Replies to post #115642 on MMEX Resources Corp (MMEX)

[Mithrandir67]

you don't seem to understand the 'nature' of those convertible debt notes!
The only risk for the lenders (and this is why Jack won't ever get more than those max $600k) is that the stock goes to zero...delisting....over and out.
That is so far very unlikely to happen to MMEX at this point in time as the entire share selling still goes at an acceptable pace so to say. The more this scam progresses the more difficult (hence risky) it will become for those lenders, hence the amount lend to Jack becomes smaller and smaller (see latest 8k). As long as those lenders see a chance to sell enough shares to get their money back, this scam will go on.

[jmjjw]

MMEX-scam's stream of toxic lending are not "construction loans."

These are floor-less, convertible loans, in which the net proceeds are siphoned from MMEX, as "SG&A expense" and related-party transactions, into Maple, Mad J.'s private, off-shore shell.

This is called embezzlement when it is discovered, and prosecuted - however, MMEX-scam lacks any independent directors, or form of corporate governance, or accounting controls - this is in fact documented in MMEX-scam's SEC filings.

Mad J. is a really mediocre con-man and grifter - nothing more. Even the use of all-caps and imagination fails to make any difference.

MMEX-scam isn't moving forward, unless by moving forward you mean the lining of Mad J.'s pockets, and increasing shareholder dilution, losses, and liabilities.

Clearly, the MMEX STRONG must have gotten their incredible "wealth" of business knowledge from the Evelyn Woodhead School, specializing in the cognitively challenged. Anyone knows the difference between legitimate project financing, and construction lending, vs. loan sharking, and embezzlement.

You claim blatant scam yet MMEX keeps getting small construction loans to keep progress moving forward. Either these banks are crazy or they believe in the project and Jack Hanks has REALLY GOOD CREDIT because he's a REALLY GOOD BUSINESSMAN. I'm going with the latter.