Wrong again.
The problem here with this yes/no game is that one of these things has actually happened (professional auditors evaluation) and the other is bullshit (laymen with Google). The auditors, a third party, who are professionals, have seen all of these documents too. It was all included in Maciora's (the layman in question) bullshit complaint, to which they responded "No evidence to support the allegations."
That is the only interpretation I need until a judge rules on it. Laymen trying to formulate their own version of what they thin is going on when they clearly don't have all the information doesn't hold much water when all of the auditors have said in one concerted voice, "no evidence to support the allegations."