We have heard mention of a roll back many months ago by the infamous "slimesight" on the Stockhouse SLI forum. Was this a preconcieved notion by that poster, or does it hold merit? There are some that believe the "slimesight " poster, may in fact be Bob Lachance. Bob Lechance has become known to many investors as an important figure in SLI and also IGD operations.

As we see the stock price kept consistently below the .05 range, it makes one wonder why. We know the TSX has record of whoever is providing a market in the shares of SLI, and we also know that share price manipulation is illegal, or supposed to be.

If a convenient stock price of less than .05 justifies or helps justify a roll back, then many more questions arise with the Exchanges "mitigation of risk" towards the SLI investors. It has already been established that the biggest percentage of share holders were not happy with management and had voted to change management. Even though in the course of the proceedings, 91% of voted shares were tossed out, it still subsequently revealed an event that is portrayed and recognized under the "take over bid" provisions. There are several rules under these provisions that must be enforced and recognized by the Exchange, under the provisions of protection of shareholders as well as "mitigation of risk".

By jumping back to the start of this post, it would appear that an orchestrated event was conceived a long time ago, when the stock was above the .05, if "slimesight" is Bob Lachance. Then the question would be, why would anyone proceed to devastate a stock price, to do a roll back? If control of the company could be gained this way, then an orchestrated attempt would be explained. But, we enter other areas of complication and contradiction with TSX rules, which should, under protective provisions towards shareholders, render any attempt useless and expose it for what it really may be. And to see non action by the Exchange in this regard, would only further implicate the Exchange in any future proceedings, a risk I cannot really see the Exchange, or owners of, taking. There are other legal implications surrounding such a scenario that I will not engage at this time.

I would also like to point out here that Lori, in the past, had what appears to be an aquaintance, whose company went on to participate in the manufacturing and technology that goes into the digital trading recorders that banks and institutions must have employed as record keeping and also as a back up to digital trading records. These boxes record all trades out of all accounts and are correlated to the respective account holders ,as well as any PO,s, MM,s or members of any market making activity. There are records kept. Under the freedom of information act, these may be able to be requested by shareholders to review and as evidence if needed in any future. I say this because of the blatant "tree shake" our stock took in Jan 2012.

The prolonged PP is a very curious event also, placing a convenience for Lori, to stall an AGM, and again, contrary perhaps to certain provisions of the Exchange. To see the Exchange allowing these "contradictory to shareholders best interests" things to occur with no intervention, after what appears to be blatant exploitation in at least the sale of our Cueva Blanca, suggests again, the Exchanges approval for shareholders to be treated as such by the current BOD. I will add here that I requested if an MI 61-101 was filed upon the notification of sale of the C.B. with the Exchange, with no response from the Exchange.The importance of that filing is the valuation placed on the Cueva Blanca because of provisions that it also may complicate. And whereas there was an historical estimate on the C.B., this had to be revealed and disclosed in any valuation, regardless if the estimate was official or not.It had to be disclosed in the news release that specified the sale. At possible 200,000 ounces of gold and 1 million ounces of silver, a huge complication occurs that cannot be ignored by the Exchange, especially in regards to shareholders best interests, this is where the blatant exploitation enters the picture. For a property being sold under the every day business concept by the BOD, that in fact was most likely the flag ship property, it could not be executed in the manner that it was, and may have to be recinded and brought back to shareholders, to uphold integrity of the Exchange. There is no way the sale of the C.B. for that amount of $100,000 k can be justified. :)

It was my understanding that the AGM had to be held before year end, with 45 days notice given. We should have been notified several days ago if this was the case. I believed the AGM had to be held within the calander year this time and that the 15 month exception would not apply. A review of the provisions/regs are due again I guess.