Replies to post #153819 on Conversion Solutions Holdings (fka CSHD)

[samaelrocks]

Of course this means one thing! That the charges of fraud are the only items the SEC can prove. Nothing in the form of ill-gotten gains. So half of their complaint was correct. Unfortunately for shareholders, it was the half that proves the stock to be worthless.

This is also an indication that Rufus was too stupid to gain from a scam he was the ring leader in. Is that a fair synopsis?

[DownWithPumpers]

RPH has already presented evidence showing he has not received ill gotten gains.

So what? Fraud is still fraud. And everything that the SEC has charged him with is assumed true by the court since no one has provided any evidence to the contrary -- in fact nobody for CSHD/Rufus even bothered to show up.

[xlr8rs]

Masta:

The Order does not say that RPH presented evidence; it says that RPH referenced the availability of newly-discovered evidence. Big difference.

On page 3, the Order states:

“Defendant Harris contends that he should be allowed to defend the claims in this
action because of the seriousness of the allegations, references the availability of
newly-discovered evidence, and states that he has fully cooperated with the SEC and
has provided records showing no receipt of ill-gotten gains.”

Okay, let’s break that paragraph down:

1. Harris references the availability of newly-discovered evidence.
2. Harris states that he has fully cooperated with the SEC.
3. Harris states that he has provided records showing no receipt of ill-gotten gains.

[These are all things that RPH stated in his Motion, but have not been proven]

Then on page 4, the Order states:

“Defendant Harris furthermore provides no substantive information regarding the nature of the purported newly-discovered evidence he references in his motion. He does not explain how or when the evidence was obtained, the nature of the evidence, or how the evidence impacts the instant litigation. While Defendant states that he has fully cooperated with the SEC and has provided evidence that he did not receive any ill-gotten gains, Defendant does not explain how this fact, even if true,establishes good cause to set aside the entry of default.”

Let’s break that one down:

1. Harris provides no substantive information regarding the nature of the purported newly-discovered evidence. (“purported” – alleged, assumed, supposed, stated, etc.)
2. Harris does not explain how or when the evidence was obtained.
3. Harris does not explain the nature of the evidence.
4. Harris does not explain how the evidence impacts the instant litigation.

[Again, the evidence RPH refers to in his Motion was not presented]

[neom2006]

Masta, how do you know this? PLease dont tell me your are believing what Rufus has posted. This is one of the most clear cut scams I have ever seen, YOur starting to make yourself look very foolish. IMO

[Hunter6110]

Accroding to Rufus, and you believe that liying POS because??? I mean he has no told the truth about anything to date...

[janice shell]

RPH has already presented evidence showing he has not received ill gotten gains.

lol, you only have his word for that, and his word ain't very good. But what you REALLY don't seem to understand is that it doesn't MATTER whether he profited by the CSHD fraud.

Say you walk into a bank, stick a gun in a teller's face, and ask for money. But the teller ducks and presses the alarm, and you're caught by the cops while trying to flee. You didn't profit. You think that means you won't be prosecuted?