I rarely get to this board anymore, as I hold only a small number of shares these days. The SH "virtual meeting " announcement prompted me to review some virtual SH meeting information below. While some of the numbers are a few years old, and the numbers of companies holding virtual only SH meetings has increased some - it's still a very small number. With apologies to the the fishing enthusiasts on this board this decision just shows what truly gutless Bass Turds the PTSC board consists of. While getting a list of questions put together here is a good idea prior to the April 15 deadline . . . . I wouldn't have very high expectations for this BOD to actually address any of the really "tough questions". Take care & GLTAL.

According to Tim Smith, senior vice president at Walden Asset Management. In fact, virtual-only SHM's are almost unanimously considered a strong negative by nearly all shareholder advocacy & corporate governance organizations.
On the other hand, having a hybrid meeting whereby a virtual option is offered in addition to the traditional face to face meetings is strongly supported. In 2009 only 1 company held a virtual-only meeting, and in 2010 just 13. This isn't an area where PTSC should be looking to be on the cutting edge! Review the debacle virtual-only SHM held by Symantec in 2010 using Broadridge and you can understand why they reverted back to a hybrid meeting in 2011.

http://www.insideinvestorrelations.com/a...

“ . . . When – if ever – is a virtual-only meeting acceptable?”

“ . . . The answer is never, responds Tim Smith, senior vice president at Walden Asset Management, which filed resolutions against virtual-only meetings at Intel and P&G. He says institutional investors are keen on virtual meetings as an add-on to physical ones, but most don’t want virtual-only meetings – even for routine agendas. If a company starts doing virtual-only meetings, what’s to prevent it from continuing when circumstances change for the worse?”

“ . . . He adds that the Council of Institutional Investors has called virtual-only meetings poor governance practice and he expects governance ratings firms to weigh in with negative scores for companies that adopt them.”

“ . . .The annual meeting is the only time of the year when boards need to face shareholders directly and virtual meetings should not be used to insulate directors from those that they represent.”

“ . . . As we worked to feed online participants’ views into the live discussion, it dawned on me that Louria Hahn and I were probably the most powerful people at the meeting: we could prioritize, rephrase or ignore questions; we could disguise a questioner’s identity or reveal it when we weren’t supposed to. We could have made everything up."

http://irwebreport.com/20100331/virtual-...

“. . . Broadridge and the transfer agents have a poor track record of providing good online user experiences. And until directors and executives are willing to interact online with shareholders before, during and after the meetings, investors really don’t have an incentive to get involved.”

Fut- good to see 3 of your friends came out multiple times to thumbs-up you! I think it's only right that agora offer an alternate digit response.

More than 3 million shares Naked Shorted in past 6 trading days according to this site.

http://otcshortreport.com/PTSC

Historical Naked Short Selling Data For PTSC

Date
VolShorted
High
Low
Close
Chg
ShortVol
RegularVol

loading ...

6-Dec
33.36%
0.17
0.13
0.17
30.77%
886,118
2,656,148

5-Dec
22.00%
0.15
0.12
0.13
-7.14%
297,000
1,350,279

4-Dec
31.06%
0.15
0.13
0.14
16.67%
639,622
2,059,063

3-Dec
29.57%
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.00%
271,366
917,650

30-Nov
36.46%
0.13
0.1
0.12
20.00%
854,425
2,343,559

29-Nov
69.20%
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.00%
353,666
511,080

28-Nov
67.30%
0.1
0.09
0.1
11.11%
39,000
57,951

27-Nov
26.12%
0.1
0.09
0.09
-10.00%
127,900
489,669

26-Nov
0%
0.11
0.09
0.1
0.00%
0
76,500

23-Nov
52.72%
0.11
0.09
0.1
0.00%
181,500
344,250

21-Nov
23.71%
0.1
0.09
0.1
11.11%
20,000
84,350

20-Nov
6.82%
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.00%
8,178
119,928

19-Nov
7.52%
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.00%
22,090
293,623

16-Nov
40.54%
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.00%
290,500
716,580

15-Nov
12.75%
0.09
0.08
0.09
12.50%
59,173
464,173

14-Nov
39.14%
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.00%
167,228
427,228

See my August 30 post as to my guess on Allocations . . . that would be:

- Country club dues & greens fees

- The BOD meeting fees plus the "wager"

- Daisy's Bar tab.

I'd LOL but it stopped being funny a long time ago. Some here like to talk about higher prices for MMP licensing- but based on our prior experience I only expect that to mean that DL will find a way to siphon even more off in "expenses" or deflect it to other licenses in his portfolio. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but until I see evidence on one of the 10Q's that's how I believe it will play out.

Someone inadvertently sent me a copy of the minutes from a past BOD Meeting- I'm still trying to verify accuracy - so FWIW:

Patriarch Scientific Corporation Board Meeting

March 20, 2010

CF: "Call to order - I move that our thressome plus guest DL meets corporate bylaw requirements for a quorum for this quarterly BOD meeting."

GF: "seconded - and noted that the ladies tees at this club provide an insufficient yardage inducement for me to verify & feel comfortable that my handicap adequately covers your advantage - as a result I'm requesting an additional 3 shots per side."

CF: "all in favor"

GF, CF, CJ - "aye"

DL: "aye"

CF: "DL you don't get a vote - GF is our forensic accountant and we have to take her word that she's comfortable"

DL: - "OK - but I have the utmost trust in her opinion - GF is a hardworking gal and if she says she needs 3 shots a side . . . well bye-gum I think she should get them"

CF: "OK - 1st order of business - please don't talk during my backswing - I have significant expenses and a daughter going off to college and can't really afford to cover our wager. 2nd - we keep hearing from our message board informants that the SH's are getting increasingly restless- and there are behind the scenes conversations going on about a potential lawsuit over our fiduciary responsibilities. I'm concerned such talk might slay this golden cow of ours before we've milked it dry."

DL: "Well sue me - that ought to quiet them down for awhile and buy us some more time"

CJ: taking a foot wedge from behind pine tree "That's a great idea DL what better way for us to demonstrate that we're on top of things & being good stewards than to sue our MA partner."

DL: "Not a real suit mind you - you'll withdraw it after a respectable amount of time has elapsed - of course all details of the settlement will remain confidential -yuk, yuk"

CJ: "exactly - & it will take the sheep another year or two to deduce that nothing's changed in our little arrangement."

DL: "yep - and then there's always an ITC filing and continued CA court delays to raise false hopes and buy us even more time"

CF: " ok all in favor of filing suit against DL"

CF,GF, CJ & DL: - "aye"

CF: - "DL - you can't vote to sue yourself even if it was your idea"

CJ: - As he watches DL line up an 8 ft. putt - "that's good DL" . . . OK next our executive compensation committee has to meet to discuss CF's bonus - DL & CF cover your ears."

GF: "Well CJ the terms of CF's agreement calls for up to a 50% bonus - that seems fair"

CJ: "well typically these annual bonuses are tied to meeting our numbers"

GF: "my numbers look pretty good this year"

CJ: "mine too - but then there's that pesky little issue of the SP"

GF: "oh yeah - I guess it wouldn't look too good if we gave hime the full 50% - let's make it say 48% - how about a flat $145k"

CJ: "OK - but based on the pace of our court proceedings we might have to knock that down to 40% next year"

GF: "yea I can see that"

CJ: "OK, CF & DL you can uncover your ears. CF - I think based on the just concluded compensation meeting you should be OK to cover our little wager."

DL: " nonsense - we've discussed a number of legal issues - this is a legitimate TPL expense"

CF: " I think that's it - motion to adjourn to the 19th hole"

GF: "seconded - I saw Daisy's behind the bar and she mixes a mean martini"

CF: "all in favor"

CF, GF, CJ, DL: "aye"

CF: "DL - you don't get to vote - but as long as TPL is on the clock - would you mind setting up the tab with Daisy"

Again- not sure why someone sent me this - & I'm still trying to verify - so take it for what it's worth.

The last two days with relatively little total volume the short volume % was nearly 60%. Yesterday's totals are below. Could be someone selling short into the modest buying interest to keep a lid on SP, or maybe someone knows something the retail crowd isn't privy to?

Historical Shorting

Date
VolShorted
High
Low
Close
Chg
ShortVol
RegularVol

28-Aug
64.63%
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.00%
174,349
269,745