Replies to post #370910 on NanoTech Entertainment Inc (NTEK)

[kbrod1]

Guaranteed no audited financials. Guaranteed no funding. Guaranteed to make more bogus promises after the original deadline comes and goes without anything. Guaranteed insiders to spin some fake story to appease angry longs while they themselves pose as investors.

[bbjones12]

NTEK has no "company" attorney.

If Investor Relations (actually DJ Dark Filer Foley) said that or implied that he's lied to you. Of the four lawsuits we know of, every single one of them is unrepresented by any "company" attorney or any counsel of any kind.

The counsel in the Long Side case declined to continue to represent NTEK in that action a year ago due to non-payment.

The counsel in the K2 Communications case declined to continue to represent NTEK in that action last year due to non-payment.

The counsel in the 3D Content Hub case declined to continue to represent NTEK in that action last year due to non-payment.

NTEK has non represented in the case against them for non-payment of their lease space, and the owners of that building won that case by default.

All of the above is provable and freely available in the court filings.

Please post actual names of investor relations and actual current attorneys of record representing NTEK in sorting the OTC filing caveat emptor issue. Without names for each, this just sounds like total garbage IMO.

[underdog150]

Yes, they said that in January, and the Caveat Emptor is still there
since August of last year. Any more questions?
----------------
TEK- SR/IR
NTEK's response to my Questions about current status of the company?:

I received a brief response from NTEK management about the OTC Market "stop" and "Caveat Emptor"?.

It seems they filed all the necessary papers, and company attorney is following it up with the OTC to clear the warning signs!?. Hope to see that cleared soon that might send a better message about NTEK.

[Zorax]

Wow, the principal lied like about 4 times to you so far. That's really disconcerning to a shareholder I would think.

But if this was a response from IR, why is everything quoted in a old shareholder letter? From months ago?