Posted On: 05/31/2016 9:40:25 AM
Post# of 7802
Can we agree to disagree for now and let the attorneys conclude the answers from the horses mouth. Or do we have to continue to Assume? Which seems to be your speciality!
YOUR question?
If it's shown there was no such agreement in place with the FBAR concerning "3 items" will you admit it was at the very least deceptive? You know a board poster identified by the company mentioned "3 items" before the company did, don't you?
MY question?
Can we assume there was an agreement with FBAR concerning "3 items". Perhaps a known poster was trying to informative. Can we also assume that poster did not SELL based on that information and wants to "genuinely" help the company. Just a similar question
If it's shown Mary had no such conversation with a lender/investor last September about a permit being ready to go, will you and/or others speak out against that fraudulent activity?
What if it's shown Mary had a conversation with a lender/investor and permit was ready to go. However when it went for final review there had to be changes pending approval? If that is the case no one can read the minds of FBAR AND do what they can to appease their ever changing needs and wants.
What if there are no pending permits as the company suggest there are?
What if there are pending permits as the company suggested there are?
See how this can work. Both ways. No matter what though stockholder to a non stockholder. Can't we let this play out as all these answers will come from a legal legitimate source. I mean we ALL KNOW these questions will be answered by FBAR themselves. Very soon. Right
YOUR question?
If it's shown there was no such agreement in place with the FBAR concerning "3 items" will you admit it was at the very least deceptive? You know a board poster identified by the company mentioned "3 items" before the company did, don't you?
MY question?
Can we assume there was an agreement with FBAR concerning "3 items". Perhaps a known poster was trying to informative. Can we also assume that poster did not SELL based on that information and wants to "genuinely" help the company. Just a similar question
If it's shown Mary had no such conversation with a lender/investor last September about a permit being ready to go, will you and/or others speak out against that fraudulent activity?
What if it's shown Mary had a conversation with a lender/investor and permit was ready to go. However when it went for final review there had to be changes pending approval? If that is the case no one can read the minds of FBAR AND do what they can to appease their ever changing needs and wants.
What if there are no pending permits as the company suggest there are?
What if there are pending permits as the company suggested there are?
See how this can work. Both ways. No matter what though stockholder to a non stockholder. Can't we let this play out as all these answers will come from a legal legitimate source. I mean we ALL KNOW these questions will be answered by FBAR themselves. Very soon. Right
(2)
(1)
