As my response to you indicated, I am not satisfied. And I have only stipulated fraudulence on this board only when fraudelence has been proven.
Your orignal disclaimer stipulated that a a lack of a rebuttal from Rufus was indicative of the legitimacy of the C&D letter. My response was that using that logic, then AT's lack of a documented rebuttal was therefore providing legitimacy to RPH's PR relative to short-selling.
You said there was such documentation, you said there was a letter. You provided a link to a phone conversation, which I had already said previously was all anyone could get out of AT. Nothing in writing that they would have to defend.
Where's the LETTER you say is available, showing that AT is calling RPH's bluff?
Market Data 
Markets 
