http://prestigeauditing.com/about-the-owner/ and linkedin.
Interesting how 2 people you are banking on to make you money right now since smiling-man.jpg/president is running your lawsuit and Adam Matlack/partner went into business with the guy who ran the data center where all of your hashlets were located.
This link shows that Matlack partnered with Shinners, and that Mordica partnered with Shinners. I guess that makes them partners together, but it doesn't indicate that Matlack trusts Mordica, endorses Mordica, or engages in a direct partnership with Mordica. I guess you could say they have parallel status since each one is chose to partner with Shinners, but that's really not the same as choosing to partner with each other.
The link doesn't tell me the nature of the partnership at all. Maybe there's a profit sharing arrangement, but if so, that would seem to derive from Shinner's telecom auditing practice. Is there any reason to believe Shinner's auditing practice is anything other than above-board? (I mean besides the fact that you think Shinners should not choose to partner with Mordica.)
Suppose Matlack sees Shinners as someone good at his job and they have some mutual benefit for each other. And suppose Mordica also sees some benefit to partnering with Shinners. Should Matlack rescind his partnership with Shinners just because Mordica also sees his own partnership with Shinners as a good business opportunity?
The main liability for Matlack in partnering with Shinners seems to be that heroes on bitcointalk will say, "Gotcha! Matlack partnered with Mordica. It looks bad... Or at least, can be made to seem bad." But the logic by which it looks bad is faulty, and relies upon readers not really paying attention to the facts.
As far as I know, Mordica has no involvement with the ionomy.com project and never has. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?
Shinners is running a lawsuit now? I thought Shinners tried to organize a class action lawsuit comprised of people who believe they were unlawfully mistreated by GAW. Wouldn't it be a law firm conducting the suit, not Shinners? Who exactly is banking on Shinners? and in what way?