Regarding the Pacer (thanks BaN) asking for a continuance the request coming from the Leckrones and the BK Committee?????

Unless you know something the rest of us do not I do not think that the BK Committee with Gloria as a member is really acting for "our side". Unless for you "our side" is the side of the ptsc board which you in the recent past have stated that at this stage we have to live with.

Working with the Leckrone's on requesting this delay means to me that the Leckrones would stay in control of TPL and it's interest.... IMO that is not good for "our side".

If IMO the PTSC Board was representing Our Side and was truly representing we the shareholders they would be taking a strong position to get the Committee and the Court to realize that it would be in the best interest of ALL parties (other then the Leckrones) to get the Leckrones out of the position of Debtor in Possession and get a a Court Appointed Receiver to run TPL. We need to get back in the business of either finding that White Knight before next year and while moving in that direction we need even more importantly for the sake of revenue to renew licensing the MMP and do so without comingling or bundling the TPL patents.

Without an Independent receiver what will stop leckrone, apparetly without complaint from Carl J, from making more Apple like license deals? To my knowledge I do not think there is any proof that Carl J protested the ridiculous percentage breakdown of the Apple license. Do any of us really know how many other such license deals were done. I do not think so due to the fact that accoriding to Flowers we only need to know material facts and stuff like the Apple License was not apparently material enough. Thank God for the court and folks like Brian who ferreted out some of this information.

By our Board operating as normal (silent running) and not having adequate communication with we shareholders we can only assume that as in the past our ineffective, weak and imo highly suspect Board is not in any way representing to the Committee that it is long past the time to remove the Leckrones. That with Alliacense taking such a large % of an licensing effort, which there has been none or very little since the BK proceedings of TPL began it provides even less revenue for the creditors who have suffered by the Leckrones actions. I believe that this lack of license movement is a ploy being used by the Leckrones in attempting to force the hand of the BK Committee to make them keep the L's in power.

I take deep umbrage that the PTSC Board has not as has been pointed out today sought the third seat be filled at PDS by an Independent who would with Carl J finally move to remove the Leckrones (TPL/Alliacense) from further licensing efforts as stated in the contract that was contrived shortly before the TPL bk was filed. However, who among those reading this Board can explain the lack of the Ptsc board from insisting on that 3rd seat be filled? By their very action or should I say by his very action it says to me that Carl is more interested in the status quo of TPL "in charge" then what would be right and good for Patriot. That question has never been answered no matter how many times many of us have asked.

IMO we should all be working with Laurie and her team who is attempting to have a PTSC shareholder presence before the BK court as it is had been obvious the the PTSC Board is certainly not working in "most" Patriot shareholders interest.

Our Side needs to be heard and with all due respect to gp IMO "our side" or should I say my side (the average shareholder of PTSc) is not being represented.

With regards and all IMO

marc