just to make clear that it is, unfortunately, still almost entirely conjecture. 1. Maybe the indicted Plummer is a different person from our Plummer. 2. Even if not, the allegations in the indictment may be false and he could be exonerated. 3. Even if all true, no evidence that this has anything to do with the energy subsidiary of our company which may be completely legitimate. 4. The release of the indictment came 10 days after the resignations. I made the deduction that they knew earlier and that this is the real reason the three officers resigned. I could be wrong, however.
Just to note, perhaps as the devil's advocate, that it is a common response among shareholders of failed companies to assume fraud. This is very true here as two recent posts have implied this going back a long time. Others have believed this for years. I have argued all along that such was NOT the case, that there are many reasons for failure other than fraud - miscalculations of various kinds. And here we have the most damning circumstantial evidence in the history of the company that fraud may have been involved after all. While the case has yet to be firmed up, it may be the case that our officers had fallen into the grips of a dishonest person in recent months. Even if true, this does not demonstrate that the years long affairs of the company had been fraudulent all along. That I do not accept.
