Open Letter to US Congress / Senate, and Georgetown University. Prof. James Angel representation to Congress in response to the MMTLP fiasco.

Introduction

The purpose of this letter is to magnify the awareness of an evil fraudulent theft racket plaguing the United States Equity market, and to expose the deceit and lies propagated by those who advocate for the racket. The scam is not new, it's existed for many decades; what is new and rapidly becoming worse, is the prevalence and extent. The number of loopholes and the extent to which they are exploited has increased alarmingly. Just 4 hedge funds owe over $250bn in shares purportedly “sold” but not purchased; this at valuations just a fraction of what it would cost them to settle these liabilities. Just recently, with the bank collapses, it was brought up that “shorting” of banks should be banned. However, ALL companies, just like banks, have stakeholders, companies crippled into oblivion by terrorists. The racket is the root cause of pump-and-dump scams, and a plethora of price manipulation tactics; all of which steal money from We the People's retirement and other savings accounts to enrich the uber-wealthy.

MMTLP – Who and Why MMTLP

65,000+ families' financial worlds have been turned upside down by the counterfeiting of MMTLP, a stock ticker representing a preference share paid by the Company Meta Materials (MMAT). It was never intended to be publicly traded. MMAT common shares were also massively counterfeited right from their inception; because counterfeiters of another company, "TRCH", defaulted on settling their liabilities for TRCH shares purportedly sold-not-purchased. Instead of settling their TRCH share liabilities, the counterfeiters, with FINRA / SEC blessing, astoundingly substituted these with liabilities for MMAT shares, despite the two businesses being radically different in every way. These liabilities remained unsettled and were conveniently duplicated into liabilities for MMTLP shares when the Pref dividend was paid. In fact, not only did the counterfeiters not settle their liabilities for shares-not-purchased, they doubled down taking more money, increasing their liabilities for MMTLP shares purportedly “sold”, yet still owed. MMAT has since disposed of its oil and gas business to Next Bridge Hydrocarbons (“NBH”), an unlisted non-publicly trading company. The main problem (and there are many related ones) is that counterfeiters have yet again defaulted on settling their liabilities for MMTLP shares. This means that thousands of shareholders, who are out of pocket for the purchase price of their shares, cannot be given their NBH shares because there are hundreds of millions more shares owed than were actually issued by the company. This includes purported “sales” of shares not owned, even up to and including the last days before Finra abruptly halted the trading of MMTLP, with FINRA and their members knowing full well all these shares were about to be canceled by the company. This was clearly the icing on the cake of their fraudulent theft racket, aimed at taking money without delivering what they purportedly “sold”, and driving the share price down in an attempt to trivialize their liability.

Shareholders were led to believe trading of MMTLP would continue through Dec 9. & 12 to enable institutions with liabilities for shares sold-not-yet-purchased to settle their trades (purchase shares to close positions only); and FINRA, seemingly to avoid a price run-up; and aid-and-abet counterfeiters in their settlement default; abruptly and unexpectedly halted trading early morning Dec 9th, right after they had escalated the counterfeiting to dump the price and rake in more money. The detriment to shareholders is unspeakable.

Now FINRA are contending the liabilities for MMTLP (pref shares) can just be swept under the rug by being substituted, once again, for the third time, with liability for a different company's common shares. This despite NBH being an unlisted non-trading, not intended to be publicly traded, not DTC eligible company.

The MMTLP fiasco proves 2 hypothesis of a multitude of people who see WRONG across hundreds of companies; that the perpetrators, aided and abetted by FINRA and the SEC, 1) have no effective limitations in place, nor any effective transparency to show the extent of their acts, and 2) will go to any lengths to continue defaulting in settling their liabilities for the shares they still owed, but took money for purportedly “selling”.

The important thing to know is how badly shareholders, who acted in good faith, have been violated in the most unjust way. These are people from all walks of life; the elderly who have lost substantial parts of their retirement, families whose livelihoods are impacted; many have had their health and healthcare impacted. We're talking veterans, fire fighters, nurses and every other occupation. Good people who are struggling to do right by their loved ones, their community and their country. American folk and others, who have been badly wronged by powerful institutions who have done the WRONG THING and are refusing, seemingly with complicity of FINRA and SECGOV, to do the RIGHT THING; that is to settle their debts for shares they purportedly "sold" – that they have taken money for and conveyed OWNERSHIP OF THAT WHICH THEY DID NOT OWN! They admit they still owe the shares, but ruthlessly want to remain in default of settling their debts! It truly is just as bad, in fact worse than, banks refusing to pay their depositors.

Mr James Angel – Why Him?

Why did Congress secure the briefing of specifically Mr James Angel and Georgetown University to inform them and their staffers regarding the “Short Sale” racket? Congress had already received tens of thousands of complaints and pleadings from MMTLP shareholders who had been harmed, mostly clearly in opposition to FINRA and its own FAQ. His pro “short sale” stance is well documented and his ties to Congress, FINRA, Market Makers and their CEOs are evident. He could not have been more partial. His points mirror the Finra FAQ so much that it is hard to ignore the likelihood that he in part authored the FAQ. He holds “12 patents” and is involved in fabricating the rules enabling run-away shorting, dark pools and the questionable PFOF; portrayed as in the interest of investors and market interests, while in fact enabling counterfeiting and price manipulation. It's hard to not see his involvement as a clear indication from Congress to retail shareholders, that their points of views are irrelevant and trivial. It is extremely insulting, more so in the light of the optics on the one hand, and the stonewalling / denial of knowledge on the other.

Mr James Angel – His Assertions?

JA asserts that holdings in excess of the 100% of shares issued by the company are “erroneously called counterfeit” shares, rubbishing shareholders' loud contention that the counterfeits exist. What do you call shares not purchased or owned, that are purportedly “sold” for which the money has been taken but that are still owed, yet a DUPLICATE has been credited to a buyer's account? JA (in unison with the counterfeiters) allege that “borrowed” shares were used to “consummate” the “sale”, yet the allegedly borrowed shares remain in the alleged Lender's account (which he conveniently forgets to mention). SHARES by the very definition of the word amount to 100%, there can be no more than 100%. If one values TRUTH, shares in excess of 100%, credited to shareholders accounts can only be COUNTERFEITS! He does not get to write the dictionary and his denial speaks volumes! Not once does JA implore Finra and its members to disclose the extent of the share liabilities, a clear defiance of shareholders concerns. If the extent is, as they allege, within the realms of legal, why would they for 150 days, under the circumstances, be obstructing the disclosure of the exact number of shares credited to shareholders' accounts?

JA even asserts that “short interest can be greater than 100%, like it was in “GameStop” - If more than 100% of a company's shares have already ostensibly been loaned out (truthfully duplicated into buyers' accounts), what shares in addition to the 100% issued by the company, could also be loaned out? Counterfeits of the counterfeits is the answer!

Let's be clear that this assertion is based on an assumption that 100% of shareholders loaned out 100% of their shares in the first place. Think about that; shareholders who actually INVEST want their shares to be lent out, knowing this would create enormous fictitious supply of shares not owned, knowing that this fake supply will send the value of their investments into the abyss? JA asserts it is “easy to borrow” / “Investor locates shares to borrow” / “if one lender calls it in another will lend” / 'lenders usually happy to keep lending”, and sarcastically asserting that institutions can't be stopped from lending. The truth is that share borrowing is a ruse, it is neither affected (accounted for) (because that would limit their counterfeiting); nor does it have any basis in common Law (or common sense); legal rights derived from borrowing do NOT extend to alienating the owner's title in ownership. Moreover, any sensible real investor would never lend out their shares, it is counter to their interest of increasing their investments value. If institutions are doing so, that should be even more alarming, because it is counter to their clients' interests, to whom one would hope they owe a fiduciary duty.

JA asserts that “Short sales create the equivalent of a derivative transaction”. The differences could not be more stark! Derivative contracts are for the potential future transacting of a security for which a PREMIUM is paid and received; while a “short sale” is an actual transaction that fabricates fake supply (the share supplied is not owned – ownership is crucial in real supply), the principle proceeds (money) is taken but the share is still owed. Derivative contracts have expiry dates, “short sales” have no specified delivery date. Derivative contracts when entered into do NOT directly affect the supply and demand; while 'Short sales” are predicated on the fact that the fake supply fabricated will cause prices to go down, it is self-fulfilling. These differences are extremely material. It is a distortion of truth by someone who is supposed to be an expert educator, one can only be aimed at deliberately brainwashing his audience.

JA asserts that “Investor (through broker) borrows shares – Shares delivered in settlement”. Firstly, the last thing a “short seller” is, is an INVESTOR! An investor is a person who pays money VESTING it INTO the company to further its aims and who issues a share in return. A “short seller” vests nothing into anything, it takes, and fully intends to annihilate the company so that what it still owes, is worthless! Secondly, the borrowed share remains in the alleged lender's account – what gets credited to the buyer's account is a fabricated counterfeit! The word “delivery” implies that the share is taken from one place (account) and put into another, that's English. The truth is what they're doing is “Fabricating” not “Delivery”. Just like a “sale” cannot be “consummated” with the share still being owed – that's the very definition of NOT CONSUMMATED.

JA asserts that “Selling short without borrowing shares – Results in a fail to deliver”. However, what is being delivered if the allegedly “borrowed” share that money is taken for is still in the lender's account and is still owed? Is it not share OWNERSHIP that money is taken for? But the ownership is not TRANSFERED it is COUNTERFEITED. The truth is that “short sales” by the very definition of the English words undeniably amounts to a failure to deliver, with or without a borrowed share, they're short and still owe the share, it hasn't been delivered.

JA asserts that “Most fails have been cleaned up. – Some still happen, but usually resolved quickly.” But they won't disclose the gross shareholding positions and they won't disclose who all this alleged “share borrowing” is borrowed from or loaned to. They say it is “cleaned up” - must be so – they'd never just take money and fail to deliver. Are we to ignore or forget that in this process THEY ARE TAKING MONEY. By FINRA's own actions they admitted that the MMTLP failures to deliver necessitated reporting because they exceeded “acceptable” levels (before deciding they'd rather apply the SEC's limitations because those were more lenient and would cover up what was "accidently" exposed, which was half true anyway). Any person who followed and follows the price discovery that the market system is delivering, across hundreds of companies, and claims failures to deliver have been cleaned up, is disingenuous to say the least.

JA asserts that “Those failing to receive can force a buy-in sooner ? They rarely do, as shares will come in soon enough.” He makes it sound again like there is an infinite source of shares to “borrow” (from shareholders who love to see their investments tank, as a result of the fictitious supply.)

JA asserts that “MMTLP began trading “over the counter on OTC Markets. Brokers filed Form 15c2-11 indicating that information was available” Either a grossly negligent misstatement of the truth, since the Finra FAQ admits this did not happen, or a deliberate lie! Of course no details are provided about the alleged “exemption”, who filed what or with what information. (Perhaps it is FINRA that is lying, perhaps the document exists, but they are refusing to expose it, because whatever form was used, it was fraudulent?)

JA asserts that the “Record date for dividend of Next Bridge: December 12, 2022” He falsely characterizes the cancellation of MMTLP shares and the issue of NBH common shares as a “dividend”, apparently to play into the narrative that a two-day settlement was required and implying that, this being obvious, settlement of liabilities for MMTLP shares in excess of the company issued number could be defaulted upon.

JA asserts that “reasons for shorting” include: “Worried about risk stock could go down” and “betting that stocks will go down”. What drives prices down is SUPPLY, he conveniently does not mention that it is in fact the fictitious supply of shares not owned that CAUSES the prices to go down. (Of course, they could use derivative contracts to take their positions, but these would not falsify the supply, to derive them the benefit of tanking the prices and forever defaulting on settling their liabilities)

JA asserts that “shorting” is “effected” through 'borrowing” shares and that counterfeit shares are only “alleged”. The Truth is that a SALE can only be effected by delivering a share through a transfer, if the share is still owed, it has not been delivered and the sale is not “effected” or “consummated”. The share quantum credited to investors accounts would otherwise (and is) be greater than 100%. What he also fails to disclose is that the liabilities for borrowed shares are most often not settled! Did they settle TRCH before MMAT reverse listed through the merger? NO! Did they settle MMAT liabilities when they knew a preference share would accrue? NO! They duplicated the liabilities into owing the pref shares as well; and illegally made them trade as MMTLP. Did they settle the MMTLP liabilities knowing the oil and gas assets would be spun out? NO! They DEFAULTED. They almost always DEFAULT! If this is not the Truth, just release the data showing beneficial ownership, the extent of liabilities, and who ostensibly loaned how many shares to whom.

JA asserts that retail's claims result from an “Amateurish attempt to squeeze shorts that backfired? What he neglects to mention, is that with the pref shares issued by the company about to be canceled, liabilities for counterfeits in excess of the quantum issued by the company should have been settled, because the company could only cancel the quantum they issued; those fabricated in the accounts of shareholders by counterfeiters should have been purchased BEFORE the corporate action was finalized. They had plenty of time! JA's assertion (and Finra's) that those liabilities could just be unilaterally and automatically be substituted by liabilities for a different company's different securities that are NOT DTC eligible, is not only outrageously false and not supported by law, but is also not practically possible. To even so much as entertain this impossibility, the first step would have to be to identify the beneficial shareholders, the quantum of liabilities required, and who it would be that would loan how many shares to whom. But they refuse to expose the truth. Again, it's been 150 days! They contend the extent of Liabilities are irrelevant (they own themselves the right to hide the evidence and pretend the liabilities do not exist)

The Dismissal of Investors

We're talking going on FIVE MONTHS! Thousands of MMTLP shareholders have sent many tens of thousands of e-mails, letters; made calls, made their cases on social media. They KNOW! Several members have made trips to the SEC, to Congress, they ALL KNOW! First and foremost, the request has been to expose the quantum, truthfully! What is the number of shares credited to shareholder accounts (long) and what is excess above the number issued by the company, ie the number of shares owed by brokerages? Then, how are those liabilities going to be settled? It should be through the closing position only trading, the shorts exploited their self-owned entitlement to take money, conveying ownership that they did not own, they killed the share price in the process. The undoing of this thievery is for them to buy back at prices through the same system they broke to exploit. Bringing in ten professors is not going to change the truth!