A special message to fellow shareholders:
It is important that I provide you with some information that has been omitted by the BOD's new critic on this forum.
(Plaintif2000 [moderator]please post this with a sticky)
As you have been reading, Plaintif2000 has recently become a critic of the new BOD and has "chosen" to speak against the actions and abilities of the BOD. Suffice it to say there has also been a lot of communication outside of this forum between plaintif2000 and directors of the company immediately precedent to this "change of heart" by Plaintif2000.
Plaintif2000 wants to be a director and he had made it clear to the BOD that he feels the board's refusal to make him a Director of the company and purchase his unsolicited "copyrighted material" to promote the company, is a clear breach of the fiduciary duty of the Directors. (He actually blames this on me personally but has just morphed in into some Board-wide conspiracy. Not so in this case. This was my decision to not endorse him and, whether shareholders agree or not, it was solely my decision to not endorse him in the end.) Plaintif2000 has stated that, because because he feels he clearly demonstrated his vastly and "irrefutable" (My descriptive word, not his) superior qualifications and abilities to all of the the existing board members, he "obviously should have been picked" to be a director. He also has stated that the unsolicited "promotional" Power Point presentation he created and presented to the board is absolutely necessary to the survival of the company. He adds that he is the only person capable of explaining our patent technology to the court. (we don't quite know exactly what he means by that at this time but can guess) Thus he concludes the "obvious breach of duty" of the board (ME in particular because I wouldn't recommend him to the BOD)for not appointing him.
After indicating to me a few days ago of his claim of breach of duty (by me and relating to the above), I responded with a second denial of his (now a) demand. Plaintif2000 then started with his subtle(?) but clear attacks against the existing board under the guise of "his opinion" w/o relating the true reasons of his recent reversal of opinions of the Board.
The board immediately started feeling the effects of P2K's postings and those effects have been very negative in the opinion of the BOD. The BOD feels this action of Plaintif2000 is improper and after discussion I decided that, though he was acting improper, it would be better for the shareholders in this particular case if I, the alleged problem maker by P2K, resigned so that he would be placated and stop what we considered to be damaging and intentional acts against the company (we simply can't afford this "blatant rabble-rousing" at this time). At approximately 1:27 PM this afternoon I sent an offer of resignation to P2K if he would stop these alleged improper actions here on ihub. I then resigned effective 8:00 AM tomorrow eastern time. P2K did not stop his posts and, in fact, appears to have only been emboldened by my "resignation". Subsequently, and in response thereto, I informed the BOD that I rescinded my resignation letter and the BOD accepted that request.
I now leave this up to the members of P2K's choice of venue, this forum, to draw your own conclusions. I might suggest you request that he provide a copy of his resume and his "promotional material" for your evaluation. The BOD has posted its background already in the public filings. You may well agree with him and vote for him by write-in vote in the coming election.
I had asked Ihub admin to block Plaintif2000 and they apparently felt my request did not have merit. Thus I have had to "air some of our dirty laundry" here to deal with this. My personal apologies to members of this forum that we were unable to deal with this in a more appropriate fashion. It was not for lack of trying, indeed I tried every tactic I could to stop it. He is exercising his right to do as he wishes and be held accountable thereto.
No matter what P2K posts from here on out, I will not rebut his statements. That is up to the members of this forum to work out or not. We cannot afford to allow the BOD to be drawn into a protracted discussion on this, or any, subject in this forum.
The independent board members are currently spending about 25 hours a week as it is and all have their own companies to manage at the same time. We are making headway. But I cannot report at this time and in this fashion any further. One thing I can say: this new board will no longer tolerate ANY "self-entitled" entities to enrich themselves at the expense of the shareholders as a whole if there is any way at all we can stop it. That would include parties who attempt to drive down the share price to enrich themselves, monetarily or for any other reason.
In conclusion: P2K's remarks reduce to a simple "this board is no-good because I am not on it". Whether you agree or not is your decision. Just understand it for what it is.
David Williams
Director
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
