Remember what Chuck Moore wrote about Leckrone:

The language and intent was so bad that it cannot be printed on this page without breaking Agoras 6 rules of posting and believe me he was not wishing him to go to heaven on God's blessing. This shows who we are dealing with.

We know this will tie up the MMP licensure process for several months, unless Leckrone sees the light and comes to the table. Right NOW, he is the 100% the cause of PTSCSP decline. He is causing you to lose money because the SP should be miles away from where it is with 336 approval. He has refused to discuss a reasonable way out of the dilemna he is 100% responsible for. Leckrone is damaging and destroying your hard earned money, all 20,000 shareholders, for his personal gain. He makes Swartz look like a saint and believe me he wasn't, lol (but there is no comparison).The BOD may have to take deferred compensation to pull this off which I hope they will do but getting this right before six major allegations and numerous others probably being considered. Leckrone is a patent lawyer. Let's see how well he does against criminal lawyers. How big is his checkbook, and how good is his line of credit. This will cost him a fortune to defend.

Leckrone is the enemy to PTSC share price because he wants it all and Carlton Johnson realizes it. True, much later than he should have realized it. Many of you saw Leckrone at SHM's spouting about how he was here to save the day. It turns out he was there to only save his day at the expense of each and every PTSC shareholder. He has been my concern for a long time. He is the fox in the hen house and the only way the farmer can protect himself is with a double barrel full of due diligence which in this case is the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.

There are many on this board that could spell out the actual way in which each of these allegations were broken.

Allegations against TPL and Alliacense:

1. breach of contract,

2. breach of fiduciary duty,

3. aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,

4. contract interference,

5. constructive fraud,

6. unjust enrichment, while also seeking declaratory relief over specific contractual disagreements.

Also required:

an accounting of revenues and expenses charged to the PDS joint venture, while also engaging in licensing activities designed to profit TPL at the expense of the interests of PDS and Patriot.