IMO the divis were part of a package-deal to get rid of Swartz - I'm sure, we won't see a second dividend this year.

What could have been the reason for Patriot to get rid of their pipe-investor?

One reason could be the planned change to NASDAQ: 

No investor would like to see a shareholder with nearly 80mio shares at an average of 0,000001$ (;-)) - guess what would happen, if Swartz sold all his shares at prices of 1, 2, 3, or 5$? The price would tank in an incredible way - something you can "accept" at the OTC, but not at the NASDAQ.

Thus Swartz had to get rid of all the warrants and according to the last Proxy he only had 8,5mio shares at the end of February - and I bet with you, he ain't got that much shares today.

I always recommended the people here and in our german messaging board to read the Negatives of last year's Initial Report of Dutton (page 17) - this was and is the agenda, Patriot had to work off:

Take a look at the points:

- 50mio warrants? Nada...

- Oustanding lawsuits with co-investor? Nada...

- TPL litigation with J3? Not nada, but on a great way, if we look at the Markman Hearing

Ok, "only" the big number of Outstanding Shares is still there - and the inability to forecast revenues of the MMP. But we all know, if the J3 settle, this issue will vanish and by the way, Holocom and DataSecurus were a great move, if you compare the investment by Patriot and the revenue Patriot received just in one quarter (and they are expecting an increase)! 

To say it shortly: I'm sure, there would have been several ways to develop Patriot from the middle of 2005 until today, but IMHO the way the BoD went was maybe the hardest for the little shareholders in short sight - but will reward us greatly on long term.

As always IMO and a positive one!

GLTA