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.
Source of information? That's from March 7, 2017.
As of March 7, 2017.
Might have been a fact. On March 7.
What is the OS today?
Nobody knows if insiders are selling or not.
Simply an opinion by either side.
WRONG
Those are NOT "real numbers" in the correct order.
04-28-2015 stock at .01 open, intraday and close
06-30-2015 and 07-01-2015 stock open and intraday at .128
08-03-2015 stock intraday .12
08-22-2016 stock at .0031 intraday
10-10-2016 stock at .0531 intraday.
There was no .0004 dip between 04-28-2015 (.01) and 06-30-2015 (.128) when the stock was heavily pumped.
There was never a run from .0004 to .14
This stock has never been at .14
Again, where is your comparison (DEWM) today and for the time since .03
.00xx
Source for this information: NASDAQ.com Quote History
Seems like all anyone can do is allegedly "order" but not "receive" alleged "product"
So the "company's product" becomes stock. That's simple and easy to market and sell. Stock. Stock in empty promises.
Eventually, for smart investors, smart enough to avoid, reality should set in.
Not to be a pest or anything, but what date did this go to .14. Nasdaq.com only documented a brief touch at .12. That .14 seems to be a sticking point for some. I personally don't recall it. The stock similarity you noted, where is it now as of today.
These pretend "companies", if one pays attention, has their heyday or two, no doubt. But the insiders get paid well ahead of any shareholder. If this "company" we're to liquidate actual tangible assets today, how much per share do you believe anyone would get.
Which brings to mind the OS. Is that going up or down? I'm guessing up, and at an alarming rate.
No PRs have been proven over time to be factual. By the time the pump hits general media, it's beyond too late for any "savvy" investor.
Just some insight to dispute some drama and misinformation, this did not go from .01 to .07 during a certain period of time as claimed, quite the contrary
Stock price history (source: Nasdaq.com) relevancy of dates as alluded elsewhere
Date Open High Low Close
07-30-2015 .0968 .0969 .0832 .088 (start)
08-03-2015 .1075 .12 .0831 .0946 (all time high)
07-13-2016 .0103 .0134 .0089 .0009 (first time at or near .01)
10-10-2016 .046 .0513 .0355 .047 (last high)
Just an FYI to clarify some price history.
Okay then. Target remains.
Good hell. I thought you wrote this. I was going to un-follow you. Then I saw the double quotes.
I'm confused. Would someone kindly explain what the "good" or "great" "news" would be when this "company" with a stock value of .001 announces "it" intends to increase its available shares to 7 billion from 2.2 billion.
And the share price will rise? Based on what?
Seems to be nothing more than pure conjecture.
Are you referring to the four trades of approximately 120k in the last ten minutes worth a whopping value of less than $150. Is that the reason the stock closed up? After a day that traded over 100,000,000 plus shares.
Maybe boy genius comes back?
I was wondering why the "price" of this "stock" in this "company" took a dive.
No longer wonder how the "company" planned on fixing this. There we go. Guess we hadn't considered that move.
Ask a simple question on iHub, get a derogatory response on twitter.
curious, from someone who claims no position
Wasn' there supposedly an inverted cup and saucer or sine wave or monkey on a stick pattern forming with the chart?
I mean at first glance, it only went down .0008. That's not so bad.
Oh wait, it started at .0023.
Nevermind.
You can't spell "pray" without "pr".
Actually only 20 times. So if ye have any faith at all, or a really good pump, it could happen.
otcshortreport
Link. Not opinion.
I'm trying to find better examples.
Maybe this is close. Say one goes out to eat a meal somewhere and chose to pay with a credit card. Two receipts come back. One marked Customer Copy and one marked Merchant Copy. One can write different information on both and claim the same on each. In reality, maybe one was true and maybe one was false. Depends on the level of deception one wishes to present.
Also depends on which receipt you wish to pose as truthful. And how many buy into one or the other.
You earlier asked for a link to "formal charges" as if to imply this was a "criminal" case. You were provided a link to the civil action, which may or may not precede a criminal action.
"Criminal" charges are filed by a compliant and information by a district or county attorney or by indictment from a grand jury. This is a civil action filed by a private citizen or a public entity.
No one ever implied there was a "criminal" action or filing pending anywhere.
One of the major differences between criminal and civil is with verdict. In criminal, the verdict must be unanimous by constitution. In civil, the verdict is based on preponderance of the evidence.
Whether the action is criminal or civil matters not. The issue here is there exists a public record of a filed civil complaint with allegations. An emergency motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief is typically filed in civil cases such as this and was not granted as occurs in a high percentage of most civil cases such as this.
This does not necessarily lead to a dismissal of the case in chief, but moves the matter forward in the normal course of continued filings, motions and hearings.
I think the point being made here; there is a publicly filed legal action pending and remedy being sought. The outcome at this point is not nearly as important as the fact the action has taken place.
Whether this expands to a "criminal" case based on how this proceeds is yet to be learned. There is a lot of information both sides can request and be compelled to provide to the other.
That appears to be a link, not conjecture.
Nothing was "wrong".
The poster provided a link.
The poster never claimed "formal charges"
It would be a legal civil matter, not necessarily a legal criminal matter.
At this point, there would be no "formal charges" filed.
I didn't find the name of the author anywhere. Are you able to point that out.
That being said, I don't see how anyone can make a claim the article was an "unobjective opinion" written by a "disgruntled shareholder".
OTCShortReport. Interesting data.
Just asking because I do not know the answer.
How did you come up with June 20th, 2017?
Again, I'm only asking because I don't know.
Thanks.
Nobody talked to Greene. And if so, why now and not when all of this started a week ago. Seems as if this was important enough to call then.
Giving out information to one and not all seems a little curious.
If they had, they would provide a contact number. Or they would say its his private number and they aren't at liberty to give it out. Funny how people will claim they have spoken directly with the alleged "CEO" of a "company".
There are so many opportunities out there in which to invest your efforts.
This is not one of them.
Basis for your comment?
Is this backed up by some DD or is this an opinion?
Link, not conjecture.
I appreciate you making the call and providing the update. I have no reason to call and verify your post. Hadn't seen you around here in quite some time.
Float is 261,589,655?
Is that float number correct?
Is that good or bad?
"savvy" investors talk about low floaters. Is that a low number?
Like a fat kid on a trampoline.
Maybe it can get painted like yesterday with a 2000 and 8000 share prior to close, representing a whopping .0002 percent of total shares traded for the day. That was exciting.
Well, it has been 10 days and we usually get a photograph.
Just curious, is "ordering" a "product" the same as "receiving" said "product".
Tangiers 13 million, the shares we know about.
Wonder what other shares were dumped from conversions about which no one has been informed. Those usually show up in late filings, say in the next week or later.
Your e-mail prompt is from 11-15-2016.
The Wyoming SOS copy and paste is from TODAY.
I'm leaning towards a publicly accessible government operated website and its contents (no political leaning one way or the other) being a little more reliable than a one word response copy and paste email from over three months ago.
I'm not certain just simply paying late taxes solves the issue.
Tardiness seems to be the business plan here, such as with timely responses to trademark requests, filings, 8K's, 10K's, entry into co-packing "agreements", etc.
I'm presuming if one uses bold and all capitals, it makes it somehow more believable.
Absolutely.
12 to 14 shares is a much better barometer. Above the daily average at that. Very strong.
Much less to come.
I would agree making observations at 2-3 million shares after after an obvious pump would be ridiculous.
Observations should be based more on say, 7-8 million shares (average near term volume) or more, rather than the pumped volume.
That would be like comparing hemp juice powder to marijuana.
And of course, we need to be aware of end of day paints.
Either or, that just looks horrible.
I would hope the contact person or persons for this "company" can resolve these issues quickly.
Hard to tell if the "company" is dissolved or just delinquent in their tax obligations.
Hopefully the person listed as contact can get this cleared up.
I'd be pretty disappointed if I invested in a dissolved or delinquent "company".
So is this.
For anyone confusing marijuana and hemp. At least according to the "company's" own website.
On the FAQ page:
"Will I fail a drug test if I consume Healthy Hemp™ Beverages?"
"No. Hemp juice contains no THC although it is commonly confused with its cousin marijuana which does contain THC." (Emphasis Added)
It should be noted, there are no USPTO active registered trademarks for "Healthy Hemp" beverages.