"Rather, take Monks huge certificate and add those shares to the OBO and NOBO list totals and guess what?"
Typical.
While the plaintiff says that Monk told him that his certificate was for 12,000,000 shares, Monk only admits to it being "larger". So you decide to call it "huge".
They were referring to a certificate that allegedly existed in APRIL.
The OBO and NOBO data, on the other hand, was effective as of late November/early December.
Calling Monk's alleged certificate "huge" and suggesting that it is appropriate to add it to data created 7 or 8 months after it allegedly existed, thereby reaching an improper conclusion, is either foolish, deceptive or both.