“For a fake account - The fake Sanchez has been very quiet - your theory falls apart because it has been 7 months since Sanchez posted that the loans will be in the 2023 Q1 that ends on August 31st - which Sanchez didn't know.”
That statement is imo the equivalent of gibberish, I have no idea what you are trying to convey. First you say fake Sanchez, then you say Sanchez, then you say Sanchez didn’t know something, within one paragraph, I can’t decipher what that means because there is no way to know if you are referring to Sanchez as fake or real in the context of your statement.
“The funny part is that if it was a fake account that was sad way to pump AVVH - lie about the company loans.”
Your assumption is that the fake account’s sole purpose is to pump the stock, and not to induce communication from the non-communicating CEO.
“And you are saying that Sanchez committed fraud when he signed off on the financials.”
That statement could be qualified with an argument or context.
“Plus you are stating that the fake Twitter account was created in May 2021 - with the post:
"Gold Quest Capital
@GoldQuestCap
Oct 19, 2021
GoldQuest Capital funds real estate backed notes and investments. It is a cash intensive business backed by hard assets. We are finalizing our initial capital and will complete our reverse merger with $AVVH shortly. We apologize for the delay. Our CEO will update you soon." “
Correct that is my theory.
“You aren't close to being accurate about a fake Twitter account - by Sanchez not reporting a fake Twitter account that is securities fraud.”
The SEC and whomever else is in charge of investigating OTC companies and associated Twitter accounts real or fake appear to have been on vacation the past few years.
“Very poor attempt to defend Sanchez/Cooley.”
Incorrect.
“So Cooley is selling the hijacked shell to another rube.”
Possibly, it should be sold to someone who is productive.
“It is obvious you don't understand the world of the OTC share selling schemes.””
In my opinion you believe all Twitter accounts are real, being completely naive and trusting of Twitter is worse than any lack of understanding especially when the only people who actually know the scam are those in on the scam and those with the means to investigate it. You are full of doubt about every aspect re: AVVH, but not of the Twitter account, that is the sacred part of the story which you refuse to doubt, which is an inconsistency within your discussion.
I’ll say that IF AVVH is sold to someone who is productive and makes loans now or in the future, a company like Rocket mortgage might want to disrupt their potential competitor in advance of any future competition, it might even be considered practical to do so in the corporate world. But without someone productive as CEO evidenced by PR level communication and tangible results, it is a moot discussion.
my posts are always theory and not financial advice
