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.
Total fiction. Not a shred of truth to any of this per the results of ESCU's recently completed AUDIT.
Totally untrue. The AUDIT stubbed back to 2006 and covered all transactions through 2014. Kimmons was fully cleared of any wrongdoing.
The AUDIT has proven ALL OF THIS to be UNTRUE.
The error in thinking is that an increase in share structure equates to money in Kimmons pocket. That's fallacious.
The AUDIT shows that Kimmons received very little cash from ESCU and NO STOCK whatsoever until 2014, when he received RESTRICTED SHARES which have not been touched to date.
In short, Kimmons NEVER CASHED IN on ESCU. Period. Proven by the audited financials.
And its looking like he NEVER WILL.
No they didn't. The audit went back to 2006 in order to establish and confirm the transactions and their flow. Everything prior to 2012 also had to add up before the auditor could confirm 2012 - 2014.
Therefore, the proposition that Kimmons "got away with something" is untrue.
That would be because he delivered the goods that we were all asking for - a clean set of books with minimal debt. This is proven by the AUDIT and S1 filing.
The icing on the cake is that he assisted in bringing in a new opportunity with high potential.
For those who have convinced themselves of his "chicanery" this is more than they can bear.
You are incorrect. The bottom line is the AUDIT. It shows that NO SIGNIFICANT MONEY found its way into Kimmons' pocket. Period. If it had it would be shown in the audited financials.
So to argue that any and all stock sales by ESCU were to the benefit of Kimmons is fallacious.
WRONG. Computer software is also an intangible asset with a measurable, assessible number that can be attached to it based upon a combination of variables. You can find it on the balance sheet of major corporations and there's nothing subjective or imaginary about it.
In the case of ESCU, the company holds a written assessment report that places a measurable, assessible value to the patents.
The fact that the company has not complied with your demand that they present the document does not mean that it does not exist.
The fact that the auditor placed the valuation in its audit report is ABSOLUTE PROOF that the document exists and is in proper order.
So enough of the airy fairy BS.
TOTALLY UNTRUE. The Audit already shows the $40M transaction as a subsequent event and it's in the S1. It will appear on the Q3 OTCM Quarterly Disclosure balance sheet as an asset when ESCU files the statement in the next couple of days.
Then it will be on the audited financial balance sheet at year end, also as a $40M asset as determined by the independent asset evaluation.
This is all just a DISTRACTION. The ESCU AUDIT"s the bible, and it tells the real story chapter and verse.
Time to move forward with the new team, new plan, new energy.
Go ESCU!!
Oh really, what "strong evidence" is threatening ESCU's legitimacy? Please enlighten us!
I have answered this before. There are virtually NO shares available right now for buyers. Very few SELLERS.
That's a GOOD thing.
Quit beating on Kimmons. The FACTS are in. The ESCU AUDIT showed NO pump and dumps occurred.
Kimmons was cleared.
Thanks for the GREAT NEWS! This baby is really tight!
No selling. Very few shares available. Lots of interest.
No downward pressure. ALL GOOD THINGS!
Thanks for the update!!
REALLY? The company hasn't even put out a PR. And there are NO shares to buy.
Sorry, but the AUDIT and S1 say otherwise. Old, misguided beliefs have been disproven.
None of this makes any sense. It's not grounded in reality, and it's certainly NOT SUPPORTED by the audit.
Kimmons is totally out of the picture.
Kimmons has NO CONNECTION with ESCU. Also, the AUDIT confirmed he is in the clear. Why would he consider talking on this board? Ridiculous.
Sounds like a fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING of what creates a DTC deposit chill. Chills are NOT issued to punish CEO's. They occur when there is a questionable securities transaction.
In the case of ESCU / EDWY a deposit chill was issued because of an ongoing lawsuit between Fairhills Capital (Edward Bronson) and the SEC. Bronson received restricted consulting shares in EDWY in 2006 for introducing EDWY to NIR, an institutional funder.
That's all it took for DTC to issue a deposit chill - Bronson holding a few shares of restricted EDWY stock. EDWY DID NOTHING WRONG. Quite a few other companies got the SAME treatment.
The good news is that the recent S1 filing can be the vehicle to having the chill removed. DTC typically removes its chill when the SEC approves the S1.
It must be galling to know that Kimmons has been CLEARED of all of the negative accusations by the ESCU independent AUDIT.
Just CAN'T get away from that one!
Uh, you do know that Technical Objectives is Dr. John R Crosscope, right? The guy who developed the award-winning Smart One software. He's been on the team all along.
Much ado about nothing.
Interesting! For a long time, the demand was:
"Give us an audit. That will prove everything."
So guess, what we got our audit, and we got a corrobative S1 too boot. And it was not what some people expected. They wanted to use the results to lynch Kimmons.
But instead they gave us the TRUTH, which is that Kimmons DID NOTHING WRONG. Oops, no lynching party today.
How ironic! And particularly distasteful for some.
The AUDIT is the bible. Forget all other BS.
Say what you will, the AUDIT says it all, and with credibility.
Most business projects fail and most penny stocks do not make it to the finish line. That's the consequence of people going out and trying to make something meaningful happen. And it's why virtually EVERY penny stock is SHORTED by market makers. They KNOW THE ODDS.
When things don't work out it's UNFAIR to automatically dub enterprising entrepreneurs as a HOAX or a SCAM. That's ESPECIALLY TRUE when people have the gumption to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and TRY AGAIN after things don't' work out.
It's DESTRUCTIVE, and I believe, IMMORAL to unfairly toss accusations that these entrepreneurs are BAD ACTORS in cases where there is NO REAL EVIDENCE of wrongdoing. Failure is a NATURAL PART OF THE BUSINESS STARTUP PROCESS and is UNAVOIDABLE.
That's certainly been the case with ESCU, previously EDWY. The bottom line for ESCU is that the AUDIT and the detail provided in the associated S1 FILING prove THERE WAS NO WRONG DOING. PERIOD.
Therefore, beating on Sohail, his family and Kimmons is DEFINITELY OUT OF BOUNDS.
I'm sure Kimmons would love to talk to you about your perspective.
In 2005 he bought 7 companies as part of the EDWY rollup strategy. However, the auditor would not allow the incorporation of the acquired companies onto EDWY's balance sheet due to a minor technicality in each of their acquisition agreements.
If the auditor was simply a "rubber stamp" those companies would probably still be part of EDWY.
No, that's ridiculous. What is not being understood here? The auditor did NOT simply agree with the person who hired it. If that were the case, the the WHOLE POINT of requiring auditors would be meaningless!
And the point about "sufficient DD" is hilarious!
Also I'd be careful about the insinuation that we lack intelligence. Such accusations can come back to haunt!
Hilarious! I'll go with ESCU's professional auditor on this one.
This issue is for you to disprove rather than for ESCU to prove.
Numbers as important as the appraised asset value do NOT make it onto audited financials unless the auditor is presented with acceptable proof that an accredited third party has made the appraisal.
The fact that the auditor stated the value of the patents is $40m means that a WRITTEN accredited third party appraisal was presented for review and evaluation.
ABSOLUTELY NO AUDITOR would EVER place its name on a set of audited financials and stake its reputation (and license) on something without such substantiation.
The fact that you have not SEEN the asset appraisal document is meaningless.
There's so much that's messed up in this there's NO WAY to sort it all out.
So if that's the case, explain WHY the AUDITOR incorporated the APPRAISED VALUE into the subsequent event footnote.
The appraisal IS in the S1, incorporated by the AUDITOR as part of a footnoted SUBSEQUENT EVENT (which was the $40 patent asset acquisition.)
That footnote would NEVER have made it into the audited financials without a VALID APPRAISAL.
So, using the line of reasoning of this post, an APPROVAL BY THE SEC of the S1 will also be an ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the validity of the independent asset appraisal?
This post has absolutely NO CONNECTION with FACT.
The ESCU audit is the bible and it tells the REAL STORY.
More MISINFORMATION:
1. FZRO is a SOFTWARE venture, not a producer of mass goods.
2. The accusation about Kimmons is totally FALSE as confirmed by the recent ESCU audit.
But again, when did the FACTS matter?
Perhaps because some people have eDoorways on the brain.
Kimmons had not received ANY SHARES in 7 or 8 years and very little cash prior to the 2014 issuance.
So he's supposed to work for NOTHING? Ridiculous.
Virtually NOTHING stated here has a factual basis. In fact, the ESCU audit TOTALLY CONTRADICTS it.
But since when did the FACTS matter?
It's a MYSTERY. No, it's a CONSPIRACY. No, it''s a SCAM. No, it's ALL OF THE ABOVE. (hmmm, scratching head). Truly confounding.
Yes, it is (as I write my 50th post asking the question).
Then, a voice speaks from on high....
"Call ESCU and ask them. They will tell you the answers you seek."
But...WHY would I want to do THAT???
Say what? What reverse split? And what's with the rest of this post? It makes no sense.