While I understand where you are coming from, do you understand the depth of evidence required to be successful with allegations of Fraud?

To be successful, you must be able to prove absolutely that the seeming fraudulent act was intentional, and not just a minor, one-time accounting error.

The difficulty, as I've stated repeatedly, is that PTSC only has visibility of one side of the bookkeeping - not both. Something more was needed, and perhaps came, triggering action based on not only suspicions, but some form of reasonably hard proof (a la Barco, as I recently suggested as a possibility).

I personally don't believe PTSC set up TPL for the Santa Clara resolutions/agreements case. I think PTSC reached a point where they could proceed, beyond the resolutions issue that developed "on its own", taking the matter to an entirely new level based on sufficient proof of wrongdoing that they could confidently litigate. Recall that the current criminal allegations are new as of last Thursday.

Prior to that, per my understanding, the case was simply about the validity of the two resolutions that were properly (per PTSC) voted upon by the PDS Management Committee, that Leckrone refused to accept.

FWIW,

SGE