You keep moving the target.
1, First you said this:
"In fact, I think an erroneous theory you put forward was That TAUG was in on the the entire thing with Cowan."
Then you said this:
"I will try to find the post where you thought Seth was in on it and benefitted from the Cowan arrangement."
Those are the same things to you?
You won't find a post wherein I said either of those things, but I look forward to your post on Tuesday.
What I actually said and what is plainly true is a combination of those things:
Tauriga likely benefited from the improperly extended appearance of Meyler as the lead auditor on their audit. That doesn't have to be supported by a specific event or action on the part of either party. The rule is in place because it assumes that a lengthy engagement results in an improper relationship in which both the client and the auditor could benefit...and as a result the investing public relying on the fairness of the relationship could suffer...from that lack of independence. The idea that an independence failure only acts to benefit the auditor is foolish.
2. "What benefit is their for me to explain why TAUG is not a shell?"
The restoration of a measure of credibility.
3. "Maybe the address has been renewed then"...."I will ask about this weekend when we meet."
I hope you'll report back, whether it's of benefit to you or not. Others would like to know where their company is.
4. "I would think distributors may have a word on final design of the packaging."
So that's the way that works? The owner of the named brand lets the distributor(s) decide what phone number and address to use on the package?
5. "samples without any labeling are filled with product."
Now I'm speechless.
See you next Tuesday.
I was given that information....I don't know.
