OWC Pharmaceutical Research Corp (OWCP)

[I-Glow]

The SEC stated that OWCP provided the fraudulent 144 Opinion Letter from a disbarred attorney.

What part of the following is confusing?

"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."

Then the SEC stated:

"On or around August 18, 2014, OWC provided an opinion letter to its transfer agent from a disbarred attorney in connection with its issuance of stock to Intiva."

The SEC complaint didn't state that Friedland provided a Fraudulent Opinion Letter to the transfer agent. It Cleary states OWCP provided the opinion letter.

Your argument was the following which doesn't follow the facts presented by the SEC:

"OWCP did not request the 144, they simply passed on what was given to them and why would they have suspected anything untoward about said letter as you imply."

Are you suggesting that the OWCP insiders are such dullards that they don't understand Rule 144 and when the restrictive legend can be removed from stock certificates.

OWCP was involved in much more malfeasance than a Fraudulent Opinion Letter - they engaged in deception by not providing shareholders how Global obtained the OWCP stock.

The complaint doesn't state Friedland had hired the disbarred attorney to write the fraudulent 144 Opinion Letter - just that Friedland benefited from the letter - just that OWCP provided the opinion letter.

Yes, most certainly there was collusion and OWCP was complicit in the share selling scheme from beginning stating in 2014.

The scam started at the Friedland dinner party in 2014.

That is why OWCP hasn't published any research - they don't own any assets or patents - they are a classic pump and dump.

IG