The Creditors committee is made up of 3 factions with differing interests, and yet, the Committee is proposing a "One Plan Fits All" approach.

The three factions are:

1. Creditors who are DL insiders and family members who say they have millions in commissions due them from verbal agreements. This group makes up the largest amount of TPL debt.

2. Creditors based on monetary investments, loans, and services rendered. These debts represent past relationships with TPL.

3. Creditors who are owed money based on past activities, and have legally defined relationships going forward inwhich future monies outside of any "debts" are to be earned ; this includes Moore and PTSC.

Between Moore and PTSC, Moore is less impacted by the plan proposed by the Creditor's Committee, and yet, Moore, not PTSC, is the one addressing it's shortcomings.

Creditors in categories 1 & 2 want TPL to get as much from MMP licensing as possible, so that they can have their debts extinguished as quickly as possible.

PTSC is apparently happily going along with the Committee's plan, and they are not even objecting to the provision in the plan which provides for TPL to have automatic PDS contributions set asides so that TPL is always guaranteed to be able to make their Capital Call. In this way, PTSC is abandoning the prior agreement ability to increase our MMP ownership percentage, and thereby giving up the opportunity to actually have the voting power to control all MMP activities. Don't forget, the PDS capital set aside is proposed to be inplace even though Alliasence may still be taking 25% of all MMP licensing fees off the top, inaddition to collecting the cash Capital Call from PTSC.

PTSC hasn't even promoted the idea of us demanding means for even a minimal increase in ownership, so as to technically control but not impact in any meaningful way money to the creditors. Nor is PTSC suggesting limiting the Capital set-asides until such time as some fixed % amount owed only to the #2 Creditors is achieved. I cannot find anything in the Creditor's plan which uniquely benefits PTSC or treats us differently than then hotel bill creditor.

I haven't even touched on the fact that I cannot find where PTSC has petitioned to the Court that if the Alliasence agreement is not found to be nulified, to modify it in major ways so as to eliminate those provisions which allow for no performance goals, withdrawl for convenience, auditing issues, and so many other provisions which are offensive to the very concept of fair deaing, good faith and protections from bad actors.

PTSC's very existance and Shareholder's stock price potential, is impacted by the final version of whatever plan the court approves, and I am MAD AS HELL that I cannot find where PTSC, this public company representing the interests of over 16,000 creditors/partners of TPL, have emphesised and petitioned to the court that we have the most significant, impacted and lasting ramifications of anyone by whichever MMP plan is adopted by this court.

ALL "CREDITORS" ARE NOT EQUAL, so why are we being treated the same.