Replies to post #301718 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[THall]

Linda already did major damage to DBMM. No need for anyone to cause more. LMAO she is an idiot

[Stock_Barber]

Sharing the remanded order after being corrected is intended to damage DBMM.

BULLSHIT!

"After being corrected"
- Who has the authority to speak as an official source to correct this? Some anonymous internet poster with zero credentials to do so? That is beyond absurd! If I were to believe that, I would have to sure be full of myself and have quite the ego!

"is intended to damage DBMM"
- Motivation is an opinion... and it is DEAD WRONG! Posting it is intended to counter the "100% revocation" lie! Since the lie continues, Patel's order will continue to be posted as it PROVES that DBMM was ordered REVOKED! FACT! Sounds easily prevented, eh?

If it hurts when I hit myself in the head with a hammer, it seems that there is an easy solution to that problem, no?


.

[RickNagra]

Oh yes.

[janice shell]

What was posted is deliberately false an order for 2weeks in Nov 2017 which was vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court of the US in Dec 2017.

Nonsense. DBMM was suspended for two weeks on 17 May 2017.

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2017/34-80702.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2017/34-80702-o.pdf

At the same time, the SEC issued an order to initiate a proceeding to revoke DBMM's registration:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2017/34-80701.pdf

DBMM decided to fight the SEC's effort to revoke registration. You can read all about it here:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/ap-3-17990.xml

There has been no resolution of the case. There may be one on 5 June:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2023/34-97047.pdf

DBMM's stock's registration was preliminarily revoked on 16 November 2017:

https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljdec/2017/id1226jsp.pdf

What was posted is deliberately false an order for 2weeks in Nov 2017 which was vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court of the US in Dec 2017.

No. This is what happened:

https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljorders/2017/ap-5283.pdf

That had to do with several cases that had been heard by SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). Those cases were appealed to the SEC, then to Federal District Court, and finally they made their way to the Supreme Court. The most important of them was Lucia. The Supremes decided in favor of the appellant. And so the SEC agreed to rehear cases handled by the ALJs during a specified period.

The explanation is much longer than that, but the bottom line is that it gave DBMM an opportunity to fight the case against it.

And so we wait to see what, if anything, happens next week.