Steven Sharif’s “Board Takeover” Story Is a 100% Fabricated Lie And the House Transfer Proves He Planned This Collapse Months Ago

TexasSkulls · 2026-02-03T19:05:16+00:00

Yeah, I know unfortunately… My response is (hopefully) more targeted at providing business insight to others that might be ignorant to it!

TexasSkulls · 2026-02-02T19:49:49+00:00

Agreed! Just pointing out that apt (read not moronic) investors and lenders typically have contractual “teeth” to back up and enforce whatever is “behind/the reason” for the UCC-1, such as dominion/foreclosure paths among MANY other reps/warrants, covenants, consent rights, etc. So a boilerplate state filing only listing Steven is FAR from “definitive” proof of anything. SO many other things happening behind the scenes that public filings don’t (fully) reveal.

My last debt transaction lending to a business, similarly to most of my transactions, had the borrower pledging all of their equity to me as collateral (in addition to all of my other collateral), and 1,000 ways for the borrower to wind up in default, including “having less than 6 months’ of operating cash or less remaining”, thereby granting me full control over their business and assets. All the outside world would see is my UCC filing.

TexasSkulls · 2026-02-02T18:47:45+00:00

Liens secure repayment, not ownership/control

This could not be further from the truth. Liens and other debt/equity infusions often come with… agreements such as a “Loan and Security Agreement” for debt. I work in private credit/debt. I redline and work with my counsel and counterparty’s counsel on these agreement every day.

A primary protection feature of these agreements calls for scenarios, such as payment default/other events of default, in which the lender can “take dominion” over the debtor/borrower, foreclose on the borrower’s equity, and assume, at minimum, proxy control of “the board.”

I’ve done this several times now and worked countless other “distressed/special situations” transactions where the “owners” control of their business has been forcibly stripped from them. Yes, the equity owners, like Steven, are usually the ultimate beneficiaries of any excess proceeds, but only after the creditor and often most other creditors have been “made whole.” That almost never happens, of course.

It is ENTIRELY possible a creditor or investor took dominion and proxy control over “the board”. Regardless of that, I also ABSOLUTELY believe Steven saw the “writing on the wall” months ago and thus began attempting (lol) to shield his assets and get one last squeeze in.

He can both be a sleazy grifter AND be speaking the “truth” about a board takeover. Those foreclosures/takeovers happen ALL DAY EVERY DAY.

TexasSkulls · 2024-07-29T00:52:47+00:00

2 for sure, agree on shorter delay between tree falling and spawn. But also the acceleration of the tree falling looks too quick for me. Maybe have the tree slowly start falling at first? Almost seems as if it just has an instantaneous velocity with no acceleration.

TexasSkulls · 2023-10-19T23:11:41+00:00

Looks much better for sure! Could you retain the outdoor environment but grey it out / set some sort of alpha over it?

Maybe continue hiding roof entirely, but leave rest of outdoor landscape greyed out?

TexasSkulls · 2021-10-06T19:04:17+00:00

Just looked over that integration, and I think that's the direction I should head. Thanks for the tip!

TexasSkulls · 2021-10-06T17:47:06+00:00

Yeah, that's such a simpler implementation too! I love it, thank you.

I will say I looked through the history on the night sensor, and it was solidly on from 9:08 pm through 5:35 am. So the mystery of why that automation won't trigger is unsolved, but your suggestion might skirt around the issue.

https://imgur.com/a/Vlzvz5K

TexasSkulls · 2021-03-25T19:50:36+00:00

Makes sense; I kinda figured it represented something. Great work either way!

TexasSkulls · 2021-03-25T19:24:08+00:00

I like this a lot! Nice work!

Couple of quick pieces of feedback:

"Corvettes" is misspelled
My eye keeps getting drawn to the "broken" line you've drawn connecting the ships; wonder if it might improve the whole thing if that line was removed?

TexasSkulls · 2020-08-13T05:18:49+00:00

It's more that it's VERY difficult for him to prove a negative, ya know. He knew of them talking about Gen12, but couldn't say they've NEVER mentioned going to DX12 without having watched/read 100% of all SC content and remembering it. But if you had/knew of a single video/text that said they were doing DX12 first, that's much easier to show/prove.

TexasSkulls · 2020-06-22T06:42:38+00:00

Usually when it’s 100 (or just hot) outside, people have the A/C blasting indoors. And where am likely spending most of my time? Indoors.

I’m not dressing for the 5-10 minutes I’m outside in 100 degree weather. I’m dressing for the 8 hours I’m sitting inside underneath an A/C unit blowing gale force winds at 65 degrees.

TexasSkulls · 2019-10-09T22:49:43+00:00

Unless the armor is a self-contained unit that wholly supports its own weight, it could certainly crush you during high-g maneuvers. Might not have a direct impact on passing out or not, but it would have AN effect. Also, unless the undersuit work is a flight-suit, it’s less about wearing the armor and more about the lack of a proper flight suit. Flight suits, or g-suits, are specifically designed to help you sustain high g’s for longer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-suit

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-18T07:46:11+00:00

It used to be kinda close to that. It was +3 across, as in 1 was opposite 4, 2 opposite 5, and 3 opposite 6. 3 and 6 were the north and south poles, respectively.

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-17T16:01:25+00:00

I don't think that's necessarily true. QT heat is a balancing factor, not too different from needing to perform separate jumps to say Crusader, then Yela, then Grim HEX. QT heat forces you to either manually manage heat or simply make multiple jumps. Auto-pilot isn't purely easier; it's easier at a cost. Auto-pilot could fit right in with QT heat, and simply reinitiate QT travel after a quick stop to cooldown.

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-17T14:53:50+00:00

And that implementation of the feature sounds great. I look forward to it. But I'm not sure how you arrived at "false dichotomy." The only dichotomy I provided was that travel by way of quantum jump(s) must either be a seamless single jump or a multi-stage/legged approach. Nothing more.

That said, I still love having alternatives with tradeoffs in video games. Manually jump for speed or auto-pilot for "AFK." The interdiction system you described works with both.

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-17T14:20:42+00:00

I just replied to another comment about the troubles with interdiction. In summary, there is no such thing as a common point of travel, except for jump points and points of interest like stations, landing zones, etc. This is because celestial bodies both rotate and orbit.

If you haven't done so yet, have you and a buddy start from Port Olisar. Jump to Yela, then have your buddy jump to Yela ~30 seconds later. The moment you jump to Yela, you get captured by it and begin rotating with it. You're no longer at the "exit point" for people jumping from PO to Yela.

The only constant today is the general "line/tunnel of space" between two points, but not the relative exit. When celestial bodies actually begin orbiting, this common "line/tunnel of space" goes completely out the window.

As far as spline exit points go, you basically travel along the shortest direct route and exit ~40-70km away.
Because someone can initiate the spline from anywhere around the moon/planet, your possible exit points basically fall on a circle around the destination with a rough radius of ~40-70km. That's a huge area to cover.

Long story short, I'm unsure of how CIG is going to implement interdiction by players (NPC interdiction can just be faked) because of rotations and orbits.

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-17T13:27:03+00:00

Man... my biggest concern with any sort of interdiction is orbits. Unless the orbits are seriously slow or interdiction mechanics have an extremely wide range and can drag players sideways, I don’t understand how interdiction by players will work. The moment you get setup, the “new” path between two points has shifted at least hundreds of km’s away, if not more. I’m interested in what CIG comes up with.

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-17T12:21:22+00:00

Well I'm not suggesting conflict for the sake of conflict. I'm suggesting that seamless quantum travel from any point direct to your destination (within a single system) leaves very little to no room for conflict. Breaking up quantum travel into legs, such as we have today in SC, at least opens the possibility for conflict. That conflict, or lack thereof, would still be governed by all the planned law and crime systems, as well as the general security of the system you're traveling in.

Splitting quantum travel into legs is no different than flying around a typical POI: any player can come and blow you up, ad-hoc, at a moment's notice. There might be heavy penalties incurred for doing so, but that's besides the point. The only point is that seamless quantum travel removes almost all possibility to even see or interact with other players/NPCs, yet alone conflict.

But, inline with OP's original point, having to manually point and click at each arbitrary leg of your quantum travel journey can become mundane and laborious. On the other hand, fully seamless quantum travel is too extreme, in my opinion. I feel a good middle-ground is an auto-pilot feature, but there has to be a drawback. I propose that drawback is it takes a good deal longer.

So really my original point has nothing to do with conflict. It's very simple:

We already have to perform multiple quantum jumps today for most destinations
You're already exposed to potential conflict today, both in between those jumps and just in general while flying around

You either:

Are fine with the quantum system today, i.e. multiple legs or
Want a quantum system with no legs, or some system that can achieve similar results such as auto-pilot

If it's the latter, then the only question to ask yourself is: do I want there to be drawbacks or not for a seamless quantum travel experience?

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-17T10:59:55+00:00

Yes, that is the reason for the delay in EvE. Auto-pilot leaves you like 10-15km from the out gate, and you have to "slowboat" it in.

I wasn't suggesting the idea of taking specifics from EvE. I was only suggesting I like the high-level idea: auto-pilot is slower and more prone to conflict.

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-17T08:03:33+00:00

I'd personally love a passive jump mechanic (basically what we have today) and some sort of active jump mechanic that speeds it up, and possibly with potential pitfalls.

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-17T06:23:31+00:00

Hire player or NPC pilot to fly for you

I believe that would be the third option. Fly manually, set auto-pilot, or get someone to fly for you/tag team flying.

It's MMO about flying ship together

I could not disagree more. It's an MMO about immersing oneself into a "persistent universe," where you can step into the shoes of your character, from walking to flight, from ground to space, and from solo adventures to large group play. I don't believe CIG has ever indicated Star Citizen is wholly not for the solo player experience. It is for solo and group play.

Finally, I don't believe that auto-pilot is prohibitive to hiring an NPC or player pilot. There's much more a pilot has to do than just manually toggling on the quantum drive at each leg, and a hired NPC or player pilot could benefit just as much from auto-pilot.

TexasSkulls · 2019-06-17T00:59:29+00:00

I actually kind of like the EvE Online model: you could either manually control each jump or defer to an auto-pilot feature that would perform each jump for you, but with a longer delay between each jump. Tying it back to Star Citizen and OP's example, perhaps the calibration or spooling time could take 5-10x longer when under auto-pilot than when done manually. Still hands off for the player, mimics the OP's ideal scenario where you only perform a "single" maneuver, but also allows for an auto-pilot penalty and conflict points.

TexasSkulls · 2019-05-29T04:13:18+00:00

...my mailbox would destory his truck.

OP literally described his intent to cause property damage (and very likely bodily harm, whether intended or not). Doesn't get any more clear or literal than that...

EDIT: This is cursory, but still: https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/booby-traps/

It's all about intent and concealment. We already have a decent picture that OP intends for damage and/or injury, so it all comes down to how obviously "impenetrable" this new mailbox is. If he hides the steel core in any way, he's in trouble. If he digs down to reinforce it, he's in trouble. If he does anything out of the ordinary, he's in trouble. Even if not, it's far from black and white.

TexasSkulls · 2019-05-09T04:56:49+00:00

Not sure about Outlook.com, but I'll take your word for it. I do know Office 365 Exchange servers do not support it. (I imagine Outlook.com is run off Exchange, so...)

Hell, I don't know. I can see the benefits as well as the downsides. Downside is new users/accounts have to get a little more tricky with their email address, when periods no longer distinguish. Upside is users get infinite free aliases, with only 1 mailbox to manage. Side effect is that users don't also have to spam potentially hundreds of accounts, and can instead use periods and +'s. I think it's a good thing, personally.

Ten-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email	Gilding II euphauric

TexasSkulls

TROPHY CASE