Not sure why you think one of us is not telling the truth. I said:
"Of COURSE its not Bougainville! Roger CANNOT reveal the TRUE details of the deal due to non-disclosure agreements!
He CAN'T hold up the real papers!"
Of course, perhaps I should have been more clear: He cannot hold up the real papers OF THE BANK THROUGH WHICH THE $2BILLION DEAL IS SECURED due to non-disclosure agreements. I guess I just assumed that was implied as I eluded to it in the previous sentence.
What ROGER said in the video you so graciously posted was that a deal of that magnitude requires verification of those funds from the purchaser and that is typically done with a "guarantee letter" FROM A THIRD PARTY--in other words NOT FROM THE BANK THAT WILL BE USED, but from a THIRD-PARTY BANK--because, once again, he CANNOT reveal the details of the bank through which the $2billion deal is secured due to NDA'S. WHAT HE WAS SHOWING WAS THE GUARANTEE LETTER. That's all. So, OF COURSE, the bank through which the $2Billion deal is secured is NOT going to be Bougainville. They are the THIRD PARTY. They CAN'T verify their own funds. So this is NOT the bank that is being used to secure the $2billion deal.
This is all my opinion, of course.
So, the papers Roger held up were legit. And what he said was clear: he was showing the GUARANTEE LETTER. My comment does NOT in any way contradict what Roger was saying. My point was that Roger CANNOT hold up the real papers (OF THE ACTUAL BANK THROUGH WHICH THE $2BILLION DEAL IS SECURED) due to NDA's that are in place.
I am entitled to believe. And I DO believe. I believe in the $2B deal. I believe the AUDITED financials will be available soon. And I believe I'm done explaining what I meant by my comment.
I wish everyone a FABULOUS day!
GO OPTI$$$$
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
