Post from another site that just might be on the radar of the investigators as well as A****com. This one from a forum on S****h***e.  Nice to see Pinnacle's response with regard to others involvement.

"Why does a certain element within this posting forum feel the need to remove posts.?  The statements made are very relative as to what is and is not ongoing at ***.  The type of questions being asked are most important to those who are making every attempt to make sense of all this. And yet, the posts continue to be removed for no apparent reason and no answers from S****h***e as to any justification for the censure. 

The close association of what are called by *** themselves as  "related party" activities in their public documents are troubling to say the very least.  The fact that at no time have any of the directors of the company made certain public statements regarding the legitimacy of these close "related party" activities as being a positive benefit to the shareholders of *** to increase value. This is a very worrisome situation for all of the stakeholders of the company. 

There is an abundance of information provided through public disclosure that does not follow any investing rhyme or reason.  A good portion of the financial information both on expenditures as well as the placements appears to not be accurate or have been markedly increased.  The fact that the numbers have not been audited is not an acceptable answer.  The questions continue to pile up every time there is a company update or release of financial information. 

All of these questions can be attributed to the very  same people who by their own actions or inaction have cast a very ominous cloud over the integrity and abilities of *** to be maintained as a public company. We have not seen the shareholders of *** in the front seat  of the bus, only the "related parties" gleaning everything from the top and always in the first position.

Is it not time for the directors of *** to issue a litany of not only what they have been involved in the past as directors of ***, but also the close associations of the their PRIVCOS with ***and the properties that are always mentioned in disclosures.  IS IT NOT TIME FOR A FULL DISCLOSURE??"