Replies to post #153876 on Conversion Solutions Holdings (fka CSHD)

[mkendra]

I looked "^$&&#@" up in the dictionary.........couldn't find it........anyhow, why the peeps saying it's over are still here, is beyond me, but don't care - they have that right.

I just have this gut feeling, the SEC opened up a can of worms, when it comes to "where did the money go?"

That's where the FBI and Grand jury come into play.

I think it's called CYA

[xlr8rs]

Masta ... LOL ...

Show me one post where any of you can say that there is even a possibility that RPH is NOT guilty of fraud. Not an IMO to be found. Bizarre!


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24165248

[TEX]

"Your right, this is a scam of monumental proportions....100s of millions of dollars stolen from investors....only RPH didn't do it IMO. This is not over by a long shot, and I'm betting you be SHOCKED to learn the truth about all of this. Don't make me spell it out to you! You know exactly what and who I'm talking about."

If you're talking about Alexander...anybody who can read a filing and add some numbers can see he *reported* raking off $6 to 7 million. Is that enough to split (at various times, by various means) among the principals? Is that enough to cause a feud among the principals? I dunno...

But clearly Harris was CEO, and if *he didn't* know--he SHOULD have known and IS culpable. It's called fiduciary duty. Also, even if he got boxed out on splitting up the take? If this goes to receivership, he can *still* be liable:

"Disgorgement can be ordered against a defendant despite the defendant’s own huge losses in the investment scheme. SEC v. J. T. Wallenbrock & Associates, 440 F.3d
1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2006)."

The legal cites are in the quote, and that's from the following:

http://www.receiverinfo.com/CM/Custom/Receivership-Internet-Sourcebook.pdf

imo, receivership is unlikely due to lack of assets. However, if that principle holds under receivership law, it might also hold true for general disgorgement, which I believe the SEC has already recommended.

imo, all the principals are accountable. Yes, each one would have to prove to my satisfaction that she/he is not culpable in any way before I believe otherwise. I'm not only allowed that, I'm encouraged to foster such wariness: I'm not the court--I'm a trader.

And btw, if you want peeps to quit posting monotonously, you might slice off a chunk o' that Kit-Kat bar, yourself...lol.

For instance, if you really believe in Threshold Price Reset, why not offer up some DD and an argument showing how it applies?

best,

tex

[neom2006]

How do you keep on saying this? Do you really believe the words out of your mouth? RPH was spewing BS before ANY of these other clowns got on board. He was spewing BS on the very first SPR interview. I dont doubt that there are others that did join in on the scam, but without a doubt, Rufus was the head scammer at one point. Now did Rufus end up also getting scammed? I dont know, but to play Rufus off as a poor little innocent man of the people that got screwed is just laughable!! Go back and listen to all of the lies that came out of his mouth on that very first SPR interview. At that time it was only Rufus and Ben and a bottle of Moonshine.
Rufus is a conman, but he is slowly turning himself into the VICTIM with the help of folks like you. Nice work!!!