>>1235503 (last)
Sincere apologies if any misjudgement, anon. Healthy discussion should be welcomed at all times.
One should also consider, however, that this topic has become quite the hotspot for the F.U.D. Patrol these past few days.
Happy to shake on it so we can move to greener pastures, cheers.
Yes. Focus on quality /qresearch/ to keep the lights shining brighty. Let them play the part and be the bridge. The cream will rise to the top, as always.
We've got their ears now (thanks to PDJT), let's use them wisely. Case in point…
"The way to a frog's heart is through a laughing belly."
Cheers, anon. Same here.
Whoa. Thanks anons. + @neon
SEC source docs listed in article:
>Sec 11A P 2.2 is a reference to an SEC filing; specifically, the one filed on the 25th of February, 2015…
2/25/15: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-74366.pdf
>P 2.2 = Paragraph 2, section 2.
3/17/17: https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljorders/2015/ap-2432.pdf
5/13/17: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-74944.pdf
Appears this dood should dug hard toots sweet.