Replies to post #325261 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[2can$]

Morning J7.
Catylast needed imo to help move the sp don't need a monster, one big enough to attract some intrest and then some volume will follow we need a penny soon for 30days..........I need to see follow threw
on that and where share price lands............I am confident it will be meet.

Short squeeze, WOW!! That imo comes after 1st uplist.
I to would like to know what in more detail what does DBMM have in there sights to put out tweets to disrupt multitrillion-dollar market and explosion in share price like AMC/GameStop ...............trust us, now that is up to each person to gage.

Anyone could walk away with company is just like all the other penny stocks and DBMM is not the exception to the rule.

As a gambler I gambled that DBMM would get through this mess beating all obstacles and back trading again, well I beat the dealer in a very very high risk high reward like never seen before, after the fact share price did go up but not to my likings.

I would have hoped the company would have put more trust in there long loyal share holders with as information to satisfy there need to keep the faith without the hope...........If you can tweet it you can share it................You care about your share holders then show it it's the best business practice around unless it's patent related.

When if DBMM uplist there you have it a real bona-fide value play in DBMM and that's a wonderful investment, as I see it it still is a risk reward play until the uplist and that is a wonderful play also, if your down here playing in pinkies sand box you might as well load up with as many shares as you can afford imho.

I'm set to unload at $6.14 that number needs a short squeeze. Look around you, bashers that beat everything to the ground.........year after year now they are name calling, there years of actions here are out of place and don't match the true intentions..............Incongruoencies tells the tale, again its up to each investor to find why they are here.

Respectfully

[fourcloze]

There will be ZERO FORCE as the DTCC is probably just as corrupt as any of them. Just exactly HOW will they enforce? Tell the largest pocket lining MM, the pos cdel they have to cover and lose 10's and millions of dollars because some little no name company had a case dropped against them? And, WHO will do this?? Please, give me the details as all we've been hearing is how high this stock will fly when it happens, so someone must know much more details on the process I'd hope in order to spam the fck out of it? Right? I'll be waiting to hear the master plan, but for some reason think it'll be deafened out by the crickets. POS!!!

-OUT-

[Jetmek_03052]

Do you know the status of the FINRA case against Alpine. I believe IMHO either it is still ongoing or dropped, as I haven't heard anything about it.

The short answer is that the case is being held in abeyance while the D.C. court hears the appeal by Alpine, which questions the constitutionality of the FINRA decision makers. Once the DC court makes a decision on the constitutionality of the FINRA actors, this case MAY continue. If there IS a problem with the appointment of the FINRA actors, THAT will have to be addressed FIRST.

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING plaintiffs' 96 Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance Pending the D.C. Circuit's Resolution of the Pending Appeal and STAYING the SCHEDULING ORDER, issued on May 30, 2023, and all matters in this action until the D.C. Circuit renders its decision in Alpine Securities Corp. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., No. 23-5129.

The case can be seen using the link below:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67429321/scottsdale-capital-advisors-corporation-v-financial-industry-regulatory/#minute-entry-362004982

In a nutshell, ALpine has given the opinion that there may be a constitutional issue with FINRA actors that wield great "executive" power over companies. Much like the case that allowed DBMM to gain time to file delinquent filings (LUCIA V. SEC), Alpine is saying that executives making life and death decisions for companies have not been properly appointed (by the President).

From Judge Howell in last filing for the case:

"There is a serious argument that FINRA hearing officers exercise significant executive power. And it is undisputed that they do not act under the President. That may be a constitutional problem."

Here is the entire paragraph of the last document in the Docket (in case you cannot open the court listener website):

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING plaintiffs' 96 Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance Pending the D.C. Circuit's Resolution of the Pending Appeal and STAYING the SCHEDULING ORDER, issued on May 30, 2023, and all matters in this action until the D.C. Circuit renders its decision in Alpine Securities Corp. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., No. 23-5129. "An appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, 'divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.'" Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 143 S. Ct. 1915, 1919 (2023) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)); accord Deering Milliken, Inc. v. FTC, 647 F.2d 1124, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Furthermore, a stay in one proceeding during the pendency of a separate proceeding is appropriate only when favored by balancing the factors of "the court's interests in judicial economy and any possible hardship to the parties." Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov't of Belize, 668 F.3d 724, 732-33 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)).Defendant Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.'s ("FINRA") 93 Motion to Dismiss rises and falls on whether FINRA is a state actor and thus is not subject to plaintiffs' constitutional claims, namely their separation of powers, Appointments Clause, and Fifth and Seventh Amendment claims. See Def.'s Mot. Dismiss at 10-20. By ordering briefing on the merits, the D.C. Circuit has announced its intention to consider and resolve that question on appeal, see Clerk's Order Filed Setting Briefing Schedule, Alpine Sec. Corp. v. FINRA, No. 23-5129, Doc. No. 2006425 (July 5, 2023); see also Per Curiam Order, Alpine Sec. Corp. v. FINRA, No. 23-5129, Doc. No. 2006351 at 7 (July 5, 2023) (Walker, J., concurring) ("There is a serious argument that FINRA hearing officers exercise significant executive power. And it is undisputed that they do not act under the President. That may be a constitutional problem."), which, at the very least, would provide helpful guidance to this Court in considering the arguments presented in FINRA's pending motion and would avoid duplicative appeals. Moreover, plaintiffs' private nondelegation doctrine claim is pleaded in the alternative, assuming that FINRA is a private actor, and thus may fall away if the D.C. Circuit deems FINRA a state actor. Although plaintiffs' remaining First Amendment claim is unrelated to the state actor doctrine, requiring full briefing and resolution of solely that count at this juncture would amount to an inefficient use of judicial resources if the D.C. Circuit finds that plaintiffs' other constitutional claims may proceed. Holding this case in abeyance places no hardship on the parties, given the D.C. Circuit's order enjoining FINRA from continuing the expedited enforcement proceeding against Alpine Securities Corp., the Circuit's ongoing consideration of the key issues in dispute, and FINRA's motion for en banc reconsideration currently pending before the Circuit. See Pet. for Rehearing En Banc, Alpine Sec. Corp. v. FINRA, No. 23-5129, Doc. No. 2008678 (July 19, 2023). As such, holding this case in abeyance before this Court is favorable. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 26, 2023. (lcbah2)

As far as the rest of your post?

1. There's NO evidence that any "shorting" occurring is being done by Alpine or Kramer. In fact, per this OTC shorting website which lists the REAL short position of companies every two weeks (https://otce.finra.org/otce/equityShortInterest), there is almost NO shorting of DBMM occurring.
2. As you seem to acknowledge, there are NO other "catalysts" from DBMM occurring. There's absolutely NO evidence of ANY progress on ANYTHING DBMM has outlined. No "acquisition", no "uplist", no "reverse merger"....NO NOTHING.

You seem to have the correct viewpoint. Not much will occur until DBMM ACTUALLY DOES something they have promised (business -wise). So far, there has just been FLUFF uodates, with no REAL detail.