Replies to post #229517 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[Jetmek_03052]

As for Foelak's "belief" that this case was unlike "other companies" cases?

I'm fairly certain that if the Board saw it that way, they would've already affirmed her ruling.

Foelak went to great lengths in her ID, trying to explain WHY she thought DBMM's case was different than others. If the Board agreed, this would have been over LONG AGO.

They obviously DON'T agree. THAT is why they granted the PFR. They want a closer look and some sort of actual proof that DBMM is actually compliant.

You're correct in that Foelak is able to rule any way she wants, to put any "spin" on things that she chooses to. But it doesn't mean her ruling was correct by the regulations.

That's why the BOARD will finally rule.

[OTC Whisperer]

Exactly right: Precedence is used as a guideline for ruling, but of course each case has its own unique circumstances....obviously this is the entire reason there is a judge to begin with...and if it’s the first case if it’s kind, by definition, there is no precedence...so no rulings can be made if there is no precedence!?!? Lolololol, love the nonsense I read here!