There is no crime to voice valid concerns. Everything there is documented for the SEC to look at it. I'm not the one making false promises to shareholders. Or false claims, like being listed when they aren't, or going Nasdaq in May of 2022 when they didn't.
I'm very well aware libel laws, which the SEC wouldn't be conccerned about, and which you seem to be uninformed on. And when it comes to public companies and public figures, the laws are always balanced with the public's right to know. And truth is always an absolute defense, and everything is presented as a belief that should be investigated. Don't try to intimidate in areas you either know nothing about or just want to bluff. I've been doing this far longer than you can imagine.
Shareholders have absolutely every right to be warned, and I have every right to warn them. If the company would like to alleviate some of my concerns, like fixing a website, releasing PR's, actually showing a work in progres, then I could start to dwindle those concerns down.
When an article that appears to be from the company on WECHAT about going Nasdaq, then skepticism is warranted. What are their motives for saying that? To lure investors in it seems. Chinese investors. You think the SEC is going to be looking at me or you? They are going to be looking at you! Don't get cocky with me. Turn your anger where it belongs, which is on this company that can't get anything done and isn't keeping its word. Or I should say comopany that's TRYING to come through this shell, yet claiming to already be listed. These are just FACTS.
Do you want to tell Wang Fei to get to work or do you want to keep foaming at the mouth?
These are irrefutable facts:
1. High turnover within first 5 months of the year as documented in the filings.
FACT. SEC's own filings.
2. Documented promises of going NASDAQ in May of 2022. The company is just a shell company and did not address the discrepancy. Also posted here for propserity.
FACT. Links to source. May of 2022 was last month.
3. Observable work from this vantage point has come to a halt.
FACT. From this vantage point, I see no work. Can you falsify this claim? Are you inside my head?
4. Proper steps are not being taken for the best interests of American investors from this author's position.
FACT: This is indeed my position. That's why it says "from this author's position."
5. Company website of the alleged company documented as attempting to come through per OTC filings has many broken links not being addressed. Investors' Relations section does not work. The ENTIRE company website seems to have been neglected for several months from this author's vantage point.
FACT: Do you see anything in the IR section? Has anything changed for several months? Can you point to where, if so?
6. Company spokesman is plastered on banners overseas as endorsing the company. Suspiciously absent from the narrative is that the same actor endorses MANY different brands.
FACT. I just presented 5 links which show him endorsing other companyes. Do you want me to post more? Was that not enough to establish fact?
7. Chinese citizens whom this author assumes are "investors" used to post here frequently. Suspiciously quiet lately as if a gag order was issued. Enthusiasm seems to have waned from this author's interpretation of their behavior or lack thereof.
FACT: This is my interpretation. Do you have proof that this is not my interpretation. Are you inside my head? Can a reasonablly prudent person look at these videos and declare that this can't be my interpretation?
