InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 17
Posts 1579
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/15/2018

Re: None

Thursday, 06/01/2023 6:17:35 PM

Thursday, June 01, 2023 6:17:35 PM

Post# of 70989
Reading something very interesting, starting on page 32 and ending at the second paragraph on page 35, it talks about notes issued by DHS 10 not NNRX (“the Company” as stated in definitions for this Q report). It appears a lot of these notes were for “Cash” received by DHS 10, there is even a note issued to one of the previous owners of the plant while he still owned “The Plant” a “Mr. Doron”. Mr. Doron received some repayments against the note by DHS 10 for which he sold to a third party for "Cash".

All should read that part of the report very carefully; it seems to be showing that the daily working of the plant were done by DHS 10 and NOT by NNRX/Bishop. Those dealings are the ones that are in default at present. Hum, just saying, looks a little funky on DHS 10’s part doesn’t it? Also, guessing that in the daily working of The Plant DHS 10 should have been paying the rent out of the receivables of the plant, or some of the Notes it issued, as well and not Bishop as has been stated in a round about way.

Sheds a different light on things a little doesn’t it. Doesn’t appear that the resigned officers of The Plant may not be as squeaky clean as they make them selves out to be.

Just saying and reading between the lines at present. I don’t think the Law Suit going to be as simple as it appears and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Bislhop files a counter law suit of it's own at all.