You state

And then there's the ongoing opinion he expresses that S&L was exposed to ZERO risk when they invested in PTSC to keep us afloat. Does anyone really believe that? If there were zero risk, why didn't B&A invest? Why did they need an investor, on those terms, to begin with?

I believe that. S & L set it up so they made money if they sold the stock at 5, .50, .05, or .005. They had limited if not zero risk. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that it has already been established that PTSC was also paying interest on the debentures and to add insult to shareholder injury, it was in S & L's best interest to hold prices down in that the amount of debentures that they were issued was tied to the price of the stock.