Replies to post #81238 on iTalk Inc. (fka TALK)

[MJAM2020]

I believe Glasgows other play was fully revoked..came back and is now uplisted to big boards..lol..so again maybe even being revoked isn't the end? ... I even wonder if TALK didn't do something to get themselves put into this position..I mean right now have 2 positions in my account that I bought as lottos that went to nothing..both have been dead in the water longer than TALk yet no type of revocation..not even grey yet...I wonder did TALK some how bring attention to themselves to get pinned by the SEC as a tactical move so they could operate without the constant nagging by shareholders? creating a type of smoke screen? Its just a possibility. Either way what if they were waiting for these court issues to get cleared up before they made a move to get right with the SEC filings? We could maybe be seeing something from them soon now? again we know the financials can't be the problem because they had been keeping up with the courts operations reports and anytime the court asked for them they were produced very quickly. So certainly I will not stop getting excited about progress in the courts as long as TALK is still actually trading regardless if they may or may not get revoked. Things that make ya go hmmmm....

imho
mj

[wilma6311]

I agree DJ. Although we have been wondering how iTALK would own the locations after the bk and already know that iTALK merged with UMS Inc which Lee owns...iTALK is in danger of disappearing off the grid. Makes no sense to me that they have not paid the 1600 dollars to update the Nevada filing.

[pb_trading]

SEC is giving companies the chance to provide information by January 5th for reconsideration. Interesting none-the-less.

In addition, the Commission orders all administrative law judges presiding over pending proceedings for which no initial decision has yet been issued to undertake the following actions in each of those proceedings:

• Reconsider the record, including all substantive and procedural actions taken by an administrative law judge pursuant to Rule 111 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.111;

• Issue an order granting parties until January 5, 2018 to submit any new evidence the parties deem relevant to the administrative law judge’s reexamination of the record; In re:Pending Administrative Proceedings 2

• Determine, based on such reconsideration, whether to ratify or revise in any respect all prior actions taken by an administrative law judge in the proceeding; and

• Issue an order by February 16, 2018 stating that the administrative law judge has completed the reconsideration ordered above and setting forth a determination regarding ratification. The Commission hereby tolls the time

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2017/33-10440.pdf

$TALK