Hahahaha what a joke. No one cares what sec decides. The steps to Remove the CE designation were given by OTCM and were followed precisely.
The SECs no decision policy has been rendered useless with the new 15c-211 amendments granting the power to resume trading under the sole preview of the OTCM.
However Miranda’s legal Expertise may very well be needed again very soon!!
Happy Sunday morning to all $DBMMers!! It must be something pretty special for this much attention!! As well all know, even Mother Theresa doesn’t get a day of rest!!
Or #3. Have DBMM lawyers file a FOIA request as to why this has continued with extension upon extension, all while DBMM has met requirements while being, for better terms, jerked around.
Then take the FOIA information to the Office of the Inspector General and show any actual or perceived indiscretions.
As for your comment about a win/win, I completely disagree. By continually extending the PFR, DBMM is held back on making financial decisions and gains. Then redoing another 211 is more money they have to put out and thinking the SEC would quick track a form 10 for them, that’s rich. The SEC could say what they want and do the complete opposite, kind of like dismissing something, then for a year jerking a company and it’s shareholders around all in the guise is ‘investor safety’
Who cares. CE going to come off regardless. This is a bunch of nonsense. SEC can delay into their own irrelevancy if they want but that would continue to undermine their credibility. IMO OTC markets is going to remove CE regardless.
Great post. Even though it is logical, you had to know that the most die hard advocates of the mega NSS position would be derisive of your post.
Any course of action that has DBMM accepting any type of revocation and then subsequently filing a Form 10 is not conducive to the dream of the “naked short squeeze”.
Rather than being logical and following that course of action, years of extensions and the years of “Investor Updates” that will undoubtedly follow them (promising that DBMM will “soon” be ok) will be accepted and then complained about.
As a portfolio investor, with a great deal of both proper investment strategy experience and negotiating skills, I had to read the post a few times and
Are you suggesting DBMM to start all over with the SEC? That is what SCOTUS provided asking for new evidence because of the pressure of the Lucia case in Dec 2017. The Company did just that and got a Dismissal.
IMO, it is ridiculous to tell shareholders to write recommendations to one of the most prestigious attorneys in the field and a seasoned management who has moved forward with LTIs? That is wrong.
IMO- the CE is coming down and the dialogue is between OTCM and the Company. The rest will fall into place.
Get this straight The Company is looking after the shareholders just as Judge Foelak stated in her Dismissal.
No one wins? Well one could argue that any future potential shareholders would win by not buying shares. And isnt that the SECs mandate, to protect shareholders.
And before everyone yelps 'what about us shareholders' there will always be a group of shareholders wont there.
I really hope this just ends and the company goes on to be successful, but Im thinkin thats a pretty big ask.
A DBMM advocacy post: If there is another 90 day extension tomorrow it is plausible to think there could be interminable 90 day extensions. No-one wins with the interminable 90 day extensions, not the SEC D.O.E., not A.L.J. Foelak, and most importantly, not Digital Brand Media. So then, instead of the very unproductive back and forth bantering on whether the SEC D.O.E. is wrong or right, or Digital Brand Media is wrong or right, or A.L.J. Foelak was wrong or right, shareholders can individually or as a group contact Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry directly and suggest the following:
#1. Maranda Fritz as DBMM's Lawyer and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal with the SEC D.O.E. to accept revocation that protects the SEC D.O.E. demand for "precedents' (i.e. revocation), protects the judicial integrity of A.L.J. Foelak's Initial Decision, and provides a window for DBMM to quickly reregister with the SEC whereby the SEC commits to not holding up a FORM 10 to reregister with interminable questions. DBMM could be reregistered within 60 days, and DBMM could again ask a Market Maker to submit a FORM 211 to FINRA to obtain quotations. Optimal timeframe 90 days, the equivalent of one 90 day extension.....no more Caveat Emptor and no more 90 day extensions!! Everyone wins.
#2. Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could cite a D.O.E. recommendation in their O.I.P. against Legacy Xchange Inc. that had their registration revoked on Nov. 30,2022. In the D.O.E.'s arguments they wrote "If, after revocation, Legacy is able to meet the relevant requirements, it may file a Form 10 to re-register its securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g)". This is the first time I have seen this inclusion in a D.O.E. argument for revocation, and Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal citing the D.O.E.'s own words.
#3. Diamond Hands.
I suggest not contaminating any contact with Maranda Fritz or Linda Perry with NSS conspiracies. Wouldn't they already know if there was an NSS issue with DBMM?
DBMM'ers have my permission to copy my post and send it to Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry.
I'll make sure to let Linda, Miranda and my Friend know about this great Investment Advice! Thank you!
Accepting Revocation is necessary to protect which investors? Asking for Mate. Thanks in Advance.
DBMM'ers have my permission to copy my post and send it to Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry.
A DBMM advocacy post: If there is another 90 day extension tomorrow it is plausible to think there could be interminable 90 day extensions. No-one wins with the interminable 90 day extensions, not the SEC D.O.E., not A.L.J. Foelak, and most importantly, not Digital Brand Media.
So then, instead of the very unproductive back and forth bantering on whether the SEC D.O.E. is wrong or right, or Digital Brand Media is wrong or right, or A.L.J. Foelak was wrong or right, shareholders can individually or as a group contact Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry directly and suggest the following:
#1. Maranda Fritz as DBMM's Lawyer and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal with the SEC D.O.E. to accept revocation that protects the SEC D.O.E. demand for "precedents' (i.e. revocation), protects the judicial integrity of A.L.J. Foelak's Initial Decision, and provides a window for DBMM to quickly reregister with the SEC whereby the SEC commits to not holding up a FORM 10 to reregister with interminable questions. DBMM could be reregistered within 60 days, and DBMM could again ask a Market Maker to submit a FORM 211 to FINRA to obtain quotations. Optimal timeframe 90 days, the equivalent of one 90 day extension.....no more Caveat Emptor and no more 90 day extensions!! Everyone wins.
#2. Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could cite a D.O.E. recommendation in their O.I.P. against Legacy Xchange Inc. that had their registration revoked on Nov. 30,2022. In the D.O.E.'s arguments they wrote "If, after revocation, Legacy is able to meet the relevant requirements, it may file a Form 10 to re-register its securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g)". This is the first time I have seen this inclusion in a D.O.E. argument for revocation, and Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal citing the D.O.E.'s own words.
Page 13 section 58, after the Secretary's signature: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2022/34-96401.pdf I suggest not contaminating any contact with Maranda Fritz or Linda Perry with NSS conspiracies. Wouldn't they already know if there was an NSS issue with DBMM?
DBMM'ers have my permission to copy my post and send it to Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry.
Should shareholders contact Maranda Fritz|Linda Perry directly & ask about NSS? Asking for a Friend
A DBMM advocacy post: If there is another 90 day extension tomorrow it is plausible to think there could be interminable 90 day extensions.
So then, instead of the very unproductive back and forth bantering: Shareholders can individually or as a group contact Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry directly and suggest the following:
1#. Maranda Fritz as DBMM's Lawyer and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal with the SEC D.O.E. to accept revocation that protects the SEC D.O.E. demand for "precedents' (i.e. revocation), protects the judicial integrity of A.L.J. Foelak's Initial Decision, and provides a window for DBMM to quickly reregister with the SEC whereby the SEC commits to not holding up a FORM 10 to reregister with interminable questions. DBMM could be reregistered within 60 days, and DBMM could again ask a Market Maker to submit a FORM 211 to FINRA to obtain quotations. Optimal timeframe 90 days, the equivalent of one 90 day extension.....no more Caveat Emptor and no more 90 day extensions!! Everyone wins.
#2. Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could cite a D.O.E. recommendation in their O.I.P. against Legacy Xchange Inc. that had their registration revoked on Nov. 30,2022. In the D.O.E.'s arguments they wrote "If, after revocation, Legacy is able to meet the relevant requirements, it may file a Form 10 to re-register its securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g)". This is the first time I have seen this inclusion in a D.O.E. argument for revocation, and Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal citing the D.O.E.'s own words.
DBMM'ers have my permission to copy my post and send it to Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry.
Any More Suggestions? Asking for Chum. Can I get your Opinion on Option 3? Thanks in Advance.
A DBMM advocacy post: If there is another 90 day extension tomorrow it is plausible to think there could be interminable 90 day extensions. No-one wins with the interminable 90 day extensions, not the SEC D.O.E., not A.L.J. Foelak, and most importantly, not Digital Brand Media.
So then, instead of the very unproductive back and forth bantering on whether the SEC D.O.E. is wrong or right, or Digital Brand Media is wrong or right, or A.L.J. Foelak was wrong or right, shareholders can individually or as a group contact Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry directly and suggest the following:
#1. Maranda Fritz as DBMM's Lawyer and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal with the SEC D.O.E. to accept revocation that protects the SEC D.O.E. demand for "precedents' (i.e. revocation), protects the judicial integrity of A.L.J. Foelak's Initial Decision, and provides a window for DBMM to quickly reregister with the SEC whereby the SEC commits to not holding up a FORM 10 to reregister with interminable questions. DBMM could be reregistered within 60 days, and DBMM could again ask a Market Maker to submit a FORM 211 to FINRA to obtain quotations. Optimal timeframe 90 days, the equivalent of one 90 day extension.....no more Caveat Emptor and no more 90 day extensions!! Everyone wins.
#2. Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could cite a D.O.E. recommendation in their O.I.P. against Legacy Xchange Inc. that had their registration revoked on Nov. 30,2022. In the D.O.E.'s arguments they wrote "If, after revocation, Legacy is able to meet the relevant requirements, it may file a Form 10 to re-register its securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g)". This is the first time I have seen this inclusion in a D.O.E. argument for revocation, and Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal citing the D.O.E.'s own words.
Page 13 section 58, after the Secretary's signature: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2022/34-96401.pdf I suggest not contaminating any contact with Maranda Fritz or Linda Perry with NSS conspiracies. Wouldn't they already know if there was an NSS issue with DBMM? DBMM'ers have my permission to copy my post and send it to Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry.
I suggest contacting Maranda Fritz or Linda Perry WiththatQuestion. Wouldn't they know?
$DBMM Management stands behind its results to this point and the patience required for the achievements thus far and going forward.
There have been naysayers since the beginning of the mitigating circumstances who have damaged the Company and its shareholders, non-stop for years , despite the circumstances, many directed by others.
That perhaps is the last mitigating circumstance to be eliminated. For now, simply ignore the misinformation and proven incorrect opinions.
Be assured the Company’s timeline is progressing with no missteps. We ask our shareholders to stay the course and have patience.
$DBMM'ers have my permission to copy my post and send it to Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry.
HUZZAH!ATTENTION SHAREHOLDERS->CONTACT $DBMM CEO LINDA TO ACCEPT REVOCATION.
A DBMM advocacy post: If there is another 90 day extension tomorrow it is plausible to think there could be interminable 90 day extensions. No-one wins with the interminable 90 day extensions, not the SEC D.O.E., not A.L.J. Foelak, and most importantly, not Digital Brand Media.
So then, instead of the very unproductive back and forth bantering on whether the SEC D.O.E. is wrong or right, or Digital Brand Media is wrong or right, or A.L.J. Foelak was wrong or right, shareholders can individually or as a group contact Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry directly and suggest the following:
#1. Maranda Fritz as DBMM's Lawyer and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal with the SEC D.O.E. to accept revocation that protects the SEC D.O.E. demand for "precedents' (i.e. revocation), protects the judicial integrity of A.L.J. Foelak's Initial Decision, and provides a window for DBMM to quickly reregister with the SEC whereby the SEC commits to not holding up a FORM 10 to reregister with interminable questions. DBMM could be reregistered within 60 days, and DBMM could again ask a Market Maker to submit a FORM 211 to FINRA to obtain quotations. Optimal timeframe 90 days, the equivalent of one 90 day extension.....no more Caveat Emptor and no more 90 day extensions!! Everyone wins.
#2. Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could cite a D.O.E. recommendation in their O.I.P. against Legacy Xchange Inc. that had their registration revoked on Nov. 30,2022. In the D.O.E.'s arguments they wrote "If, after revocation, Legacy is able to meet the relevant requirements, it may file a Form 10 to re-register its securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g)". This is the first time I have seen this inclusion in a D.O.E. argument for revocation, and Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal citing the D.O.E.'s own words.
Page 13 section 58, after the Secretary's signature:
I suggest not contaminating any contact with Maranda Fritz or Linda Perry with NSS conspiracies. Wouldn't they already know if there was an NSS issue with DBMM?
DBMM'ers have my permission to copy my post and send it to Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry.
Meanwhile, Dec. 9, 2021 34-93747 Order Extending Time to Issue Decision Mar. 9, 2022 34-94385 Order Extending Time to Issue Decision Jun. 7, 2022 34-95056 Order Extending Time to Issue Decision Sep. 6, 2022 34-95675 Order Extending Time to Issue Decision Dec. 5, 2022 34-96446 Order Extending Time to Issue Decision Mar. 6, 2023 34-97047 Order Extending Time to Issue Decision Jun. 2, 2023 33-11198 Order Dismissing Proceedings
inCourt UnderOath DOE resorts to Slander $DBMM+Management. (DOH! Br. at 25-28.)
$DBMM has obtained resources to complete the re-audit, bring the Company current, & continue its timely filings,
DOE once again rejects the Law Judge’s analysis and conclusion that the Company explained the reasons for the reporting violations and demonstrated that it had taken effective measures to ensure timely filing.
The Company undertook and successfully completed the re-audit, while also addressing and resolving the litigation. Having resolved those issues, the Company then ensured, for three years, the timely filing of its periodic reports. Its assurances are more than credible; they have been borne out by years of filings.
Renee to the rescue>Negotiate a deal with the SEC😀
A DBMM advocacy post: If there is another 90 day extension tomorrow it is plausible to think there could be interminable 90 day extensions. No-one wins with the interminable 90 day extensions, not the SEC D.O.E., not A.L.J. Foelak, and most importantly, not Digital Brand Media.
So then, instead of the very unproductive back and forth bantering on whether the SEC D.O.E. is wrong or right, or Digital Brand Media is wrong or right, or A.L.J. Foelak was wrong or right, shareholders can individually or as a group contact Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry directly and suggest the following:
#1. Maranda Fritz as DBMM's Lawyer and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal with the SEC D.O.E. to accept revocation that protects the SEC D.O.E. demand for "precedents' (i.e. revocation), protects the judicial integrity of A.L.J. Foelak's Initial Decision, and provides a window for DBMM to quickly reregister with the SEC whereby the SEC commits to not holding up a FORM 10 to reregister with interminable questions. DBMM could be reregistered within 60 days, and DBMM could again ask a Market Maker to submit a FORM 211 to FINRA to obtain quotations. Optimal timeframe 90 days, the equivalent of one 90 day extension.....no more Caveat Emptor and no more 90 day extensions!! Everyone wins.
#2. Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could cite a D.O.E. recommendation in their O.I.P. against Legacy Xchange Inc. that had their registration revoked on Nov. 30,2022. In the D.O.E.'s arguments they wrote "If, after revocation, Legacy is able to meet the relevant requirements, it may file a Form 10 to re-register its securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g)". This is the first time I have seen this inclusion in a D.O.E. argument for revocation, and Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry could negotiate a deal citing the D.O.E.'s own words.
Page 13 section 58, after the Secretary's signature:
I suggest not contaminating any contact with Maranda Fritz or Linda Perry with NSS conspiracies. Wouldn't they already know if there was an NSS issue with DBMM?
DBMM'ers have my permission to copy my post and send it to Maranda Fritz and Linda Perry.
The Company has noted that recent prosecutions by the SEC and the DOJ of named individuals who deliberately manipulate and peddle misinformation, often slanderous are cause for regulatory and public policy concerns.
DBMM has long highlighted the negative aspects of those paid to create chaos and scare shareholders. The Company stated in recent Shareholder Updates, that it has sought advice from individuals and organizations prudent in these matters, and participation by third parties in monitoring and gathering information.
Funders wait,to ensure $DBMM Isn't revoked by the Commission.
The Company has the present ability to move forward to continue to grow its business for the benefit of its shareholders and asks that the Commission affirm the decision of the Law Judge denying revocation of its registration.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Company submits that revocation of its registration is not necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors, and that the denial of revocation should be affirmed.
Dated: March 26, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, /s/Maranda Fritz_____________________ Maranda E. Fritz Maranda E. Fritz PC 335 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017
inCourt UnderOath DOE resorts to Slander $DBMM+Management. DOH! Br. at 25-28.
$DBMM has obtained resources to complete the re-audit, bring the Company current, & continue its timely filings,
DOE once again rejects the Law Judge’s analysis and conclusion that the Company explained the reasons for the reporting violations and demonstrated that it had taken effective measures to ensure timely filing.
The Company undertook and successfully completed the re-audit, while also addressing and resolving the litigation. Having resolved those issues, the Company then ensured, for three years, the timely filing of its periodic reports. Its assurances are more than credible; they have been borne out by years of filings.
✅Why ch0se $DBMM?Ground-floorInvestment0pp.$GME|$AMC Level $DBMM @dbmm_group Positioned to disrupt multitrillion-dollar global market Ground-floor investment opportunity Comparisons to $GME and $AMC
✅Why chose DBMM?
Positioned to disrupt multitrillion-dollar global market Ground-floor investment opportunity Comparisons to GameStop and AMC
Commision:$DBMM proceedingDismissed due to MitigatingExcuses
$DBMM! Digital Brand Media & Marketing Group, Inc. Intellicell Biosciences, Inc. 3-17990
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2023/33-11198.pdf Minimum 4 Fraud Cases! "Not Kramer but a Fraud Asscociate" (Moot)! "IT was a Kazillion Years Ago" (Moot) "Evidence" (moot)! ALJ Carol Fox Foelak (moot)! CE drop (moot)! Timely Filings (moot) Are Late Filings also Moot? Asking for a Friend. Happy Belated Groundhogs Day! 02/02/23
Washington D.C., June 12, 2023 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged investment adviser Sabby Management LLC and its managing partner, Hal D. Mintz, with fraud in connection with a long running scheme involving misrepresentations and violations of rules for short selling and order making, as well as other violative trading, that generated more than $2 million in illegal profits.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that, from at least March 2017 through May 2019, Sabby and Mintz repeatedly circumvented trading rules to conduct unlawful trades in the stock of at least 10 public companies. Short selling is a legal practice where, generally, a trader borrows a security from a securityholder and sells the security at one price, speculating that the trader can buy the security at a lower price in the future before it must be returned to its owner. As alleged in the complaint, for example, Sabby and Mintz engaged in illegal “naked short selling” by intentionally and improperly placing short sales when they knew or were reckless in not knowing that they had not borrowed or located the shares, and then failed to make timely delivery of the shares. According to the SEC’s complaint, the purpose of Sabby and Mintz’s fraudulent scheme was to earn profits they could not have gained through legal trading.
Additionally, as the complaint alleges, on occasion Sabby and Mintz used their naked short selling to artificially deflate the price of securities, allowing them to obtain more shares at a cheaper price.
Topics Related to $DBMM: Wes and company CEOs taking action against short sellers| $GNS, $CRTD, $GTII $FNGR $TRCH $MMAT $MMTLP $GME $AMC and $BBBY, a ClayTrader Video| $GTII | $HPIL | $VNUE | 2,308 Other Stocks | HUD | Kramer |Ex Morgan Stanley Employee |Avid Traders Interview with COO Reggie James|Ex-JPMorgan Gold Traders Ask for No Prison Time in Spoofing Case
$DBMM litigated w/Asher 4the protection of shareholders+marketplace Asher Enterprises, Inc. has been sanctioned numerous times by the Commission for Securities §5 violations and, under information and belief, intends to commit further Securities Act §5 violations in DBMM's securities.
The Company has noted that recent prosecutions by the SEC and the DOJ of named individuals who deliberately manipulate and peddle misinformation, often slanderous are cause for regulatory and public policy concerns.
DBMM has long highlighted the negative aspects of those paid to create chaos and scare shareholders. The Company stated in recent Shareholder Updates, that it has sought advice from individuals and organizations prudent in these matters, and participation by third parties in monitoring and gathering information.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
