InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 137
Posts 41656
Boards Moderated 7
Alias Born 01/05/2004

Re: moxa1 post# 132030

Wednesday, 03/07/2018 9:24:51 PM

Wednesday, March 07, 2018 9:24:51 PM

Post# of 203917
moxa,..i think you are misunderstanding the point .32 you made,...

",... OWC provided an attorney opinion letter to OWC’s transfer agent from a disbarred attorney in connection with the issuance of OWC’s stock to Global."


It was JF that supplied the disbarred attorney not OWCP.


(from the SEC Complaint)


45. In order to sell his restricted shares in the public marketplace, Friedland needed to have OWC’s transfer agent remove the restricted legend on Global’s 5,134,375 shares.

46. Friedland provided the transfer agent with a purported attorney opinion letter that included inaccurate information about Global’s acquisition of OWC stock and misleading information about the connection between Friedland, Global, and Lane 6552.The letter was
signed by a disbarred attorney.




There is no way OWCP could have known that the attorney that JF was using was disabarred. But JF did.

JF knew no reputable firm or attorney would agree to create this order to remove restricted shares. They all know what restricted shares are and how they can be sold.

It was JF that created the deception,...by using a disbarred attorney.

invest at your own risk, based on your own due diligence, at your own risk tolerance