Hey Dyna: What's going on...lemme play Devil's advocate for a second.. you said <There is not a June 2005 contract. Are you really referring to the April 2005 contract which should have been nothing more than a CXO NY/DE name change from the June 2004 agreement?>..
What if there was more than just the name change for their partnership/corp. that was signed??? Then doesn;t it become a question of who signed what and when and then ultimately WHO FILED IT...".. and Yes I would bet that is why everybody is lawyering up....Again I'm no attorney and I haven;t read everything in entirety..but I would bet this is the heart of the matter..the allegation being the outside guys were trying to sweeten the pot on the fly...that sort of thing...Again consider the source...I try to look at the big picture..On the whole...This has only been going on for a short while and I'm already sick of it....Regards Leitrim