Although Conrad and the BOD accused Johnnie of violating his "fiduciary" responsibilities for agreeing to a contract with Marineo TWO YEARS ago -- a contract that they now claim was never valid anyway since Marineo and his alleged "group" didn't sign it, one really has to question whether the pot isn't calling the kettle black given the recent loan that Conrad and the BOD agreed to -- well, I presume the BOD agreed to it given the current Marineo debacle.
So, was Conrad displaying fiduciary responsibility when he paid $42,548 to get to use $241,100?
Was Conrad displaying fiduciary responsibility when he agreed that the loan could convert ANYTIME for 20-25 CENTS a share -- even while the stock was currently trading around 40-50 CENTS?
Was Conrad displaying fiduciary responsibility when he agreed to tack on another 170,354 shares in warrants that could be exercised at 40-60 CENTS within two years?
Investors might consider Conrad -- and NOW the BOD -- as displaying something more like "highway robbery" rather than "fiduciary responsibility" -- wouldn't you agree?