Replies to post #62502 on Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[hedge_fun]

What's the point of touting $4B in treasure......

when you have no plans to monetize? I think the answer is obvious.

I find it very surprising that this company has never made disclosure as to just what the facts really are.

I think part of the website claims about not selling treasure is to satisfy the Bureau with their dislike of salvors.

I also think Kyle knows Spain's opinion regarding commercial salvors and that the lame attempt to address it in a roundabout way.

[hedge_fun]

One could argue they should disclose Spain's.....

position, and failure to disclose is lying by omission.

Or they could just go ahead and sign that agreement with Spain (wink wink).

I find it very surprising that this company has never made disclosure as to just what the facts really are.

We know Kyle reads this board, though he claims he pays Brock to monitor it. Here's something for Brock to mull over. Maybe they can review with their OTC banned attorney.

Also, I am glad they finally filed they need a Recovery Permit to salvage the sites.

The federal securities laws require public companies, whenever they speak, to disclose all material information that would be necessary to present the truth entirely. This duty, which the Portfolio calls the “duty to avoid material omissions,” is found in both SEC anti fraud and financial reporting rules. Failure to comply with this duty can, in extreme cases, result in criminal prosecution.

https://pro.bloombergtax.com/portfolio/avoiding-material-omissions-federal-securities-laws-5509/#:~:text=The%20federal%20securities%20laws%20require,fraud%20and%20financial%20reporting%20rules.