Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
There appears to be agreement explicit or implicit, however, (There's always a "However" ) An argument could be made that the arbitration's arbitrary rules violated Federal Law and/or Due Process by imposing rules of law that were not foreseeable nor anticipated. I.e., the clause that states both LA substantive and LA procedural rules would be followed. That appears to be in conflict with the Diversity Rules. Just looking at the opposition.
Thanks for the PM. Sorry I didn't have time to address everything...However, one issue:
I believe there is a conflict in the terms of the Arbitration Rules, and the Federal Rules. I don't have a copy of the Arbitration Agreement in front of me, but I believe that there is a clause which states that the arbitration process will implement both LA Substantive and LA Procedural rules. Without delving into the yeas and nays of that issue, I would think that that clause could be a viable issue; especially if it was never agreed to by one of the Parties. I'm too busy and just not all that interested. I own less than 1MM shares.
But...
I really dislike the phrase, "Average down". Why...? Cause it's buying more of something that is doing poorly so you now have something that sux only now, have more of them at a lower price.
For what it's worth, I take the IRS track. Buy and sell within a channel designating lots traded. Just one idea.
English speaking Board...el tonto y e stupido
My thoughts on the 250 share trade today.
L1 & L2 remain blank until a trade is made. A trade of any size will set up L2. I don't think that anyone thinks that a 250 share trade will sway anyone. It does however show that the Ticker is trading and available.
I noticed that about you and a couple of others. So glad you agree. Nutshell FRCP would do wonders. Not like a 6 credit course, or actual experience; but it's a start.
I wrote
Got your PM. Nice to communicate with a sane person. I don't show up here often, because mostly we have insult hurling. Can't PM you back, because I don't have that type of account anymore. I dropped my subscription because the temptation is too great not to reply to some of the absurdities.
Civil: He can file an Amicus Brief
Criminal: He can file a Complaint
Re: maybe a 2025 or 2026??...
Optimist
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
She is a master of word manipulation. Don't read what you want it to say; read everything with a critical eye. Break everything down into manageable phrases (parsing). If it has two possible meanings or outcomes...Question it.
If it sounds too good to be true....
Actually, it was a sell of 9765 shares for $1.95 against my 3,000,000 Bid @ .0002. It's annoying, but at least I don't pay commissions on trades.
Great rebuttal. Only problem with it is, as you know; I don't own, nor have I ever owned, nor do I intend to ever own this piece of crap. Also, unlike you, I have never had any financial interest in QEDN, and never will have any financial interest.
But...But...But... She said She had partnered with Amazon. She also said that she had shipped Amazon a whole pallet of Sacha-inchi, and then later admitted that she lied. She sent Amazon nothing. There was no Amazon partnership.
She also posted here that she had a meeting at NASDAQ, when in reality, she had a meeting with a company that occupied space in the same building where NASDAQ leased space. She then displayed the following image.
Why would any sane person believe anything this woman says?!?!?!?!?
Re:
Re:
Shorts covering is bullship. It's MMs shorting back and forth all day long to cover insufficient inventory, because they can't disappoint their Brokers (Clients).
scam. From the SOS:
Coastal Group Partners: Only one listed in U.S. is in Wyoming
30 N Gould St
From WY SOS forms: Principals are also listed as the Registered Agent
Began June 2020
No other name for organizers given
That should tell us some thing.There's a backdoor deal here.
Issues regarding the address listed on link below
https://www.thesheridanpress.com/news/local/another-scam-recorded-from-business-related-to-30-n-gould-st-registered-agent/article_52b040ca-f622-11eb-a595-e7f2de685e62.html
Wyoming
Two questions:Why wasn't money put in escrow? and:
Why weren't all the parties involved named as Defendants?
Just a fly on the wall, observing...But...
If there were 3rd party involvement, even tangentially, the cost to make that Party a named Defendant to the proceedings would be
de minimis.
Re:
After a quick review of Defendant's latest Pleadings, if Defendant can prove it's allegations, my guess has shifted to 70/30 in Defendant's favor. (just a guess). It also explains the failure (or refusal) to respond to Pleadings. As for the change in Attorneys; there are several legitimate tactical reasons for the Defendant's change/substitution.
You are so wrong in so many ways. However, I'm not going to waste time debating. I will however correct one of your errors. FRCP refers to Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. It is a Civil Procedure. Again; read Erie
My PM to you back in November 2023.
JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION:..,. This is a Diversity case. ( For further information on "Diversity Jurisdiction" look up, Erie Doctrine.) The Supreme Court ruled that if there was a conflict with state procedural rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, then the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should apply. Whether there is a conflict between state procedural rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not entirely clear however, and in 1996, in Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., the Supreme Court tackled such a challenging question and found that the state law applied, since it could be reconciled with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other compelling federal interests.
There doesn't appear to be any conflict in the instant case. If you believe I am in error, please show me where in this case, FRCP was used rather than Louisiana procedural law.
Re:
Remember: This is Louisiana. Louisiana does not follow FRCP.
Refer to: LA Rev Stat § 13:4207 (2015) §4207.
Maximum delays for decisions on cases under advisement and on applications for new trials and orders of appeal:
If oral reasons for judgment are not rendered in open court and the matter taken under advisement, the district judges and judges of the city courts shall render a written judgment within thirty days from the time the cases are submitted for their decision. All motions or applications for a new trial and all orders of appeal shall be passed upon by judges of the city court within three days from the time such motions or applications for new trial or orders of appeal are submitted to them for their decision and by district court judges within seven days from the time such motions or applications for a new trial or orders of appeal are submitted to them
Re:
Re:
I have no problem with, "I actually expect the announcement to come much sooner." It's the continuous statements of certainty, and/or wording that is crafted to be misinterpreted that I have a problem with.
Big award announcement (may be coming) in a few weeks (If GEGI gets an award then) Penny land coming
I'm a member of LinkedIn. They are not a reliable source. OTCM is slow, but reliable. WSJ is reliable, Google may or may not be reliable. All three list DOC as Pres.
The issue is: No one should have to wonder what is going on at VDRM.
The reality is: No one knows what is going on at VDRM.
Cut-n-paste from OTC. Too many reference on Google to quote, but most "say" the Doc is Pres. and CEO.
I guess if the Company wanted to actually let Shareholders know what is going on, whomever the "Officials are, they would keep us informed rather than keep us in the dark.
Chris A. Otiko
President, Secretary, Treasurer
Zia Choe
Accountant
Board of Directors
Chris A. Otiko
Other Company Insiders
None