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.
Again, no support for the claims being made. Post the evidence such as
Asset Base: Other Assets: 3,407,692 does not equal zero
Please post the links that support the claims.
Please post supporting evidence to back the facts up.
Funny thing is StockZoom :
There are thousands of posts claiming scam or fake co but have nothing to backup the statements. The DD here is solid, if claims are made and have nothing to back them up it's all BS. Post evidence to back up the claims.
Post facts not opinions.
looking forward to dolv becoming the usain bolt among the otc movers!
LOL what a shame
Post ANY Fake News that this company has put out.
Making claims without anything to back them up is useless BS.
What a ridiculous statement it was a designed plan to sell shares.
Great plan, hope you are not holding shares.
Oravec is also supposively doing this as a favor for Wang, doesn’t really know the guy, but was referred by someone else. As a result, his actions and commitment to this stock are lack luster and nonchalant.
Where do you come up with this BS. Provide some backup to these ridiculous statements.
Load up before the news.
JMHO
I believe that some are forgetting something:
The Chinese population. If the ticker change was released Friday AH it would be great news for the weekend in China. Wang wants his people to buy this as cheap as possible. They are going to jump on this in a big way.
Monday would be crazy.
JMHO
All Billion dollar companies have legal teams. Pretty common that the legal teams give advice to Investor Relations personnel. Maybe saying this is a done deal do not say a word until it is released to the public.
I was told by Luis at FINRA that the company is Notified of either name change or ticker change prior to being posted on the daily list. If the company is changing both and you believe that they are only notified beforehand of the name change so be it. They are not going to approve the name change without the ticker change. Do you really believe that the company is told it's name change has been accepted but they will have to check the Daily List to see if your ticker was approved. SMH LOL
I was also told by LUIS at FINRA that FINRA will work with the company on the date the change is made public. He told me the company can choose the date as long as it's not on the weekend.
You are correct daveymoore
I just spoke to Luis at FINRA and was told that the company is notified when the name and ticker change has been approved and do have a choice of when the change takes place. So they are notified in advance before it
is posted on the Daily List.
there is nothing "fishy" at all
STACK the BID STACK the BID
Can you then explain why Finra would not question a lawsuit from 15 years ago (which was dismissed)?
Does it matter? Whatever FINRA questioned, a answer was submitted.
DOLV/ZJMY will have the cleanest shell on the OTC.
I find it funnier that people tried to make a issue of this before
knowing the real facts. I believe it shows the desperation here.
People are having a real difficult time sticking to the FACTS.
Dear Judge Ross: Pursuant to Your Honor’s Notice/Order dated October 3, 2017, I respond to the arguments of Docket Nos. 5, 10 and 29 as directed. Since I have been directed to respond by letter not exceeding seven pages, I also request this be treated as a simultaneous cross-motion for leave to amend to address any adverse finding which may arise this proceeding to allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to overcome any deficiencies in pleading. I will start by responding to Docket No. 5, the Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of Defendant Rivie Schwebel. Generalized objections to lack of specificity, failing to meet the pleading standards of, and the absence of specific allegations to comply with, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), FRCP Rules 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6) comprise one set of the objections.
The essence of Defendant’s argument is that he had a consulting contract. If that is the case, and we do dispute that factually, then when he proves the validity of that contract he may well win, but not on a motion to dismiss. I am not certain what aspect of no consideration Defendant doesn’t understand. Plaintiff argues that Schwebel has rendered no service that can be legally recognized. Plaintiff may disagree but he can hardly contest that the allegation has been made. Case
While the securities law violations are somewhat sparsely pled, the allegations are straightforward, these Defendants and the Company engaged in a subterfuge to disguise the real reasons for the issuance of these shares. Dolat is not a company devoid of meaningful history in this regard. It is a vehicle that was used for the classic “pump and dump” which can also be asserted if need be due to the recent completion of certain proceedings in a criminal case in the District of Connecticut involving persons known to Mr. Hauck, the head of this cabal of lies and deceit.
Defendant Schwebel then asserts that he owns 30,000,000 shares of Dolat common stock, but one would not know this if one looked for the required Forms 3, 4 or 5 that one owning such concentration should have filed. Nor were there any Williams Act filings which were also required. If Defendant Schwebel wants a much more specific assertion of the components of the conspiracy present in this Company Plaintiff is now prepared to lay it out in detail.
Defendant Schwebel and his minions participated in a significant stock fraud whereby no real business was conducted but certain chosen persons were positioned to benefit while the public got screwed. If an opportunity to amend is required this fraud can be spelt out with even more specificity.
Finally, Defendants Chabad of North Hollywood, Glenn S Bordoff, Adam Braun Nechama Kuravkiy, Mazel Property Enterprise Corp. and Elimelech Rosenblat have submitted Docket No. 29, a letter similar to that of Defendants J&M Family Foundation and Benjamin Neuman. The same arguments apply so I will not repeat them and waste the Court’s time further
The objections raised by Defendants J&M Family Foundation and Benjamin Neuman in Docket No. 10 recite the same issues. They allege the same Wyoming Statute 17-16-304(b)(ii) but the argument remains the same is now that the State of Wyoming permits fraudsters to issue stock without consideration to dupe the public. We disagree for the reasons cited above.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/21296169/Dolat_Ventures,_Inc_v_VStock_Transfer_LLC_et_al
MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Fidler, Roger) Monday October 16,2017
The company did not ignore court orders and has filed the necessary documents to win back the shares.
This is more proof that the company is legitimate and will be uplisting to the NASDAQ in the near future.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/21296169/Dolat_Ventures,_Inc_v_VStock_Transfer_LLC_et_al
Dear Judge Ross: Pursuant to Your Honor’s Notice/Order dated October 3, 2017, I respond to the arguments of Docket Nos. 5, 10 and 29 as directed. Since I have been directed to respond by letter not exceeding seven pages, I also request this be treated as a simultaneous cross-motion for leave to amend to address any adverse finding which may arise this proceeding to allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to overcome any deficiencies in pleading. I will start by responding to Docket No. 5, the Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of Defendant Rivie Schwebel. Generalized objections to lack of specificity, failing to meet the pleading standards of, and the absence of specific allegations to comply with, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), FRCP Rules 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6) comprise one set of the objections.
The essence of Defendant’s argument is that he had a consulting contract. If that is the case, and we do dispute that factually, then when he proves the validity of that contract he may well win, but not on a motion to dismiss. I am not certain what aspect of no consideration Defendant doesn’t understand. Plaintiff argues that Schwebel has rendered no service that can be legally recognized. Plaintiff may disagree but he can hardly contest that the allegation has been made. Case
While the securities law violations are somewhat sparsely pled, the allegations are straightforward, these Defendants and the Company engaged in a subterfuge to disguise the real reasons for the issuance of these shares. Dolat is not a company devoid of meaningful history in this regard. It is a vehicle that was used for the classic “pump and dump” which can also be asserted if need be due to the recent completion of certain proceedings in a criminal case in the District of Connecticut involving persons known to Mr. Hauck, the head of this cabal of lies and deceit.
Defendant Schwebel then asserts that he owns 30,000,000 shares of Dolat common stock, but one would not know this if one looked for the required Forms 3, 4 or 5 that one owning such concentration should have filed. Nor were there any Williams Act filings which were also required. If Defendant Schwebel wants a much more specific assertion of the components of the conspiracy present in this Company Plaintiff is now prepared to lay it out in detail.
Defendant Schwebel and his minions participated in a significant stock fraud whereby no real business was conducted but certain chosen persons were positioned to benefit while the public got screwed. If an opportunity to amend is required this fraud can be spelt out with even more specificity.
Finally, Defendants Chabad of North Hollywood, Glenn S Bordoff, Adam Braun Nechama Kuravkiy, Mazel Property Enterprise Corp. and Elimelech Rosenblat have submitted Docket No. 29, a letter similar to that of Defendants J&M Family Foundation and Benjamin Neuman. The same arguments apply so I will not repeat them and waste the Court’s time further
The objections raised by Defendants J&M Family Foundation and Benjamin Neuman in Docket No. 10 recite the same issues. They allege the same Wyoming Statute 17-16-304(b)(ii) but the argument remains the same is now that the State of Wyoming permits fraudsters to issue stock without consideration to dupe the public. We disagree for the reasons cited above.
Smells like Desperation here!:O
The Verified Facts can not be shaken.
Stack the Bid
Stack the Bid
Stack the Bid
Great VERFIABLE FACTUAL Post Ken. Post more FACTS please.
What is the game Lucky? Who's playing?
WOW MUST Watch Video shows Cars:
http://xiyou.cctv.com/v-84f471df-fb3b-45ab-aaea-ab074501965a.html
Do you how many countless postings I had to read and endure that kept saying there are no videos of cars because there are no cars? Well watch the VIDEO!!! It shows all the cars, factory, employees, sales, designs and CCTV is main Chinese Network to Billions of Chinese Viewers! No there is no doubt DOLV= Worth Dollars $$$ thank you very much!
The three defendants were:
Hillel Isseroff 230,000
Dermot Finnan 50,000
Stephen Hamilton 120,000
Total amount of shares 400,000
Locking-your-shares Simply Put: GTC SELL order to sell
all of your shares at a price beyond any expectations...say 1.00
Here's why: The shares showing in your brokerage account balance aren't REALLY there. There's merely a "promise" from a MM to your brokerage, that he's good for your shares at said price.
He can sell the shares he's promised over and over again and then if YOU sell them, all he has to do is dip into someone else's promised shares.
If you have an order to sell on your shares, the shares can not be used for shorting.
This makes shares scarce and buys hard to fill and the price goes up!
http://www.contracts-for-difference.com/Borrowing-lending-shares.html
Lock down your shares. Place GTC orders at a minimum of 1.00
STACK the BID STACK the BID
Make the shorts cover on the ask.
lol you were saying .01 months ago
What's makes anyone think their is no chance of a ticker change today or this week? Lol or at all
DOLV remains on REG SHO List 10/13/17
In order to make the threshold list, the shares shorted must be a MINIMUM of 1/2 of 1 percent of the o/s or a MINIMUM of 4.16M shares in the case of DOLV.
http://otce.finra.org/RegSHO
SHORT SQUEEZE COMING
DOLV remains on REG SHO List 10/13/17
In order to make the threshold list, the shares shorted must be a MINIMUM of 1/2 of 1 percent of the o/s or a MINIMUM of 4.16M shares in the case of DOLV.
http://otce.finra.org/RegSHO
Could see a Short Squeeze
Chinese government is even more compelling!
Verifiable facts from the Chinese Government works well. LOL
ZJMY-Guigang City 300,000 High-Speed Factory Confirmed!!!
Verified on the Guigang City, Qintang District Government Site!!!!
http://www.ggqt.gov.cn/News.aspx?id=84513
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=134929257
Excellent DOLV/ZJMY Video
http://xiyou.cctv.com/v-84f471df-fb3b-45ab-aaea-ab074501965a.html
Proof is in the Pudding
FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS
$DOLV/ZJMY is a zip code changer!!!!
All based on the VERIFIED FACTS that have been gathered.
You are correct, the notion that shorting by MM's is not happening is ridiculous.
it has very little to do with mm's LOL
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/2406831-shortracker/651241-naked-short-selling-is-killing-otc-companies
OK How does Short Interest come about? Is it not short positions that are not covered. Which is included in short volume.
LOL Short interest comes from short volume that has not been covered.
Is FINRA website a scam? FINRA REG SHO List
as of 10/06/17 thru 10/13/17 shows DOLV short interest greater than 4.16 million shares.
In order to make the threshold list, the shares shorted must be a MINIMUM of 1/2 of 1 percent of the o/s or a MINIMUM of 4.16M shares in the case of DOLV.
http://otce.finra.org/RegSHO I
Great post Grambo4
I agree with you 100%