jeffc

$MMTLP The TD Ameritrade (TDA) message from October 14, 2021, explicitly states: "Currently, there is only one market destination accepting orders for MMTLP, which is GTS OTC." (IMAGE 1) This confirms that on the day immediately preceding the first reported short interest, GTS was the only entity in the market accepting orders for MMTLP through TDA's platform (and TDA implies other brokers/market destinations were not connected). The FINRA data shows that the first reported Short Interest (SI) Volume for MMTLP was on October 15, 2021, with a volume of 14,394,345 shares. (IMAGE 2) This large initial short position appeared immediately after GTS was identified as the sole accepting market destination. GTS was in a unique position to facilitate the short sale of these 14.4 million shares. Since short sales must be executed through a market maker/destination, the coincidence of GTS being the only acceptor and the large initial short volume on the following day strongly suggests GTS played a direct role in processing or internalizing these short sale orders. But MMTLP shares were issued 1-for-1 only to existing TRCH investors via a reverse merger and there shouldn't have been shares locateable to facilitate shorting. In a legal short sale, a broker must "locate" a share before the sale. The share is then borrowed and sold. The existence of a 14.4 million share short position, particularly in a security with a severely restricted and finite float (issued 1:1 via a corporate action), suggests a massive failure in the locate and/or settlement process. GTS, as the primary/sole market destination, would have been the entity responsible for ensuring the locate requirements were met before facilitating the sale orders. The size of the short interest relative to the known float raises serious questions about whether: GTS was able to locate this many shares. The shares were sold without a proper locate (Counterfeit/Naked Short Selling). GTS was the internal counterparty to many of these transactions. Images 3 & 4 reflect that this coincides with the financials of GTS in the relevant time period. @SECPaulSAtkins @palikaras

📊 MMAT / MMTLP In re Meta Materials Inc. — Case No. 24-50792-gs U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada Filings Date: April 3, 2026 ⚠️ NLA (Not Legal Advice) ⸻ 🧾 Big Picture (Plain English) This batch of filings is all about funding the lawsuits the Trustee is preparing. 👉 Translation: •The Trustee is gearing up for major litigation •She secured outside funding (Parabellum) •Some details are so sensitive they were sealed •And importantly… 👉 There are clear signs targets are already identified ⸻ 📂 Document-by-Document Breakdown Not all docs fit in this post. See comments ⸻ 📄 Doc 2679 — Motion to File Funding Docs Under Seal 🧠 What it means (simple): The Trustee is asking the court to keep key documents hidden from the public because they contain: •Trade secrets •Litigation strategy •Confidential financial structures ⸻ 🚨 🔥 KEY BOMBSHELL (Page 3) The agreement includes litigation budgets for Meta litigation involving DTC and others, including certain parties 👉 Layman translation: •They’ve already scoped out who may be sued •The names are not public (redacted / sealed) •But the structure shows: •Specific defendants identified •Budgets allocated per case •Litigation already mapped out 💥 This is NOT theoretical anymore 💥 This is targeted litigation planning ⸻ 🧩 Why sealing matters: •There are multiple agreements + exhibits (A–G) •Includes: •Retention agreements •Budgets •Co-counsel agreements •One of the filings confirms: 👉 Entire contract filed separately under seal ⸻ 📄 Doc 2680 — Declaration Supporting Sealing 🧠 Simple: Trustee says: •These documents contain confidential commercial info •They must be sealed under bankruptcy rules 👉 Translation: “This stuff is sensitive because it reveals strategy and structure.” ⸻ 📄 Doc 2681 — SEALED DOCUMENT NOTICE 🧠 Simple: •Confirms: 👉 Actual funding agreement + details are NOT public 💥 This is where the real names, targets, and mechanics likely sit ⸻ 📄 Doc 2682 — Motion to Approve Funding (CORE FILING) 🧠 What it says: •Trustee wants court approval to formally ratify the funding deal •Legal basis: •Business judgment •Best interest of estate ⸻ 💰 KEY TAKEAWAYS: •💵 ~$11.8 million funding commitment •🔍 Investigation already underway into: •Market manipulation •Naked short selling •Spoofing 👉 Translation: This lawsuit strategy has been: •Pre-researched •Budgeted •Funded ⸻ 🧨 HUGE LINE: “Preliminary investigation into possible claims of market manipulation…” 👉 That means: •This didn’t start now •Evidence gathering likely already happened ⸻ 📊 Funding Structure (Simplified): •Parabellum pays upfront costs •If they win: •Funder gets paid first (with premium) •Then attorneys •Then estate 👉 If they lose: •Parabellum eats the loss 💡 Translation: No risk to estate = green light to pursue aggressive litigation ⸻ 📄 Doc 2683 — Trustee Declaration Supporting Funding 🧠 Simple: Trustee confirms: •Funders DO NOT control litigation decisions •This is standard in big cases •Potential to recover: 👉 “substantial monies” ⸻ 👉 Key takeaway: This is NOT a funder-run case — Trustee stays in control ⸻ 📄 Doc 2684 — Wes Christian Declaration 🧠 Simple: •Explains litigation funding model •Calls it: 👉 “leveling the playing field” ⸻ 👉 Translation: •Targets are likely large institutions •Funding is needed to go up against big players ⸻ 📄 Doc 2685 — Hearing Notice 📅 COURT DATE: 👉 May 7, 2026 @ 1:30 PM (Zoom) Judge: Gary Spraker ⸻ 🧠 Putting It All Together (Big Picture) 🔥 What these filings REALLY show: •✅ Litigation is fully planned and funded •✅ Specific targets identified (not public yet) •✅ Budgets assigned per defendant group •✅ Evidence phase already started •✅ Sensitive details are being intentionally hidden (sealed) dropbox.com/scl/fi/72hhqjp…

⚖️ MMAT / MMTLP Summary of the Meta Materials Bankruptcy Filings for 4/3/2026 All documents shared via Dropbox in posts yesterday and today.

@FINRA is about to find out, they messed with the wrong community. $MMTLP ftw

MMTLP #FAFO #FOIA #Burdensome Riddle me this... If MMTLP was “nothing,” why did a simple FOIA question trigger this? @palikaras @annvandersteel On 4/3/26, the SEC responded to a request asking how they process MMTLP‑related FOIAs. Their answer: Four hundred thirty‑five thousand internal communications just to understand how the SEC handles MMTLP FOIAs. Not trading data. Not enforcement files. Not investigations. Just policies and instructions on how they process the requests. And the SEC’s position? Too big. Too burdensome. Not a “proper” request unless narrowed. This is the same agency that tells the public MMTLP is a “routine” matter. So, the question practically asks itself: How did MMTLP become so operationally heavy inside the SEC that even the processing instructions generate nearly half a million internal communications? Whatever the answer is, it’s not “nothing.”

Bad faith, or just bad form? The Trustee could not have been more direct: “Rushing to file its motion, without responding to the Trustee’s questions… violated… Local Rule 7037(a)… requiring parties to meet and confer” Lawyers say it all the time, courts expect good-faith negotiation before motion practice. Yet here, the record suggests FINRA may have skipped the conference and gone straight to the comfort of motion practice. No doubt there will be "explanations". There usually are. But when process is bypassed, the question becomes unavoidable: Was this about resolving a dispute, or avoiding one? And right on cue, the supporting cast tends to arrive, keyboard counsel, anonymous "analysts", and the ever-reliable chorus of institutional defenders. Because in modern markets, it is not just about order flow. It is about narrative flow. Still, one principle remains unchanged: Before you move to quash, you are expected to pause and confer. Happy Easter 🐣 and blessings to all.

⚖️ MMAT / MMTLP Case: 24-50792-gs (Chapter 7) Filing Date: 04/03/2026 NLA – Not Legal Advice ⸻ 📂 WHAT WAS FILED •2677 – Trustee response to FINRA (🔥 main filing) •2678 – Supporting declaration (adds transcripts) •2679–2681 – Motion to seal funding docs •2682–2685 – Litigation funding approval + hearing (5/7/26) (Copy of today’s docket shown in the comment section.) ⸻ 🔥 DOC 2677 — QUICK SUMMARY 📄 •Trustee: “FINRA doth protest too much…” •Says FINRA is: •❌ Exaggerating burden (5M emails / $500K+) •❌ Stalling for nearly a year •❌ Refusing to cooperate •Key points: •✅ FINRA has market-wide trading data •✅ FINRA investigated MMTLP •❌ Privilege is not absolute •⚠️ CAT data may be deleted soon 👉 Ask to court: Deny motion to quash + force FINRA to produce ⸻ ⚡ OTHER FILINGS •💰 Funding secured to pursue litigation (2682–2685) •🔒 Terms sealed (2679–2681) •📎 Evidence + transcripts added (2678) ⸻ 🎯 BOTTOM LINE 👉 Trustee is: •Calling out FINRA delays •Saying the data exists •Warning evidence could disappear •Pushing judge to compel production dropbox.com/scl/fi/qr5lzbg… dropbox.com/scl/fi/aweqqay…

DOC 2677 i.e. the Trustee’s Response to @FINRA is very interesting. 1. FINRA failed to meet-and-confer - they filed motion within 2 weeks and, - didn’t engage on scope 🤣 This matters legally: - Courts HATE discovery gamesmanship - Undermines FINRA's “undue burden” defense 2. FINRA holds unique market-wide data and the other defendants (Citadel, Virtu, etc.) literally pointed to FINRA as the sourc This is critical because: - Establishes necessity + non-duplicative value - Directly defeats Rule 45 “cumulative” objection 3. FINRA investigated MMTLP, therefore they already collected the evidence and likely the non-privileged underlying data already exists! the Trustee is NOT asking FINRA to create data... just produce what it already gathered! 🤣😂🥳 4. The Investigative privilege is NOT absolute and must pass balancing test. Translation: FINRA can’t hide third-party communications behind privilege! 5. 🔥 CAT Data Bombshell. This is one of the most important sections. - The Trustee proves that the CAT Plan explicitly allows disclosure via subpoena! Meaning that FINRA’s claim “we cannot produce CAT data” = false - In my opinion, this one section alone is devastating to FINRA's credibility! 7. Spoliation risk (NEW argument) as we all heard this week, the SEC approved that FINRA can delete CAT data after 3 years - This section introduces URGENCY, so if not produced → evidence disappears!! Overall, i am not a lawyer but I believe this DOC 2677 filing: A> Destroys FINRA’s procedural posture and B> Frames FINRA as an obstructive and non-cooperative party, who are possibly misleading the court more to follow... thank you @kimkep4796 !

BREAKING: Transcripts Now Reveal Big MMTLP Fraud Investigations franknez.com/transcripts-no… $MMTLP #FacesofMMTLP #FINRA #NakedShortsWar

Reminder of J.D. Vance and Mike Crapo’s joint letter concerning $MMTLP #MMTLP crapo.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…

Here's the first two pages from the FINRA letter to Next Bridge Hydrocarbons. Also here's the two Corporate Actions, the 11/18/22 Next Bridge Hydrocarbons Prospectus & the 11/23/22 Metamaterials PR which included the important dates that should've been included in the MMTLP Corporate Action. Notice that FINRA correctly references the 12/14/22 MMTLP share cancellation date in the letter to Next Bridge Hydrocarbons (and the first FAQ) but the correct date NEVER appeared in either MMTLP Corporate Action! This means that FINRA either failed to review the dates submitted to them, or they purposely reduced the time for the Corporate Action to create the illusion of an issue relating to the "timing and structure". @HesterPeirce @FBI @annvandersteel

5/ TD confirmed GTS was the sole accepting market destination on 10/14. Short interest exploded on 10/15. The implication is unavoidable: GTS internalized those orders. Facilitated short sales WITHOUT locates. And manufactured SYNTHETIC shares from Day 1 while @theOTCmarket and its leadership @cromwellc sat back and watched, despite @Metamaterialtec's requests to shut it down.

1/ Breaking News🚨56-PAGE FOIA DOCUMENT: In the next few posts, I will be sharing and unpacking a 56-page document released under FOIA - It includes SEC’s own emails (by Washington senior policymakers directly under Gensler - NOT enforcement), strategic coordination with Congress BEFORE enforcement actions, timelines, and narrative control around Meta Materials Inc. and $MMTLP. I encourage everyone and particularly the media, to look into the context of these emails, the names involved, timelines etc. Public debate is the cornerstone of democracy and your protected 1st Amendment right. This post contains personal commentary and PUBLIC RECORDS. It does not constitute legal advice or assert any confidential information. All source documents were lawfully obtained. #MMTLP #MMAT #Ripple #Coinbase #DJT @cvpayne @EleanorTerrett @MariaBartiromo @Public_Citizen @kshaughnessy2 @fnez_blogger @DanNewsManBall Are you ready? Let's begin....

You ever wonder why @FINRA, the regulator that supposedly protects investors doesn't post on X anymore? It's because from the very beginning of the MMTLP Fiasco they've been hiding the fact that they've been complicit! Why do you ask if you're being recorded unless you're afraid of someone else hearing the truth? @FBI @AGPamBondi

$MMTLP $MMAT $TRCH REMINDER: Former Chief, SEC Office of Internet Enforcement, John Reed Stark, mentioning how easy it is to acquire blue sheet trade data...#WhatIsTheShareCount #MMTLPFiasco #WhatIsTheShareCount

📢📢📢 Hey @FINRA, Former Chief, SEC Office of Internet Enforcement ratted you out. He claims 👇👇👇that the "bluesheets" are easily obtained in a short amount of time. Not so BURDENSOME afterall, eh?!? #FINRAFraud #PantsOnFire NO CONCESSIONS FOR YOU!!! #Emails MMTLP MMAT TRCH #Relentless @Palikaras @JWesChristian @Metamaterialtec

@RepRalphNorman MMTLP youtube.com/shorts/WT3Pds3…

>>>🚧🛑WHOA...WHOA...WHOA!!! 🛑🚧<<< Did they really put that in WRITING?!?... YES,YES THEY DID!!! #FOIA #Receipts SEC/FIF FOIA Analysis 🔽🔽🔽 docs.google.com/document/d/1rG…