I hate to think like this, but is it possible the PRs to the public simply said the BLA sections have been submitted sucessfully but not specify that the sections were sucessfully submitted incomplete? I know they have rolling review and did state in PRs that additional information will be provided post submitting the sections of the BLA. Is it really down to stating they did successfully submit the sections, without stating that the sections were incomplete? this is the only defense i can come up with.

however, there is too many emails to show exactly who knew what when and what the public was told. I don't think the prosecutor will have any trouble showing the PRs and the sequence of events to show that both of them knew it was incomplete and they knew they were not communicating that to the public truthfully and they did act for their own personal financial benefit while knowing this.

Nader did tell me once in a phone conversation that his exercising of options at that time was for the benefit of the company to pay an invoice and it was at great cost to him personally. at the time i did not follow how the transaction put cash in cytodyn or cost him greatly, and i still don't. i thought there was a cash infusion from him in exchange for shares, but that was not what happened.