MSB Global Capital Corp. (MSBM)

[JohnIraq]

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 - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
[e-mail]









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 - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
[e-mail]









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 - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
[e-mail]











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 - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
[e-mail]









...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 - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
[e-mail]






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 - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
[e-mail]








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 - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
[e-mail]






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 - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
[e-mail]







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 - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
[e-mail]




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.