You guys had 30,000 in funds from clients? 30,000 what?

I'm not even starting by questioning whether someone could embezzle 30,000 something from you, but I have to start by wondering what it is that you're supposed to have's 30,000 of.

After all, your website looks like something out of the late 90s. It has a media player which is strictly right out of the book basic JavaScript embed and reminds me of those heady days of yesteryear when people thought that streaming their own radio station was going to end up with big bucks. (I remember those days. I was part of those days.)

Even by Internet radio standards, this is pretty weak sauce. No playlist of recently played tracks, no ability to request things from your archives when there's no live show planned – all pretty basic stuff for Internet radio as of 10 years ago.

Not to mention the header image which has a broken bottom shading underneath the embedded player if your browser is running 1920 x 1080.

These are bush league design errors that I've talked first year design students around.

So I'll reiterate – what could an employee of your site take 30,000 of from "clients?" It certainly can't be USD, or I'll have to ask why it wasn't invested into a solid web design company instead of whoever did this mess.

And if you're going to link to an article which supposedly describes what's going on, you probably ought to at least make sure that it resolves to an actual post and/or article on your site instead of giving:

ParseError thrown

syntax error, unexpected '<', expecting end of file

I don't want to suggest that you have a credibility gap here, because that would be to imply that you have any credibility at all.

Like I said, minor-league web design stuff. If you want me to believe that Lori walked away with 30,000 of anything that you owned, first you have to convince me that anyone would trust you with 30,000 something. Maybe 30,000 US pennies (which for those reading this outside of the US would come out to be $300 USD). Still, I subscribe to the belief that an significant claim requires significant evidence, not just naked assertion.

You know, if we cared about truth. We may not.