Sarissa Resources Inc (SRSR)

[easymillion]

Approved National Instrument 43-101 Compliant Mineral Resource Needed
Sarissa will make it, and make it in a very rewarding way to shareholders, when Scott, by proving up the goods on our claims files an approved National Instrument 43-101 compliant mineral resource, IMO.

It is quite disheartening regarding the possibility of any legal action or enforcement of NSS by any regulatory action according to Brecciaboy's post shown below, also IMO:

From a different board easily found by googling Brecciaboy on NSS:
by Brecciaboy :

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:00 am

Let’s start with the NSCC’s SBP or stock borrow program. Addendum C to the rules and regs of the NSCC allowed the establishing of an SBP. The intention was honorable. How was it enacted? The “participants” of the NSCC are allowed to donate into the SBP on a daily basis any unencumbered shares they have IN MARGIN ACCOUNTS ONLY.

Along comes a delivery failure associated with a crook selling nonexistent shares while trying to MANIPULATE share prices downwards in order to steal the money of the investor. The NSCC dips its hand into the SBP and pulls out the # of shares that failed to be delivered. These shares are appropriately debited from the NSCC “shares” a/c of the donor clearing firm and electronically credited to the NSCC “shares” a/c of the buyer of the undelivered shares. The actual purchaser of the shares that were loaned out is impossible to identify so he retains the right to sell those loaned out shares that he is no longer the “legal owner” of.

As the new “legal owner” of the borrowed shares the buying clearing firm has all of the right in the world to re-donate them into the very same lending pool AS IF THEY NEVER LEFT IN THE FIRST PLACE. It’s basically a Ponzi scheme that facilitates counterfeiting. The shares in the SBP lending pool are kept in an anonymously pooled format so that a specific investor can’t see that his particular parcel of shares is now being “co-owned” by perhaps a dozen different investors. The same impossible to identify parcel of shares can INVISIBLY “cure” hundreds of delivery failures.

When pinned down on this reality the NSCC division of the DTCC said three things. First, the SEC approved of Addendum C so go fork yourself. Second, if the SBP was basically a Ponzi/counterfeiting facilitator as you assert then the SEC would make us ban it. Third, the SEC hasn’t said jack so we’ll continue on with it.

In Nanopierce v. DTCC the SEC filed an amicus curiae brief and stated: Judge, we find no problem with the SBP and we did indeed approve of it. Please throw this case out and he did. Recall audit No. 450 of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the SEC. It revealed that of the over 5,000 formal complaints against NSS abuses by Wall Street ZERO resulted in “enforcement actions”. Of the 900 cases sent by FINRA to the SEC recommending “enforcement actions” ZERO had to do with abusive NSS crimes. The Inspector General, David Kotz, said that something spooky is going on with how FINRA and the SEC treat abusive NSS cases as they certainly don’t treat other securities violations the same way.

While drafting Reg SHO we learned that “pump and dump” cases are prosecuted 100-times more frequently than NSS cases by the SROs and regulators. “Pump and dumps” involve Main Street people misbehaving while NSS is Wall Streeters misbehaving. It’s called “regulatory capture”. Due to conflicts of interest beyond description the regulators become “captured” by the financial interests of those they’re supposed to be regulating. Why? It’s because of the “revolving door” from the SEC to jobs on Wall Street paying 50-times more money which is available only to those regulators that REFUSED TO MESS WITH THE CORRUPT STATUS QUO.