It's not difficult for me at all. You continue to misrepresent your own attorney's communication. He is not referring to Rule 144 when he says "it is the most common exemption utilized and the one Tauriga typically uses." I can only conclude from your persistence that you are ignoring the phrase "Under Section 4(a)(2)" intentionally. You have now left it out of two posts in spite of the fact that it is critical to what your lawyer is telling you. No reasonable person could take the full response from your own attorney and conclude that it meant that "the private placement in question was done under Rule 144." It does not say that and that is not true.
Ask him about it. Do NOT rely on your own instincts and reading abilities, unless it is your purpose to continue to provide misinformation to this board.
I have one last comment to offer you on this issue: If you are persisting in this nonsense out of some belief that the CEO couldn't possibly have been wrong about it you should consider doing the kind of independent thinking that shareholders have a right to expect from an independent director. Whether you believe that the private placement in question was done under Rule 144 because you don't understand the issue or because you feel that your CEO couldn't possibly have misled you about it doesn't matter as long as you accept this....it's not true.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
