knowlesmsncom: I'm not going to get into following up on most of your answers, but I will ask you how you interpret this section from the Plant/Lane indictment:
13.Subsequent to DHS’s October 11, 2006 letter, PLANT revised CyberKey’s previously-released press releases by replacing “Department of Homeland Security”with more general descriptions, such as “Federal Government Agency” or “the Federal Government.” The revised press releases continued to maintain, however, that CyberKey had a $24.5 million purchase order, although they now stated that the purchase order was with an unnamed large federal agency.
The last sentence appears to me to indicate strongly that the government believes that no 24.5M purchase order existed at all. It is particularly noteworthy since if the issue was solely about the contract existing, but not with DHS, the first sentence covers Plant's response to the DHS letter.
But I'm sure you'll be able to come up with an explanation as to why it is included in this paragraph of the indictment.
There is one followup regarding Plant's audited financial claims. You are aware that according to the SEC charges filed against Plant, the SEC clearly states that as of March 14, 2007, nobody had yet been hired to do any audited financials. Yet Plant had been claiming that they were in progress, would be done soon, and even that 2006 and 2005 were already done.
AI
