i2007 noted: "Cliff said he has a lot of experience with moving companies to more major exchanges and reverse mergers and experience in investor and public relations and is ready to take this on when money begins to come in to patriot."

Let's parse this sentence:

i2007 noted: "Cliff said he has a lot of experience with .... reverse mergers .... and is ready to take this on when money begins to come in to patriot."

Was this indeed a declaration of intent, so the comment (if the above is accurate) could be construed as "fair warning"?

Quite often a Reverse Merger (not a reverse stock split as I originally construed it and as I believe the BOD assured was not being planned) cashes out existing stockholders who thus do not benefit from income "when the money begins to come in..." Concurrently, there are often "Change in Control" contracts which cause Options to become immediately fully vested and can thus bring the holders of such options a windfall - not to mention "consulting contracts" during the transition. Bear in mind that just $20M buys more than 50% of PTSC today.

Given that shareholders are powerless to influence BOD decisions, and that BOD members (and possibly other "insiders" who are apparently not defined as "insiders" for SEC purposes) are likely to make $millions in such a scenario, I feel a high potential risk of such a decision being taken that could render upside to "common" shareholders minimal.

At the SHAM I believe only about 100M of 400M shares were actively voted in favor of attempts to change the BOD's powers. That leaves 300M unaccounted for - who owns them and how would they vote in the case of a proposed acquisition of PTSC?