mits, thank you for that info- i remember readi

mits, thank you for that info-

i remember reading aspects of what your post posted but didnt relate it to what i thought was a separate complaint against NNLX re non-science issues
so i thought that only applied to the May science complaint-which seemed to be the context
I will use this post to respond to all three responses to my post

- Ray -the point of my summary judgment comment is that judges will not dismiss a legal action without trial-in the absence of a settlement- unless no reasonable person could find the complaint to have substance
yet the SEC, as a prosecutor -in my experience with other companies i had/have stock in- with whistleblower complaints to the sec -almost never releases or exonerates a company as a matter of policy even if a judge dismisses a complaint or related lawsuits via summary judgment

I had not seen any judge dismiss a whistleblower complaint against NNLX nor was i aware SEC counsel said the matter was resolved-[which report by such counsel would violate normal SEC policy]- despite supplemental info which i did not read because tired of multiple internet error messages which i gave up on-I remember confronting error messages re material which I now understand said the investigation had been resolved- i gave up trying to retrieve those materials which i had no reason to believe would provide important new info-the dismissal of the investigation!!

I  remember NNLX saying they would post detailed info re the attacks against them around October-but i also remember waiting for months waiting for that update-since i missed the update re the added material -i've had to confront so many games lies attacks assassination attempts since being born to a cult leader and having national responsibilities and 7 or more hats nobody else could handle -and the last year has seen more fraud/ deception etc than in probably anytime in recent human history, which adds to my national workload.

i obviously did not connect the May whistleblower re the tech and the presumed whistle blower re NNLX as the same issue nor was i aware of the SEC [in violation of policy] nor the congressman angle re resolution of the complaint-so i didnt see the material beyond that- confronting multiple error messages re the additional material -which is fairly common- so i saw the initial posting without the linked materials to that posting because of error messages

anyway, i'm glad to learn NNLX apparently is NOT being investigated by the SEC nor presumably by Finra etc since the SEC would be the primary investigator to my knowledge in any shared concern matter.

Without an extant SEC investigation that would make the June 10 update more clear-eliminating the otherwise likely legal context. I wish they would have worded the June 10 update differently to make it clear such as:

"Due to a new SEC rule which takes effect Sept 28, we will be upgrading to Pink Sheet current classification to remain quotable. Thus, we will be providing quarterly filings/financials, which will be reported on otcmarkets.com under our stock symbol 'NNLX'.

the update using the term re filing reports w the SEC on a VOLUNTARY basis drove me to distraction- filing reports w the SEC, like taxes or obeying any law, is almost never a 'voluntary' activity; rather, is like teeth pulling to avoid a worse result.

otcmarkets.com "Current classification" if that is what the June update means, imo is a good place for NNLX to reside until commercial breakthrough. 
Many Current info co's are SEC reporting but only because they down-listed from the otcqb when otc added a new otcqb 10k surcharge and min bid test in 2014/2015; otherwise most ' pink current classification' co's are not SEC reporting as the term is usually used in this context.
Being SEC reporting [as that term is normally used-not as NNLX uses the term in the update] often increases the number of filings and amount of info provided significantly, thus substantially increasing costs as well as possible liability, which they will not have to confront since they presumably will not be SEC reporting in the sense in which that term applies to otcmarket classifications.
Current classification as I reported earlier, does not require audited financials, whereas SEC reporting companies[in the sense the terminology is usually used]are required to have audited financials once per year-quarterlies are not usually audited, passing a lesser review process.

June 10,2021
Update on new SEC reporting requirements

We are pleased to announce we will be filing regular reports with the SEC on a voluntary basis. This process does not mean Nanologix is uplisting to a different status, the Company will remain a Pink Sheet company for the time being.

Research and Development on the Rapid Viral Assay (RVA) continues at a research university and additional information will be released this summer.


if ppl want to beat me w a lead pipe i already know they would if they could- i've lived among humans long enough to know that -I've already sacrificed my life to help a ppl who dont want to be helped. Here many are mad at me because i deleted one or more of their posts at some time since anti-NNLX posters discovered this board -thinking i only deleted their posts and nobody elses- others are mad at me for not deleting more posts on this most difficult of all boards where somebody had been pulling strings behind the scenes and may still be doing so. There is no natural explanation for the unprecedented level of unending psychosis on this board.