Remember, though, that Steve sent the first four opinion letters back to Pensley. I find that the allegation of forgery cannot logically be substantiated when the "forged" documents were sent from the forger to the person whose identity is effectively being stolen. So I believe that Pensley's "misstatements" only make M&M's road easier, not tougher.
And if, on the other hand, Pensley never did issue any opinion letters; and never said a word about receiving those copies from Steve; and despite what he told the TA and the broker, as well as what he told the SEC on multiple occasions; then the question becomes "How does that explain a broker noticing a discrepancy in the opinion letters" if M&M forged every single one?
Further, shareholders have apparently identified inaccuracies in the TA list, which were not detected by the SEC. How much validity is there to the issue of an inaccurate TA list? If true, why did the SEC, after months of investigating, fail to ensure that the TA list was in balance with DTC records, etc.? Why would the TA have failed to maintain an accurate list? And why would the SEC have proceeded with the Complaint without verifying the accuracy of the evidence?
In addition, since it was from Pensley and the TA that we are told of a discrepancy in the opinion letters noticed by a broker, how reliable can we consider that testimony? And how was it verified that this broker met twice with the SEC, unless those meetings were verified from someone within the SEC? And why was this verification provided, if it was?
Then we can take note of the fact that Pensley is defended by Roger Fidler, general counsel of Proteonomix (as Pensley was formerly). And we see now that Fidler is also defending John Della Donna, the auditor from Drakeford. And is this an issue in regards to Proteoderm? If not, then, at least, what are the issues in regards to Schenzia (sp), alluded to by Fidler?
A criminal conviction, at least on the charges of forged opinion letters, and as to the number of shares issued, is not a slam dunk in light of the testimony as provided.
AI
