Pushing towards 'the language aa used means no naked shorts or he's lying which implies bad' (are you certain those are the ONLY 2 possibilities?)

I'd just like to point out that if RC asked for a share total from Computershare, they would tell him something that would allow him to repeat AA's statement. There are x shares held in individual names and x shares held by Cede & Co. X of those shares are insiders. These numbers add up to the exact count of issued shares.

It would be easy to say that he has no evidence of naked shorts or any fuckery. He could even ask for that count 6 times and it wouldn't change anything.

Until AA comes out and says

"I got access to all data from the DTCC/DTC books, the books of every major and minor broker, all swap data the CFTC has not published, all options and futures data and have contacted every beneficial shareholder to confirm the holdings at their brokers. There are no synthetic shares."

...his statement is the truth. There are no fake shares on the books. The books are held by popcorn's version of Computershare.

There are contracts between people who hold shares in street name with Cede & Co. That is where the synthetics lie.

You have a car title. I create a derivative based on that title and have a private contract with Steve over there. We settle our contract between ourselves. You have nothing to do with that other than our business having an effect on how much $ someone else is willing to offer you for your title.

DRS is the answer. The people having contracts with each other are going to keep fucking around. That doesn't change the numbers on the issuer's books.

That was where CMKM diamonds differed. Their issuer was complicit in the creation of actual fake shares above and beyond the legal limit of the outstanding shares.