IMO, Waldoswrld is a strange place.

You say: "Well, a company is a private entity versus the public court system". That's why I specified "public company" in my (very apt) analogy. A publicly traded company IS a public company. Every public company (corporation) is required to have a public relations/investors relations (PR/IR) representative. Why? To answer questions of concerned parties. And CFOs/Controllers are also called upon to answer questions posed (ever watch CNBC?).

So public companies are obligated to respond to queries from shareholders/interested parties. Just as the court system offers personnel to respond to queries from interested parties. And they have an obligation to provide answers within limits. Thus, it is exactly the same thing.

And then you miss the point entirely. If a company's PR/IR rep receives an abundance of calls saying "XXXX sent me ask for insider (illegal) information", what will the PR/IR rep think of person/entity "XXXX"? Gosh, this XXXX is suggesting I have no scruples or that I'm ignorant of the law (an insult), and futher, XXXX is trying to do something illegal and is trying to make me a party to that illegal act.

The court clerks of the EDoT court are the PR/IR reps of the court system. They, IMO, would most likely react in the exact same way. And, in their ire, they might mention this to their superiors (e.g., the Judge). This could be harmful because, as I said, you never KNOW how people are going to react to things - even subtle things (though, if people call asking for the Judge's ruling, that's anything but subtle).

The other point I made (and that you apparently missed) was that this incident (assuming it's real) probably burned a bridge. I appreciated hearing the status of mediation, and whether a report had been delivered. The next time anyone calls and mentions this case, how forthcoming do you think the person taking the call is going to be? IMO, minimally. Why? Because providing anything more than what is minimally required (which may just be "no comment" or "I'm not permitted to provide a response") may make that person complicit to an illegal act (insider trading); something that could not only get them fired, but may put them in a position of facing jail time.

Perhaps you don't understand the "insider information" aspect. What if, in response to a query, a court clerk advised that the Judge had ruled in such and such a way. The person making the inquirey will have acquired inside information - information not made public in such a way that all have an equal opportunity to capitalize. If they traded the stock based on this information, they will have conducted insider trading, which is illegal, and the person who provided that information is complicit in the act. Examine the Martha Stewart case.

Now do you get the possible implications of this (supposed) event, or an event that could occur?

You say you have also been riding EDIG. If you have followed it closely, you would KNOW that RP once advised (to Sunpoop, I believe) that shareholder/non-shareholder calls to prospective customers may have cost them business. Business they desparately need. Harmful?

Bottom line: don't take a chance on antagonizing, in the name of PTSC, anyone that could influence the prospects of PTSC - even in an indirect way.

Hopefully you can now better grasp my message. If you don't get it now, I give up.

SGE