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.
So true, everyone with half a brain is thinking that. Those using both hemispheres know that is not correct and not going to happen.
Not necessary and old argument... therefore useless.
According to FINRA Rule 6490, section D, subsection 3 under "Deficiency Determinations", states that a decision for denial of request can be considered deficient if "the issuer is not current in its reporting requirements, if applicable, to the SEC or other regulatory authority". Therefore, as I interpret this, if not required to report in the first place, I do not believe it is required to be current.
I don't have PM capabilities here. Thanks for your response and attention to this though. Thanks again.
Thank you. Much appreciated
Are there any active moderators on this board? Not a sticky in over 6 months, and after several requests by board members for them. New moderators please.
Yes, hopefully what we need to get some momentum.
This would seem sticky worth I believe.
Newsletter out... online CBD store now open.
This needs to be stickied.
Hell, to save $300k +, I'd wait for two years to pay as well. Pretty damn smart for sure.
Well there's a big surprise... you doubting the already verified DE debt payoff.
Nope, you heard her right 2K.
Yes, back in the green again now!
Twitter post this morning stating newsletter out at end of this week addressing stockholder concerns.
We have a newsletter going out at the end of this week addressing a few shareholder concerns while maintaining inline with SEC protocol.
— CBD Social Network 🌿 (@cbdsocialnetwrk) December 26, 2018
Well stated!
Let's hope so, it showed us to buy low and sell high.
It appears that at 16:42:05 on Nov 13, FINRA announced that the ticker change + name change + CUSIP change would be postponed.
Not sure why, maybe to coincide with possible PR release of new company.
How about some proof of your felonious statement.
For hell sakes, you still kicking that dead horse. No one is saying that it is owned by coho. They rent there, great. Regardless, they are still there. Bury the friggen horse already. It is mute point at this jucture.
You got that right, load up more bs (boatloads of shares), you know Santa is buying them too, I'll bet he even has one installed in his sleigh. HOHOHO... ONCI is coming to town.
No real evidence that revenues are not growing.
Excellent, after 2 years of action (procecution) and who knows how many years of investigation, you have s 95% chance of success. Again, that is all contingent upon the fact that there is an SEC investigation in the works and that there is actionable content found that can be taken before the courts. The percentage of those cases won that were actually prosecuted , while impressive, does not take into account the cases that were not pursued due to the lack of proof which would alter that overall % investigated for actionable offense. It does not change the fact that intent is a difficult path to cut, ask any prosecutor or fraud investigstor. What that statistic shows is that they were wise and chose well which cases they did pursue and took before the courts. It does not contradict the difficulty of the process. But good effort and good luck in the pursuit of your white whale.
Once again, I see the words, but absent any proof.
Yes, intent, it's one thing to recklessly throw it around on a message board hoping it might stick, but trying to prove it in court under actual legal standards, not so easy.
I have read much of what you have posted. Frankly, when it comes to accounting, I have to admit I am dumber than a bag of rocks. However, having an investigations background, I have learned that the same principle applies in forensic accounting as with physical, computer and any other forensics, it is all at best evidence that something may be incorrect , but does not necessarily constitute proof of offense with intent, and intent is a tough road to pave. Again, my point is possible evidence does not mean proof, especially with intent. But that is how it is inappropriately being portrayed on this forum.
Q, I understand the whistle-blower rule or concept being an investigator and having spent some time in the court room on occasion testifying to findings. But that is also assuming that there is actually an investigation in play. Regaeless, it still does not change the fact that day after day, accusations and allegations are thrown around as if handing out candy on halloween night, without even what appears to be the perception that there is a difference between evidence and proof or that there are not potential consequences to them. Fact is, I can take a ham sandwich and post a picture of it and call it evidence of an impropriety, but proving that the ham sandwich is substantive enough to provide overwhelming support is a whole different story and often impossible. All accusations, allegations and innuendo that I have read, if accompanied with any supporting information has not constituted proof, but is being pushed as such. No one on this board will in any likelihood have possession of actual proof of wrong doing. Those making accusations are calling for and demanding proof that they are wrong, but refuse to understand or acknowledge that they themselves are unable to provide actual proof that they are correct. In the real world, these actions could be labeled as libel and defamation of character. What is also scary is when so many think that if we attach "IMO" to a post we are absolved of any potential liability ourselves. This is not necessarily true, a post or two might fly, but a case could potentially made for libel, possibly even intent to cause financial harm when there are 20, 30 and more by the same person daily. Like in charts, its called patterns. It has been stated that it is not an issue of bashing, but of holding the CEO accountable. I fail to understand how the constant barrage of accusations and innuendo accomplishes this. I believe that some may be treading on thinner ice than they might think. But hey what do I know. Oh yea, and this is all IMHO too.
In that case, call away my friend, call away.
Nice try to you as well with the further double talk and avoidance of my original questions. However, your statement regarding legal jargon is very telling and if there was any question, there is no further. Without proof to back up the allegations and accusations, I guess we will just have to wait and see how it all plays out.
You could not be more wrong and apparently do not understand the rule of law. It is you that have made the allegations, therefore, the burden of "PROOF", rest on you. There is also a difference between evidence and proof and you have provided NO PROOF of accusations and allegations made, only anticdotal evidence.
Please provide your documented evidence of the fudging of the numbers and the non-existent revenues. I am also interested in seeing your documented evidence showing that the pps would be skyrocketing and exactly what it would be at this time should the revenues be real. We patiently await your documentation to support your allegations.
This is a tactic already in play here and it does not appear to be bring the pps up, please explain how your becoming a basher will increase the pps.
Right on the money my friend, so true!
Bueller..... Bueller........
So.. based on your logic, if I post a picture of my store and say " take a look at my retail store" I am implying that I own the building? I don't think so. Regarding google maps not showing the sign, may be photoshoped, maybe not. What was the date of the image from google maps? I have had a travel trailer parked next to my home for 3 years now and it still does not show on google maps. In order to give your implication validity, you need to include the date of the google photo as they are not updated daily.
Already addressed and answered multiple time.
And whatcha gonna due when they are? I know.... Buy, buy buy?
Excellent point and post, very well stated. Mark #10
The simple answer is never, it would be in direct violation of Antitrust laws.
Indeed, the NIH (National Institute of Health) states that 31% of overall driving fatalities are alcohol related. That figure only addresses the fatalities and does not even begin to address the additional life affecting physical and brain injuries that occur, but do not result in death or the emotional tragedies to all involved as a result of the incidences. Another life saving product brought to the world by $ONCI/$HEXA.
Agreed. Another leg on its way to fruition. $ONCI/$HEXA may not yet be firing on all cylinders, but SB is building the engine. It won't be long before SB has the engine built and firing on all cylinders.