tdbowieknife
1 day ago
4.6 million in judgements that OPTI never disclosed... Obvious FRAUD....
Cal Bay Judgment:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qsYfiXJf2ClQBOA_E2esVHAgYVjd8eV-/view
Auctos Judgment:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z4urb_wGKDyotcf_-mV1gzHINcJ6gHl4/view
EMA Judgment:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P8xaGRfOriMVoNG0WTqcxk1Lnzm2Px_0/view
And of course, this one...
Judgment was entered as follows: Judgment entered for Nano Filter Inc and against Optec International Inc for $ 3499197.51, punitive damages: $ 0.00, attorney fees: $ 0.00, interest: $ 0.00, prejudgment costs: $ 0.00, other costs: $ 0.00, amount payable to court: $ .00, for a grand total of $ 3499197.51.
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/cdea6e30-ff69-4bf3-9eb7-2adcb8f7a4ef/downloads/Nano%20Filter%20Judgment.pdf?ver=1698271498041
..
.
Buyer Beware
Pump and Dump
..
tdbowieknife
1 day ago
The financials that are already posted are fraudulent. To post true, correct, and complete financials Brett would need to go back many years and restate all those fraudulent disclosure statements with true, correct, and complete disclosure statements to get to the many missing disclosure statements. How can he do that if Roger Pawson will not and cannot provide the information because it would incriminate them ALL, including Brett Rosen ??
And FINRA does not "approve" anything. They process IF they find the information is correct and their questions are satisfactorily answered. How is Brett going to do that?? They will deem any corporate action request and application for a 211 by Market Maker deficient, meaning they cannot process. I doubt very much a Market Maker would even try to submit a 211 application to FINRA.
.
Buyer Beware
Pump and Dump
..
imrichbeotch
2 days ago
Ugh this is getting very tiresome. Your claim that itโs โimpossible to post non-fraudulent financials based Your claim that itโs โimpossible to post non-fraudulent financials based on fraudulent financialsโ is flawed. While fraudulent financials can create challenges, companies regularly issue restated or corrected reports to rectify past misstatements. Auditors, regulatory agencies, and independent analysts scrutinize financials to ensure compliance with accounting standards.
As for Market Makers, they do not prepare or certify financial statementsโthey provide liquidity in the market. Their role is to facilitate trading, not to validate a companyโs financials. If fraud is discovered, liability primarily falls on the company, its executives, and auditors, not Market Makers. Market Makers manage risk through regulatory compliance, due diligence, and risk-adjusted pricing, making the claim that they โbecome liable as wellโ an oversimplification.
Ultimately, financial fraud is a serious issue, but markets have mechanisms to address it, and your statement ignores the checks and balances in place. on fraudulent financialsโ is flawed. While fraudulent financials can create challenges, companies regularly issue restated or corrected reports to rectify past misstatements. Auditors, regulatory agencies, and independent analysts scrutinize financials to ensure compliance with accounting standards.
As for Market Makers, they do not prepare or certify financial statementsโthey provide liquidity in the market. Their role is to facilitate trading, not to validate a companyโs financials. If fraud is discovered, liability primarily falls on the company, its executives, and auditors, not Market Makers. Market Makers manage risk through regulatory compliance, due diligence, and risk-adjusted pricing, making the claim that they โbecome liable as wellโ an oversimplification.
Ultimately, financial fraud is a serious issue, but markets have mechanisms to address it, and your statement ignores the checks and balances in place.
tdbowieknife
2 days ago
The financials that are already posted are fraudulent. To post true, correct, and complete financials Brett would need to go back many years and restate all those fraudulent disclosure statements with true, correct, and complete disclosure statements to get to the many missing disclosure statements. How can he do that if Roger Pawson will not and cannot provide the information because it would incriminate them ALL, including Brett Rosen ??
And FINRA does not "approve" anything. They process IF they find the information is correct and their questions are satisfactorily answered. How is Brett going to do that?? They will deem any corporate action request and application for a 211 by Market Maker deficient, meaning they cannot process. I doubt very much a Market Maker would even try to submit a 211 application to FINRA.
.
Buyer Beware
Pump and Dump
..