Retired
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.
Excellent post! Particularly the "made out to be" part.
LOL -- Word!
Perhaps they (the authorities) occasionally read this board and see some of the aspersions cast in their direction. Among other things, the SEC people have been accused of; "Watching porn", "ditching court" and "paint sniffing". They've been called liars, a "corrupt, incompetent organization" with "only 2 out of 10 doing anything useful". In addition, they've actually been accused of shorting the stock and being "mad" at dbmm for (thus far) beating the system. So, I ask you; Why on earth would these people have any desire to do ANYTHING to assist this august forum?
Non-sense? Nope. FACT.
So .... Anything new to report?
IAW many retorts from days gone by, dood.
More 14th Century pap.
14th Century information we've chewed on 1000 times. Is there anything new to report?
Is there anything -- ANYTHING -- that hasn't been stated 'ad nauseam'?
OR, it just might be someone with shares to burn trying to perpetuate the 'shorts' myth.
Sounds like a massive Conspiracy Theory to me. lol
Could also mean that the seller simply wants OUT.
Anything NEW to report?
"That's some catch, that Catch 22."
No need. That simply wasn't the point of the post.
But, no one has been able to find if there is 30 day limit or not
There are several instances in this forum wherein a particular attorney who, presumably, being assigned the task of researching the dbmm fiasco, was referred to as a 'liar' and another that proffered the reasoning for said lying was because she (the lawyer) was 'mad' at dbmm. No such bending of the truth, incorrect evidence or other ambiguities were put forth other than the 'fact' that she was a liar. Do not such accusations warrant further investigation or, at the very least, some sort of link to the offending verbiage?
Now, why would an SEC attorney; "put her career on the line and purger herself about DBMM just because she is mad at them"? Is there a link to the offending statements in order for one to decide for themselves if it ever took place? This is a pretty serious accusation that, IMO, is in need of investigation.
Perhaps they had more on the ball than dbmm? Perhaps they had a history that showed progress over a number of years as opposed to 15 years of -----------.
I did a Board Search on that list of Hall of Famers. Most are nonexistent. One in particular, though, is CYBR that's at $138.00. Highly doubtful that's the same outfit. Another is USAC that's trading at $17.00 today. Also probably another company altogether. Just sayin'.
Let's stick with dbmm counsel, pro and con, for the moment. You stated that Atty Williams "lied" about something pertaining to the company. What, specifically, did she lie about?
"Why NOT", you ask? I remember your stating that 'all lawyers lie' and have been especially prolific in branding Atty Samantha Williams a liar. What makes one more truthful than the other?
Can't begin to count the company promises that met a similar fate at the bottom of that cliff.
That was back when she was "jazzed". Lol.
Seems to me I vaguely remember a photo of her back at a dinner party waaaay back when it was still rtgv. One of our more prolific posters at the time was seated at the same table. He later became Linda's Public-enemy-number-one for suspected flipping. Lots of champagne at that table, I might add.
I've searched high and low for a Linda's pic and have not been able to find one. You have a link?
Certainly didn't come from profit-sharing bonuses either.
And yet --- what has she done with dbmm in 15 years?
How much of that 'Pinkie-Swear' financing might still be available? Given the paltry revenue situation reported, most, if not all, of that money could well have been spent on legal matters. The fact that the company is not now nor has ever been profitable is pooh-poohed as inconsequential but yet, private financing which could be all gone by now is not?
To answer your question; Price and Pump -- Period!
lol -- Escape from Alcatraz?
If they dig out of this hole that they dug for themselves and finally achieve pink status, the MM filing would be a mere formality.
Primo narrative, though.
May not be getting the finger stick reports -- just the finger.
Call those splits what you like. They were a straight-up 100,000 to 1 pooning of the shareholders in the interest of raising the pps to a "respectable" level, I believe was the way Linda the Jazzed put it. All squandered. "Bad for everyone"? Hell, aside from a couple of pumps boosting this thing from triple-ott to double-ott (which were none of the company's doing), there hasn't been a damned thing good that's happened here.
I stand corrected; There was a little less than 1-1/2 years between splits. Time flies when you're having fun.
I cannot remember the exact time period but PRIOR to the 1000/1 R/S, there had been ANOTHER R/S of 100/1. I don't think there was 6 months between them. That's 100,000/1 in reverse splits then back down to triple-ott territory yet again. The best thing that ever happened to this outfit was the SEC stepping in. The two pumps since then would never have happened had they not. In the interim, K's and Q's (foisted upon them by the SEC) have illustrated that this company is going nowhere - FAST. IMO, unless there is some deep, dark, super-secret, pinkie-swear plan in place (as has been conjectured), the only shot that shareholders have to make a buck would be the SEC's giving them a bye. Further, shareholders would have to cash in quickly on that bounce prior to the inevitable continuance of R/S's.
All IMO, as always.
Perhaps. Doubtful but possible. The great and omnipotent Maranda should be on top of that eventuality if they can still afford to pay her. All IMO, of course.
Most intelligent thing Linda has done yet!
That was prolly counsel that made that recommendation. I wouldn't be giving Linda a helluva lot of credit for much of anything.
It's not as if dbmm is the only miscreant on their (SEC's) table. They've probably got hundreds, maybe thousands of companies with one or more charges against them in need of adjudicating. To pinpoint our little band of do-bees as public enemy number one isn't, IMO, even remotely possible UNLESS either a company officer or legal representative stuck their finger in their eye.