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.
If you take time to actually read the AUDITED filing and the AL specifically, it clearly states that the promotional activity was identified outside of the company. This supports the initial public statement required by the SEC, which is stickied above that was CONFIRMED by the OTC that the company did not engage in ANY promotional activity. The time has come for you to abandon this narrative.
You may have not liked thier communication, but it clearly was not the reason for promotion.
Since the Audited financials were accepted, this is just another verification that this narrative is false ,unsupported and for the SECOND time verified by the OTC.
TXTM is officially AUDITED and accepted by OTCM.
Wow.. this is a REAL conversation
🤣🤣🤣. The end of the world for some clearly arrived before the eclipse.
Damn.. this is crazy.. not audited? 🤣🤣🤣
No, it proves that the inference of the CE may indeed caused injury to the company, and that inference applied by OTCM has now been proven false.
Maybe the OTCM needs the disclosure huh? Define it was a simple article and not fraud? now who is liable?
No, it proves that the inference of the CE may indeed caused injury to the company, and that inference applied by OTCM has now been proven false.
Maybe the OTCM needs the disclosure huh? Define it was a simple article and not fraud? now who is liable?
False
We are compliant in all disclosers. We have still seen no evidence of ANY wrongdoing by the company, just assertions by you and others as to what they " think" caused the CE. So you may want to revisit the stickied post above and remind yourself that ALL previous communications were cleared and not found promotional by the OTCM itself ( the original reason for CE). That statement was ALSO in evidence at the time of the Audit and the account which it was made on was LISTED as reviewed by the auditor and is in the filings. So that statement is now a matter of legal fact and audited.
Quote: " All the parent company has to do now is stop being so secretive about its actual crop sales/clientele/asset transfers"
The parent company does not trade on the OTCM, is a private company, and is not required to make disclosers of any kind. Now if you're referring to TXTM the very Audit would disallow and investigate any misstatements, omissions of any kind. You again, can find this very statement in the auditors section of the annual audited filing. You may want to stop making unsubstantiated claims that you cannot back up.
Your statements are very confusing. You have repeatedly ask for the "mission statement" for TXTM, then you show at least limited knowledge of the business model and relationships between the companies involved. What's concerning to me is you clearly have not comprehended or even attempted to read the filings.
The business model is clearly laid out along will the multiple expected revenue streams which are well defined in the Supplier Agreement as well as other sections in the filings, which are now audited and verified.
You then go on to portray the TXTM extraction process as " dormant" flying in the face of communications from management on this very topic that it is FAR from dormant and is being increased and developed. The funny part to me is you made the choice to invest with far less information than you have now.
You really don't see it ,do you?.
Bless you... you will.
The two of you cleary don't understand the inference of the CE and impact on the business operations with the indicators of fraud implied.
This would interfere with operations as well as aquistions. I've explained this 1,000 times but the two of you seem to have selective memory. But that's OK.
All of that is and will be changing soon as the official audit supercedes the Caveat Emptor Designation by the OTCM because it gives no reason that a potential acquisition candidate can do due dillegence to find liability. Thus they have to default to worse case,which is fraud. With the Audit now officially done, those barriers are now removed the OTCM CE becomes null and void outside of the OTCM as It pertains to business operations.
But, as I said a year ago the OTCM better have a damn good reason for the CE because fully certified Audit found none. Whose gonna be responsible for that?
You have no proof of that, and that makes absolutely no sense as an official GAAP audit found nothing wrong with its current structure and agreements.
The NASDAQ absolutely would axxept TXTM after it meets the requirements for listing.
That is an emotional statement as it has no basis in fact. There have been no communication or references to the order as being a question that the otc has EVER referred to. What has been communicated is the promotion which was external..the audit proves there was NO OMISSIONS or fraud on behalf of the company by an GAAP approved auditor who found NO EVIDENCE of any misstatements, omissions, or misleading statements, which proves your assertion is and will always be false.Those are the facts, only the OTCM stands alone against the SA Government, The owners, And now a auditor.
Really past the point of convincing or debating. The facts are what they are. After Attorney letter is submitted to OTCM and accepted we will officially be an audited firm on the OTCM and applicable to other exchanges as well.
I don't think you would sell. You clearly see what this is as you are intelligent enough to see it. You have stated repeatedly your dissatisfaction with the process as we all have been but the accusation of fraud and wrongdoing have now been put to rest.
I explained this to you as showed you that you don't know what you're talking about. Auditors don't have access to security keys needed to upload docs to OTCM. As you can see the last upload is no longer active. You said we would never have a successful Audit, so let's concentrate on that first shall we?
Not sure what your problem is, but there clearly wan an error with the uploading process of the ammendment. For your education, the Auditor is not involved in the submission process to the OTCM.
This in no way invalidates that the financials are audited. Additional items were obviously added as they cleared Audtors approval.That's the very reason the amendment process exists.The initial filing was on time and met necessary requirements. We will likely see another completed submission today.
Financial Audit done by a former partner of PWC (Price Waterhouse Cooper).
You know, the Audit that many here said would never happen. Smh..About to get fun now.
You're STILL ignoring the facts and making up your own. You pant point to nothing that even involves any platform or tweet by management that the OTC said was the problem, can you? No..till you can its bullshit
Why are you spinning and spewing the same nonsense over and over?
I give it to you, you're getting more creative, but it's just more lipstick.you can keep repeating bs but it will never be the truth. For the 100,000th time there was NO promotional activity internal to the company NONE, that measures articles, discord, tweets ALL OF IT and was verified and accepted as Fact by the OTCM themselves and was told to the companies counsel as such.
As to the investigation, it was also done by accountants and counsel amd reported to the OTC.IF actually read the
filings you would be aware of this. Instead you spin stories based on lies and pile bs on top of it, until I have to once again blow it all up and bring you back to reality.
So you can stop referring to anyone the communication in Discord,or anywhere else as that is NOT the reason for the CE. It's only your fear mongering that's not based in fact.
The facts I've presented are stickied at the top of this board and have been for MONTHS. You are VERY aware of them.amd the timeline, yet continue to sper this conjecture, why? Nevermind doesn't matter. Anyone who actually reads filings know the truth. Its becoming pathetic at this point.
Goat?🤣 No..the Only thing you have is my ignore button. I only spend my time talking to people I can learn things from, or have and opportunity to share ideas with and enhance thier understanding. Youre incapable of both. So again, don't be a fool and keep responding to my posts.
I've repeatedly asked you to stop lying.
I've repeatedly asked you to prove the statements that you've claimed I've made.
First was the 400 share price bs.
You never produced it
Now you come with this S1 date bs.
You can't produce that either.
You REPEATEDLY stated things as facts, are proven DEAD wrong and you STILL run your mouth as even Dr.J and THE LAW prove you wrong. You constantly bitch about an invest YOU made, demanding "answers like a man fool when you have no idea of the regulation laws or statues that NEED to be followed .
You say Dr J has done nothing, yet the stock is pink current , has a credit line and millions in assets sitting on the books with NO legal bills. Who's paying them, you? Hell no.
I'm pretty much done with your bs.
You're wrong about the buyback, you're wrong about the liability that WILL result in a lawsuit. But I can't fix ignorance, only try to advise you of it.
What I'm confused about is you replying to my post about a buyback on CE ,when you said it couldn't be done period. Because TXTM has no money. So again you lack the understanding of the laws and rules. Again which is understandable.
It can, will, and likely IS being done, legally and right in front of your face. But guess you'll have to wait for someone else to do it before you believe it can be done. Really no need to dispute it, after all it does benefit you right? Thought so.
What?
...bless you🤣🤣🤣
For those who didn't believe a buyback could occur while on CE I give you exhibit A. Buckle up!!🤣
What is the short swing rule for insiders?
— Dr J (@Dr_Jamaloodeen) March 6, 2024
The short-swing profit rule is a federal statute that requires insiders to forfeit any trading profit earned from a combined purchase and sale that occurs within a six-month period.
This is my last comment as my point has already been proven:
QUOTE: " Great hints at company buyback but Cant while company is CE…"
that statement is FALSE
Because something HASN'T OCCURED IS NOT PROOF IT CAN'T especially when the law allows it.
have a great day!!
Again you take things out of context. Name calling isn't necessary. I asked you to provide facts to support your position, you could not and that's fine.
The rest of my answers I gave are my opinions based on what i see and how i understand them. If you have anything to add to the contrary ill definitely entertain it.
You asked 3 questions. I gave you, clear concise answers. These topics are not easily understood, which is evidenced by your position on number 1 which you now agree is not stopped legally which was my original point when i stated that was false. No CE company has EVER had the resources to make that happen, but we do.
So, either you chose not to accept them, or dismiss them, neither case changes my opinion.
1) it hasn't, but at one point, no one ever reached the moon until we did.
There was no physical law prohibiting it, no one had the resources to, or even thought of doing so as many likely were in bad financial health and diluted themselves into oblivion in the first place. NONE of which applies to us.
2) I have seen no evidence of anything to hold management accountable for outside of them meeting thier obligations as required to keep us pink current. All of the plans that were laid out prior to CE that have not come to fruition can easily be explained by the lack of money or actual legal impact.
You point fingers of accountability towards the company yet stay silent towards the OTC who hasn't disclosed ONE thing as to why we are still here, or even WHY WE ARE HERE in a formal disclosure like the SEC does. So, we will see what they do when it's removed. They could have walked away, remember that.
3) As for JSE, they made the initial reference prior to CE. As for why they have not listed there, you have to ask them, but doing so requires them to walk away from something they paid for and then pay again to be listed on another exchange. Do you like paying for things twice?When you believe you did nothing wrong and be forced to leave? I think not.
Again, no need for a long drawn out diatribe. I simply, respectfully asked for you to point to a policy or law giving the OTCM this power. You have not provided one, so until you do, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion as I am and have stated as such on many occasions and many topics.But it's not fact.
It's not prohibited in law in absence of a proven fraud allegation confirmed by the SEC. Full stop.
I say, the law is on my side.What you also have not seen is a company even allude to a buyback while on CE.
So unless you believe Dr. J is an absolute fool blatantly disregarding any advice of his counsel, then that makes my case even stronger. So who knows more, you or Dr. J? Because the inference has clearly been made, has it not. While on CE? With the OTC watching?
Sir, the fact that the SEC is the sole regulatory of securities is not up for debate. Again it is entirely understandable how someone could come to this conclusion, but as a matter of law that power resides with the SEC only. The OTC cannot restrict securities in any manner on thier own. They are not a regulatory body and would have to make a referral of securities fraud to the SEC, which would then enforce it after thier investigation. We have not seen any evidence of this.
I've explained why many may have come to this conclusion, but none have produced evidence. I also explained that the CE would cause a company to lose the ability to buyback shares because of financial impact, not a regulatory one.
Focus please. Please show where the OTC has regulatory authority over securities. That's all I'm asking.
The most powerful option the OTC has is to make a recommendation. That recommendation is taken into account by market makers whether to trade in the security. It is not a mandate or law. That is the limit of the OTC's power.
As for buying and selling, they do not have the power to restrict it.
That power lies with the SEC.
If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.
That again is an assumption by you..im asking for a factual regulation. The OTC does not have the power to enforce this.
Thy can only do what they HAVE done, make a recommendation..there is NO PROOF of fraud here. Again I'm not asking for your opinion or assumption point out the regulation or even policy in writing which should be able to be found on the OTC website
You cannot. You're asserting a legal purchase of shares is fraud or an allegation of fraud with no foundation.
The Company purchasing shares is the same as a shareholder. So ALL purchasing would be deemed securities fraud and hatled BY THE SEC. Not the otc. Can it be restricted YES ,but NOT by the OTC ,only SEC. There is no restriction on our securities. You're granting a power that simply does not exist with the OTC. It would easily be found on the SEC website. It's not there.
The SEC regulates securities not the OTC. There is no policy or law preventing a company from buying back it's stock on the OTC because the OTC is NOT a regulatory body, nor do they have enforcement capabilities in regards to securities. That lies SOLELY with the SEC. There has been no enforcement action from the SEC.
So while many make this assumption, this simply is not true and unproven.
It likely stems from the fact that most companies cannot afford to do a buyback after losing market cap and liquidity. If you have proof. Please provide it.
Not true
Always has been counterproductive.
So, there is none..thanks
Stop deflecting. Where is the $400 post