Happy, I hope you are not expecting a rational and well thought out response (and certainly no answers) from little gdpec or any of his minions and alter-aliases.
The truth is that there are only a very few of us who have actually spoken to all parties concerned. I have spoken with DL and his attorney and sat across the table from MS and LW and asked questions ... and received answers. Many of those answers were just not satisfactory. Both sides defended their original agreement and both spoke extremely highly of the other side in the beginning.
Early on, I specifically questioned MS about PP's expertise, resources, etc. Both he and LW were all aglow with the reassurances and praise of DL and the PP effort, and were not open to criticism of the arrangement.
Once the rift started, it became all out warfare between the two sides. It was a scenario that was not without precedent. I have seen it before ... de javu all over again.
I believe that you have reported factually and in the most fair and balanced manner. I recall you saying that as long as PP had the same legal representation, you were not overly worried. Recent events have proven that to be 100% correct. You also observed that there seems to be a legitimate contract. Both MS an LW had confirmed that to me.
There is no good party and no bad party ... no saints and no sinners ... both sides have been guilty of multiple transgressions ... the problem is that the shareholders are the ones who are having to pay ... and I'm really getting tired of that happening.
AI
