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.
Geeeee...That was my idea months ago.
Looks like I've gotta pull my 20M .0001s
Otico obviously hasn't heard of a cell phone.
Never happen,,,
Friday, May 26, 2023 10:10:26 AM
Post# of 78575
We're either "there" or we are not. Right now, we are not.
And dilluter???
We know this; how?
What are the odds...
Thanks ORCA for solid information.
When was the last time we got news on Thursday?
Date would be nice.
Exactly; like you might lose your entire "investment". Or, you might not. What I do know is that it ain't dooin' great, and we are not being informed.
Re:
Re:
Was he ever charged with a criminal act, or was this just a type-o?
The Doc. appears to be a bit tricky. Referring to the Federal case the Doc. announced the following:
Feb 7, 2018 — Keogh in a South Dakota Federal Court, has been dismissed without prejudice.
In reality, the case was dismissed because the Court decided that it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction. The actions underlying the federal Lanham Act claims had occurred in California and Oklahoma, the case was not properly venued in the federal District of South Dakota.
What really took place: The U.S. District Court denied Otiko and ViaDerma's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Rather, the Court found that Kasten and OPD had pleaded sufficient facts to support all of their claims against the defendants. The court also concluded that the state of South Dakota had jurisdiction over Otiko, ViaDerma, and the Phillips Defendants.
The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the opportunity to re-file all of these claims in either federal or state courts in California or Oklahoma, as well as certain claims in a South Dakota state court.
Yes! I know! It's not current. However it certainly shows a propensity for (polite term) obfuscation.
As I previously posted; Insurance and liabilities are a concern when going public with a product, especially when it's a medical product.
Or we could be near 1/2 cent...and I'm not smokin' anything.
They may just be waiting for the Nupelo news to break. That should be good for a big pop.
Part 2.) The other reason can be that if you watch L2 it is sometimes obvious that the MMs are up to no good.
I think that the actual question asked is, Why don't sellers immediately raise their offer to either at or higher than the last trade? Frequently day traders will jump just below to get a quick trade.
Hopefully a 180...not 360.
I'm actually agreeing with your underlying theme.
From April:
OK; I need help with this one! They are not retailing the product because it is not yet available for OTC insurance benefits???
So, they are giving up income from customers who would buy the product even if not covered by insurance? That makes no sense. Let's take a conservative number. If only 25% of potential customers would buy without the insurance coverage, that's certainly better than zero income and zero product exposure.
Doesn't sound right to me, but I'm open to reasonable explanations.
Which Firm are you referencing; there are two in question?
I'm not sure I see the relevance as Fullerton & Knowles represents owners, lenders, ....and construction industries region-wide. They are a Virginia and Maryland Law firm.
As a side note: While every other State in the United States, uses what is labeled, English Common Law, derived from English law, Louisiana uses French Civil Law, which is derived from the French Napoleonic Code. I am referring to the entire system; not Civil trial vs Criminal trial.
Re:
If the judgment debtor does not voluntarily pay the judgment, however, it is up to the judgment creditor to enforce. A judgment is not self-enforcing. The judgment creditor does now have the “aide of the court” and the ability to use various judgment enforcement techniques such as attachments and garnishments. If the Judgment Debtor doesn't voluntarily pay the debt, it requires more legal action to collect. This is true even if the case was adjudicated by a Judge.
A judgment only guarantees that the money is legally owed, not a guarantee of payment.
Yes if we are working to get a joint venture with Nestlé so we need shares to give them. Also if we get a deal with one of the sharks during the ABC Shark Tank we need shares.
Watch the wording carefully. Everything is, If; Working on; Proposal(s) Submitted; Should.
Don't need shares today, for a phantom proposal in the future.
As for Shark Tank: highly unlikely: Shark Tank Variety Pack - Roasted Sacha Inchi
Force Majeure clauses are unimportant........until they are.
Really want to hate this one...Not there yet.
First: The Doc is the one responsible for filing. He also knows, or should know, that the OTCMarkets doesn't give a crap what he needs or when he needs it, so the primary burden is on him to get stuff filed timely. To the extent that OTCM takes their sweet ass time to get things done just exacerbates the problem. The OTCM website should have Homepage with a header stating, "Failure on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on our part, In other words, We don't give a flyin' fluck about you or your problems."
I have dealt with the SEC, FINRA and OTC. OTC takes an unreasonable amount of time to do anything, including initial requests and subsequent requests and responses to inquiries. They are top of the list for being slow to respond, and arrogant. I think we can split the blame here.
Damn...Miss-calculated the bottom. Added at .0036.
Up or down; either way works for me.
Just a point of clarification. Not arguing; just want to understand the statement.
If/when a ticker hits my target, I'll move it to my watch list and then decide from there. This should run eventually, Question is, what's the optimum buy-in price ? I'm betting it's below .0079.