I can't tell if you're trying to be deceptive, Mr. Director, or if it just comes naturally.
I can not understand why this is so difficult for you...
Lets go back to the beginning.... It was stated by me after talking with Seth that the private placement in question was done under Rule 144. You began making claims that it could not as there were no previsions for the issuer to issue a private placement under Rule 144.
After several back and froths I sent the question to the attorney. "Can you tell me how TAUG uses Rule 144 to issue private placements.
He then sent back the paragraph I posted to you...in that paragraph at the top it says Rule 144 is a safe harbor that allows the public resale of “restricted” securities originally issued as part of a private placement
He then states down in the middle of the paragraph it is the most common exemption utilized and the one Tauriga typically uses.
Now if you look at the top where it says public resale of restricted securities originally issued as a part of a private placement. Then remember I asked him how how TAUG uses Rule 144 to issue private placements... then in the middle he says this is the part of the Rule 144 that Tauriga typically uses.
How can putting those 3 items together be as difficult as this for you to get that the answer to the original question was and still is "TAUG issued the private placement by using Rule 144"
As for the quote marks I said I had an issue with the first post as it was sent from my phone... then my cut and paste job was a bit off target.
So what we have is this, when Johnny C said he did a private placement I said after consulting with the CEO...we did it using Rule 144... then came the questions and responses that we can not use Rule 144 then after bickering about that I asked the attorney who then sent the section of Rule 144 over he uses and in it he stated this is how Tauriga typically does it utilizing Rule 144.
And your still struggling with it for some reason. We use Rule 144 to issue private placements..PERIOD, you may not like it, you may not think we can, you may want to hear a different answer and to put back to you what you suggested I do..you may want to re-read this as may times as needed to understand it... Mr. Investor
And in particular you should read what you said here: "There is nothing in that entire sentence, the sentence that you told me to look at, that has a damn thing to do with Rule 144. " then go back to the very top of the paragraph and re-read where it says this Rule 144 is a safe harbor that allows the public resale of “restricted” securities originally issued as part of a private placement (i.e. an offering not registered with the SEC). There are a number of requirements that must be met under Rule 144 before a restrictive legend can be removed and are different depending whether the shareholder is an affiliate or not The whole damn paragraph is about Rule 144, so yes the sentence I told you to look at, where he says TAUG uses this portion of this section regarding Rule 144... its all about Rule 144. I would say its not me trying to be deceptive, it more you looking to be argumentative.... Take care, you and I are done here. You have the answer to the question you asked....if it does not suit you give the SEC a call and tell them you think we are using Rule 144 where we shouldn't be... maybe they can get thru to you.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
