GGOld12999:
Do you realize that at least some of your comments attributed to Les Goldman could be considered privileged information which he cannot share with one investor and not with all others? This is illegal. You are inferring at least indirectly that Les Goldman has committed an illegal act by communicating this privileged information, particularly that the company itself is “mostly” blinded( meaning to some extent unblinded) and in any event unaware that the trial has failed. Or that the warrants might be pushed out further.
I have spoken with Les numerous times and I know him to be a very careful attorney. He has told me many times that he could not divulge the answers to many issues which I raised with him because it was privileged information and that he did not “want to go to Jail”. He is very well aware of what he can disclose during these conversations and if he errs it is always on the side of no comment. It is just not worth it to even appear to be communicating sensitive “inside” information for the sake of one unknown retail investor to say the least. I do not believe that Les Goldman made those remarks. Either you are lying or have completely and recklessly reported this “imagined” conversation.
I don’t know whether you actually spoke to him but the information attributed by you to him is troublesome and certainly defamatory because you published it in a public domain. Les Goldman would never say that the company is “mostly” blinded, etc. I guarantee you that and Mr Goldman is not that stupid. He is very conservative when talking about NWBO matters.
These days I do not post, but this flagrant, and flatly false, attribution needs to be addressed. I am going to contact Les Goldman and forward a copy of your post to him. My advice to you is that you better retract your post and apologize. Personally, I don’t care what you do and I will leave it up to Les Goldman to take care of it.
