Berman and the company did not blow anything.
Post# of 11803
(Total Views: 307)
Posted On: 04/23/2019 11:03:15 AM
Berman and the company did not blow anything.
The company lawyer Thomas C. Cook issued a new and revised Attorney Letter that was posted on OTC Markets.
Perhaps no-one was supposed to notice, but I did, and I asked a simple question as to a new insertion in the letter.
There was a change to one of the paragraphs in the new letter
How can an entire reworking of a paragraph be misconstrued as a "TYPO"?
The original wording of this particular paragraph is:
"Keith Berman, Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer, is responsible for the preparation of the unaudited financial statements contained in the Report. The qualifications of Mr. Berman are outlined in his biographical information set forth in the Report"
The new wording is:
"Keith Berman, President of the Issuer, is responsible for the preparation of the unaudited financial statements contained in the Report. The qualifications for Mr. Scott are outlined in his biographical information set forth in the Report."
So, Keith Berman went from "Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer" to Keith Berman "President of the Issuer" and Mr. Scott was added in some capacity with qualifications that are not "outlined in his biographical information set forth in the Report" anywhere.
That entire paragraph was important enough to be changed and then passed off as a "typo"?
There are other changes to the letter that can be viewed by anyone who is interested. Just see my initial message that includes the links to the old and the new Attorney Letters.
I take it, by Pluto's huffing and puffing that the entire Attorney Letter is a "TYPO" and of no importance; but why then were the changes made and entered on OTC Markets?
I made one statement and asked a question while going no further.
Pluto came attacking, trailing behind a cloud of dust.
Now, another question...
Why?
The company lawyer Thomas C. Cook issued a new and revised Attorney Letter that was posted on OTC Markets.
Perhaps no-one was supposed to notice, but I did, and I asked a simple question as to a new insertion in the letter.
There was a change to one of the paragraphs in the new letter
How can an entire reworking of a paragraph be misconstrued as a "TYPO"?
The original wording of this particular paragraph is:
"Keith Berman, Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer, is responsible for the preparation of the unaudited financial statements contained in the Report. The qualifications of Mr. Berman are outlined in his biographical information set forth in the Report"
The new wording is:
"Keith Berman, President of the Issuer, is responsible for the preparation of the unaudited financial statements contained in the Report. The qualifications for Mr. Scott are outlined in his biographical information set forth in the Report."
So, Keith Berman went from "Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer" to Keith Berman "President of the Issuer" and Mr. Scott was added in some capacity with qualifications that are not "outlined in his biographical information set forth in the Report" anywhere.
That entire paragraph was important enough to be changed and then passed off as a "typo"?
There are other changes to the letter that can be viewed by anyone who is interested. Just see my initial message that includes the links to the old and the new Attorney Letters.
I take it, by Pluto's huffing and puffing that the entire Attorney Letter is a "TYPO" and of no importance; but why then were the changes made and entered on OTC Markets?
I made one statement and asked a question while going no further.
Pluto came attacking, trailing behind a cloud of dust.
Now, another question...
Why?
(2)
(0)