"I don't quite understand what you mean as the stipulated judgment clearly acknowledges that TPL is co-owner of the '336, and Moore (as well as PTSC) would have agreed to this fact or the judgment would not have been entered."

http://www.colorforth.com/stipulate.pdf

For starters, I think what you post is actually incorrect. I know from experience in our business world that our lawyers often handle stipuated judgements and that we don't necessarily see each one prior to it being filed, nor do we typically have to sign them, our lawyers do on our behalf as our representative. So to suggest that Moore had to have agreed to it, if he or his lawyer was not involved, assumes facts not in evidence, doesn't it?

Furthermore, according to Moore, your reading is incorrect. Per his coloforth.com site, he states that he didin't become aware of this stipulated judgement until 2008, and that is lawyer never signed it, and he posts a pdf of it on his site. While I find it questionable that the judge signed it without Moore's lawyer's signature, that IS what Moore claims, so at least he is contesting it.

Lastly, and this brings up the point I've questioned earlier. Guess who signed the judgement on OUR behalf. That's right, your buddy Carlton Johnson. Now obviously, HE, not some independent outside counsel, against whom we can seek remedy in the event of errors or malpractice, was representing us on this matter. Does that make GOOD BUSINESS SENSE? In my opinion, absolutely not. Not even Leckrone was dumb enough to not have outside counsel represent TPL, as Roger Cook signed on TPL's behalf.

So the question stands, if in fact Moore has a real claim, and proves the below to be true:

"And I have a bombshell for the site. On May 30, I post the Stipulated Final Judgment wherein Leckrone conned a Federal Judge into giving him my patents. (A public document) "

Does that somehow nullify or bing into question the rest of the agreements that seem to be predicated on this judgement at least in part. At this point, I guess I seriously doubt it, but it begs the question at least, IMO.

If this were to somehow turn out to become a legal mess, who would PTSC go after for getting us into and agreement that wasn't correct? CJ? Again, this speaks to basic sensible business transactions and guidance that a qualified BOD member should be providing. Everyone but PTSC had independent outside counsel representing them on the stipulated judgement.

You suggested in an earlier post that there were outside legal fees that we paid during this time. Can you point to any documents that show other lawyers aside from Johnson and Pohl representing us on the partnership agreements? It seems this judgement would suggest that you are likely incorrect.