Mike

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@EITMonline did you know ice cream sandwich’s don’t melt?

[SniperAlert @StockOptions888]

You know what

I’m restarting the $100 to $10,000 challenge.

I want everyone to have a fair shot at this.

Last time it took me about 5 days, will try to do it faster this time.

If you want to follow along, RT + comment “join” below

Going to lock comments in 24 hours

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@StockOptions888 Join

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@EITMonline could you imagine being the guy who got in trouble for punching, kicking and body slamming a goose and then the goose not even being injured?

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@elonmusk Please look into the #MMTLP fiasco with @FINRA and the @SECGov.

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@EITMonline the bar has the ability to skip or mute the songs

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@MrBeast

[X Market News🚨 @xMarketNews]

BREAKING🚨 COURT SIDES WITH INTER-COASTAL WATERWAYS IN $MMTLP COURT CASE

- COURT RULES THAT TRADESTATION MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (DE[47]) IS ❌ DENIED ❌

- Inter-Coastal Waterways response memorandum in support of the “Cross-Motion to Disqualify” to address the issue of whether FINRA should be disqualified is ✅ ORDERED ✅

A WIN FOR $MMTLP $MMAT #MMTLP

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@Greenhills303 @anna_trades What would happen if shares were transferred to AST?

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@MMATNEWS What about people in AST?

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

Just heard @SleepTheoryBand #StuckInMyHead on @DC101! Great to finally hear these guys on a big radio station!

[X Market News🚨 @xMarketNews]

FINRA the Regulator that Supposed to Protect Investors just Caught in the Act of Lying to Congress and Participating in Market Corruption 🚨

The Regulator responds to Congress stating “No Market Maker or Brokerage Firm had Advance Notice of the MMTLP Halt”, but NEW information comes out that they LIED to Congress and Participated in this act🧵⬇️

In December of 2022 FINRA's Uniform Practice Code (UPC) Committee that is Responsible for the MMTLP Halt Includes Multiple Broker Dealers, this Means ALL the Brokerages were Aware of the RARE U3 Halt Before the Halt was Initiated $MMTLP, Some Brokerages include: Robinhood, Fidelity, and Hilltop Securities, and more.

Now in June 2023, the FINRA Committee (UPC) includes TradeStation Securities Chief Compliance Officer: Nicole Brinkerhoff. What is crazy… TradeStation Admitted that they sold their customers “Counterfeit Shares” and there’s currently a RICO lawsuit against the Broker Dealer regarding MMTLP and this Oversold issue. KEEP IN MIND this Committee is appointed.

Not only is this Committee responsible for the RARE halt, they are also responsible for Corporate Actions, and FINRA change the Companies Corporate Action TWO times against the Companies wish, and manipulated the wording in the last MMTLP corporate action.

"If the errors in the Corporate Action were made by @FINRA, it would be a serious violation of FINRA Rule 2020... Error 1: Wrong cancellation date in 1st CA. Error 2: Not accounting for T+2 which was their reason to halt.”

PLEASE repost this if your money is invested in ANY stock in the U.S. markets, this manipulation by the REGULATORS should be brought to the spotlight as they are not only trying to cover up Naked Shorting & Counterfeit Shares done by Hedge Funds and Market Makers but they are Participating in this Fraud 🚨 $MMTLP $AMC $GME $MULN $GNS $DJT $SPCE

[X Market News🚨 @xMarketNews]

I NEED EVERYONE to click the post below & retweet/like

Spread the word $MMTLP

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@ace_indy_biz Too soon

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@JunkSavvy @MoneySoot They told me today that they have my shares on record and it isn’t necessary to mail the certificate. If NBH gives further instruction I can then send it

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@KarmaCollects I’m afraid that is AST gets filled or something along the line they can���t accept them that I will be holding shares that no broker will accept. Currently waiting to talk to Equiniti to find out

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@KarmaCollects So Charles Schwab is telling me they can not do the transfer themselves. They can provide me the physical certificates of the shares for me to then send to Equiniti.

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@AlexSchwind3 to initiate the transfer.

Furthermore, yes, in order to cover the $80 transfer fee, funds will need to be deposited.

[Mike @MDBeanzer]

@AlexSchwind3 This is my response from Schwab:
Regarding your inquiry, the DRS transfer was rejected by AST Financial. In order to transfer your shares of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons (629999590) to AST Financial, you will need to contact AST Financial for instructions on what is required…

[DrewDiligence @KarmaCollects]

After going through and comparing @FINRA's recent response to @RepRalphNorman's inquiry into $MMTLP, it's unmistakably clear that several crucial questions have been addressed with insufficient clarity, or left out entirely. While I'm sure that @bleedblue18 and the crew will tear apart the VERACITY of the claims that FINRA is making, here's a breakdown of these key issues FINRA failed to adequately address and/or blatantly left out of their letter:

1) Provide a timeline of trading of MMTLP on the OTC markets; the actions taken by the SEC, self-regulatory organizations, the issuers, the transfer agent, and any other relevant parties during the time MMTLP was traded, and the transaction that produced NBH shares.

- The absence of a comprehensive timeline detailing the trading of MMTLP, actions by relevant parties, and the transaction leading to NBH shares is concerning. Such a timeline is essential for transparency, providing investors with a clear understanding of the sequence of events surrounding MMTLP's trading and the actions taken by regulatory bodies and market participants. Without this information, it is challenging to assess whether appropriate regulatory measures were taken to address any irregularities and ensure market integrity during MMTLP's trading period. Additionally, insight into the transaction producing NBH shares is crucial for understanding the distribution of shares and its impact on shareholders' interests. Overall, the lack of a detailed timeline deprives investors of critical information needed to assess the fairness and transparency of the trading process, regulatory oversight, and corporate actions related to MMTLP.

2) The Former CEO of Torchlight Energy Resources stated that “MMTLP was never designed to trade.” Please provide a detailed explanation, including the relevant statutory authority and procedures, that allowed for MMTLP shares to trade on the OTC market.

- FINRA's response lacks clarity on the statutory authority or procedures enabling MMTLP shares to trade on the OTC market, especially given the above statement made by John Brda, the former CEO of Torchlight Energy Resources. Understanding the legal framework and regulatory mechanisms governing MMTLP's trading is crucial for all market investors to gauge the legitimacy and regulatory compliance of such activities. FINRA stated that "It does not appear that Meta Materials took effective steps to restrict public trading in MMTLP". They don't say they didn't take ANY steps, they only say that Meta Materials was not EFFECTIVE in the steps they took to restrict public trading. What FINRA does not specify, is what steps they would deem to have been effective. The investing public has already been told that both John Brda and Meta Materials reached out to FINRA to request that the trading be stopped, and both were told that FINRA's decision to allow the security to trade under the MMTLP symbol was FINAL. Without a clear explanation from FINRA, concerns and outcry will persist regarding the regulatory oversight and adherence to established procedures in permitting MMTLP shares to trade, particularly if the former CEO's assertion implies irregularities in the trading process. After 14 months of opacity, investors deserve transparency and assurance regarding the legal basis for MMTLP's trading status on the OTC market to make informed decisions about their investments.

3) Provide the relevant statutory authority, jurisdiction, and adherence to established industry standards regarding the U3 trading halt of MMTLP issued on December 9, 2022.

- While FINRA provided some information, there are still gaps in understanding the statutory authority, jurisdiction, and adherence to industry standards regarding the halt. They have continuously referred to "uncertainty in the settlement and clearing process", however they neglect to mention that EVERY SINGLE MAJOR U.S. BROKER DEALER informed their clients that trades on 12/9 and 12/12 would be STRICTLY limited to closing orders ONLY. That means, NO BUYING. Understanding the legal basis and regulatory protocols governing such trading halts is vital for ensuring market integrity and investor protection. Without a clear explanation from FINRA that considers all of the above, concerns remain regarding the justification and regulatory compliance of the U3 trading halt, potentially leaving investors without the necessary confidence in the regulatory framework surrounding MMTLP trading activities.

4) Provide the exact date and circumstances surrounding FINRA’s determination to implement the U3 halt, including all unredacted communications between FINRA, SEC, governmental agencies, any outside organizations, FINRA members and non-FINRA members, and any other individuals. Also include all information surrounding the SEC or FINRA’s knowledge of the share price in any public or non-public exchange before issuance of the U3 halt.

- While FINRA did touch upon the U3 trading halt in their response, the details provided were insufficient to fully understand the sequence of events leading to the halt. They did not offer specific dates, circumstances, or communications leading to the halt, nor did they provide information about the SEC or FINRA's awareness of share prices before the halt. In fact, not a SINGLE communication was offered. As a result, there remains a significant gap in understanding the decision-making process behind the trading halt and the regulatory oversight exercised by both the SEC and FINRA.

5) Provide the first date and time that FINRA or its agents advised any market participant in any manner that MMTLP would no longer trade on December 9, 2022. Include any relevant documents or communication.

- FINRA's response lacks clarity regarding the specifics of when they first informed market participants about MMTLP's cessation of trading on December 9, 2022, and whether they provided relevant documents or communication to support this. While they mentioned their role in implementing the trading halt, they did not offer precise details about the initial communication with market participants, leaving uncertainty about the transparency and timeliness of their notifications regarding the halt. Considering that in the days prior to the halt, broker dealers, members of the investing public, and even the VP of the OTC Markets, Jeff Mendl, were all led to believe by FINRA that we would have until December 12th to close our positions, this is especially concerning.

6) Did FINRA issue a Blue Sheet request for MMTLP during the period of October 2021 through December 2022? Why or why not?

- FINRA's response lacks clarity on whether they issued a Blue Sheet request for MMTLP during the specified period, despite the knowledge we learned via FOIA that they did request such data on December 5, 2022. Additionally, there is no explanation provided for why they pursued this avenue of inquiry, or what they learned FROM the blue sheets, leaving even further gaps in understanding regarding their investigative actions related to MMTLP trading. This information is crucial for transparency and accountability, as the issuance of a Blue Sheet request could shed light on the trading activity surrounding MMTLP and potentially uncover any irregularities or manipulative practices. Understanding why FINRA did not provide this information is essential for evaluating the thoroughness of their response and ensuring that all necessary steps were taken to investigate the trading activity in question.

7) How many questions, complaints, and/or inquiries have you received regarding MMTLP?

- FINRA's response does not include a specific count or detailed information regarding the number of questions, complaints, and inquiries they received regarding MMTLP. Meanwhile, we KNOW that they track this information for their annual reports. Understanding the volume and nature of questions, complaints, and inquiries related to MMTLP is vital for assessing the extent of investor concern and market disruption caused by the trading activity surrounding this security. Without a clear account of the number and substance of these communications, it's challenging to gauge the severity of the situation and the adequacy of FINRA's response. This information is essential for ensuring that regulatory bodies are adequately addressing investor grievances and taking appropriate action to safeguard market integrity.

8) Provide the statutory or legal justification used by the SEC and FINRA to ignore public requests and congressional inquiries regarding MMTLP.

- While they provided some information, there are still gaps in understanding the statutory authority, jurisdiction, and adherence to industry standards regarding the halt. There's no clear explanation provided by FINRA regarding the statutory or legal justification for the SEC and FINRA's handling of public requests and congressional inquiries concerning MMTLP. Understanding the statutory or legal justifications behind the handling of public requests and congressional inquiries concerning MMTLP is crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability in regulatory processes. Without clear explanations from FINRA, there may be concerns about the regulatory bodies' adherence to legal mandates, their responsiveness to public and congressional inquiries, and the fairness and consistency of their actions. Clarity on this matter is essential for upholding the principles of regulatory oversight and maintaining public trust in the regulatory framework.

9) Provide the delivery of a certified audited and consolidated count of shares that were held by all U.S. and foreign financial institutions, together with their clearing firm counterparties including trades not reported in the consolidated audit trail (CAT), related to MMTLP on the date of December 12, 2022...

- Believe me, we're not surprised that this was avoided. That withstanding, it is important to note that the absence of a detailed and certified audited count of MMTLP shares held by financial institutions and counterparties raises concerns about the accuracy and transparency of the information provided by FINRA. Clarity and transparency in this regard are essential for ensuring market integrity and investor confidence, as well as for facilitating informed decision-making by all stakeholders involved. How can there be any confidence in the market if our regulators can not keep track of how many shares of a security are in circulation? When you are an SRO with absolute immunity that is tasked with providing transparency to the investing public, responding a request for the most quintessential form of transparency there is (a simple share count) by saying "we can't do that", is absolutely unacceptable. Full stop.

10) Have all MMTLP shareholders received their NBH shares?

- What is perplexing is even though we already know the answer (NO), there's no explicit confirmation or denial provided by FINRA regarding whether all MMTLP shareholders received their NBH shares. The lack of explicit confirmation regarding the distribution of NBH shares to all MMTLP shareholders raises concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the corporate action process. Without clear assurance that all shareholders received their entitled NBH shares, there remains uncertainty and potential discrepancies in the distribution process. This ambiguity could undermine investor trust and confidence in the fairness and transparency of the market, highlighting the need for thorough and transparent communication regarding corporate actions and share distributions.

11) Do you have evidence to suggest the existence of fraud and manipulation related to MMTLP transactions, such as illegal forms of naked shorts and counterfeit shares, that could distort the market?

- FINRA keeps saying that they have "found no evidence that there was significant naked short selling in MMTLP involving FINRA member firms at the end of its trading ". However, they do not expound upon what they deem as "significant". What does that mean? You found some? How much, exactly if you don't mind? While recent public relations from NBH have discussed attempts by short sellers to acquire more shares than reported currently short by FINRA, the lack of direct acknowledgment or evidence provided by FINRA regarding fraudulent activities surrounding MMTLP transactions raises concerns. The absence of clear confirmation or rebuttal regarding the existence of illegal naked shorts and counterfeit shares undermines investor confidence in the integrity of the market. Investors rely on regulatory bodies like FINRA to actively monitor and address instances of fraud and manipulation to ensure a fair and transparent trading environment. Therefore, the failure to provide conclusive information regarding these allegations leaves lingering doubts and underscores the need for thorough investigation and accountability measures to uphold market integrity.

12) Have you seen any indications of insider trading and/or pump and dump related to MMTLP transactions?

- We know who submitted this question to Rep. Normans office, and we know why. What is curious to me is there's no explicit acknowledgment or denial by FINRA regarding indications of insider trading and/or pump and dump related to MMTLP transactions. FINRA's response to inquiries about potential insider trading and pump-and-dump schemes related to MMTLP transactions lacks any clarity, presumably to continue allow the perceived uncertainty related to this matter to linger. The absence of a clear acknowledgment or denial regarding these concerns leaves room for speculation and raises doubts about the effectiveness of regulatory oversight. It's crucial for FINRA to provide unequivocal statements regarding the presence or absence of insider trading and pump-and-dump activities to reassure investors and uphold the integrity of the market. While certain members of social media did TALK about this security through various mediums, we know there was NO concerted campaign to pump this security amongst insiders, and we know that none of them sold an amount of their position off that would justify the use of the word "dumped". Just come out and tell the public so that they can finally know it too.

13) Are your organizations willing to work with NBH to determine a resolution for existing shareholders? For example, some investors have expressed concern that, even though their brokerage account statements include shares of NBH in their account, these shares may not have actually been delivered to their broker-dealers.

- This particular response is especially concerning. FINRA's response lacks a definitive statement regarding their willingness to collaborate with NBH to address investor concerns regarding the delivery of NBH shares. Investors who hold shares in NBH expect regulatory bodies to actively engage with issuers to ensure the fair and timely distribution of shares. The absence of a clear commitment from regulators to work with NBH (after 14 months of this issue persisting, mind you) to resolve these issues is absolutely egregious at this point, and raises questions about their dedication to investor protection and market integrity. It's imperative for FINRA to demonstrate a proactive approach to addressing investor concerns and facilitating communication between stakeholders to uphold transparency and trust in the market.

14) Identify any regulatory or legislative gaps that should be addressed to ensure the SEC, FINRA, and other regulated entities may better protect investors and strengthen market integrity.

- FINRA's response fails to pinpoint regulatory or legislative gaps that could be addressed to enhance investor protection and strengthen market integrity, despite the specific inquiry. Identifying these gaps is crucial for regulatory bodies like FINRA to effectively fulfill their mission of safeguarding investors and maintaining fair and orderly markets. By highlighting areas where current regulations may fall short, FINRA could contribute to the development of targeted reforms that better address emerging challenges and risks in the market. The absence of such insights raises concerns about FINRA's ability to adapt to evolving market dynamics and adequately protect investors in the face of changing threats and vulnerabilities. Are we to believe that you did absolutely nothing wrong here? We're sorry but the extensive record clearly demonstrates otherwise.

Overall, the tone and content of FINRA's response leave much to be desired in terms of addressing investor concerns and ensuring market integrity. While the response provides some information, it falls short in addressing key questions and providing sufficient clarity on critical issues surrounding MMTLP. Investors and stakeholders expect regulatory bodies like FINRA to be transparent, responsive, and proactive in addressing concerns related to market activities. However, the lack of comprehensive answers and detailed explanations in FINRA's response may further erode investor confidence and raise doubts about the effectiveness of regulatory oversight. As such, there remains a significant gap between the expectations of investors and the actual responsiveness of regulatory authorities, highlighting the need for greater transparency and accountability in regulatory practices. Bottom line: FINRA had the opportunity to methodically address each point raised in the letter, one by one. However, they chose to compile 16 pages of mostly insufficient responses, seemingly in an effort to sidestep or outright disregard the true essence of the inquiry.

I've said this once, and I will say it again: @SECGov and FINRA: Get on the phone with Greg McCabe and resolve this issue. Because we are NOT GOING ANYWHERE... until this is resolved.