Except...
Ed has simply said they are not his and the auditors have said there is no factual basis to the allegations, and that they are baseless.
You seem to want proof for something that isn't there. It doesn't work like that. Ed has gone on record saying they are not his, the auditors have said the allegations have no factual proof, and are baseless. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and these allegations have been made openly in court.
(Allegations are accusations, these allegations, or accusations being echoed here, are what they (the auditors) have said have no factual backing, they have gone on record with this, in court. People in general, make accusations or allegations based on what they think is happening with the evidence they have. Those allegations have since been looked at by a third party (the auditors) and the third party has said in court filed documents, there is no factual evidence to support such claims, and they are baseless. I suppose it's possible that all of the auditors are lying lol, but perjury is a bad thing, fraud is a bad thing and I'm assuming that a third party auditor agency and peer review are not going to lie and go to jail for Ed). People seem to forget that all of this bullshit was started by a known fraudster in an attempt to prove materiality for his bullshit lawsuit attempting to extort shares from a company concerning shares he never bought from someone who never owned any. Now if the independent auditors have concluded and gone on record stating there are no facts to support the evidence (and I bet they have google too), perhaps there is more to the story...
It is more than likely that we do not have all of the information, as we are not privy to it since we are not Ed, or his auditors, and instead trying to piecemeal it together with scraps of the whole picture. Both Ed and the auditors have said the same thing. No factual backing, baseless allegations, on record, in a court of law.
AI
