I thought Squires said the attorney already had it and he was going to call them to see what the holdup is. In my experience, these types of filings are done with extensive involvement of the client, who is the main source of the information. The idea that Squires, essentially the client, claims to have no knowledge of the status of the filing and the reasons for delay trips the BS meter.

Curious that Squires would disclaim responsibility for or ability to influence information on the Pasaca website. Why is he distancing himself and QTMM from the representations of QTMM’s parent company?

Attorneys do not have a busy season. But they do have priorities. If a client is not particularly responsive, or is not making the project their own personal priority, then the project becomes less of a priority to the law firm and it will be punted downhill to junior associates who are not in charge of their own time. They are doing the work that is a priority to the partner who supervises them. A file like this is known as a “dog,” and it’s a “sleeping dog.” That’s where it will remain until it becomes a “barking dog.” The CEO saying the day after the deadline that he will call to see where things are—by definition, a sleeping dog.

Squires’ emails make no affirmative representation of any fact of consequence that can be proved or disproved. The hallmark of a con artist who knows exactly where the line for fraud is and how to dance right on it.

I would expect in 60 to 90 days, we will learn that the Pasaca deal, like all other QTMM deals, has fallen to shit, and they are now litigating Pasaca’s right to use the quantum dot technology and to hire away people from QTMM.

Puravida, I didn’t take you for a sucker. I thought you were just a cheerleader who couldn’t admit when you were wrong. Are you really satisfied with Squires’ email?