Torchlight OG @TrchOG

Full Interview: Next Bridge CEO Greg McCabe on Making Money with Charles Payne FOX Business. Biden’s Regulators broke the Rules! The time has come for Answers, No More Stalling MMTLP/DJT Between 8000-10,000 Veterans Have Been Financially Impacted @SECPaulSAtkins @POTUS

MMAT

KKep @kimkep4796

4 weeks ago

MMAT

3 70 124 8K 11

Image 1 shows 3 separate sources all confirming that FINRA created the MMTLP Corporate Actions and basically forced the issuer to accept what FINRA created. If FINRA stepped in to do this and things went smoothly, we'd never have a reason to bring this up. Instead, FINRA supposedly reviewed these Corporate Actions twice, but still neglected to effectively communicate that there'd be no trading period after 12/8, and they only realized that T+2 wasn't considered after already publishing the revision and watching the price plummet to $2.90 from around $10 the day prior? Ironically, both MMTLP Corporate Actions stated that Purchases made after 12/8 wouldn't be entitled to the Next Bridge Hydrocarbons distribution, so FINRA is basically saying that they needed to halt trading just in case the brokerages didn't understand. This is the type of thing that investors really need to be protected from, and someone else agrees because one of the first orders of business after FINRA's hijacking of the MMTLP Corporate Action is that somebody made it a priority to revamp the way they process Corporate Actions. It was announced as early as May 9, 2023, just 5 months after the U3 halt. Work began June 3rd, and the new system was implemented November 20, 2023. FINRA never posted about it on X because in my opinion it would be a seen as an admission to the fact that their process was flawed.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

I heard a non investor in MMTLP / Next Bridge Hydrocarbons claim that the reason she dedicates so much time to MMTLP, is to warn investors about pumpers/influencers so that they can be protected. Let me show you something! Image 1 shows what the SEC made effective on 11/18/22. Image 2 shows a 11/23/22 PR that matches what the SEC made effective. Image 3 is from FINRA's March 2023 FAQ about the MMTLP Halt and Corporate Action. In this portion FINRA claims that the MMTLP Corporate Actions were created consistent with what is contained in images 1 and 2. Image 4 has both MMTLP Corporate Actions created by FINRA. THEY ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INFORMATION IN IMAGES 1 & 2!!! FINRA keeps the focus on a zero hour December 13th Effective Date, this 40 hours before December 14th after the close of business. Neither source mentioned the Symbol Deletion Date because the issuer doesn't Delete the Trading Symbol. FINRA claims they included Symbol Deletion because that's FINRA's role, but why did FINRA bother to include Symbol Deletion if the Corporate Action is about what was to occur on 12/14 after the close of business? It wasn't FINRA's Corporate Action, why did the 12/8 revision keep the focus on what FINRA planned to do, which was a unilateral decision not involving the company's approval?

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

And here's more that MMTLP detractors prefer to ignore... Image 1 shows that on 12/7/22, the VP of the Market where MMTLP traded, Jeff Mendl broadcasted to over 400k @TraderTVLIVE subscribers that MMTLP would trade until 12/12. So again, forget what pumpers or influencers said, how are investors supposed to respond to their brokers and the VP OTC Markets? Image 2 shows that Jeff Mendl has conveniently moved up to work with onboarding broker-dealers, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence. (Not pictured, Mendl was promoted to Head of Broker Dealer Sales at OTC Markets directly after the events of MMTLP) Image 3 shows that the SEC was meeting with FINRA's OTC Corporate Actions Team about the MMTLP Corporate Action at least 4 days before the first Corporate Action, and they were aware of fraud tips sent to both regulators. With as busy and as understaffed as the SEC is known to be, it's interesting that they had time to discuss the MMTLP Corporate Action with FINRA's Corporate Actions Team days before it was hijacked by FINRA and not matching what the SEC made effective. Image 4 provides just another example of the way FINRA's MMTLP Corporate Action misled investors and brokerages alike... Observe that on 12/9/22, TD Ameritrade was still communicating a 12/13 MMTLP share cancellation date to clients. This was based on what FINRA published on 12/6. Even though FINRA unilaterally revised the MMTLP Corporate Action on 12/8, they never included the correct 12/14 after Market close share cancellation date and time. Dates and times are crucial! FINRA wants us to believe that it was the timing and structure of the Corporate Action that justified the U3 halt, but isn't it interesting that by making both MMTLP Corporate Actions focused on the zero hour of December 13th, FINRA essentially removed 40 hours from the equation. #FinraFraud plain and simple! @FBILosAngeles @VP

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Here's a clearer image of the communications from image 1 above, along with additional messages explaining what MMTLP holders were basically told to expect. @FINRA knows these were sent to investors but they allowed investors to believe trading would occur up until 12/12, and then they pretended to discover an issue directly before brokerages were allowed to proceed as planned. @TheJusticeDept @FBIWFO

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Under U.S. securities laws (specifically Regulation SHO and anti-fraud provisions like Rule 10b-21), naked short selling, also known as counterfeiting shares is illegal, regardless of the fundamental outlook, financial health, or future prospects of the target company. So called experts can say whatever they want about Torchlight or the assets that MMTLP represented, but even if they are correct, it wouldn't justify illegally engaging in Market Manipulation. When Torchlight was about to transition to a dividend placeholder representing Torchlight's assets, options were applied for and approved just two weeks before TRCH was to stop trading. This options activity seemingly allowed for more manipulation, it provided a way to delay settlement of short positions, and it seemingly anticipated that a pathway would be created for the dividend to become tradeable, even though it went against the wishes of the issuer. Fast forward to just before MMTLP was U3 halted. It isn't FINRA's role to author the Corporate Action but they did, changing the dates that were made effective by the SEC. Why is this so easily overlooked? Then FINRA met with the DTCC without the issuer and revised the Corporate Action unilaterally. FINRA eventually claimed that the U3 halt was due to the timing and structure of the Corporate Action that they themselves created. So why didn't FINRA discover the issue during their two Rule 6490 review processes before the publication of each MMTLP Corporate Action? It's because FINRA and the SEC knew there was a problem and the way FINRA planned their version of the Corporate Action and U3 halt allowed them to hide the imbalance which would've been obvious if brokerages were allowed to force liquidate short positions and conduct position close only transactions on December 9th and December 12th, 2022. So look at image 1... Why would it matter what a pumper or influencer said about trading MMTLP if the brokerages were communicating to clients that trading would occur on 12/9 & 12/12? It also says that New Buys wouldn't be allowed after 12/8 so these transactions were about reconciling obligations, not about people buying that wouldn't have settled positions on 12/12. Image 2... More evidence of what brokerages had planned based on the Corporate Actions that FINRA published. FINRA knows that these messages were going to investors, giving them the impression that trading would occur up until 12/12, so why didn't FINRA provide clarity instead of just halting trading? Image 3... FINRA suspected the issuer of fraud/manipulation and initiated a blue sheet investigation on 12/5/22, one day before publishing the first MMTLP Corporate Action. The problem here is that based on FINRA's Rule 6490 and common sense, how are you protecting investors by proceeding with the Corporate Action while simultaneously suspecting the issuers of fraud/manipulation? Image 4 provides a clue! The FIF which represents the broker-dealers that traded MMTLP, admitted to the SEC that FINRA's U3 halt prevented addressing MMTLP shares out on loan. This is what is referenced in images 1 & 2 concerning the Position Close Only trading and forced liquidations that would've occurred if FINRA didn't U3 halt trading.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

I’m so happy that the real truth is reaching the public so that everyone will stop doubting and stop falsely accusing Greg McCabe of all the Bullshit that these freaks have been preaching and attempting to sue over during this time of silence by Greg and others. Sparks said “Too many people seem to believe that silence was a void that needed to be filled.” Or “In the absence of information, people fill the silence with their own narrative.” Which probably fits our scenario better since certain people want to try to control the narrative with their made up scenarios of how the man funding this battle with the circus of corruption by our government agencies that are trying to hide the crimes of the entirety of Wall Street continues for more than 3-1/2 years and counting. Wake up people all you have to do is listen to the man speak and it is easy to figure out he has one intention and it is not hurting his stockholders. In the meantime make sure to call out all these shills for their Bullshit narratives that somehow Greg McCabe is the bad guy in all of this. Remember he didn’t come onto the scene until well after the crimes of Wall Street had taken place… One other note, read these filings closely and slowly let them sink in. These criminals that he was dealing with (@MMAT) (Not GP) were as bad if not worse than the WS criminals that participated and caused the halt.

KKep @kimkep4796

3 weeks ago

MMAT🦋 DOC 3003-1 Filed October 6, 2026

4 106 182 7K 13

Next Bridge Hydrocarbons @nbhydrocarbons has irrefutable evidence of ongoing securities fraud in the distribution of UNREGISTERED, COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES. CEO Greg McCabe has requested numerous meetings with the @SECGov @SECPaulSAtkins. SEC's repsonse: 🦗🦗🦗 MMTLP....Elon knows!!!

Stephanie @stephmase22

3 weeks ago

🙉🙈🙊 SEC ZERO INTEGRITY AGENCY We are not the only ones that have zero respect for the SEC. The SEC has made it perfectly clear they are not protecting investors. Which is wild as that is actually their job. If they had done their job the markets wouldn't be in this mess.

20 245 582 17K 21

Scott, I’m here because I’m a long-term Meta Materials investor who held shares when the company entered bankruptcy. My investment remains unresolved, and I have a direct financial interest in the estate’s outcome. My research included a paid Fintel subscription and the company’s business prospects. What attracted me was Meta’s advanced technologies, intellectual property, and talented staff. Oil and gas were not the basis of my investment although I was aware of the reg-sho data. Meta’s technology and counterfeiting-related litigation raise different issues from the oil-and-gas matters you keep referencing. If you want to bid on litigation assets involving that technology, that distinction should be fundamental to the discussion. Nobody has paid me to express my views. My integrity is not for sale, and supporting a position you dislike does not establish otherwise. You entered this situation by purchasing shares ($10 worth?) AFTER the bankruptcy filing. WHY❓ What brought you here, and what interests are you seeking to advance? You also wrote, “we took $11.8 million from the bankruptcy” and called it a “win.” Who is “we”? What did you mean by “took,” and who benefited? How does that statement fit with your desire to participate in the estate’s adversary litigation? Those are reasonable questions about your own words and stated intentions. “Bootlicker,” “Barbara Walters,” and “Temu JunkSavvy” provide no answers. Any substantive objections you have can be presented to the court with evidence. My reason for being here is straightforward: I invested in Meta Materials, suffered losses, and want its assets protected and its claims fairly evaluated. Your personal remarks do nothing to address those interests.

MMAT ⚖️🦋 In re Meta Materials Inc. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Nevada Case No. 24-50792-gs DOCS. 3002 & 3003 + EXHIBITS 3003-1 THROUGH 3003-4 Filed October 6, 2026 ⚠️ NOT LEGAL ADVICE - LONG ONE! 📄⚖️ TODAY’S FILINGS DOC. 3002: Trustee Christina Lovato’s response to objections to selling the Authentix & 24M litigation claims. DOC. 3003: Attorney Jeffrey Hartman’s sworn declaration, with historical emails, Meta’s 2024 McCabe settlement & the 2026 tolling agreement. These support the sale—not a ruling approving it. 💰🦋 THE DEAL BaileyBridge, wholly owned & controlled by McCabe, buys the claims. The estate receives: 💵 $250,000. 📈 20% of NET recoveries. 🏦 BaileyBridge funds future litigation. The trustee says this provides cash & potential upside without estate funding. 📣 “Demand figures in complaints are not a valuation.” Meaning: requesting millions does not establish a lawsuit’s sale value. 🏛️🛑 RESPONSE TO AUTHENTIX The trustee argues Authentix lacks standing to block the sale: it is neither a creditor nor a shareholder. Changing who pursues the lawsuit does not change its defenses or liability. 📣 “Its remedy is to defend the adversary proceeding.” Authentix also wants to bid. The trustee identifies the hearing as an opportunity for better offers. 🔐⚖️ McCABE CLAIMS REMAIN SEPARATE The trustee says she retains potential claims against McCabe rather than selling them. Regarding tolling: 📣 “It does not release Mr. McCabe.” Hartman states under penalty of perjury: 📣 “At no time during the events leading up to the execution of the Tolling Agreement, was there any discussion about McCabe acquiring the rights to pursue claims against Authentix.” His point: tolling & the sale were separate arrangements. 📅🔍 TOLLING AGREEMENT — ATTACHED VIA DROPBOX It pauses applicable deadlines for covered claims for one year from JULY 17, 2026, subject to extension or earlier termination. It does not revive expired claims or establish liability. 📝 Doc. 3002 references July 7; Hartman & the agreement identify JULY 17. 📨🔎 THE EMAILS EXHIBIT 1 contains McCabe’s questions about whether Meta’s board discussed removing Palikaras, a reverse split or bankruptcy BEFORE approving his stock-purchase agreement. 📣 “Is there a credible pathway for Meta to stay viable as a company?” Hartman says it is unknown whether Meta responded. Questions are not proof of concealment. EXHIBIT 2 records proposed settlement terms. 📜⚖️ THE SEPARATE 2024 RELEASE EXHIBIT 3: Settlement effective JANUARY 22, 2024, before bankruptcy. It ended McCabe’s remaining stock-purchase obligations & required: 💵 $700,000. 🔄 Return of purchased shares. 📈 Another $700,000 if a stock-price condition was met. It contains mutual releases for defined loan-sale & stock-purchase disputes. 📣 “The releases contained herein are not general releases…” ⚠️ No release in the tolling agreement does NOT mean McCabe never received one. These are TWO AGREEMENTS. The older release’s effect on potential trustee claims remains unresolved. Hartman reports $7.2M total cash paid across the note purchase, stock purchases & settlement. 📣⚖️ COMPETING OFFERS The trustee says Traudt’s April offer concerned different claims: 📣 “If Traudt or anyone else has a better bid for these two claims, the time to make it is now.” 🔎 His September objection also offers $100,000 + 50% of defined net recoveries for the SAME claims. Doc. 3002 does not expressly compare those terms. Funding, conditions & ability to perform still matter. 🏦✅ SAFEGUARDS The trustee says payment precedes file transfer & counsel substitution, and settlements return for court approval. Objectors question whether protections are clearly written into the agreement. The final agreement & order matter. 📅🏛️ NEXT OCT. 13 — 1:30 PM Pacific / 4:30 PM Eastern. Judge Spraker may approve, require changes or more evidence, defer, or deny the sale. dropbox.com/scl/fi/uszfk77… dropbox.com/scl/fi/xvn5wsn…

Here’s the actual email (Exhibit 1):

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

MMAT🦋 DOC 3003-1 Filed October 6, 2026

MMAT 🦋 | In re Meta Materials Inc. ⚖️ U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada 📄 Case 24-50792-gs | DOC 3004 | Filed October 6, 2026 ⚠️ Not legal advice. 💰 Greg McCabe supports BaileyBridge’s proposed purchase of the estate’s claims against Authentix & 24M Technologies: $250,000 upfront, protection for the Trustee against related claims & 20% of any NET recovery for the estate. 🚨 McCabe says he invested largely because he trusted George Palikaras. After investing $6.5 million, Palikaras was fired. McCabe says he also learned Meta had consulted a bankruptcy attorney & planned a 100-to-1 reverse split BEFORE his investment agreement. 💬 “Had I known of these three events, I never would have entered into the Stock Purchase Agreement.” 🤝 McCabe says their dispute settled before bankruptcy: his total payments reached $7.2 million, he returned his Meta stock, retained the Next Bridge note & was released from further stock purchases. 📌 He says his separate tolling agreement with the Trustee concerns that earlier settlement—not the BaileyBridge purchase. These are McCabe’s sworn statements, not court findings.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

MMTLP @JunkSavvy @Vanguard_Group

Odysseus @InvestingOutis

3 years ago

@johnbrda @HuckleberryHalt @onehundredmph @Cyntaxed007 @BasileEsq @TBLF_LawFirm Coming later today, TRCH in (two files) VTS_AU historic holdings Vanguard (2016, 2018) And... I found a "little" text file. I am hopeful an expert will chime in concerning number of "Index shares"

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

2 50 87 5K 8

📌 MMAT — Today’s expected filing concerns WHO handles the lawsuit & WHEN. 🏛️ District Court: 3:26-cv-00679-MMD ⚖️ Related adversary case: 26-05036-gs 📅 Today, October 5: Plaintiffs Christina Lovato & Doug Collins are due to respond to the defendants’ request to have the securities lawsuit handled by the district court instead of the bankruptcy court. The September 23 order confirms that deadline. 📄 WHAT COULD THE RESPONSE SAY? We should expect a legal brief explaining the plaintiffs’ position. Possible approaches include: 🛑 Oppose moving it: Argue the bankruptcy judge should continue handling the lawsuit because of its connection to the bankruptcy estate. ⏳ Oppose moving it immediately: Argue the bankruptcy judge can handle preliminary matters, even if the district court eventually handles a trial. 🤝 Agree, or agree with conditions: Accept district-court handling while proposing how the case should proceed. 🔎 Those are possibilities—not confirmed positions. The response will tell us which approach the trustee & shareholder counsel actually favor. 💡 WHAT WILL BE MOST REVEALING? Watch for their explanation of how the estate’s claims & shareholder claims should proceed together, which judge should handle preliminary proceedings, & whether moving the case now would help or slow progress. 🐌 🗓️ WHAT COMES NEXT? 📬 October 23: Defendants’ reply supporting their request is due under the district-court order. ⚖️ After briefing, the judge can decide the request or schedule further proceedings. ⏸️ Today’s deadline does not mean a ruling is expected today. ⏯️ 📝 Not legal advice. Layman’s explanation.

KKep @kimkep4796

4 weeks ago

MMAT

3 70 124 8K 11

Part 2.5: The Case Against The Securities Exchange Commission (Part 2.5 Of 5) Overview: Dives deeper into the mechanics of regulatory coordination, focusing heavily on the tenure and direct watch of SEC Chair Gary Gensler. Core Subject: This segment presents evidence suggesting that FINRA and the SEC were not operating independently, but rather working in tandem—or through willful negligence—in ways that ultimately harmed retail investors. It highlights bureaucratic stonewalling and a lack of accountability at the top. Connections: Bridges Part 2 and Part 3 by zooming in on specific leadership culpability (Gensler's SEC) and setting up the broader web of market infrastructure entities explored later.

Rare DD @RareDealsHere

a year ago

🚨🚨🚨 NEW VIDEO 🚨🚨🚨 9/19/25 "The Case Against The Securities Exchange Commission Part "2.5" Out Of 5" (17m 59s) Evidence that @FINRA & the @SECGov work together to harm investors, directly under the watch of Gary Gensler. $MMTLP youtu.be/15GEUm0JRYo?si…

5 186 254 43K 13

Part 2: The Case Against The Securities Exchange Commission (Part 2 Of 5) Overview: Shifts the analytical lens directly onto the SEC, reviewing how the agency handled—or rather, failed to handle—FINRA’s extraordinary actions concerning MMTLP. Core Subject: The video evaluates the SEC's oversight responsibilities, highlighting a systemic failure to question or check FINRA's authority when the U3 halt was implemented. Instead of protecting retail shareholders, the SEC is framed as turning a blind eye to regulatory overreach. Connections: Directly builds on Part 1 by transitioning from the investor's viewpoint of the halt to an institutional examination of the SEC’s supervisory failures over FINRA.

Rare DD @RareDealsHere

a year ago

🎥 🍿 🎥 NEW VIDEO 🎥 🍿 🎥 9/11/2025 "MMTLP: The Case Against The Securities Exchange Commission Part 2 Of 5" (27m, 19s) Watch the video from the perspective of the @SECGov reviewing FINRA's actions relating to $MMTLP. youtu.be/fdomYAgXFsk?si…

5 123 154 53K 14

MMTLP community warriors Everyone support the Community #MMTLP get information about the biggest Fraudulent manipulation by FINRA

#MMTLP we hear next 3 to 4 days could have positive news. PRESIDENT TRUMP in Nebraska Monday ... Rally time !!! News?

K9_🇺🇸_Patriots_USA @Patriots_k9_USA

3 weeks ago

MMTLP community warriors Everyone support the Community #MMTLP get information about the biggest Fraudulent manipulation by FINRA

3 10 22 3K 0