As is shown below by the company's filings, the Audit Committee is responsible for monitoring the company's internal control system and for oversight of management's enforcement of business practices. Who would've thunk my assumption would be wrong, but up 'til now I've always assumed that was to imply oversight to assure FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND business practices. Yet 7 days after the fact, the company the Audit Committee retained, STILL does not legally exist according to the Maryland state government agency responsible for the registration of these types of companies.

Mind you, this hire came by the Audit Committee, not the CEO, not management, not the Board of Directors, but the Audit Committee, a committee of two, Carlton Johnson, and Gloria Felcyn. According to them, hiring unlicensed, unregistered, and ACTUALLY NON-EXISTENT companies apparently falls into the RESPONSIBLE FULFILLMENT of their duties.

Can you imagine if the KMJ Corbin & Company, the Audit Committee's recommendation for independent auditors for the company turned out to be a company that you couldn't find a website for, couldn't find a yellow pagers or similar listing for, indeed even couldn't find corporate registration for? Would anyone consider that a sensible business practice, or fulfillment of any kind of fiduciary responsibility by the members of that committee on behalf of the company and its shareholders? Well they've done exactly that and not just recommended them for us to vote on as they have in the past, but actually HIRED such a company to perform what, based on the revenue guidance retraction, and lack of any contract award winning PR's for PDSG, appears at this juncture to be a CRITICALLY IMPORTANT strategic assessment of PDSG.

These are the people responsble for the direction of the company and the oversight of management! While I know they get plenty of criticism on this board, and there seems to be a desire to either expose them or to defend them, how can anyone look at this one fact, and combine it with the historical information, and feel that the company is in good hands at that level? For seven days, they have left in the public domain misleading information about what they want to sell as a "very positive" development. They know it, yet do nothing about it.

The old addage, lead, follow, or get out of the way, seems very appropos. If this is the type of shoddy attention to detail that they consider leadership, why would we expect anyone following that leadership to do any better? In my opinion, the benefit of the doubt has long been abused, and the third options seems to be the ONLY option.

The Audit Committee's primary duties and responsibilities are to: