Are you saying the plaintiff does not have to prove their claim that I had handled counterfeit certs? Instead I have to prove that I had not handled such thing? You are very wrong.
No, shareholders did not prove innocence. I've explained a few times why, but you refuse to learn. In court, a defendant is never found "innocent" but instead "not guilty." There is a big difference between the two.
this case was crafted carefully to allow shareholders to prove their innocence..the plaintiff's claim was specific about handling certs, and "proof" simply required a demonstration of how the shares were acquired...
Proving that you acquired some shares legally has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
