Defenders, you are all absolutely correct in pointing out the need for such a product as CTLM if it can do what IMDS has always represented it can do. I have always tried to maintain an open mind on the tech. My expertise is financial. If YOU are right in your hunch on the tech, that makes my points on managements abuse of the shareholders (especially the patent fiasco) much more relevant. It is wrong for the shareholders to have taken the company this far just to have Grable reach in and take the additional patent compensation (and potentially the patent, based on the license agreement). Family control of the board is being used to abuse shareholders. Since there is no independent board to stop them from making retroactive, never before disclosed, highly suspect contracts with themselves, how do you expect the shareholder to believe that they will receive fair value for their investment? This is even assuming it works GREAT. What's next to appear, another retroactive, never before disclosed oral contract, but with Linda this time?
What I'm trying to say is that YOUR hope in the technology is not inconsistent with my concerns about MANAGEMENT. Once you believe in the tech, you shouuld be concerned about how he has insinuated himself between you and its value. They go together. So, unless you are Family, or a paid mouthpiece for Family, your attack of my views is inconsistent. What EVERY shareholder should be demanding is that he give BACK what he took and show the shareholders good faith. If you believe the tech has value, then him taking the liberties he has means he has taken value from all shareholders. Only family members and other insiders would disagree with my demand that he give back what he took away.
If you are not family or a paid mouthpiece for the family, please give me a logical reason for NOT wanting him to give it back given the well documented history of deception and given your faith in the value of the tech. |
