The very first page of Fritz's brief contains a statement that is not accurate:
"DOE, in an overwrought and misleading submission on this appeal, insists that the Law
Judge’s findings and reasoning should be rejected in favor of DOE’s own skewed characterizations
of the Company and its conduct. For example, it begins by referring to DBMM as a “chronically
delinquent filer” when, in fact, the Company had timely filed for years prior to the circumstances
that caused the delinquency....."
REALLY??!! The FACTS are quite different!!
DBMM registered their stock using an SB-2 registration form on 03/27/2002. Between that time and the last filing before Enforcement instigated the proceedings against DBMM (05/16/2017), DBMM DID NOT file timely reports TWENTY EIGHT TIMES!
They filed late filing requests (NT-10Q's) for 10Q quarterly reports EIGHTEEN times and Late filing requests for 10K year end reports (NT-10K's) TEN times!
Just to be clear - The description for these late filing requests are " Notice of inability to file TIMELY 10Q's or 10K's"
Fritz's comment "when, in fact, the Company had timely filed for years prior to the circumstances
that caused the delinquency" is not TRUTHFUL when compared with the record.
It can EASILY be researched HERE:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001127475&type=&dateb=&owner=exclude&start=120&count=40
First of MANY inconsistencies which I will document in further posts.
I keep telling myself....deep breath....count to ten....try to answer without personal attack...if available, always try to present fact to back up your opinion.
AI
