Patrick: "By the way. Where's the link for this claim?
Remember, in the Bloomberg interview a week or so ago, a DHMG spokesman said they saw no point in Universal spending the money to get audited."
Bloomberg is in a world of its own. Its machines are not PC's or PC compatible. Things will show up there that one can't access on the web anywhere.
In this case, there was an article about DHMG's auditors dumping the company (NOT "DHMG replacing its auditors") near the end of its fiscal year, something no auditor would do, IMO, unless it was convinced that its clients were some kind of crooks and it wanted nothing to do with them. The article pointed out a likely reason why the auditors waved goodbye, the fact that most of the company's sales, earnings, and assets related to Universal Network, and the auditor felt that none of the above could be trusted. Chris C. stated something to the tune of "Why should we pay $500,000 for an audit just to tell us what we already know?" Check with someone who has access to Bloomberg; they can print out the article and you can see for yourself.
I didn't answer your other questions because they didn't have anything to do with DHMG.
If I felt that you were the only person in the world who were reading this thread, I wouldn't post anything. But with at least one officer of DHMG calling shareholders up boiler room style trying to tout them into buying more stock, there may well be some people who might want to do some independent research on the company and thus come across this thread. I wouldn't want them to think that this is an honest company in any respect.
Until such time as the SEC stops trading and brings charges against management (including criminal charges, I would think) I may have to keep posting from time to time.
Sorry if that bothers you. I'll go back to posting them to myself rather than you. |
