Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[LOVE*PINK]

Judge Foelak: "Thus the company’s situation >>> DIFFERS <<< from cases in which the Commission determined that revocation was necessary or appropriate."

All arguments, proposed findings and conclusions>WERE CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Below right from Initial Decision issued by Judge Foelak

https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljdec/2019/id1389cff.pdf

Key points: (which counter Division’s Petition points, directly from Judge’s Initial Decision)

1. Pg 2. “The Initial Decision is based on the existing record and the Commission’s public official records concerning Digital Brand, of which official notice has been taken pursuant to 17 CFR, Section 201.323. All arguments and proposed findings and conclusions that are inconsistent with this decision WERE CONSIDERED AND REJECTED.”

2.Pg 7 Para 3. The Judge addressed why Absolute is neither appropriate precedent, nor on point. ”Thus the company’s situation DIFFERS from cases in which the Commission determined that revocation was necessary or appropriate.”

SM raised 2 issues for review in her petition

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-17990-event-116.pdf

Issue 1. Did the Law Judge err by failing to follow the standard for determining sanctions in a· Section 120) proceeding as set forth in lmpax Laboratories, Inc., Rel. No. 34-57864 (May 23, 2008) and Absolute Potential, Inc., Rel. No. 34-71866 (Apr. 4, 2014) ?

For this one, even a middle school student can understand that Absolute Potentials cannot be compared with DBMM as DBMM is a real company with business, clients, revenue, employees, IT awards, clients recommendations, is current in filings with audited fins since more than 1+ years and much more while ABSOLUTE POTENTIAL, INC. was
1. a SHELL,
2. did NOT file for 5 years
3. Thomas F. Duszynski is Absolute's sole employee, director, and officer
4. Thomas owned 97% of OS
5. Absolute Potentials Inc continued to struggle with its ability to establish and maintain "internal control over financial reporting
6. And many more points in below PDF
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2014/34-71866.pdf

Issue 2. Did the -Law Judge err by concluding that Respondent had cured its initial fil~ failures and was current on its reporting obligations despite Corp Fin's opinion to the contrary ?

SEC attorney Samantha has been in the case for a few months now but in spite of SEC Corp Finance giving approval to DBMM filings, she continued to lie and even lied in petition that DBMM filings don't have SEC Corp Finance approval. See the text from DBMM SEC counsel letter dated October 3rd, 2019, which was uploaded by SEC after 1 month. REMEMBER ALL ? We have been requesting SEC to upload DBMM letters to Judge and SEC did not upload DBMM letters for more than a month. This is the reason. SEC did not want us to know that SEC Corp Finance has reviewed DBMM filings and has given their approval. See the extract from DBMM letter dated October 3rd, 2019.

"DBMM has, since that submission by Enforcement, continued its discussions with Corporation Finance and recently received confirmation from them that language that we had proposed was acceptable and remedied the prior deficiencies. The Company then, yesterday, filed those amendments with language."

Below is the link to DBMM letter dated October 3rd, 2019 containing above paragraph.

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-17990-event-107.pdf

Samantha has to let it go else it will damage SEC reputation further

Good luck to all DBMM shareholders.