Report possible fraud to the SEC here: Office of Whistleblower, 202-551-4790
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.
I realize that, that’s why I provided a link to the SEC litigation, nighthawk. Zachary Logan is now a KEGS "Consultant" who is paid 300,000,000 restricted shares for CONsulting services.
Additionally, the fraud was on ihub, they all began selling shares before the one-year holding period required by Rule 144 had run; Ross and Logan sold their shares before
this holding period had even begun. Then Scozzafava hires him again? Wuwt?
Ditto, nice try, it’s not working. You’re avoiding the questions I’ve asked you.
Show me there’s been no dilution? And while you’re at it, show me where I said
“dilution happening AVG guys this not good”
as you incorrectly quoted me saying.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174234897&txt2find=Happening
No, that’s actually you who’s stuck with the misinformation you’ve incorrectly presented, MX.
What? You just made up your own rules that no one has heard of, that’s not how it works. Dilution is real, you post it all the time when shares are added to the OS.
Quote:
Section 404: Weighted Average Price/Special Pricing Formula Transactions
Q404.1: Member BD1 executes multiple trades to satisfy a customer order and then trades with the customer at a price equal to the volume-weighted average cost of the original trades plus a net difference in accordance with a net trading agreement with its customer. How should BD1 report the trade with its customer?
A404.1:The original trades and the customer leg of the transaction should be reported to the tape, and the report of the customer leg should include the weighted average price (.W) modifier. For example, member BD1 receives an order from a customer to buy 5,000 shares of ABCD security and accumulates the shares through five separate trades. Each of these five trades is reported to the tape. BD1 then sells the 5,000 shares of ABCD to its customer at its volume-weighted average cost with a net difference to reflect the compensation agreement between BD1 and its customer. BD1 should report the sale of 5,000 shares to its customer to the tape with the weighted average price modifier.
No, you haven’t, you’ve made up your own convoluted rules, again. Here’s actual rules from a regulator:
Quote:
Section 404: Weighted Average Price/Special Pricing Formula Transactions
Q404.1: Member BD1 executes multiple trades to satisfy a customer order and then trades with the customer at a price equal to the volume-weighted average cost of the original trades plus a net difference in accordance with a net trading agreement with its customer. How should BD1 report the trade with its customer?
A404.1:The original trades and the customer leg of the transaction should be reported to the tape, and the report of the customer leg should include the weighted average price (.W) modifier. For example, member BD1 receives an order from a customer to buy 5,000 shares of ABCD security and accumulates the shares through five separate trades. Each of these five trades is reported to the tape. BD1 then sells the 5,000 shares of ABCD to its customer at its volume-weighted average cost with a net difference to reflect the compensation agreement between BD1 and its customer. BD1 should report the sale of 5,000 shares to its customer to the tape with the weighted average price modifier.
The amendment to the Articles of Incorporation at the SOS for a 1:1000 reverse split was executed by Thomas Scozzafava on March 7, 2024, and filed March 14, 2024.
https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2024%5C0318%5C25746295.Tif&documentNumber=P15000038934
Indeed, “the family” is working on self enrichment! They’ll need to change their pumper clown if they ever intend to make headway. All but 1 of the promoter clowns:🤡 gave up promoting the sham here after we exposed his plan to trick traders with his ‘Load Now’ propaganda!
“Good always triumphs over bad, no matter the odds."
lol, Scozzafava isn’t going to pay for KEGS audited financials. SMH
Wow, super info! Uh oh, that’s not a good look for KEGS!
Bingo!
”Also, I don’t believe the Balance Sheet is accurate. Almost impossible for Current Liabilities (Accounts Payable) for y/e 2023 to be exactly the same number as y/e 2022. I believe some numbers were plugged in since they had no clue how to get to the real number. Once it’s done with one number, easy to do with more categories. That’s why the statements are not audited.”
Thanks, tigerpac! I’m planing to read up on KEGS Consultant (promoter), Brian McLain.
Paid pumpers, aka Consultants, Agree to not convert / sell, then they do just that.
FRAUD PUMP & DUMP SCHEME
SEC LITIGATION FILES AGAINST ZACHARY LOGAN who is NOW A KEGS CONSULTANT. He received at least 300,000,000 restricted shares. However we know he doesn’t play by the rules, in the SEC litigation attached, they discovered he began to sell his shares immediately:
SEC LITIGATION FILE:
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2019/comp24472.pdf
There is no KEGS short interest. Everyone knows it, it makes for a poor marketing strategy.
Absolutely! I can’t tell you how awesome it is to not read all the propaganda from the Travagli Family & CONsultants.
I peeked to see what we are talking about today, it’s all in the family, as usual:
Florida Limited Liability Company
SPEEDTELECOM1 LLC
Registered Agent Name & Address
TRAVAGLI, JEREMY
3865 w 9th av
Hialiah, FL 33012
Name Changed: 01/09/2020
Address Changed: 03/28/2022
Authorized Person(s) Detail
Name & Address
Title MGR
TRAVAGLI, JOSHUA
“The Misleading” – Daily Short Volume
https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2018/11/13/understanding-short-sale-activity/
100% DISINFORMATION.
Daily Reg SHO is meaningless, due to no separation of Riskless Principal transactions from the data. Almost all short volume is created by non ownership or physical possession of the shares in a trade transaction. That is a fact.
If the OS increases in the tranche, the TA reports it, you don’t understand how trading works. Shares are issued to lenders in tranches. It might be 100 million or it could be 1 billion shares. If the current tranche has been depleted, a new one will be issued by the treasury. At that time the O/S will increase. SMH. It has zero to do with me, personally, you’re trying way too hard to push a false narrative, gg.
Nonsense, The TA reports the numbers. Looks like you’re the one who is caught, GG.
Once again: Just more facts from Finra, read their Manual to learn how trading works. In Most often the revelation of a fact, while it might be unpleasant, is beneficial in the end.
Quote:
Section 404: Weighted Average Price/Special Pricing Formula Transactions
Q404.1: Member BD1 executes multiple trades to satisfy a customer order and then trades with the customer at a price equal to the volume-weighted average cost of the original trades plus a net difference in accordance with a net trading agreement with its customer. How should BD1 report the trade with its customer?
A404.1:The original trades and the customer leg of the transaction should be reported to the tape, and the report of the customer leg should include the weighted average price (.W) modifier. For example, member BD1 receives an order from a customer to buy 5,000 shares of ABCD security and accumulates the shares through five separate trades. Each of these five trades is reported to the tape. BD1 then sells the 5,000 shares of ABCD to its customer at its volume-weighted average cost with a net difference to reflect the compensation agreement between BD1 and its customer. BD1 should report the sale of 5,000 shares to its customer to the tape with the weighted average price modifier.
I don’t understand what you’re saying, and I really couldn’t care less.
This is the epitome of a false narrative, Mx.
Financials due today, fingers crossed XX
No worries, tone.
Agreed, SO much info, the Brad case has been developing for almost 5 years.
It appears there is another future hearing in June.
This is the most current PR:
ASTRA VEDA CORPORATION RETAINS LEGAL SERVICES OF COHEN & COHEN FOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
Press Release | 03/07/2024
March 7, 2024
OTC Disclosure & News Service
Denver, CO —
This release includes additional documents. Select the link(s) below to view.
ASTA Bankruptcy 07 Mar 2024.pdf
Astra Veda Corporation (OTC PINK: ASTA), known for its focus on developing disruptive technology startups, has taken a significant corporate action by engaging Cohen & Cohen, a law firm based in Denver, Colorado, to begin exploring the possibility of filing for corporate bankruptcy protection. This decision follows a series of legal and financial challenges that have impacted the company's stability and focus.
The need for this exploration stems from a legal ruling in January where the Wyoming court ruled that Astra Veda Corporation was liable for a sum of $887,796.67 based on a 06 September 2016 loan and investment contract claim. The court ordered the company to transfer 12.5% of its shares from every class to the Plaintiff which is conditionally non-dilutive. Following this ruling, Astra Veda Corporation complied by paying the required amount and authorizing the issuance of shares.
The impact of this legal outcome has placed Astra Veda in a difficult financial position, leading to the consideration of bankruptcy as a potential strategy to manage its financial responsibilities moving forward. The company has communicated its intention and will keep stakeholders informed about the progress of any bankruptcy proceedings.
This move reflects Astra Veda Corporation's pragmatic approach to addressing its current financial issues and planning for its future operations amidst challenging circumstances.
ABOUT ASTRA VEDA CORPORATION
Astra Veda Corporation is a Wyoming corporation bringing disruptive and innovative technologies to market through a rigorous due diligence and opportunity assessment program. Through our subsidiary and co- investment affiliate partnerships, Astra Veda provides a variety of unique intellectual property, business processes, products, and tools that create value for our customers and partners.
The company does not routinely communicate with anonymous investors from the public on a one-on-one basis. We want to avoid the appearance of insider trading or other inappropriate communications behavior. All substantive news and information will be sent out by way of the OTC Markets platform as well as other traditional news outlets.
Astra Veda does not engage in promotion of our stock or company.
Source: Astra Veda Corporation
Services@Astra-Veda.com
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ASTA/news/ASTRA-VEDA-CORPORATION-RETAINS-LEGAL-SERVICES-OF-COHEN--COHEN-FOR-BANKRUPTCY-PROCEEDINGS?id=432762
Yes, here you go:
BRADLEY M. LISTERMANN VS JAMES DAVIS AKA MICK DAVISE, ET AL.
Filing Courthouse: Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Filing Date: 10/18/2019
Case Type: Defamation (slander/libel) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
FUTURE HEARINGS
06/12/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 68 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Order to Show Cause Re: sanctions, including dismissal/monetary sanctions, against Cross-Complainants Astra Veda Corporation, Paranotek, LLC and James Davis for failure to file and obtain entry of default judgment as to Cross-Defendants Nikita Volchetskiy and Todd Myers
LED
DOCUMENTS FILED
04/10/2024 Order - Dismissal
Filed by Court
04/10/2024 Order - Dismissal
Filed by Court
04/10/2024 Order - Dismissal
Filed by Court
04/10/2024 Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial; Non-Jury...))
Filed by Clerk
04/09/2024 Minute Order ( (Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)))
Filed by Clerk
PROCEEDINGS HELD
04/10/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 68
Non-Jury Trial (7-10 Day Est.) - Held
04/10/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 68, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding
Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial) - Held
04/10/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 68
Order to Show Cause Re: (sanctions against all parties, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions and preclusion orders, for failure to file all required trial documents) - Held
04/10/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 68
Order to Show Cause Re: (sanctions, including dismissal/monetary sanctions, for cross-complainant Astra Veda Corp.'s failure to file and obtain entry of default as to cross-defendants Nikita Volchetskiy and Todd Meyers) - Held
04/09/2024 at 3:00 PM in Department B, Douglas W. Stern, Presiding
Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Held
REGISTER OF ACTIONS
04/10/2024 Updated -- Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial: Filed By: Bradley M. Listermann (Plaintiff); Result: Off Calendar ; Result Date: 04/10/2024
04/10/2024 Updated -- Request for Entry of Default / Judgment: Filed By: Paranotek, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company (Cross-Complainant),Astra Veda Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation (Cross-Complainant),James Davis (Cross-Complainant); Result: blank ; Result Date: blank
04/10/2024 Updated -- Request for Entry of Default / Judgment: Filed By: James Davis (Cross-Complainant),Astra Veda Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation (Cross-Complainant),Paranotek, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company (Cross-Complainant); Result: blank ; Result Date: blank
04/10/2024 Order to Show Cause Re: sanctions, including dismissal/monetary sanctions, against Cross-Complainants Astra Veda Corporation, Paranotek, LLC and James Davis for failure to file and obtain entry of default judgment as to Cross-Defendants Nikita Volchetskiy and Todd Myers scheduled for 06/12/2024 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 68
04/10/2024 Order - Dismissal; Filed by: Court
04/10/2024 Order - Dismissal; Filed by: Court
04/10/2024 Order - Dismissal; Filed by: Court
04/10/2024 On the Complaint filed by Bradley M. Listermann on 10/18/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to James Davis and Does 1-20
04/10/2024 On the Cross-Complaint filed by Bradley M. Listermann on 10/09/2020, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to Astra Veda Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation and Paranotek, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company
04/10/2024 On the Amended Cross-Complaint (3rd) filed by Astra Veda Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation, et al. on 11/29/2021, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to Bradley M. Listermann
04/10/2024 Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial; Non-Jury...)
04/10/2024 Order to Show Cause re: Payment of Waived Fees; by:
04/10/2024 Order to Show Cause re: Payment of Waived Fees; by:
04/10/2024 Order to Show Cause re: Payment of Waived Fees; by:
04/10/2024 Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial scheduled for 04/10/2024 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 68 updated: Result Date to 04/10/2024; Result Type to Held
04/10/2024 Non-Jury Trial 7-10 Day Est. scheduled for 04/10/2024 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 68 updated: Result Date to 04/10/2024; Result Type to Held
04/10/2024 Order to Show Cause Re: sanctions, including dismissal/monetary sanctions, for cross-complainant Astra Veda Corp.'s failure to file and obtain entry of default as to cross-defendants Nikita Volchetskiy and Todd Meyers scheduled for 04/10/2024 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 68 updated: Result Date to 04/10/2024; Result Type to Held
04/10/2024 Order to Show Cause Re: sanctions against all parties, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions and preclusion orders, for failure to file all required trial documents scheduled for 04/10/2024 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 68 updated: Result Date to 04/10/2024; Result Type to Held
04/09/2024 Minute Order (Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC))
04/09/2024 Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) scheduled for 04/09/2024 at 03:00 PM in Torrance Courthouse at Department B updated: Result Date to 04/09/2024; Result Type to Held
Thanks, kenjiroo. This board is unlike others, most posters add to the conversation - I feel like I gain from almost everyone.
Tomorrow is a big day, fingers crossed - best of luck to all!
Nonsense. You’re trying to gain credibility, you never had it.
You just proved what I said, you attack others in an effort to be the kingpin
Just more facts from Finra. Most often the revelation of a fact, while it might be unpleasant, is beneficial in the end.
Quote:
Section 404: Weighted Average Price/Special Pricing Formula Transactions
Q404.1: Member BD1 executes multiple trades to satisfy a customer order and then trades with the customer at a price equal to the volume-weighted average cost of the original trades plus a net difference in accordance with a net trading agreement with its customer. How should BD1 report the trade with its customer?
A404.1:The original trades and the customer leg of the transaction should be reported to the tape, and the report of the customer leg should include the weighted average price (.W) modifier. For example, member BD1 receives an order from a customer to buy 5,000 shares of ABCD security and accumulates the shares through five separate trades. Each of these five trades is reported to the tape. BD1 then sells the 5,000 shares of ABCD to its customer at its volume-weighted average cost with a net difference to reflect the compensation agreement between BD1 and its customer. BD1 should report the sale of 5,000 shares to its customer to the tape with the weighted average price modifier.
That is you when you incorrectly claim the numbers haven’t changed.
Quote:
Section 404: Weighted Average Price/Special Pricing Formula Transactions
Q404.1: Member BD1 executes multiple trades to satisfy a customer order and then trades with the customer at a price equal to the volume-weighted average cost of the original trades plus a net difference in accordance with a net trading agreement with its customer. How should BD1 report the trade with its customer?
A404.1:The original trades and the customer leg of the transaction should be reported to the tape, and the report of the customer leg should include the weighted average price (.W) modifier. For example, member BD1 receives an order from a customer to buy 5,000 shares of ABCD security and accumulates the shares through five separate trades. Each of these five trades is reported to the tape. BD1 then sells the 5,000 shares of ABCD to its customer at its volume-weighted average cost with a net difference to reflect the compensation agreement between BD1 and its customer. BD1 should report the sale of 5,000 shares to its customer to the tape with the weighted average price modifier.
You’re still posting to yourself as always.
Of course it’s changed since the beginning of the year. Do you not understand shares are issued in tranches? Once the current tranche has been sold a new one will be issued if there’s more dilution. The O/S wont change until the next tranche is issued if there is one. Trading 101
No scheme, MX’er. No one is outed, except you.
No, that’s wrong, it’s the dilution from January 2024 going forward. I have more numbers if anyone wants to see them.
What? Of course I do. You do as well if you’d read the verified numbers from the TA.
01/05/24 per TA Verified:
AS: 4,500,000,000
OS: 2,572,190,466
TPTW SS INCREASED FROM 10/13/23 to 12/22/23:
OS: + 453,500,000
Unrestricted: + 453,500,000
Held at DTC: + 453,500,000
01/22/24 per TA Verified: also verified thru 9/30/23 10Q:
AS: 4,500,000,000
OS: 2,687,746,022
02/05/24 per TA Verified:
AS: 15,000,000,000
OS: 2,687,746,022
02/20/2024 per TA Verified:
AS: 15,000,000,000
OS: 2,741,684,955
03/08/2024 per TA Verified:
AS: 15,000,000,000
OS: 2,866,684,955
It’s been proven there is dilution.
You’ve yet to prove there is a “scheme”.
All we read from you are conspiracy theories.
Then show me there’s been no dilution. And while you’re at it, show me where I said
“dilution happening AVG guys this not good”
as you quoted me saying?
04/12/24 AVG Trades
Two Avg trades today, 5M shares & 15M shares. Note the two trades are posted with Avg Modifier. It is required to report this difference in separate Consolidated Tape transactions. Both the original trades and the customer leg of the transactions are required to be reported, therefore they’re reported twice.
Happy Weekend Everyone!
The pps @ no-bid X $.0001 is a major failure. Additionally, Scozzafava filed an amendment with the SOS for a 1:1000 reverse split, but has not notified shareholders of a date. There’s a 1-A POS Qualified as well.
Take into consideration there is no KEGS short interest, I’ve posted the links to FINRA in an effort to provide facts for everyone. Short volume is meaningless, due to no separation of Riskless Principal transactions from the data.
That’s not a KEGS reality nor a fact, rms, it’s an opinion. If you wish to “guarantee it”, please post your verified facts from a regulator.