News Focus
News Focus
Followers 107
Posts 14399
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/23/2004

Re: JamesLH post# 82422

Tuesday, 08/27/2024 7:56:44 AM

Tuesday, August 27, 2024 7:56:44 AM

Post# of 83864
Please provide us where Campanella was CHARGED or recommended to be charged..

Like always you read into something and can't seem to comprehend it.

The Agent :

the References Document indicated that
Vendor-1 supplied CC-2 and CC-2 Company-1 with 3-ply face
respirators. Based on my participation in this investigation,
including my review of text messages and email correspondence
between ROMANO and CC-2, I believe this representation was false.



"I believe" not that he found proof.

This part is definitely a ROFLMAO part coming from you.

based on my review of
records obtained during the course of the investigation and my
conversations with 3M’s representatives,
I am aware that 3M never
agreed to manufacture respirators for CC-2 Company-2 and none of
CC2 Company-1, CC-2 Company-2, or CC-2 was authorized to distribute
3M products or solicit purchase orders from prospective customers
on behalf of 3M.



Remember your conversation with the GEP representative and how she told you that SPPC had no relationship with GEP., only to be corrected by her company she was wrong.

Since there were NO charges recommended for Campanella or Romano for a fraudulent instrument , I guessing that the 3M’s representatives the agent talked to might have gotten that wrong as well.

Because in the agents own words.

"Based on my review of ROMANO’s and CC-2’s emails, I am aware that ROMANO and
CC-2 were able to obtain these facemasks from their source-of-supply, the Mexico-based manufacturer
,"

TAKE NOTICE CC-2 WAS NOT CHARGED WITH ANY WRONG, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHARGES , NOT NAMED AND THEIR IDENTITY WAS PROTECTED.

You know the things the courts do to protect the innocent caught up in an illegal schemes.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y