"I'm sorry, but I think your statement can only be interpretered one way, so I must ask you ... do you realize you are suggesting that the BOD intentionally cooperated in a "pump & dump scheme in 2006/2007" to benefit Swartz in order "to get rid of him" ?

If what you have written above actually did occur, I think that it would be serious criminal behavior; very serious. "

1. Whatever I write I have gone through my mind, therefore realized it, therefore I'm full aware of the implications.

2. DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS.

3. I did not say they were "cooperating" - I wrote IMHO they were in the hands of ES and had no other chance to get rid of him (this is said without having any proof!)

4. You must be kidding re: "criminal behaviour". Have you ever worked with banks, financial services, people, who lend you money? They write their own rules and the weaker you are or the more difficult the situation is you are in the more you have to follow them. This is not a question of "criminal behaviour" but simply survival.

5. Your desperate attempts to find further negatives for the BoD refer to a huge personal disappointment you must have experienced while your time as a shareholder rep - you should solve this instead of crucifying yourself with negative feelings.

GLTY