Either way dtc logic is still deeply flawed-IF IF
Post# of 8059
Posted On: 11/09/2013 3:43:57 PM
Either way dtc logic is still deeply flawed-IF IF there was an issuance of stock into the market in violation of registration requirements why punish innocent 3rd party purchasers -esp with long arbitrary time frames of 6 or 12 months before removal of restriction
when would this have occurred if there was such an unlawful issuance?-sec probed every inch of cwrn -which was found to be clean on ALL counts-only Bob was not exonerated -sec is not used to such a result and brainy sec acts may not have liked the results, so, what, sick dtc on cwrn as a punishment?
so any unlawful issuance would logically have occurred after judge dismissed sec case against cwrn- after bob and cwrn's experience w the sec I doubt that bob-who was prohibited from doing so forever,or cwrn or brad would've issued any stock in violation of registration requirements.
Brads been dealing w transitional issues,plans on registration statement for KMG stock as PR notes, and from circumstantial evidence has not issued any stock yet anyway-why would he at this low pps and volume- something he is aware of.
the other reason for a global lock is stated to be failure to remove a dtc chill- trade for trade restriction within a certain unspecified time
but since until now there has been no transparency by dtc and no stated methods to do so I dont see how cwrn could've violated such a requirement
a deep basher had previously posted a list of co's removed from dtc restriction-but i looked at 3/4 of those co's well over a month after the supposed removal of restrictions and some were still ce and I couldnt verify that a single co had had restrictions lifted -so that may have been a PR ploy under pressure by an agency that does not want its dictatorial dark policies to change
so until dtc can provide a reasonable explanation the other option is they have made a mistake-cant know until they divulge their reason and provide evidence- but in these agencies /the stock market its like a whole new universe where ordinary principals of law like innocent until proven guilty dont apply.
The whole thing is a punishment of innocent 3rd party purchasers -something not allowed in the normal universe- ripe as I've said for a massive class action etc against these unfair dictatorial policies.
So this may force Brads hand to issue a PR, as other co's have, to explain their position in the matter,as cwrn did w a jan 2011 PR re the otc's false premise that cwrn had had a promo in Jan 2011
when would this have occurred if there was such an unlawful issuance?-sec probed every inch of cwrn -which was found to be clean on ALL counts-only Bob was not exonerated -sec is not used to such a result and brainy sec acts may not have liked the results, so, what, sick dtc on cwrn as a punishment?
so any unlawful issuance would logically have occurred after judge dismissed sec case against cwrn- after bob and cwrn's experience w the sec I doubt that bob-who was prohibited from doing so forever,or cwrn or brad would've issued any stock in violation of registration requirements.
Brads been dealing w transitional issues,plans on registration statement for KMG stock as PR notes, and from circumstantial evidence has not issued any stock yet anyway-why would he at this low pps and volume- something he is aware of.
the other reason for a global lock is stated to be failure to remove a dtc chill- trade for trade restriction within a certain unspecified time
but since until now there has been no transparency by dtc and no stated methods to do so I dont see how cwrn could've violated such a requirement
a deep basher had previously posted a list of co's removed from dtc restriction-but i looked at 3/4 of those co's well over a month after the supposed removal of restrictions and some were still ce and I couldnt verify that a single co had had restrictions lifted -so that may have been a PR ploy under pressure by an agency that does not want its dictatorial dark policies to change
so until dtc can provide a reasonable explanation the other option is they have made a mistake-cant know until they divulge their reason and provide evidence- but in these agencies /the stock market its like a whole new universe where ordinary principals of law like innocent until proven guilty dont apply.
The whole thing is a punishment of innocent 3rd party purchasers -something not allowed in the normal universe- ripe as I've said for a massive class action etc against these unfair dictatorial policies.
So this may force Brads hand to issue a PR, as other co's have, to explain their position in the matter,as cwrn did w a jan 2011 PR re the otc's false premise that cwrn had had a promo in Jan 2011
(0)
(0)