Renee Thursday, 10/05/17 11:45:52 AM Re: LOVE*PINK post# 146795 0 Post # of 160578 The qualitative difference between the SEC's arguments and Digital Brand's is that the SEC has incontrovertible evidence against Digital Brand in contrast to Digital Brand's "extenuating circumstances" defense. Using the history of 1,586 SEC Admin Law Judge Final Orders where all 1,586 stock registrations were revoked the SEC Admin Law Judge simply does not accept excuses or "extenuating circumstances" for any SEC Registered company to fail in the company's filing OBLIGATIONS. Every SEC Registered company has the lawful right to argue against revocation and Digital Brand is exercising that right, no different than a citizen going to trial charged with a crime where the Police have incontrovertible evidence against the offender. The Court process merely delays the inevitable verdict of guilty against the citizen, and in this civil case against Digital Brand the rightful due process with the SEC Admin Law Judge merely delays the inevitable outcome for Digital Brand's stock registration(s), that outcome being revocation. In the inimitable words of the SEC in its arguments against Digital Brand and to which I have often quoted those words in other SEC Revocation cases, "IT IS TOO LATE" for any delinquent company to become compliant AFTER the SEC Suspends the stock. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-17990-event-43.pdf To bite the worm of incite is to bite the HOOK of the antagonist . They win .