Interesting. What makes you "know that there are assets", despite all evidence, and I do mean ALL, to the contrary? Owen has never been able to prove any assets, even when doing so would have made all shareholders rich by now, and thus sharing the blessing.
So now that the regulating agencies have stepped in and offered their proof of fraud, and gave Owen the chance to counter, which he couldn't, you STILL say you "know" there are assets?
How would this be possible?