<Regarding PTSC specifically, are there known facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion on which to file a lawsuit in good faith? There is simply no question about it — everything from a “follow the money” trail, to the Swartz/Johnson appearance of a conflict of interest, to the Company’s own comments about “patents on water” and “gold mines”, to our “forensic accountant” letting millions of dollars slip out the door, to failed acquisitions, to officers and directors refusing to purchase stock, to handsome compensations packages paid while the Company’s market value plummets, to multiple CEOs, and on and on. No need say more.

Am I saying that all of this, and the numerous other specific facts that could be added to the list, is absolute proof of malfeasance, negligence, or wrongdoing so that a “win” at trial would be absolutely assured? Certainly not — just as a loose analogy to our existing patent lawsuits, the outcome of any case is for a judge or jury to decide. On the other hand, could a lawyer take these facts and craft them into a petition or complaint that would be reasonably based so as to allow his client to engage in discovery and attempt to support his allegations? No doubt about it. The point is that many cases cannot be truly evaluated in terms of “winning” or “losing” until all of the discoverable evidence that is being withheld has been disclosed.>

Agreed. There is more than enough out there. Unless there is some new allegation not already discussed here, further talk of taking some legal action is simply to frighten current and prospective shareholders. There is no other logical reason for it. IMO.

Opty