MMTLP Veteran Space Tonight @ 8pm EST with @CHELLESHOCKEDTM

If you're okay with that or I was gonna see if my go-go-go-can take care of it. You work? No, I'm lousy at this. To be honest, everyone knows that. You run your own spaces. What do you mean? Yeah. I can help if needed. I'm doing things but I think I can. Word. Yeah, I can almost open if you needed a code or whatever. At all. Well, I have much to say. I'm nursing. I, I said, jury, but uh, insane. Do you have those, do you have any of those clips that you could play with? Pain. Hopefully they send them to me. That's the thing. I know him. My uppercursor. Telephone. I get my one of my other phones. If it gets sent to me, I can probably go from one phone to the other. It's the same account, but they say my brain's on function in the end, but I do what I can. Oh, I appreciate you in saying. So one of the, I think, like tonight, obviously some of the, one of the key things for me is to really make sure that the non-compliance and stonewalling, stonewall, um, gets shown proper, that gets explained properly, right? And that's because you've got a lot of new people coming in and that needs to like, you know, how we've been going about making the calls. I'm not, I'm not going to go through the whole thing, but you know, I think one of the keys is the unreasonable delay with this FOIA situation. I'm sure you're, you're on board, McGregg with how they've been handling the FOIAs and not really complying in any way. If anything, they're breaking all the rules. So I think that's important to get out today because that is harmful to people when you aren't getting public information like everyone else is. Yeah. I think we got a lot of people. I mean, I don't know it. A lot of new people aren't going to understand a lot of this, you know, FOIAs. Look, do we understand anything like SEC, Finland, FOIAs? I mean, we all got introduced to a lot of this Gary Gensler. I never heard the name before. You know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah. But I think saying we're getting 20 times, you know, when you put a number on it, we're getting 20 times, 40 times less FOIA response than the national average than that hits home, you know. True. So we got to be kind of dumb it down a little bit. I mean, these are very smart people, but there's a lot that you can't get too much into the weeds either. No. No, you're right. I think numbers, percentages, and being factually all that data is coming right from the SEC website. I think it's important and I agree. Yeah, some of these people won't know, but there is a contingent there that looks like, you know, they're, they've got a lot of followers. So I would expect them to know a little more than your average, you know, Joe. But Finland certainly. Yeah. Finland is one of the ones that not everybody really know. I didn't know about Finland. I knew about the SEC. I know about the Freedom of Information Act because obviously we have one here in Canada, but yeah, I agree with you. Yeah. So in the FOIA, I would just go with the. Half a percent. The per to 12 percent. And how many have we submitted compared to, I think we're the highest, right? Yeah. I don't know if we have that as a fact. Do we? We do. There's a number. Yeah, there is. There's a number that we average. And I'll have to look at it depending on the month anywhere from six to 10 percent of the FOIAs submitted that month. So where we are the leader in submissions compared to other asks, I guess you could say. Okay. Yeah. That's all we need to stick with is just keep it basic, keep it factual. Yeah. Right? So here's so many FOIAs. This is whatever. 5% of all FOIAs, whatever it is, we're submitted about MMTLP. And we've gotten 20 times less response. Or whatever it is. You know what I mean? Sure. And then that's it. And people, that'll be an eye opener. I mean, what? They're submitting the most and they're getting 20 times less response. Like, what's up with that? That that would be an eye opener. Yeah. And we can validate those numbers by bringing in like, you know, this writer by the name of John Jenkins that writes about FOIA compliance and noncompliance. And he's already validated our numbers that they're obviously extremely low. It shouldn't be happening. So, you know, even mentioning somebody like that that's already looked at the numbers that has seen these on a regular basis. He will, you know, he will basically stand by that these these responses are are just over the top with not with no responses. And then on top of that, you can get into like I said, the way that they're handling them. So, you know, you could, I mean, it's bad enough to just say, hey, we've only got a half a percent. But then you got to show why? Why is it that they're okay? There's the stone walling and everything. But then they'll go as far as what? So then you're saying, why are they how far are they going? What they're going as far as breaking their own rules on how they handle these submissions? And I mean, that's another, that's another component in my opinion that needs to be said because it's one thing to deny them. But then to deny them breaking your own rules on top of that. It's a double whammy, right? Indeed. Yeah. So then that way, you know, the people that are in there, they can clearly see that there is non-compliance. And there's a pattern and a purpose why they're doing that. So that would, for me, be important to establish. And, you know, we can establish it in many ways when Hesterper's states say, you know, we want you to send in your complaints. You know, please send them in. And then, you know, two plus years later, after she tells us exactly what she wants us to do, what has happened? Yeah, that's exactly it. Yeah. I wish I had a clip on hand of her saying that. And you know, that would be great to just play, right? Well, we want people to be clear. Some of those clips are on the database from that mistake. And it would be nice to have some of these sound bites that you could email to somebody and say, look, it sent me something that, you know, well, look at here, I know you're all about non-compliance. And if the SEC is doing their job or not, let me just send you a couple of sound bites. One from one of the commissioners that tells us what to do. And then I'll also send you another one for, you know, let's just say Paul Atkins in this case on CV Payne, where he said, we'll see, like, you know, try to try to send some sound bites to show the people or the person. This is what we were asked to do. And we have zero transparency, zero results. Yeah. I think it's important for, like I said, the outsiders, people that are just jumping into this to hear it. But by John Stewart saying, Jesus, there's a lot of smoke here. And where there's smoke, there's fire, lava, blah, Hester Pierce going on paying and saying, well, send us, we encourage you to send us all this, you know, and then we call up and say, and they're going to ask, okay, well, what has she done? And we're going to say nothing. We've said, you know what I mean? So it's more important for people to hear that than us just saying things. Yeah. And then, you know, like if we try to go into FINRA, for example, like you said, a lot, a lot of people know the regulators and what they do. And so now, you know, do you spend half an hour trying to explain how FINRA is, you know, its own body where you, you can't sue them or anything like that. Or they come up with their own FAQs, they bring in a jack chase. Like, do you even bother going into that? Because like you said, you could lose a lot of, a lot of people with that. No, you got to dumb it down. When you think you have it dumbed down enough, you got to dumb it down even 10 times more with this, right? So even, okay, so if we bring up torch light and go with that Avenue, I mean, I think another clip is John Burling. What did he go on? A couple days after the halt? It went on CB thing. On the, there was Monday the 12th. There was the same day they arrested, same day. Okay. So if you're even questioning that, why would he go on Charles Payne? If he was guilty of anything, why would he go on there and even talk, right? I mean, to me, if I'm an outsider, I'm going to see that and I'm going to be like, well, this guy's probably not guilty, you know, but that's just me. But it's important for people to hear from the horse with mouth, right? Well, that's why I played that off from Boston, Johnny Pat, tobacco, John Burling, interview yesterday because that was a shop full of good information. Yeah, that was great. Obviously that interview, obviously that interview occurred before we found out that there was no form 211 that was filed. So it's kind of weird because you have to like, you know, provide that context like, hey, this interview happened before Cramwell went out on X, Twitter, whatever. And they didn't use a formula because it didn't need to. There was like unsolicited, quote, exemption. Right? Yeah. He said this happened before. Right? They do it. Well, he brought up the reason for that form. Right? And that the market makers that want to make a market on the OTC have to make sure that all the information that they're providing on that company that they want to trade is up the date. And John said, like, look, I went to how into the OTC markets and you know, said like, why is this trading? Like, it's got information from 2012 with, you know, board directors that aren't even at the company anymore. And they're like, well, I don't know, like, Finner, I gave it a ticker symbol to American makers and he's a year to be kidding. So he went to Finner and then essentially they told the same thing. OTC markets was like, well, you're not the CEO of the company anymore. So you don't really have any say. So John reached out to meta, and told them to get their legal team on it. Yeah, it's just our property was hijacked by unknown, possibly known market makers. Somebody wanted to trade the preferred share because they didn't want to close their position back in June of 21 during the merger. Yeah, and we're not taking the word for. I mean, they're seeing it publicly. I mean, George and John, if I don't know what George and John are having heard him speak before and someone says, wow, they're under investigation. That's it. Well, that's one thing. Okay. Well, all right. They did something wrong and they caused all this, but when you hear them, yeah, when you see them go on national TV immediately after when you have George come on spaces and talk openly about it. I mean, that's it's very different on filing and filing a deposition in the intercourse of waterways case. These gentlemen have nothing to hide. They've been the most transparent of any you know person that has anything to do with the situation. Right. And people like I'm speaking of new people, they would have no idea about that. You know, they don't hear everything that we hear. So they have no idea. And then open yeah. And then Chris and then Chris Rogers and that other latest Amanda something to attorneys at the SEC that brought the case against John and George. They quit. And the case like it's just been like left. And it's actually currently stayed. And we pending the judges ruling. And it's like, okay, like any anyone want to do anything or just like, you know, John and George are forever going to have this case and just moving over their head. That doesn't sound right. And feel like it's two years now. But I don't know. It's over two years. Well, the well, it's over two years. The well's notice is over two years. The charges, the charges, uh, no, you're right. You're right. Cause the charges dropped in July of 24. And then the well's notice was July of 23. That makes sense. Yeah. So you imagine that they have the power to use this