Doni--thanks for the reply. I know that you have a good opinion and appreciate your thoughts. I don't quite follow. Do you consider my comments to be unprofessional? I am far from a pro and am just trying to wade through all of this %#*^&@# and figure out what is going on.

My point was, when the two sides left the courtroom in Jan. they and the judge seemingly agreed that she was to minimally rule on the two items and IF they proved to be dispositive, then she would not review the remaining 6. Is there any logical or LEGAL reason for her to roughly "rule" on 25% or so of what she agreed to rule on and not complete what she set out to do which leaves us with a decimated stock price and no further clarification for which we went to court in the first place?

If you don't mind--please help me figure this out. Thank you.