Cytodyn Inc (CYDY)

[Chuckles759]

INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY ??
Not so if reading the original content of the post and subsequent commentary.

So, I was mulling the existence of this SEC FOIA response letter and it got me to thinking.....

A request was made for "information concerning a copy of an order directing investigation or similar document to confirm the existence of ongoing investigative activity of issuer Cytodyn (CYDY) or its affiliates."

The response is a statement from the SEC that there is an active SEC and/or Law Enforcement investigation ongoing that involves CytoDyn (CYDY). Any release of information could possibly interfere with enforcement proceedings (as further explained in the quote below).

What it DOES NOT say is that CytoDyn is the target of the investigation. Could it by chance that the investigation is actually centered around the activities of June 30, 2020 that involved the probable naked shorting of 8,000,000 shares in 15 minutes? **

Could it be that CytoDyn is directly INVOLVED in the investigation but any disclosure would hamper efforts to effectively bring illegal trading participants to justice? **

Would that give some context to NP calling out the shorts in the latest CC without giving anything away to hinder an ongoing investigation?

There is no declaration of innocence or guilt with this SEC letter, but as presented the posting infers guilt upon CytoDyn because that was the context that the edited FOIA image was worded around.

In fact, I find it very odd that two rather substantial, fact filled paragraphs have been excluded from the original posting of the screen-shot of the FOIA response. Ask yourself why those two paragraphs were intentionally omitted from the original posting. The SEC FOIA response letter below appears to be a subsequent response for a similar request for information concerning Cytodyn. The SEC provides the exact same justification why no records are released....but...but...but it includes two critical paragraphs to fully understand the response letter.

!!PLEASE NOTE THE SENTENCE HILIGHTED IN YELLOW!!


Pulled from Google image search related to Twitter account "@NaderAlterEgo" but image could not be found on feed.

Explanation of the SEC's cited exemption:
http://foiadvocates.com/exemptions.html

Exemption (7)(A) provides for the withholding of a law enforcement record the disclosure of which would reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. This exemption protects an active law enforcement investigation from interference through premature disclosure. Therefore, determining the applicability of this Exemption 7(A) requires a two-step analysis focusing on (1) whether a law enforcement proceeding is pending or prospective and (2) whether release of information about it could reasonably be expected to cause some articulable harm. See, e.g., NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 224 (1978) (holding that government must show how records "would interfere with a pending enforcement proceeding").

Sooooo....yes. There still exists "INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY" in our justice system.

-Whataboutdat? **




** Please note the use of a question mark.....all good, right?