Daily Stock Markets

hmmm yea you obviously are clueless about how much money you can make on penny and otcbb stocks. just watch the stock after the sec investigation is over which is nov. 6th.

 

Bank of America not in your town?

 

geez i'm not wasting time. i came here to share the stock with you guys because i was surfing the forum and this thread showed up. if you want to know more about the stock go to www.hotstockmarket.com or www.cshd.net. there are tons of info on CSHD over there. then you decide whether it's pump and dump, but for you to call this pump and dump without providing proof is idiotic. i'm sure anyone can agree to that.

 

I want to here you say, with out cracking up, that you believe this nothing company owns 1/2 of Venezuela's foreign debt.

 

i guess i can't trust anyone that i can't physically see, so like i said if you can arrange things with that racer guy that lives in encino, california closer to where i live then i can physically meet him and have it escrowed. i have no problem with that. if you want this done arrange things with your butt buddy.

 

where does it say 5 bil? it says 500 mil. READ the document! This is the same document that the sec claims cshd doens't own but this document which can be viewed on the georgia state supreme court website clearly shows cshd owns it. It's right there in fine print.

 

What?? Then how do you trade stocks? You cant see New York!!!

 

The net might be a source of information for some, however, any sage investor will probably consult with his financial advisor, broker, banker....before making any moves, and not make decisions simply based on whatever dishonest mumblings found in cyberspace.

The smart ones know that playing the stocks is a long term affair. Short term flash in the pans will only get you burned.

If only I had a dime for every charlatan that walked into my office (in the last 20 years) with a hot stock tip......

 

The links you gave us mention a bond for 5 bil about three times.

Here is one of them.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2006/comp19883.pdf

 

here you go guys. here's more due deligence. here are other examples of other stocks and companies that were in the same boat as where cshd is now.

www.shellstockreview.com

 

yes in that filing. it states 2 venezuelan bonds. 1 for 5bil and another 500 mil. I showed you the 500mil bond which was included in the audited 10ksb/a. the 5bil is nto audited. it was included in an 8k. the 5bil bond and other bonds will all be AUDITED in the 10q which is due nov. 15.

 

http://www.otcbb.com/asp/Info_Center.asp

look on the sept. 27th pr. this is the 5bil bond that includes isn numbers and codes for the bond on euroclear. The only way to see this bond is if you have access to a euroclear account, and the only way to have a euroclear account is you have to have a minimum of 200mil with euroclear. So the only way for the sec to prove this bond is owned by cshd is for them to verify it with the federal reserve. Did they contact euroclear or the federal reserve. NOPE!

 

Buddie you just opened up a door you dont know what your just got your self into.

 

True words of wisdom.

 

i'm not as conservative with my investments as most are, but if anyone has experience with playing with penny stocks or on the otcbb you would know the potential of making huge sums of money in a short amount of time if you know what you are doing. the difference between long term investments and short term invesments are fundamentals and technical analysis. long term is defined by fundamental analysis in which you use p/e ratios, market movement,and etc. short term uses technical analysis in which you use charts and level 2s. Short term you have to continually monitor but long term you can just leave your investment and expect a certain percentage of growth based on the fundamental analysis of the stock.

You can be a pro with stocks just by reading the internet. the internet is a wonderful tool where youc an find any type of information possible. I personally think those professional broker dealers are out there just to get commisions. It amazes me how sometimes i would ask certain questions to these so called "experts" and they would not know the answer when they are common knowledge. basically what i'm saying is people need to take charge of their own investments instead of depending on these so called experts if you expect a greater amount of gain compared to your typical 10% a year s&p gain.

 

Thats it I have had it and now Im putting a stop to it. I warned you the first time... You did not listen. It is a Federal Crime to Annoy someone via the Internet and you are annoying the Sh** out of me. Its liking listening to a 3 year old that wont shut the F*** up. So here you go One more annoying thing out of you will be reported and if you live in the U.S. we will go to your house and Arrest your Dumb Ass..... JJ

It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

See full article here. Text Below:

By Declan McCullagh

Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST - News.com

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.

 

bla bla bla bla. not one ounce of proof to support your claim. your a wasted mind.

 

The same bond that the SEC investigator says in his declaration to the court, he found was:

a) issued at 700M Euros, not 5B Euros
b) has at least two other large holders
c) has trading activity, implying that there are multiple holders so no entity owned the entire issue

In other words, it's not possible for CSHD to own a 5B position in this bond as claimed in the PR.

 

In a forum dedicated to a symbol of wealth and success? And thusly populated by those who have obtained both? Thusly pretty smart and not prone to scams? Damn strait he did!

 

do it. i'm in in no way annoying you. this is a public forum and public thread. i have not pmed you in any way. do it buddy! you have nothing on me. your annoying yourself by comign to this thread and using your own two eyes to read what is being said. why don't you shut down the thread if your annoyed, that's right all of you have no proof. come back when you have proof otherwise go try suing me for voicing my opinion.

 

Someone just pull him.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................Please. and if your a man you will post your ID on this site. JJ

 

thank you for providing some dd to back up your claims. if you look into bloomberg using the provided isn numer and codes given in past prs concerning the 500mil bond you will see it as a 700 mil bond, because it is traded with multiple ownership, but cshd owns 500mil of that 700mil bond. also if you look on bloomberg since any of us can't obviously use euroclear to verify the bond it will only show past ownership and not current ownership of the bond. Same applies to the 5bil bond. Again i commend you for your dd. anything else?

 

to be honest your the one annoying me. your the one threatening me so watch what you say.

 

is there any point to this thread that relates to Southern California

 

Damn, just ran out of popcorn. Going to have to raid the kids halloween candy...

I don't know about you guys, but I always get my stock advice from internet forums. How do you think I was able to afford a 1975 308gt4...

Dom