals, who are not too quick to jump to conclusions... will take note of that comment please, the facts are scattered quite lightly on the ground at this point in time)...
Could it simply be the case, that the CEO raised expectations above the level that they realisticly should have been...? And that those statements were compounded quite unfortunately, by posters who blindly supported every statement fed to us....
We have a CEO who has described himself in (it has to be said), rather glowing terms, extolled his regulatory knowledge and the professional (mining) experience of those individuals (family members or not), who are embarking on this project with him... could it possibly be that there is no premeditated plan to defraud investors here...? And instead, that we are simply dealing with a group of individuals who 'oversold' us on their abilities in an effort to drum up support (with no attempt to defraud in mind).... I feel very strongly that it may indeed be the latter, not the former, with which we are currently faced...
I have a faint suspicion that this post will be attacked roundly as 'my being naieve'... but I have questioned the actions and statements of the CEO every step of the way here... and although I have not received an overwhelming positive response to my appeals to question everything... I also am not convinced (facts ladies and gents...) at this point in time, that we are the victims of fraud.
There has been much speculation as to whether Mr. Berman reads this board, I, for one hope that he is today, as I would like to give Mr Berman the benefit of the doubt at this point in time.
This board is spiraling out of control... I have to admit that I lobbied Makesumgravy to insert me as Asst Mod, with a singular goal in mind... an attempt to center this board... I would like to appeal to all investors still holding stock, to seriously consider taking part in a collective, respectful and thoughtfull attempt to approach Mr. Berman, one last time, in an attempt to engage in an exchange of information... in short; answers to the questions that the majority of shareholders are concerned about...
Once forumulated, the request would be formally submitted to Mr. Berman by e-mail, to the registered contact address for Russell Industries, so we can be sure it has reached him. If it falls on deaf ears, so be it. At that point, personally, I will request to be removed from the Asst Mod position and move on to other things...
Not to engage us would be Mr. Bermans prerogative, of course, but I am hoping that he may see some value and sense in this approach, as we are after all, the (majority of)individuals who have provided the funds with which, to date, he has purchased claims, filed for regulatory approval (permits), purchased drilling equipment, and of course, paid salaries. If he has any respect for the position we hold as shareholders of RSDS (as per his former statement)... then there is only one course of action, in my humble opinion.
I am hoping that common sense prevails (at least in the short term..), that a collective effort can be achieved by any and all who feel its worth the effort (and why the hell not at this point..!) and that the sensationalist postings accusing Mr. Berman of being responsible for committing a litany of heinous acts will take a back seat (respecfully), and that this attempt be allowed to take place without too much opposition (fair comments aside... I'm not suggesting anybody be gagged... just an opportunity to actually expose what the hell is going on here... help... not hindrance)
To begin... and in order that this proposal attain some relevance and weight, I would like to compile a list of all investors (stock holders only please...), who would like to see this proposal (to be discussed further in open forum)... submitted in their name.
If you have an interest in taking part in this (I hate to be so mellowdramatic, but...) 'last stand'... please submit your user name to me by PM... I will then compile a complete list and post it publicly in the forum for all to see just how much support this idea has... If it turns out that its just me and a mentally unstable poster from michigan... This will be the last you hear from me in public... lol... I know that may be welcome news to some posters, but please, give this idea some serious consideration and lets put our differences aside... I implore you.
Cheers, J.
p.s. As there may be some regulars not reading the board for one reason or another, if you find favor with this idea and would like to see it carried forward, please contact other RSDS investors you know who may possibly be interested and inform them of the existence of this post for their consideration. Thanks.
Dak,
I'm not sure many would describe me as a pumper of this stock (although Ironman does not refer specifically to me)... I understand the reasons for your recent shift in opinion... it may very well be the case that investors have been duped here... or not...!! (and fair, reasonable, individuals, who are not too quick to jump to conclusions... will take note of that comment please, the facts are scattered quite lightly on the ground at this point in time)...
Could it simply be the case, that the CEO raised expectations above the level that they realisticly should have been...? And that those statements were compounded quite unfortunately, by posters who blindly supported every statement fed to us....
We have a CEO who has described himself in (it has to be said), rather glowing terms, extolled his regulatory knowledge and the professional (mining) experience of those individuals (family members or not), who are embarking on this project with him... could it possibly be that there is no premeditated plan to defraud investors here...? And instead, that we are simply dealing with a group of individuals who 'oversold' us on their abilities in an effort to drum up support (with no attempt to defraud in mind).... I feel very strongly that it may indeed be the latter, not the former, with which we are currently faced...
I have a faint suspicion that this post will be attacked roundly as 'my being naieve'... but I have questioned the actions and statements of the CEO every step of the way here... and although I have not received an overwhelming positive response to my appeals to question everything... I also am not convinced (facts ladies and gents...) at this point in time, that we are the victims of fraud.
There has been much speculation as to whether Mr. Berman reads this board, I, for one hope that he is today, as I would like to give Mr Berman the benefit of the doubt at this point in time.
This board is spiraling out of control... I have to admit that I lobbied Makesumgravy to insert me as Asst Mod, with a singular goal in mind... an attempt to center this board... I would like to appeal to all investors still holding stock, to seriously consider taking part in a collective, respectful and thoughtfull attempt to approach Mr. Berman, one last time, in an attempt to engage in an exchange of information... in short; answers to the questions that the majority of shareholders are concerned about...
Once forumulated, the request would be formally submitted to Mr. Berman by e-mail, to the registered contact address for Russell Industries, so we can be sure it has reached him. If it falls on deaf ears, so be it. At that point, personally, I will request to be removed from the Asst Mod position and move on to other things...
Not to engage us would be Mr. Bermans prerogative, of course, but I am hoping that he may see some value and sense in this approach, as we are after all, the (majority of)individuals who have provided the funds with which, to date, he has purchased claims, filed for regulatory approval (permits), purchased drilling equipment, and of course, paid salaries. If he has any respect for the position we hold as shareholders of RSDS (as per his former statement)... then there is only one course of action, in my humble opinion.
I am hoping that common sense prevails (at least in the short term..), that a collective effort can be achieved by any and all who feel its worth the effort (and why the hell not at this point..!) and that the sensationalist postings accusing Mr. Berman of being responsible for committing a litany of heinous acts will take a back seat (respecfully), and that this attempt be allowed to take place without too much opposition (fair comments aside... I'm not suggesting anybody be gagged... just an opportunity to actually expose what the hell is going on here... help... not hindrance)
To begin... and in order that this proposal attain some relevance and weight, I would like to compile a list of all investors (stock holders only please...), who would like to see this proposal (to be discussed further in open forum)... submitted in their name.
If you have an interest in taking part in this (I hate to be so mellowdramatic, but...) 'last stand'... please submit your user name to me by PM... I will then compile a complete list and post it publicly in the forum for all to see just how much support this idea has... If it turns out that its just me and a mentally unstable poster from michigan... This will be the last you hear from me in public... lol... I know that may be welcome news to some posters, but please, give this idea some serious consideration and lets put our differences aside... I implore you.
Cheers, J.
p.s. As there may be some regulars not reading the board for one reason or another, if you find favor with this idea and would like to see it carried forward, please contact other RSDS investors you know who may possibly be interested and inform them of the existence of this post for their consideration. Thanks.
Hey TMCC,
You wont hear any disagreement from me, however, you wont find me whipping up a hanging crew unless we can uncover concrete facts to indicate one is necessary... and that doesnt mean an increase in AS...
We still have an opportunity to come together on this board and collectively approach Mr Berman to respectfully request some form of structured and ultimately fair Q and A exchange... whether that eventually comes to pass, only time will tell... but I will continue to work to further that agenad until the board implodes... at which time I'll crack open another beer and find something more interesting to do instead...
Cheers, J.
Ease up there big guy... if you have an issue on those who have posted on dewatering, please check my previous posts regarding the issue...
It had less to do with bringing down RSDS than it did in attempting to establish the manner of the man holding the reins of this company TMCC...
Mr Berman stated (privately, in e-mail, not publicly it should be noted).... that Dewatering of any part of the rage claims, was not and never had been an issue....
Documents provided to me and posted on this board by OGM indicate that not only WAS it an issue, (which led to their initial NOI being suspended until such time as an amended version, removing the portion requiring that an adit be dewatered was removed), but it was an issue raised initially by RSDS themselves in their NOI to OGM....
In short Sir, Mr Berman was (given the evidence available to us now) lying on this issue.... that goes to credibility and the capacity for further questionable behaviour on the part of this man...
I am only surprised at the LACK of outrage. and that this kind of behaviour is tolerated, and that board participants ... the much softer target of course... become the focus of these kind of attacks....
I am glad to read that you have questions... I too have questions, questions about the strategy of RSDS in March and their PR's juxtaposed with their actions.... more to come on that...
Good luck with your investments TMCC.... but to all RSDS investosrs, for ch**sts sake people.. wake the f**k up and stop blindly taking the word of a CEO who has so far only shown a propensity to deliver half truths and obfuscate every important issue....
Cheers, J.
Hi Aries,
as a brief introduction to my opinion of Mr Anthony Brandt, and in answer to your question, I will say this much...
We certainly did address each other by our first names... I found him to be a most articulate and engaging personality.
We spoke on three separate occasions, (I had to go to some lengths to uncover his cell phone number, and as I mentioned previously, he does not have a land line or internet connection )... so during the first two, he was most relaxed and forthcoming with information...
I dont belive he was committing any sin by discussing current and projected RSDS activities with me and although he certainly liked to talk, he didnt divulge anything which I would categorize as 'ex parte' information.
I found him to be most engaging and we chatted on a number of issues, mostly pertaining to RSDS of course, but by my third phone call, things had changed dramatically....
To say he was tight lipped would be an understatement, it was quite obvious that Mr Berman had 'read him the riot act' and addressed the issue of discussing RSDS with investors; the most I could extract from him was a 'Yes' or 'No'... the phone call lasted all of 3 minutes, when I became aware of the degree to which the situation had changed (I was also acutely aware that he was in the company of another individual, I believe that individual was Mr Bermans Brother), I apologized for bothering him, assured him, that as previously stated I would not divulge (at his request) the details of our discussions, wished him all the best and hung up....
...but then to my opinion concerning the substance of our conversations.... more to follow on that, but suffice to say that it accounts in large part for my decision (leading to suggestions that my questions were agenda driven and designed to bash this stock...) to ask quite specific questions about the Mining Knowledge, experience and the ability of Mr Berman and Mr Brandt to deliver on their (RSDS's PR) aforementioned stated claim, that the shareholders would remain the priority for this company...
Cheers, J.
Hi Aries,
Thanks for that, I've actually seen it already, but I'll use your post as an opportunity to comment (for what its worth), if I may...
On the face of it this is quite positive and certainly seems to have whipped a few board participants into a frenzy of euphoria at the news that we have 'ostensibly' located uranium in the aforementioned drilled holes....
A few points to note and words of caution however... please read this very carefully as Mr Berman, given his past history, seems to be quite partial in the use of semantical foreplay...
an independent uranium drill logging company contracted by the company began the initial step in the process of quantification on the first ten holes drilled on its Cache claims in Utah's Lisbon Valley
So, an independant unamed drill logging company, began the 'initial step' in the process of quantification on the first ten holes drilled....
Would it be presumptuous to ask which drill logging company...? and the depth to which these holes were drilled?
This is how Mesa deliver good news of this type... The full PR release can be found at http://www.mesauranium.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=191942&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=Mes....
June 18, 2007
Mesa Uranium Begins Drilling At Lisbon Valley Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Uranium Corp. (TSX.V: MZU) ("Mesa") is pleased to announce commencement of drilling at its 100%-owned Lisbon Valley project in San Juan County, Utah. Bob Beeman Drilling Company of Moab, Utah has been selected as the drilling contractor and Jet West Geophysical Services of Farmington, New Mexico will provide drill hole logging services. Drill programs have been designed for the following target areas with an expected minimum of 50,000 feet:
... the full PR also includes target maps and quite definitive information related to the exploratory drilling... This is the way Mesa conduct themselves... does anybody out there actually think that if there is substance to the claims made by Mr Berman regarding these claims, that he shouldnt perhaps be equally forthcoming...?
To confirm these findings using alternate methodology, core samples taken from the tailings of the drilled holes are being sent to an independent laboratory for assay
....interesting... and just how were these cutting samples collected...? I see no cyclone/hopper to collect reverse circulation samples and the hole (we can see in the picture) is not sealed, which suggests this is direct circulation; pressurised water (as opposed to air given the lack of compressor and effing big water bowser in the foreground), forced down the drill rod to lubricate the tricone bit and return cuttings to the surface... there is also no reservoir to capture cuttings (contaminated as they return up the outside of the drilling rods) to be filtered and bagged for further analysis... so again... how were these contaminated samples collected... interesting question dont you think...?
Preliminary field analysis of these tailings indicates such mineralization as to suggest a reasonable probability that uranium is present in the area.
Despite some real crackers, this has to be the most ambiguous statement to date from any RSDS representative... "a reasonable probability that uranium is present in the area"... no sh*t.... historically 'the area' is positively swamped in uranium ore... heaven forbid that we should receive anything more substantive than the perpetual ambiguous statements we are so used to now... yawn...
Ok... back to building the house...
Cheers, J.
The facts seem to contradict your statement...
If 'he does not give a hoot about whether or not there are posts here'.... (an opinion which you seem to state quite definitively, so must have come directly from him to you...? Glad to know somebody still has preferred communication status...)... Then why, please do tell, has he spent so much of his valuable time consumed with the nature and substance of posters comments on this board....
If youre going to make this kind of statement, you really shouldnt presume we've all spent the last 12 weeks with our heads up our a**, oblivious of Bermans opinion of this board and its users.... the facts in the form of previous posts are out there... please take the time to read them thoroughly before you offer a statement such as 'he does not give a hoot about whether or not there are posts here... It is quite simply an incorrect assessment... whether it was passed to you during a friendly phone conversation of you just decided to whittle it up from your fervant imagination.
Before we all get too carried away with the 'end of the world' scenario for RSDS... (which it may very well be... but who knows at present...)
There is still a lot to discuss about this stock and the companys activities at present....
I have to admit that I am itching to opine on the website mining photographs, but am waiting for some additional information prior to doing so...
My career has been quite singularly focused in a military vein for the past couple of decades; I have experienced exhillarating highs and soul shattering lows, travelled widely, but all in all its been good stuff...
I never thought it would ever serve a usefull purpose to be honest... but prior to embarking on that career, I worked for a drilling company in the UK for 18 months or so... hardly that comprehensive, but I've worked track mounted coring rigs, and hydraulically operated rotary rigs using both direct and reverse circulation (direct (or blast rotary drilling) is a method which pumps air or water down the center of a single core rod and it returns back up between the rod and the hole being drilled...) by contrast Reverse Circulation pumps air down the outer of the duo rods (two rods in one) two cores, and the cuttings are returned through the center of the rod and fed to a cylcone/hopper for the purpose of bagging and sampling by depth... the outside of the hole is normally sealed with a mixture of bentonite and water to prevent leakage of the compression (it acts as both a sealant and lubricant)...
On the Reverse Air Circulation jobs I worked, we hauled around a big, actually, very big, 750cfm compressor which operated the down the hole hammer at approx 250-300 psi.... NOT the kind of snot nosed compressor you see guys digging up the roads with... if you stood too close to this thing it would suck the air out of your lungs... I believe similar compressors these days are slightly more compact, but more powerfull still....
Drilling is hard, wet, heavy, and quite honestly, thankless work, (but as it often means working away from home and staying in hotels... at least you can drink profusely....). I often cursed the job, slipped on my arse in bentonite, had my face covered in copper slip, which is a bitch to get off, and even lost the tip of the index finger on my right hand one cold, wet, slippery night whilst trailering a duo rod, I believe ours weighed in the region of 200lbs a piece at least, could have been more.... it was a crush injury, but thankfully due to the cold I didnt feel that much... the nurse almost collappsed when they removed my glove and the tip dangled off by a thread, haha....
Lot of waffle I know... but in short I have an opinion on what I have seen based on personal drilling experience, and not as a result of scouring a drilling related website... (no offence to Faz's efforts to inform the board of drilling terminology and method...)
One little nugget I would like to serve to the board at this point however as it seems not to have been picked up on by anybody to date, is the following.....
Please take a look at the photographs on the RSDS website www.ru308.com again please... (I stand to be corrected on this, but please believe me when I say that I am supremely confident that I will not be... lets call that a kind of Berman type safe harbour statement...haha...)
Mr Anthony Brandt (in the baseball cap (plus one change of shirt) not the skinheaded dude)... please take a bow....
This is the same Mr Anthony Brandt who was a part owner in many of the Pay Day and Rage claims now owned by RSDS, it is the same Anthony Brandt who is RSDS's registered agent in the State of Utah... The same Anthony Brandt of BRW Mines (Monticello, Utah), incidentally, the BRW acronym stands for 'Brandt, Ramsay, Wilcox'... (confirmed by Mr Anthony Brandt himself during one of our 3 telephone conversations), if the names are not familiar to you, with all due respect, you need to read the contents of this board back at least 6 months... BRW are the company mentioned in the following RSDS PR from Mar 26....
HOUSTON, TX, Mar 26, 2007 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Russell Industries, Inc. (RSDS.PK) has agreed to acquire 8 Uranium mine claims, known as the "Rage Mining Claims" in San Juan County, Utah from BRW Mines (Monticello, Utah). The Company plans to engage BRW to mine part of the claims in coordination with buy orders from interested mills. "The opportunity to acquire these claims is consistent with Russell Industries strategic plan for 2007", Rick Berman, President. The transaction should close in April.
...little is known about BRW other than the surnames of the principles involved form the acronym, as it is not registered as a business with the Utah Secratary of State... we're otherwise in the dark....
...furthermore... it appears that Mr Brandt is a drilling rig operator... now theres value for money... although I confess I cant tell you what portion of the $350k sucked up for salary payments were kicked his way...
I have a lot more on Brandt and his connection to these claims and RSDS, but more on that later.... I just thought it would be nice for the board participants to be able to put a face to oft mentioned name on this board.... I guess Mr Berman could have taken the opportunity to introduce him...in fact there are a lot of things Mr Berman could have done to better inform and elevate investor confidence in this stock... but alas....
...so, my opinion on the drilling photographs for what its worth... (not attempting to deliver the final word or cast aspersions as to RSDS drilling operation...but as we've getting sweet FA from the CEO, I would think any opinion grounded in some fact is of some benefit...)... will follow... as will my opinion on Mr Anthony Brandt....
Incidentally, to date, I believe I am the only person to have actually tracked down (Not an easy task believe me) Mr Anthony Brandt and spoken to him on three occasions... he doesnt own a land line or internet connection, simply a cell phone with crap signal capability.... IF any other board participants has spoken to Mr Brandt, I'd love to hear from you so we can compare notes... failing that, I'll offer my sole opinion with respect to our three separate conversations soon...
Cheers, J.
Sorry I disagree... am I just reeling in a parallell universe where this kind of s**t is accepted without comment....
Is it fair to ask where the solidarity was when it was genuinely needed, the solidarity to post questions as to whether we had a CEO of character who said what he meant and meant what he said... furthermore, a CEO who would stand by a statement such as "the RSDS shareholders are and will remain the companies number one focus..."
The answer plain and simple is there wasnt any, so why are you expecting any now?... because all of a sudden the masses have seen the light... oh dear... the light was always on... all that was required was for you to take those damn blinkers off...
Cheers, J.
That would 'of course' be with the exception of the "connect" he had with Makesumgravy, your own cosy 'under the sheets fumble'... Dak, and his self appointed IHub Rep (and your business partner, Lasernat, to name but a few...
Of course You all do all seem to be he doing a complete 180 degree turn and heading bolting from any suggestion that you were at all complicit in your support... and at full clip on the first F1 Ferrari that will pick your hairy ankle exposed arse up...
I love consistency... it just spreads a warmth we can all feel...
what a fckn joke...