Thank you and appreciate the clarification. One ar

Thank you and appreciate the clarification. One area we may disagree on is that Pestell not voting until he proves his innocence. The burden is actually on the company. This is labor law...not criminal or civil.

What if the determination to fire Pestell was ultimately to prevent him exercising his voting power to oust Nader and this was a preventative move? I’m not saying that is the case but if there is truly a a disagreement on the direction of the company and the priorities, Nader knows he could lose. If so, eradicating the threat would seem like a plausible strategy.

For Pestell to make those accusations in a court filing could bring severe consequences if they’re knowingly false...that’s why I believe the truth may be somewhere in the middle but tips a bit toward Pestell for me. Not a Nader fan and I just look at the company value,’which has been obliterated in the last few years. If he’s gets the credit, he must take the blame.

In short, I think Pestell gets to vote while case is active or postpone vote until it is. Nader will certainly know where he stands and the confidence of the SH and BOD after the vote.