Replies to post #133634 on OWC Pharmaceutical Research Corp (OWCP)

[EasternTimeZone]

Once again you don't seem to know what the FACTS are.

Here's a FACT:

According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2014 and 2016. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after August 2014 or February 5, 2016, is information not given by the SEC.


Statements you made in your reply to me are not supported by FACTS.


————————————————————————————————

There is no evidence that OWC colluded with Jeffery Friedland in 2014. Jeffery Friedland’s activities in Colorado were his activities, not those of OWC.

You have made similar statements that are not supported by FACTS in your previous posts as well.

I-GLOW writes:
“Yes, most certainly there was collusion and OWCP was complicit in the share selling scheme from beginning stating in 2014. The scam started at the Friedland dinner party in 2014.”

This statement of yours is nowhere in the SEC complaint document: “there was collusion and OWCP was complicit in the share selling scheme from beginning stating in 2014”, and does not merit a preface such as “Yes, most certainly”. The SEC action did not state this. It is not fact. It is not “most certainly”. The SEC complaint against Jeffery Friedlant actually exonerates OWC in my opinion, and they are not a party in this SEC action; fact.

There was no representative of OWC at Jeffery Friedland’s dinner party in Colorado in 2014.

This was Jefferey Friedland doing his own thing in Colorado and the OWC management in Israel was not party to it.


According to the SEC, concerning OWC’s interaction with Jeffery Friedland in 2014, the FACTS ARE:

"29. In August 2014, Friedland purchased 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock for $119,000 pursuant to a subscription agreement that he signed on behalf of Intiva, and the ownership of these securities was identified in OWC’s SEC filings (albeit with “Invita” rather than Intiva). On or around August 18, 2014, OWC provided an opinion letter to its transfer agent from a disbarred attorney in connection with its issuance of stock to Intiva."

There was nothing fraudulent about OWC issuing 1,322,222 shares of restricted OWC stock to Intiva in August 2014. Since there was nothing wrong with the issuance of these shares, there was nothing indicated as being fraudulent about the opinion letter which OWC provided to its transfer agent.

According to the SEC complaint against Friedland it says “from a disbarred attorney”, but we don’t know any additional information about the attorney OWC used in 2014. He/she may have had a current license to practice law at that time. Wether the attorney was disbarred prior to or after August 2014 is information not given by the SEC.


————————————————————————————————


I'm still waiting for you to tell me the paragraph # and page # of the SEC document where it says what you claimed on a previous post.

I-GLOW writes:
"What part about OWCP providing a Fraudulent Opinion Letter to expedite the removal of the restrictive legend are you ignoring."