Every day we hear about waste, fraud and abuse in our government. PTSC, in its complaint pretty much accused TPL/Leckrone of waste, fraud and abuse and expressed concerns that TPL may in fact be insolvent. Then, as if by the wave of a magic wand....there was a settlement cloaked in secrecy which by the way, threw Chuck Moore under the bus when we could have worked with him to defeat the one true enemy of shareholders. Instead of possibly forcing the insolvency issue, PTSC and PDS agreed to give Leckrone even more money. What a joke. All of this is my opinion and everyone has one.

Then there is the issue of transparency.

From the FAQs on Patriot’s website

Q: Why is there such a lack of transparency at Patriot?

A: The perception that there is a lack of transparency stems largely from the nature of the licensing business. It begins with the fact that most prospective licensees do not proactively seek MMP Portfolio licenses. This can create a potentially contentious environment where the rights of the Portfolio often need to be aggressively negotiated with each licensor. Any information beyond what is not absolutely

essential or required by law for public disclosure can be damaging to this effort. Similarly, litigation over infringement, like most any litigation engaged in by corporations, is generally not commented on until specific events are concluded. Also, even in the best of times the licensing business has had an episodic

element to it. Unless and until a reasonable basis for forecasting future results becomes apparent, it would be inappropriate for us to make such speculations. While we understand shareholder frustration over transparency, Patriot has had to work within these confines. Unfortunately, this can lead to perceptions that there is an overall unreasonable or inappropriate lack of transparency. This is not to

say that we aren’t doing our best to increase transparency and will continue to do so, including assessing and differentiating information that truly needs to remain confidential and that which does not.Finally, there are several important factors that should be known which contribute to the success of the licensing business and we have been careful to enumerate these in the Risk Factors section of our

annual report on Form 10--‐K for the year ended May 31, 2011, and the quarterly report on Form 10--‐Q for the period ended February 29, 2012. These are not boiler--‐plate comments and we encourage you to read them carefully.

The Markman ruling is available to the public via Pacer. I agree with Lamberts and others, in that the directors are derelict in their duty to shareholders and should comment immediately on this very public ruling. The fact that it is not 100% complete should have no bearing whatsoever on releasing a PR that promotes the positive parts of that ruling.

I have been patient. I have been for several months, directly in communication with Cliff in a spirit of cooperation.More importantly, I had hoped that this communication might work to alleviate my fear that he, Carl and Gloria are merely Leckrone’s puppets.

You have to ask yourself was Cliff 100% on board with the decision to settle with TPL? Why are Carl and Dan Leckrone the only two directors on the PDS board and as such, the only two people calling all the plays for PDS decisions to fund Leckrone?It is my belief that Patriot may have had an opportunity more than once to make a larger than required capital contribution to PDS, thereby acquiring a larger % of MMP revenues.Who or what stopped them from doing so and why? Perhaps the SEC might have some thoughts on this as well as the non binding issue regarding shareholder proposals passed by a majority vote.

They have played us long enough and we have watched years go by waiting for one event after another that was supposed to turn things around in a positive way for all shareholders. I’m angry and you should be too.Perhaps there are some liability issues that might/should be explored.