Replies to post #280522 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[StayHumble]

AJL Saying Yes to mitigating Circumstances is not accurate?

Judge ruled in their favor. There were calls for them to voluntarily delist! Ridiculous! Judge ruled in their favor and CE about to drop.
$DBMM

IT IS ORDERED this administrative proceeding IS DISMISSED.
by Administrative Law Judge(ALJ) Carol Fox Foelak

This Initial Decision shall become effective in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Rule 360 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.360. Pursuant to that Rule, a party may file a petition for review of this Initial Decision within twenty-one days after service of the Initial Decision. A party may also file a motion to correct a manifest error of fact within ten days of the Initial Decision, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.111. If a motion to correct a manifest error of fact is filed by a party, then a party shall have twenty-one days to file a petition for review from the date of the undersigned’s order resolving such motion to correct a manifest error of fact. The Initial Decision will not become final until the Commission enters an order of finality. The Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party files a petition for review or a motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the Commission determines on its own initiative to review the Initial Decision as to a party. final as to that party. If any of these events occur, the Initial Decision shall not become
______________________________
Carol Fox Foelak Administrative Law Judge
S o u r c e : https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljdec/2019/id1389cff.pdf

WRONG!
The judge ruled AGAINST DBMM...but gave a favorable sentence!

This is not accurate. Review happens when an affected party requests a review or the commission decides on their own to review a decision.
In addition, in her decision, it clearly stated she recognized the noncompliance regarding the filings. But as an appointed judge she has the obligation as does the commission to rule in the best interests of shareholders. That is clearly stated in the regulations. These hearings are strictly designed for parties to put forth "extenuating circumstances" or errors in DOE recommendations. I can't see how the commission could have a vote of no confidence. As I said before, only reason DBMM is here today is they fought. Almost all others do not.
"She is a judge. Obviously no "expert" because she ruled directly against written regulation and solidly set precedent. This is the VERY REASON WHY her ruling is under review and will likely be either modified or overturned."

Where can this ACCURATE Negative ruling be found?
Asking for a friend

[Stock_Barber]

"She is a judge. Obviously no "expert" because she ruled directly against written regulation and solidly set precedent. This is the VERY REASON WHY her ruling is under review and will likely be either modified or overturned."

Exactly! Good post!

.

[thelimeyone]

DBMM

Once again you are misconstruing the post you are referring to.
You are quoting the "red" highlight not the "green" highlight.
The red highlight was written by some overated ignoramus not by Humble
who is merely highlighting the gaslighting. The green highlight is the actual facts
of the matter and is what Humble and the rest of us know to be the actual facts.
Red = some fools false opinion. Green = actual facts.

tlo.

[Fai 2]

Another THESIS of OPINIONS as it stands the judge ruling in FAVOR of DBMM.

About the 3 percent or $3200!

Big difference! What a joke!