Xeriant Inc (QB) (XERI) Share Price

Here's another example of AI you and Quester will luv... to deny.
(chirp... chirp... slurp... slurp...)

But what in effect did you say, "don't question AI", is that it?

Maybe Duffy and Xeriant's contracted mngt can utilize AI to run the company and to craft corrupt pay-to-play deals. Too.


Does the dismissal of the Eric Adams case appear as corruption by President Donald Trump?

According to www.iAsk.ai – Ask AI:

Analysis of the Dismissal of Eric Adams’ Case

The dismissal of the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams raises significant questions about potential corruption and political influence, particularly concerning President Donald Trump. To understand this situation, we need to examine several key elements step by step.

Background of the Case

Eric Adams was indicted in September 2024 on charges related to accepting illegal campaign contributions and travel perks from foreign officials while serving as Brooklyn borough president. The allegations included soliciting donations from Turkish nationals in exchange for political favors, which raised serious ethical concerns regarding his conduct in office. 1 2

The Role of the Justice Department

In February 2025, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered federal prosecutors to dismiss the charges against Adams. This decision was controversial because it came shortly after President Trump took office and was perceived by many as politically motivated. Bove argued that continuing the prosecution would hinder Adams’ ability to cooperate with Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives. 3 4

Allegations of Quid Pro Quo

The dismissal request prompted a backlash within the Justice Department, leading to multiple resignations from prosecutors who believed that the move constituted a quid pro quo arrangement between Adams and Trump. These prosecutors alleged that there was an implicit agreement: if Adams supported Trump’s immigration policies, he would benefit from having his legal troubles resolved. 5 6

Danielle Sassoon, the acting U.S. attorney who resigned in protest, explicitly stated that she felt pressured to drop the case due to political considerations rather than legal merits. 7. This sentiment was echoed by other prosecutors who expressed concern over using prosecutorial discretion for political gain.

Public Perception and Political Fallout

The optics surrounding this case are troubling for both Adams and Trump. Critics argue that dismissing serious charges against a sitting mayor in exchange for political support undermines the integrity of the judicial system and sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. 8 9 . The perception that Trump could leverage federal power to influence local politics has led many observers to question whether this represents a form of corruption.

Furthermore, public opinion has been divided. Some view Adams as a victim of political maneuvering while others see him as complicit in a corrupt arrangement with Trump. 10. The fallout has also affected Adams’ administration, resulting in resignations among his staff and calls for accountability from various political figures.

Conclusion

Given these factors, the dismissal of Eric Adams’ case does appear as corruption by President Donald Trump, especially when viewed through the lens of potential quid pro quo arrangements and the implications for judicial integrity. The intertwining of legal proceedings with political objectives raises significant ethical concerns about how power is wielded at both local and federal levels.


1. Expert tells judge to drop charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams without letting them be refiled [AP News]
2. Eric Adams’ corruption case should be dismissed permanently [New York Post]
3. Two federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York who worked on the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams were placed on leave [NBC News]
4. Lawyer appointed in NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ case recommends dropping charges [USA Today]
5. In both real life and on film, New York City has often been linked with public scandals [The Guardian]
6. Up until Feb. 10, Mayor Eric Adams was running for re-election while preparing for a federal corruption trial [The City]
7. Judge overseeing Eric Adams corruption case asks DOJ why it’s dropping charges [PBS NewsHour]
8. A federal judge indefinitely adjourned New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ criminal trial [NBC News]
9. Federal prosecutors worked on Eric Adam’s case escorted out by law enforcement officials [NBC News]
10. Dismissing charges but allowing reindictment means possibility hangs over head [CBS News]

https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options%5Bdetail_level%5D=detailed&q=does+the+dismissal+of+the+Eric+Adams+case+appear+as+corruption+by+President+Donald+Trump
.

Quester does not mean Settlement as dismissal, as Settlement ends to dismiss the case, not what Quester intends in his claim that the judge/court will dismiss the case, that he derives from the Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order just filed. Quester means heCourt will dismiss the case.

Quester is a guessing and lying fool:

A Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order is not about dismissal provisions.

Here, you want AI about it, and in relation to a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order?

https://iask.ai/?mode=question&q=CIVIL+CASE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+SCHEDULING+ORDER+


https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options%5Bdetail_level%5D=detailed&q=CIVIL+CASE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+SCHEDULING+ORDER+INCLUDES+DISMISSAL%3F

Understanding Civil Case Management Plans and Scheduling Orders

To determine whether a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order includes provisions for dismissal, we need to analyze the components typically found in such documents.

Components of a Civil Case Management Plan

1. Purpose: The primary goal of a civil case management plan is to streamline the litigation process, ensuring that cases are handled efficiently and effectively.

2. Scheduling Orders: These orders outline specific deadlines for various stages of the litigation process, including:

Initial disclosures
Discovery completion
Expert witness disclosures
Pretrial motions

3. Dismissal Provisions: While not all case management plans explicitly mention dismissal, they often include conditions under which a case may be dismissed. This can occur if:

A party fails to comply with court orders or deadlines.
A plaintiff does not appear at scheduled conferences or hearings.
The parties reach a settlement before trial.

4. Consequences of Noncompliance: Many scheduling orders specify that failure to adhere to the established timelines may result in sanctions, which can include dismissal of the case.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis above, it can be concluded that:

Yes, a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order can include provisions related to dismissal, particularly in cases where parties fail to comply with court orders or deadlines.

---

Also, go read XTI's Amended Answer, and you will see how Quester guessed well, but he made it up and lied.



How's it taste?

.

Question the questioner of AI. And question his questions posed to AI. Quester... is a liar!

Fact!

https://iask.ai/?mode=question&q=CIVIL+CASE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AND+SCHEDULING+ORDER+

Quester CSer

JUST LIKE A DEMOTARD TO QUESTION A.I.

Your bullshit about 'wrong jurisdiction' as a reason for pending dismissal, is WRONG!

1.) are you confusing Xeriant's two cases?

2.) XTI in its just-filed Amended Answer, just stated jurisdiction is appropriate and legitimate.

Fool!


Your lies and your guesses that you fight snd fight over to demand as fact... is all made-up.


YOU ARE A MEGA BULLSHITTER!!!


SmartyPants2 is small fry to your lies.



FACT!
FACT!
FACT!





chirp.... chirp...



.

Yeah, you-had-to-look-it-up-with-your-AI-bot, to save face.

You always ask your AI bot questions to satisfy your pre-decided lie. Just like a religious fundamentalist nutjob. Just like maganut fascist.

---

You cited the court's CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER

You derived "dismissal" from this court document, that is a map of the case. And from it you derive "dismissal of the case' before Aug. 22nd, 2025, the date standard discovery must finalize.

Now with stupid 'super intelligent' AI you're begging if dismissal is even possible. lol

You were other day just wrong about the last court filing too, XTI's Notice of Default as part of its Amended Answer.

And you were wrong about various prior court documents too.

And this time, you mixed up the Auctus case with the XTI case.

---

You're on a run as Chief Bullshitter of the XERI Board.

You've well surpassed SmartyPants2 now.


Good for you, you now even have got your CSers lollyboys kzilla and jdope defending your lies and your guesses too.

Maganuts unite: Form of bullshit. Shape of a cow's ass.


LOL LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL LOL!!

Between the jurisdiction or the default this doesn't stand a chance of making it to trial.

Yeah. they(LYING GRIFTERS) may not be paying these ambulance chasing lawyers now. But, a trial....that's REALLY gonna hurt the bottom GRIFT line.

Since the case is a WEAK LOSER, dismissal is GUARANTEED!!!

DISMISSAL is ALWAYS on the table unless someone is full of LYING made up BS.
"Dismissal is not on the table, except if someone made it up."

Nah, jury-trial is-set-for (misprint) January 26, 2026.

Discovery ends Nov. 14th, 2025.

Trial currently scheduled two+ months later.

This is going another year at least.

Currently, minimum one party does not want to settle.

Dismissal is not on the table, except if someone made it up.

.

Well looks like they will manage to DRAG this out past the END of JUNE.
The Auctus appeal case will be dismissed before discovery is completed on 8/22/2025

You have that slogan on every mirror of your house, it seems.


Go ahead n read your posts. Each, not unique and devoid of anything new or useful: you are copykat irrelevant. A FAKER!

.

Shut up crybaby you're irrelevant

TRUTH BS FICTION....

you LOSE!!!

You insist as fact, but, you actually just guess when you say "there is no letter to file just like there is no NEXBOARD."

You demand as fact, but in everyone else's reality we see that you only guess when you say, "XERI and XTI had worked on this deal confidentially from the start. This was ALL planned out and that's what makes these guys professional grifters."

Just like a religious fundamentalist nut you have your pre-decided endpoint.

You then don't need facts to make your case.

But that doesn't fly, so you pick n choose the facts that support your endpoint and ignore the facts that clearly don't or counter your cherry picked facts.

.

Yes, filed NoD, good find. Good guess too. Where you fck-up is demanding facts about it when like a chump you haven't read it, and, when in reality you're very wrong.

---

The XTI Notice of Default does not claim (as you say it does) that the Xeriant default was Xeriant not having paid an initial $1M.

Yet you demanded this as fact. It is not fact. You made it up.

A decent guess. But you insisted and demanded as fact, and insulted that the NoD stated so.

Funny, cause you never actually read it.


And once AGAIN, your facts are fake!

.

There you go again, making up bullshit.

Never said the letter had to be filed with the SEC. I say there is no letter to file just like there is no NEXBOARD. There is a Letter of Notice of Default filed by XTI with court. THIS IS A FACT JACK!
XERI and XTI had worked on this deal confidentially from the start. This was ALL planned out and that's what makes these guys professional grifters.
BTW your past shows you have been in enough delisted SCAM OTC companies that as a FLIPTURD you KNEW this would be a good play. Especially after Auctus got involved. Such a FRAUD!!!!

MUTUAL CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-CIRCUMVENTION AGREEMENT

https://cdn.yahoofinance.com/prod/sec-filings/0001481504/000147793223009096/xeri_ex991.htm

Budget was created in immediate violation of the JV established to fund maximum $10M. Budget was for over $10.5M. A violation, according to your silly logic.

For such a huge scam, you are funny when you claim Xeriant and XTI actions as legitimate. And then also use this claimed legitimacy as basis to show Xeriant's illegitimacy.

You pick n choose; facts live side by side but you just pick n choose which ones don't undermine your guess conclusions, while you ignore the other facts.

The budget change definitely was agreed upon: Xeriant kept funding, and XTI kept taking the money. And all that was in writing too.

The XTI Notice of Default does not claim (as you say it does) that the Xeriant default was Xeriant not having paid an initial $1M.

Yet you demanded this as fact. It is not fact. You made it up.

A decent guess. But you insisted, demanded, and insulted that the NoD stated so.

Funny, cause you never actually read it.


Once AGAIN your facts are fake!

.
...
.


You even claimed you didn't need to read the NoD because you already knew what it stated.

But once AGAIN your facts are fake and your assertions and claims are false!

.

FACT!

.

No! And you denied the budget was amended. Did you forget already? You make up so much garbage you forgot. LOL.

And budget change in writing did not require it be filed with the SEC, fool.


As for "your part", that was only the good DD that the NoD was filed.

You then made it up claiming fact what you thought it said... which is.... WRONG!

Fact!

Even upon request you never conveyed what the AA and the NoD actually say.

You guessed claiming your guess as fact.

But you lied.

Fact.

Are YOU denying the BUDGET WASN'T amended??????? There IS NO SIGNED COMMITTEE LETTER for a budget. You're right XERI would have PRODUCED it by now. There is a NOTICE OF DEFAULT LETTER filed with the court by XTI
I GOT CHIRP CHIRP THE FIRST TIME.
So I provided my part where is YOURS???? With another LIE.
"You're so lame, you demand what you never provide."

You can't even show where XERI claims to own those shares of XTIA

Xeriant and XTI are sometimes referred to herein as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”

11.5. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time and from time to time, but any amendment must be in writing and signed by each entity or person who is then a Party.
https://cdn.yahoofinance.com/prod/sec-filings/0001481504/000147793223009096/xeri_ex991.htm

quester614

Re: quester614 post# 37066

Wednesday, March 05, 2025 8:53:01 AM

Post#
37098
of 37205
This shows how some avoid FACTS just to look stupid with LAME BS. Like I said before I hope that XERI has those changes made by the Eco Aero committee to the BUDGET IN WRITING. FACT
Not important if you have already DEFAULTED!!!!!!!! LOLOLOL
CAN ANYBODY SHOW PROOF OF THESE SIGNED CHANGES TO THE JV AGREEMENT??
"You can only hope the committee has those signed changes in writing to the agreement."
11.5. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time and from time to time, but any amendment must be in writing and signed by each entity or person who is then a Party.
https://cdn.yahoofinance.com/prod/sec-filings/0001481504/000147793223009096/xeri_ex991.htm

Too lame to even read the AA and NoD that shows your claims are wrong!

All you got is to go low, huh. Cheap n Lame!
A skank like you, you prolly work for Xeriant, or Maxim, or Next New Concept.

You're so lame, you demand what you never provide.

LOLOLOLOL....THE DUMBASS IS THE ONE DUMB ENOUGH TO CARRY BAGS OF OBVIOUS POS SCAM!!! MAMALUKE!!!!

You're the only one to claim a letter was required. It wasn't.

You're making stuff up again!


Even if it was, both sides are at fault for not producing one, but most important both parties acted forward under the JVA.
.

Prove it
You never did prove that there was a letter signed by the committee for the budget modification yet either

Exactly! Market Makers bought the $3K of XERI.

STUPID DUMBASS is ALL YOU!


Fact.

You really are a TPOS.

Who else would be STUPID enough to buy a POS OBVIOUS SCAM besides RETAIL....

ALSO, it's ONLY $3K...DUMBASS!!!

Xeriant did receive issued XTI then XTIA shares.
It has elected to not file an 8-K due to its ongoing legal challenge, as the valuation of shares received was minuscule in value to what Xeriant and XTI contractually agreed at $5.4M

I am far from fraudulent.

You are. And I've cited how. Hence your cheap-boy fraud man maganut gaslighting.

Fact.

.

Only you said it was retail. I made no claim.

MORE LYING BS. You were a DAY LATE to the conservation AH. MORE LIES from a FLIPTURD FRAUD.
KILLAZILLA
Re: Farnsworthpartyman post# 29400
Thursday, December 07, 2023 2:17:00 PM
Post# 29402 of 37192
Who do you think is paying the lawyer fees??? you ARE...FOOL!!!
WHEN they(LYING GRIFTERS) GET CASE THROWN OUT OR LOSE, THE JUDGE WILL RULE TO REIMBURSE LAWYERS FEES TO DEFENDANT. THAT'S VERY COSTLY...

ANYHOW, they're BROKE AND CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY LAWYERS. SO, IT'S ALL BULLSHIT!!! AS they DON'T HAVE A CASE!!!

KILLAZILLA
Re: Farnsworthpartyman post# 29404
Thursday, December 07, 2023 4:53:14 PM
Post# 29407 of 37192
SO, your NARROW THINKING IS XTI SIGNED SOMETHING THAT WOULD ENABLE xeriant TO SUE THEM AND WIN??? WRONG!!!

StockItOut
Re: Farnsworthpartyman post# 29396
Friday, December 08, 2023 10:14:35 AM
Post# 29416 of 37192
The Scam Plan includes suing to look legit, waste time, tire shareholders. Last time Duffy/Xeriant sued it was Russell Randal who solidified his ownership of his Halo patent.

You were also the first to tell me that XERI WOULD get those XTIA shares. Don't tell me you are BACK PEDDLING. Nothing but a LYING FRAUD

What makes you think that it wasn't retail???

MAMALUKE!!!

What makes you conclude retail purchased those 200,000 XERI shares?

You just need something to belittle to pretend you have credibility?

I am and was the first here to claim the lawsuits as Xeriant's waste of time distraction. I'm not looking for accolades like you're so desperate for.

Xeriant's Auctus case is now something, and quite interesting!

We'll see about Xeriant's XTI case, if Xeriant can wrangle any win. XTI's latest Amended Answer and Notice of Default that you guessed incorrectly about, look pretty lame which hands strength of claim to Xeriant.

We'll see.

.

Quester: "After all my LYING BS it was just a lucky guess..."


lol

Just so you understand this is the 3rd Q we are IN or are you talking about the July-Sept 2025 Q.

Now in the end we will hear that it was the judges fault that XERI lost their case. LOLOLOL
After all the LYING BS it was just a lucky guess and my GUT that made me confident this SCAM would be EXPOSED.

"And, for the judge, if capable, to easily see through the garbage that XTI is propounding."

Smoke and mirrors in holiday message. There will be no aerospace updates in the final weeks of quarter 1 like Duffy claimed in PR. Smoke and mirrors to conceal Nexboard failing pilot runs nonstop.

LOOK AT THAT!!! ANOTHER 200K SHARES DILUTED TODAY...

POOR NAIVE RETAIL WILL NEVER LEARN....

DESPERATE ACTS OF PATHETIC BAGGIES TRYING TO KEEP THE SP FROM DROPPING TOO MUCH....

SOO SAD

ANYONE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO NOT RECOGNIZE ALL THE RED FLAGS AND FLUFFY BULLSHIT PUT OUT FROM THESE LYING GRIFTERS DESERVES TO LOSE ALL their $ WHEN THIS POS SCAM GETS DELISTED!!!!

I read the XTI Amended Answer and Notice of Default.

Of course, Quester guessed wrong.
And therefore is wrong.
As usual.
Last time he claimed that the Auctus case was over in March, 2024.
He just guesses and makes it up.
Fact!

XTI's Amended Answer claims are mostly boiler plate, and then those specific are weak weak weak! And lame! Desperate, even.

XTI's claims are readily addressable.

XTI has either: no case, terrible lawyers, and/or throwing out anything to try to make a defense.

XTI's claims are quite pathetic, in fact.

I expect Xeriant's attorney to readily address XTI's weak weak claims and lame denials and requests.

And, for the judge, if capable, to easily see through the garbage that XTI is propounding.


As to how I see the case, XTI has right to it's IP that Xeriant does not, as per the JVA (this I've stated in the past). If XTI retains its IP, Xeriant's win, if any, will be nowhere close to its ridiculous claim of $500M in loss as damages.

.

Another red close today no interest in this dogshit stock. Trips very possible next week lmao Duffys got nothing to offer Nexboard is dead.

XERI Bullish.

If the Preliminary-Design-Review was completed for $5.4M, XTI's demand for the full $10M Xeriant funding appears as a JV Agreement violation, as the limited JV Agreement goal had been achieved at a much lower cost, where Xeriant had fulfilled its obligation under contract.

Notice the JVA-budget over-$10M was itself in 'violation' of the JV Agreement. By over half a million, exceeding $10M maximum by $506,485. And XTI agreed to this JV Agreement's 'violating' budget.

Make a guess. Then claim it fact. That's what you do anyway.

.