Jonathan,
Thank you for giving us the address of some of the Directors. I can provide the thread with the address of one more:
Dr. Lee Henderson
Viral Therapeutics, Inc.
142 Langmuir Laboratories
Cornell Technology Park
Ithaca, New York 14850
I would prefer to send any messages I had directly to the Directors, rather than through Paracelsian's office. I know that interfering with the mail is a Federal offense, but I am not sure that Keith Rhodes is an individual who always observes legal niceties. Maybe I am paranoid, but I fear there is a possibility that he could prevent anything I sent to PRLN from getting into the hands of the other directors. So I decided to call PRLN's office to get the addresses of Dr. Ip and Dr. Dentali.
When I spoke to the receptionist, she said she thought the addresses were in the Annual Report. I responded that only the names of the directors and the companies with which they were affiliated was listed. She put me on hold for a minute. When she came back on the phone she told me that she could not give me that information. I asked her why not and she told me she was told not to. I asked her who ordered her and I don't think she told me the name, but it was obvious it was Rhodes. I asked her why they were keeping this secret information. She just said that it was not listed in the annual report so it was not public information and she was under orders that she not give this information out. She refused to agree with me that it was "secret" information. She just said it was "non-public" information. I told her that this was symantics and that I didn't see the diferrence between the two terms.
She said that I could mail anything I wanted the directors to see directly to PRLN and she would see to it that they got it. She assured me that she was a person of her word and that I could trust her that they would get it. Folks, I have no reason to doubt that the receptionist is an honorable person doing the best she can in a very difficult situation. I really felt sorry for her and I didn't like putting her in a tough position. There is one small problem. Even though I think she can be trusted, how do I know that Rhodes won't scan all the incoming mail and intercept letters addressed to other board members. Though he is 69, he is quite tall and he is in good physical health. I doubt she would be able to physically wrestle a package from his hands. And even if she could, I doubt that she would try this with someone who could fire her. I asked her how I could be assured that Rhodes wouldn't intercept my package. She said Rhodes was aware that doing so was a violation of federal law, but when I pointed out that Rhodes had a questionable track record of obeying the law she had no real good answer.
Maybe I was wrong about Rhodes after all. Maybe Rhodes is innocent. He could be pure as the driven snow. It is possible that this Saint is being unjustly maligned by malcontents like me. But he sure is behaving like someone who is GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
Robin M.
P.S. This is a personal message to Keith Rhodes:
I can't speak for any other stockholder on this matter, but I view the receptionist as an innocent party in this whole affair. If I find out that you have penalized her in any way for anything she said in our conversation, you can rest assured that I will post this information on the SI thread. This can only increase the contempt in which you are held by the stockholders. |
