TS1971
3 days ago
I read the first line and i already knew what the rest would be, just more factless hopium based off of unnecessarily cryptic tweets from management.
--You keep defining the company as a failure, yet you continue purchasing shares? "
Show me where i said they were a failure..... Or did i attempt to give you an example as to show to you should they fail there is no recourse or punishment?
Yes i did say i continue to purchase shares because should management get their shiit together and manage get this to come to fruition it will be a great success.
But it's only a LOTTO LONG PLAY for me now. i went in hard first time around and learned my lesson. Now i have just under 5M shares at .0008 and will continue to buy up to 6,000.00 dollars worth in total on the hard dips.
Yea its not much money but again its a lotto play and FAR LESS than what i paid before. That's how you manage your losses should things go wrong so now do you understand how both statements can be true at the same time? or did i not dumb it down enough for you?
Another question you won't answer, how many shares do you own?
--" You make bold statements based on fiction "
What fiction did i bring to the argument ? Dude literally 90% of everything you post is hopium based off of unnecessarily cryptic tweets from management and unfortunately your personal feelings are not facts.
--" and when I refute them with facts, you dismiss the law, claiming it doesn't apply, when in reality, it does in every case I've cited. "
I have already addressed this but maybe your reading comprehension is failing you once again.
I'll say it again for you in simpler terms.
ALL OF YOUR POSTED LEGAL CASES DEAL IN CASES OF FRAUD AND NOT SIMPLE FAILURE OF A COMPANY, got it now?
Your post also fail to show context in each case, Humm wonder why that is....
The rest of your post is regurgitated nonsense and tail chasing in hopes that something will eventually stick, it hasn't and it wont.
Once again here are the un refutable FACTS.
Management has shown no REV no SALES no COMPANY DIRECTION no PROOF OF SEED SALE PRICE no COMPANY UPDATES no TRANSPARENCY no NOTHING. Which = no SHAREHOLDER CONFIDENCE
Management has a LEGAL fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to hold a yearly update as i've mentioned several times now yet they have failed to do so twice now.
#SHOWTHEPERMIT
parabolic2020
3 days ago
You keep defining the company as a failure, yet you continue purchasing shares? You make bold statements based on fiction, and when I refute them with facts, you dismiss the law, claiming it doesn't apply, when in reality, it does in every case I've cited.
You don't even understand the company you "own" or it's business model. Clearly, you fail to grasp that this company doesn't need revenue at this stage. I'll try to explain, not necessarily for you, but for those who have an open mind, because you're evidently locked in a state of terminal ignorance.
Let’s start with the revenue issue. Most companies have operational overhead proportional to their output, requiring initial operational cash flow to survive—trucks, buildings, employees, etc. TXTM particular business model does not. We dont have large payrolls to meet or massive monthly overhead
The seed program thus has produced $100 million in assets that never need to be sold. You don’t need to sell an asset to establish a fair price—I've explained this before.
The seeds can be:
- Held within TXTM, benefiting from their unique properties.
- Returned to RSAMMD as another input.
- Planted, allowing us to benefit from multiplied seeds, which have a set value on our books.
A valuator can be brought in to assess the actual value of the seeds, as they do not exist in the market with their unique properties, but will have a much higher value than the initial donated value because of winterization, genetic stabilization.and other properties. This is why the market price has been consistently mentioned in filings but not yet applied.
The seeds will NEVER be sold. They will, as they have been, be transferred back to the farm for planting in each round. That is documented in the filings. Seeds that are not planted remain viable for oil extraction using our technology, creating even more value, which can then be sold to later generate revenue.
We will likely be worth billions and have this value verified in the near future, all without generating "revenue".
Just doing simple math shows billions even at the 1 dollar stated value before years end with 4 planting cycles.
Companies like SpaceX and Tesla bled cash for years without producing a dime of revenue, yet they eventually generated revenue after successful operations. The idea that revenue must come first is simply naïve. We don't have traditional proportional overhead.
This company is supplied with zero-cost seeds as donations from volunteer crops and outputs from the multiplication program. If the company ever needed cash, the seeds could be leveraged, not sold, and operate like a bank, generating revenue that way.
Alternatively, the seeds could be tokenized on the blockchain, added to the balance sheet, and leveraged in that manner.
There are so many options without selling a single seed. Why give away your bespoke technology by selling seeds? That would be insane.
Keep everything in-house and leverage your other businesses as both suppliers and customers. Most companies are stuck in the traditional death trap of debt and proportional operational costs. We have neither and can convert directly to assets. It’s a brilliant business model, and it’s a shame you cannot see it, but you will, or not.
$100 million in assets in a debt free audited company ,with no toxic notes and a viable asset generating contract at an exponential rate is not a "failure" it's an anomoly that has rarely occured in only 2 years.
TS1971
3 days ago
--"You stance requires ignoring the law, tax fraud, multiple profrssionals losing thier license to practice law, accounting, ignoring fiduciary responsibilty all in the name of you being correct. So no I don't answer to ignorance, i just call it out. "
LOL You are a compleat no nothing fraud. what does any of this have to do with what i just said?
what governing body is going to pursue a failed contract obligation unless asked for by the party who suffered a loss???
Stop running around in circles chasing your own tail you fool.
Here is another question you won't answer.
You speak off fiduciary responsibility lol thats a joke, you mean like the one management has to its shareholders to hold and give a yearly update as i've mentioned several times now? You know the one they have failed to give twice...
--"I gave you like 10 legal cases backing up my opinions ,in thier proper context. All i've heard from you is how they don't apply ,with no foundation besides flawed logic which require me to ignore even MORE laws. "
i have already addressed this but maybe your reading comprehension is failing you once again.
I'll say it again for you in simpler terms.
ALL OF YOUR POSTED LEGAL CASES DEAL IN CASES OF FRAUD AND NOT SIMPLE FAILURE OF A COMPANY, got it now?
Your post also fail to show context in each case, Humm wonder why that is....
--" As i said before feelings are not facts. "
i couldn't agree more but unfortunately for you that's 90% of what you have here, just your feelings and hopium.
no REV no SALES no COMPANY DIRECTION no PROOF OF SEED SALE PRICE no COMPANY UPDATES no TRANSPARENCY no NOTHING. Which = no SHAREHOLDER CONFIDENCE.
As for what you said about hedge funds is just silly.
There is no law saying they can not And It’s more of a guideline unless written into the funds by-laws.
Companies can simply notify you of the potential investment and the risk and have you sign a waiver of agreement if you choose to do so.
Just give it a rest already you're embarrassing yourself...
#SHOWTHEPERMIT
parabolic2020
3 days ago
I see nothing to answer. You stance requires ignoring the law, tax fraud, multiple profrssionals losing thier license to practice law, accounting, ignoring fudiciary responsibilty all in the name of you being correct. So no I don't answer to ignorance, i just call it out.
I gave you like 10 legal cases backing up my opinions ,in thier proper context. All i've heard from you is how they don't apply ,with no foundation besides flawed logic which require me to ignore even MORE laws.
Your need to be "informed" is not supoorted in any law that does not require a material event being disclosed. You "rights" as a sharholder do not supercede company's ability to protect operations.
What I've stated this backed by LAW, not opinion.
As i said before feelings are not facts.
What you "dont get" is the company is moving forward.The Seed contract is valid and executed, the Hemp contract likely has not experieced a material event requiring disclosure.
Also to this flawed logic about hedge funds, i'll remind you most of them including a very long list of investment entities require SEC reporting status before they are allowed to invest or hold securities.
Without being SEC reporting TXTM cannot be a member of, be purchased or held by the following:
1. 401(k) Plans
2. Hedge Funds
3. Mutual Funds
4. Pension Funds
5. Insurance Companies
6. Banks and Banking Institutions
7. Private Equity Funds
8. Endowment Funds
9. Venture Capital Funds
10. Investment Advisors
11. Government and Municipal Investment Funds
12. Sovereign Wealth Funds
13. Credit Unions
14. Trust Companies
15. Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs)
People who have done thier research understand these things. Maybe one day you will, or not. Either way I give comfort in the fact that im apparently correct as we have seen no SEC referrals to the contrary.
parabolic2020
3 days ago
Oh as to your "give and takr back bs, Dr. J cannot gift an asset to another entity and then reclaim it on its books:
As to established LAW:
Comm'r v. Duberstein_, 363 U.S. 278 (1960)**: This case established that a gift must be made out of "detached and disinterested generosity." Attempting to reclaim a gift suggests it wasn’t truly a gift, leading to tax and accounting complications.
Helvering v. Horst_, 311 U.S. 112 (1940)**: Income must be reported by the entity that earns it. Reclaiming a gifted asset could be seen as improper reallocation, resulting in tax issues.
Gregory v. Helvering_, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)**: The substance of a transaction must match its form. Reclaiming a gift can raise issues of economic substance, potentially leading to legal and tax challenges.
As to GAAP & IRFS standards:
Substance Over Form Doctrine
The true substance of a transaction, rather than its legal form, determines its treatment. Reclaiming a gift may create accounting and tax problems.
- **Economic Substance Doctrine**: Transactions must have a genuine economic purpose beyond tax avoidance. Taking back a gift might lack such purpose, raising red flags.
So NO.😂
TS1971
4 days ago
Well there you go again speaking in long winded circles offering zero substance pertaining to the situation at hand.
FIRST in a nutshell let me discredit everything you said here with one simple sentence.
I'll try and make it simple for you to understand if i can.
EVERYTHING you just referenced ONLY PERTAINS TO companies with a pre existing history/commitment that would incur a loose to the other party NOT a new company which has yet to post proof of fulfillment.
Furthermore there is NO RECOURSE OR PUNISHMENT should the contract not be fulfilled unless payment in advance has been made and not returned.
And even then the other party would have to take legal action in pursuant to recovery for financial losses.
Is this the case? has management been paid in advance?
And even if that was the case management can simply say they were unable to fulfill the contract due to unforeseen planting issues.
Allow me to make it even simpler for you, whos going to question them when they are the head of all things cannabis in SA?
To put it into terms even you can understand, no one is asking for intimate details on all things TXTM you are silly for suggestion such nonsense.
But we are all in our LEGAL RIGHTS to have a shareholder update once a year explaining basic company function, direction and progress that you seem to not want to egnolidge... why is that?
Your naivety is staggering.
Im sorry but you have to forgive me if i don't take anything you say seriously from not only your past track record but also because of your clear lack of basic business, corporate, rules and regulations.
#SHOWTHEPERMIT
parabolic2020
4 days ago
Again not one link😂😂. All I see is emotional filled rants. My statements are backed with facts.
You clearly don't understand law, you don't provide basis, and you ignore filings.
The contract and terms are stated in the filings.
As for the rest of your twisted nonsense, let me point you to contract law and precident to back up my statements and i'll let you argue with yourself genius.
Here are the legal cases that support the positions in my statements and opinions
In my previous post.
Strategic Management and Disclosure
- Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988)
Quote: “Companies are not obligated to disclose every action taken that might impact their stock value; disclosure requirements are designed to prevent fraud and provide fairness in the market, not to force transparency of all corporate decisions.”
Value of Assets Over Revenue
- Smith v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985)
- Quote: “The value of assets managed with strategic intent, including long-term growth potential, can offer a more stable and beneficial foundation for a company compared to short-term revenue targets and sales performance.”
Contract Enforcement and Unauthorized Transfer
Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538 (1891)
- Quote: “An agreement with clear terms must be upheld by all parties involved. Failure to adhere to these terms, including unauthorized transfers, constitutes a breach of contract.”
- *SEC v. Zandford*, 535 U.S. 813 (2002)
- Quote: “Deceptive practices involving the sale or transfer of assets, including unauthorized transfers, constitute securities fraud.”
Business Judgment Rule
- *Aronson v. Lewis*, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984)
- **Quote**: “The business judgment rule protects decisions made in good faith and with due care, shielding management from claims of misjudgment if they are made within the bounds of legal and fiduciary responsibilities.”
Please provide factual refrences to your bullshit please.I deal in provable facts.
Thanks😂
TS1971
4 days ago
--" TXTM’s business strategy is not confined to one direction. The company is actively pursuing multiple avenues beyond just medical cannabis, reflecting a diversified approach that aligns with its strategic goals "
Umm didn't I just say that? this just adds weight to my previous point.
--" The absence of frequent public updates or legal filings isn’t due to fear or indecision—it’s a strategic choice. "
got proof or just more factless opinion?
--" Companies aren’t required to broadcast every move, especially when doing so could jeopardize ongoing negotiations or strategic initiatives. "
very true but they do have a legal obligation to hold a shareholder meeting at least once. year, FACT.
--" The value of TXTM’s assets is not up for debate. $100 million in inventory is fact.These assets are managed with strategic intent, and the potential to transfer them is standard in corporate asset managementas part of the multiplication agreement is consistent in law, trasferring them OUT "on a whim" is absolute bullshit "
Completely and utterly FALSE showing how little you actually know about basic business/finance.
The assets where ALREADY HIS and are GIFTED as such. he can simply close down the company transfer existing/remaining assets to whatever company he wishes or starts up. FACT
And in fact there are many many benefits in doing just that but im not here to teach you basic economics 101, however it is worth a google.
--" Revenue, while important, isn’t the only measure of a company’s market strength or value. In fact, our assets, particularly through the seed multiplication program, are far superior to revenue alone. Unlike revenue, which is subject to quarterly fluctuations and sales targets, the seed multiplication program allows us to exponentially increase our assets, providing a stable and growing foundation for the company. This approach mitigates volatility and reduces the dependence on short-term sales performance, making our stock less susceptible to market fluctuations and enhancing long-term value. "
I have to ask, where you high when you posted this?
You think GIFTED assets already owned by same owner are more valuable than proof of SALES/REV of those said gifted assets holds more value??? is that why we're trading @ .0011??
Dude you seriously don't know what youre talking about.
And can we please stop with the seed multiplication already especially when PROOF OF SALES SHOWING SALE PRICE hasn't been established.
By your estimation all that's needed is a few years of seed multiplication and J will be the richest man in the world....makes no sense.
And as i said more product = less seed price AKA flooded market.
Stop being silly simply multiplying seed value is not sustainable and you should know that.
--" The value of TXTM’s assets is not up for debate. $100 million in inventory is fact. "
It absolutely is up for debate and NOT fact until proof of sales and sale price has been put on the books. FACT
--" managementas part of the multiplication agreement is consistent in law, trasferring them OUT "on a whim" is absolute bullshit. "
You may think its bullshit but the fact is it's NOT ILLEGAL nore would there be any recourse in doing so. FACT
and in fact many companies do just that.
--" It’s clear that the seeds we own are secured through a legally binding contract, with the output being a multiplication of the input, returned at present four times the original amount. This is clearly documented in our filings, and any unauthorized transfer of these assets wouldn’t just be a breach of contract—it would constitute securities fraud. "
And how did you come to this brilliant conclusion when no PROOF OF CONTRACTS have been presented?
All you have is already owned assets being transferred in a new corporate entity with not risk to them should things fail.
However should REV/SALES be posted that in FACT will have meaning and weight as management would have MUCH to loose should things fail.
--" TXTM’s management isn’t driven by ego but by legal and fiduciary responsibilities. "
Really? then why no communication with shareholders who have a LEGAL RIGHT to a shareholders meeting once a year. FACT.
--" You simply cannot make shit up as you go and ignore communications that dont fit your narratives. In my post I include references directly to statements made by the company and provided these as reasons for my statements. I see none of that from you. Why is that? "
What are you smoking bud lol. nothing you've said is based in fact it's all just your opinion/interpretation of managements unnecessarily cryptic twitter post most of which shows your lack of basic business finance and corporate law.
Here's a question for you. What repercussions would be incurred should management close the door on TXTM and either open a new corporation or move assets to and existing company.
Let me help you out here, the answer is NOTHING. FACT.
As i said until REVS/SALES are put on the books they have NOTHING TO LOSE other than the cost of the current process of removing CE if there is one.
#SHOWTHEPERMIT
parabolic2020
4 days ago
Wow.. where do I begin.TXTM’s business strategy is not confined to one direction. The company is actively pursuing multiple avenues beyond just medical cannabis, reflecting a diversified approach that aligns with its strategic goals . The absence of frequent public updates or legal filings isn’t due to fear or indecision—it’s a strategic choice. Companies aren’t required to broadcast every move, especially when doing so could jeopardize ongoing negotiations or strategic initiatives. Silence, in this context, is not a sign of inaction; it’s smart business.
The value of TXTM’s assets is not up for debate. $100 million in inventory is fact.These assets are managed with strategic intent, and the potential to transfer them is standard in corporate asset managementas part of the multiplication agreement is consistent in law, trasferring them OUT "on a whim" is absolute bullshit. Revenue, while important, isn’t the only measure of a company’s market strength or value. In fact, our assets, particularly through the seed multiplication program, are far superior to revenue alone. Unlike revenue, which is subject to quarterly fluctuations and sales targets, the seed multiplication program allows us to exponentially increase our assets, providing a stable and growing foundation for the company. This approach mitigates volatility and reduces the dependence on short-term sales performance, making our stock less susceptible to market fluctuations and enhancing long-term value.
It’s clear that the seeds we own are secured through a legally binding contract, with the output being a multiplication of the input, returned at present four times the original amount. This is clearly documented in our filings, and any unauthorized transfer of these assets wouldn’t just be a breach of contract—it would constitute securities fraud.
Your argument not only doesn’t make sense but is also riddled with misunderstandings of basic corporate law. Feelings are not facts, and much of what you’re stating flies in the face of contractual obligations. Contracts are not mere suggestions; they are legally enforceable agreements. The terms regarding the multiplication and return of seeds are explicit and must be honored. Violating these terms, such as through unauthorized transfer, would directly breach the contract. The precedent sey in law makes it clear that agreements with explicit terms are not open to interpretation or "disregard". Mismanagement or unauthorized transfer of these assets could lead to serious consequences. Deceptive practices involving the sale or transfer of assets are indeed securities fraud.
TXTM’s management isn’t driven by ego but by legal and fiduciary responsibilities. The business judgment rule shields decisions made in good faith and with due diligence . Any suggestion otherwise reflects a lack of understanding of corporate law. TXTM’s actions, including its selective communication approach, are entirely consistent with established legal and strategic principles. Unauthorized deviations from the contract terms are not only reckless but could lead to serious legal consequences, including securities fraud.For you to honesty think your scenario is being played out here is nonsense. You simply cannot make shit up as you go and ignore communications that dont fit your narratives. In my post I include refrences directly to statements made by the company and provided these as reasons for my statements. I see none of that from you. Why is that?
Stockfun1
4 days ago
The day you experience the dog eat dog world of Big Pharma first hand you’d understand the tactics they will go through to stifle a competitor. Perhaps this is all just a greedy investor or team of investors trying to make a buck selling stock. Once OTMs clearly saw no gain on the part of the company insiders, public concern gone!! Someone alleged wrong doing. In that allegation was there a question brought regarding the validity of Growing permits? Think about it … what the heck would the OTCm even care about a SA growing permit. TXTM had no cannabis supply at the time, & never in its history ever claimed to have grown or currently grow cannabis. It’s completely out of the scope of investigating TXTM. Even if they made a mistake, fumbled on to this question and asked it, TXTM responded to the question by confirming we don’t grow cannabis so we have no license to show you, yet OTCm persist to request it. This question had to be a part of the original allegation to even be brought up and the fact that they supposedly persist to hold TXTM under CE requiring its release makes you wonder if it, ALONE, was the original quiet intent of the allegation of promotion in the first place. Maybe it was was about promotion but if it really was , then why has OTCm not brought any charges to anyone, and why after proving no financial gain of insiders is CE still on? On the flip side….why is something the company doesn’t need, doesn’t possess and may never possess, being required ?? In my mind one has to at least consider that the original intent of any allegation was not public concern of promotion but rather to tie up RSA into long US court battles over the legitimacy of its growing permit. This would not stop RSA’s work of growing in SA ( as you mentioned ), but it could stop or interfere with US supply deals with BIG Pharma. A permit says you’re growing with certain standards and if this is called into question Cannabis Co.’s likey will be leery of your cannabis supply. Hope this helps you understand more clearly the link between something as simple as a so called “promotion allegation” and the likelihood of something much bigger at play. Sorry so long. No way around it for clarity.
News
Market Data
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
$Parabolic2030?$
11 hours ago
