“Contract is not signed?” You are mistaken. Th
Post# of 22465
(Total Views: 573)
Posted On: 08/20/2021 12:58:47 PM
Re: Puravida19 #20625
“Contract is not signed?” You are mistaken. The contract—you know, the one with the deadlines, including the deadline to update SEC filings and position QTMM shares for uplifting—was definitely signed. Then it was modified, including extensions to updater filings. I think what you mean is that Pasaca’s obligation to complete its performance under the contract have not been triggered because QTMM has failed to perform the conditions that would trigger Pasaca’s obligation. Surely you remember the signed contract. It was the subject of several 8-k filings by QTMM. If you recall, QTMM couldn’t shut up about it. Until it filed its notice that the SEC was revoking its registration. Now, curiously, QTMM won’t say a word about it, except some lame mumbling about not being responsible for the content of Pasaca’s website. How can that not instill confidence?
Puravida, please explain what SEWC rules you think Squires would violate by issuing a shareholder update. You seem to be pretty confident that a concern about violating SEC rules is the only explanation. Although, you defend Squires by explaining that QTMM is a private company. We both know that’s not the whole truth. QTMM is a company that is required to have its shares registered because it does not fit into any of the exceptions to registration under the blue sky laws. It is not a private company. It is a pubic company with revoked registration. It is how operating in violation of the laws because, unless it has fewer than 30 shareholders or all of its shareholders are “qualified” shareholders, it must be publicly registered. The SEC’s sole function is to prevent companies from defrauding investors by requiring extensive public disclosures. It’s curious that you think disclosures to shareholders would put QTMM on the wrong side of the SEC. Is this really your best thinking? The best thought you can come up with? The product of a scrupulous, diligent, painstaking application of all of your wit and wisdom? Squires doesn’t want to piss off the SEC? Which, of course, has always been him number one concern? And the thing he thinks would most piss them off is a communication to shareholders? Really? Chances that he is terrified to disclose the truth are close to zero?
Puravida, please explain what SEWC rules you think Squires would violate by issuing a shareholder update. You seem to be pretty confident that a concern about violating SEC rules is the only explanation. Although, you defend Squires by explaining that QTMM is a private company. We both know that’s not the whole truth. QTMM is a company that is required to have its shares registered because it does not fit into any of the exceptions to registration under the blue sky laws. It is not a private company. It is a pubic company with revoked registration. It is how operating in violation of the laws because, unless it has fewer than 30 shareholders or all of its shareholders are “qualified” shareholders, it must be publicly registered. The SEC’s sole function is to prevent companies from defrauding investors by requiring extensive public disclosures. It’s curious that you think disclosures to shareholders would put QTMM on the wrong side of the SEC. Is this really your best thinking? The best thought you can come up with? The product of a scrupulous, diligent, painstaking application of all of your wit and wisdom? Squires doesn’t want to piss off the SEC? Which, of course, has always been him number one concern? And the thing he thinks would most piss them off is a communication to shareholders? Really? Chances that he is terrified to disclose the truth are close to zero?
(0)
(0)