InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 10
Posts 3317
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/29/2006

Re: h2omd0 post# 157299

Saturday, 04/26/2008 10:04:38 AM

Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:04:38 AM

Post# of 169278
The length of any investigation many times is determined by how much the defendant cooperates. Rufus knew what he was doing by not getting an attorney. He wouldn't get to play the victim if he had one. Without an attorney, Rufus can say whatever he wants and play dumb afterwards.

Most of Rufus's supporters didn't even know that Rufus had to file to increase the authorized shares before handing out the stock divy (or whatever you want to call it). Within the Rufus camp, many still think the SEC is stopping Rufus from performing business. When in fact, Rufus could file or PR anything he wanted... as long as it was true. LOL! Now there's your caveat. If the Rufus supporters or Rufus himself want to talk "TPR" shares, you already know it ain't happening without a filing to increase the AS. That 10K didn't do that.

Too many of the Rufus supporters believe the stock is trading illegally without the 15c211 being filed. Fact is, there are several stocks that continue trading after a Pink sheets delisting pending an investigation or failure to comply. All the 15c211 is required for is for MM's to legally quote the price PUBLICLY. That's it. Since they are a conduit for trades, of course they know how much people are willing to pay or sell the stock. I called my broker to find out and they had to call down to the floor to find out the going prices. How else do you think a Grey sheet trades?

There is no doubt in my mind that you are better informed about Rufus than most. Who cares? Since you're so close, I'm sure Rufus wouldn't mind giving you a SINGLE name of someone in power that is backing him. Let me guess... it's a secret? LOL! Out of all the congressmen letters you received, did ANY expand on the obvious that it's under investigation or show support for Rufus?

Until Rufus names a defendant in a separate case, the only person that has the onus of proof now is Rufus. The burden of proof was on the SEC. They showed their cards. It's up to Rufus now to rebuttle. So far, he's talked about people doing him wrong when the case is surrounding the purported assets. Has it even crossed your mind why Rufus won't present evidence that the assets exist as CSHD property? LOL!
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.