Webinar Questions - Start at the beginning ! Here are a few questions
QUESTION - Can you please explain why the Company has not come clean to IIROC, BCSC and OTC about its 2017 statement to Shareholders of FCC Certification of PATSCAN CMR being a Weapon Detection Device, when this was a gross misrepresentation of the actual FCC Certification in Hand. CMR was designated a D through Wall Scanner.
https://patriot1tech.com/corporate-news/patriot-one-receives-fcc-approval-patscan-cmr-paving-way-commercial-roll/
Patriot One Technologies Inc. (TSX.V: PAT) (OTCQB: PTOTF) (FRANKFURT: 0PL) (“Patriot One” or the “Company”), is extremely pleased to announce that its award-winning PATSCAN CMR™ (Cognitive Microwave Radar) concealed weapons detection system has achieved Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Declaration of Conformity certification, a copy of which can be found here: https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR.
VS
FCC IDENTIFIER: 2ALZTCMR
Name of Grantee: Patriot One Technologies Inc.
Equipment Class: Ultra Wideband Transmitter
Notes: PATSCAN CMR
This device is authorized for use as Through D-Wall Imaging System, and required professional installation.
Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to through-wall imaging systems operated by law enforcement, emergency rescue or firefighting organizations that are under the authority of a local or state government, and necessary training operations.
Parties operating this equipment must hold a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission to operate a transmitter in the Public Safety Radio Pool under part 90 of this chapter. The license may be held by the organization for which the UWB operator works on a paid or volunteer basis.
QUESTION - Can you please explain as to why the Company on that same press release spoke of an available market that did not and still does not exist for anything stipulated on that restrictive FCC USE Declaration ?
https://fccid.io/2ALZTCMR/Label/ID-Label-and-Location-3551584.iframe
VS
PATSCAN CMR sales efforts currently focus on markets encompassing houses of worship, academic institutions, event centres, casinos, commercial offices, hotel properties, government agencies and other locations at high risk of terrorist attack or random violence. Interest and orders have been received from around the globe and today’s announcement will trigger a number of sales, marketing and support initiatives in major markets including the United Kingdom, Eurozone and Asia-Pacific regions.
“This is wonderful news for our company, our stakeholders and shareholders alike.” states Company CEO Martin Cronin.
QUESTION - Can you explain why this was also not disclosed to Canaccord Genuity as a major private placement who have subsequently marketed $60M of share to regular shareholders and institutions on the basis of CMR being declared as having federal government recognition as a weapon detection system that is factually bogus. As it was the only product in existence at the time of these PP raises every shareholder and Canaccord Genuity has been duped by the Company in this bogus statement ?
QUESTION - Can you please explain why on June 28th 2019 the FCC Lawyer employed by the company tried to have the restriction changed from D Through wall Imager to Weapon detection system , thus under her issue of documents on behalf of the company , the company was aware of the mislead and has instrumentally and knowingly misled shareholders and also withheld material information from Shareholders and the authorities ?
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1061889311931/PUBLIC%20Patriot%20Limited%20Waiver%20Petition%20re%20Authorized%20Users%20(FOR%20FILING)%206%2018%2019.pdf
“Because Patriot One’s weapons detection device will ultimately be certified as a “through D-wall imaging system” pursuant to Section 15.510 of the Commission’s rules, its operation would be restricted to law enforcement, emergency rescue organizations that are under the authority of a local or state government. Unfortunately most facilities in need of threat detection are privately owned and employ private security forces, which, pursuant to Section 15.510(b) of the Commission’s rules, cannot operate”.
Does the company have adequate insurance to cover this mislead of investors and associated misuse of a US Government federal certification to mislead shareholders ?