I cannot believe you are still harping on this!
Over a week ago, I thought I'd nipped this line of discussion in the bud with this post:
Re: SGE1 / Re: otctrader / Re: One Hit Wonder? - LL
(If the link doesn't work, the message was posted at 12:51am on 7/14/09)
Read the last paragraph. A defunct legal entity was receiving payment for product and services for at least six months after the entity was "illegal" from countless other corporations in addition to the U.S. Government! Not only that, this entity received 350-400 new contracts every year (approximately 60% assist work for other entities under the umbrella of the corporation underwhich this entity was a wholly-owned subsidiary, 30% contracts/subcontracts with other corporations, 10% prime contracts with the U.S. Government). You're a numbers guy - do the numbers. In six months time (minimum), how many contracts were likely executed between this no-longer-legal entity and other corporations and the USG? You ask for one example. Straight-lining the numbers, at least 70 contracts were executed. 70 examples. Was there a real problem here? The only potential problem was our ability to continue to cash checks received (which wasn't a problem). There was no problem from the standpoint of our ability to contract.
Maybe your problem was the PR (the fact that a contract was issued aside)? The more significant contracts above, unless highly classified, were likely PR'd or made known to the public/industry in some fashion. No problem.
Now I see you go off on "what are Baroni's true motives?". Then you seem to suggest that maybe he's up to something (unknown to PTSC/PDSG) detrimental to the company/shareholders. If this philosophy/paranoia prevailed in the world of business, nobody would ever be hired to do any job at any level. "Don't hire that new secretary, because her true motives may be to get on board simply to sue the company for sexual harrassment/hostile work environment" (since such is based purely on the perception of the person who feels they are harrassed, and companies typical settle such cases out of court to avoid bad press).
Please give this a rest. True, it is unclear what exactly Baroni's services will be, but IMO this is no reason to jump to wild adverse conclusions. As far as more possitive possibilities, I and others have addressed those adequately IMO, based on what little we know. It seems the logical approach to come to some reasonable conclusion is to simply look at the man's credentials as an indicator. And I wouldn't get too hung on the thought that Baroni was selected by the Audit Committee; it's fairly obvious that he wasn't selected to perform an audit per se.
JMHOs,
SGE
