Replies to post #39670 on Tauriga Sciences Inc (fka TAUG)

[plutoniumimplosion]

Seth, telling Mr. Berman that your lawyer believes that you can get a settlement two or three times what the insurer offered, is a foolhardy use of the shareholders' money. If this case of yours goes to trial you'll never see anything because you screwed up a settlement and now your opponent is entitled to frustrate you until the ends of the earth. You won't go to trial in November (more like next May or June), it will be a judge hearing your case not a jury. The ruling by the judge, even if it is $1 in your favor will be appealed and you'll be long, long gone by then, no settlement check, no merger, no company. Shareholders need to know this because all of the positive posters on this message board are your guys and as biased as the paid consultant that actually calls the shots for TAUG.

[rawman]

your opinion that Seth Shaw would have automatically failed in his efforts as CEO (which is far from certain), is not an excuse for deceptive, and dishonest behavior from any type of professional service provider

It would most interesting to see anywhere in any post where I opined "Seth Shaw would have automatically failed"! It might be a real possibility, but, BTW...it has never been posted!

The poster is attempting to justify damages by combining two entirely different conditions. First, was Cowan deceptive and dishonest? That is for a court to decide! Go for it! And second, trying to connect Cowan's independence error to the SPECULATIVE POSSIBILITY THAT TAUG COULD HAVE PERHAPS COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF SUSTAINED BUSINESS, is also for the court to decide, but based upon Seth Shaw's history of 100% failures as TAUG's CEO and VP of Strategic Development, this argument probably will NOT go well! If this claim does not go well, then the claim that Cowan caused the OTCQB downgrade will not go well either!

Shaw's miserable track record during his time with TAUG, will definitely work against factoring in the "I coulda been a star" argument in determining potential damages! Most judges would look at the damage claim, which would be based upon a HOPE, i.e. "SPECULATION", "PERHAPS", "COULD HAVE", "POSSIBILITY", etc., and say "WHY?"

Seth Shaw's answer to this question about his inability to build a sustained TAUG business, when posed by the defense, while Shaw is parked on the witness stand, might be most enlightening!