Would Carlton Johnson risk charges of malfeasance being brought against him if he were found to be playing a part in an intentional supressing of the PTSC share price while acting as a member of their board of directors in an effort to benefit a 3rd party or parties not under the umbrella of PTSC?

What about the statement - "All parties are pleased..." ???

And if there is a movement afoot to supress the share price to offer something less than what D Leckrone suggested in his previous statement at the SHM that the MMP was worth X amount of dollars (sorry- not sure what the exact statement & dollar amt was-Anyone?), how does TPL get around that?

I am not naive but if all of this were in motion as some are seriously suspecting and that there are NOT running roylaties or contingencies in place that would trigger larger dollar amts from the J3 settlement, how can any intangibles like a steering of business to TPL-owned entities excluding and/or to the detriment of PTSC not be seen as a breach of the spirit of the master agreement?

Would those intangibles not necessarily need to be quantified and run through PDS in the spirit of the master agreement?

Would an intentional "losing" of the J3 case not be the proverbial cutting off one's nose to spite one's face?

Did TPL/Alliacense willingly or unwillingly lose the J3 case even though all signs seemed to suggest that they were on a path to winning handily?

I am sure there are more examples, but these are huge obstacles to a grand plan to rip-off retail shareholders in my opinion.

Please take a crack at these questions. Make me a believer in this rip-off theory and I will get on board with those crying foul.