I have read through the last batch of posts and decided to address them all here starting with auntierooski.

It always bothered me in the way Gowling emphasized they do not work for us opt-ins from the start and yet we have exposed perhaps as many shares to their control as do the "committee'. They say emphatically that they do not answer to us and hence don't bother asking any questions. But a fair question to me is "How many shares have opt-in committed?"  I"m sure the "committee" have been told. I would like to know the number. No need to keep it secret at this stage. This would give us some idea what our potential payout might be if Gowling succeeds on our behalf to increase our percentage of distribution.

Auntie you have made a lot of assumptions in this post. You are correct that Gowlings doesn't represent opt-ins. The committee represents opt-ins and what ever the committee gets the opt ins get. It was answered earlier in part that they can't be wasting resorces answering 200 or 300 or what ever number opt ins there are questions. That is why bmh suggested everyone contact Justin Fine. His contact information is listed at the Gowling site I think.

Has anyone here ever received a direct answer from questions relating to our participation except to be told "We do not work for you."

I doubt that you actually got an email from Gowlings with the words we don't work for you. If you did send in a question they may have responded like you say but my guess is they would have directed you to Justin Fine for answers.

Having reached this stage in the proceedings is there a cut off lockedin/lockedout where you can't cancel your opt-in anymore and no one else can become an opt-in participant?  If for example before  the beginning stages of disbursement opt-outs find they are excluded from a greater percentage and then  say "Hey -I want in now" can they do so?  This new list of opt-ins at the last minute would dilute our take home pay but increase Gowling's. Would they accept these new opt-ins?  (They have a rule that says they do not have to accept anybody's nor everybody's share offered as an opt-in - seems like if they don't like you they can cut you out)

To the best of my knowledge there is no cut off date. Remember the committee and Gowlings wanted to represent everyone by using an opt out methos which wasn't allowed thus the opt in process. Another possible reason for the opt ins being informed they are not represented by Gowlings is the more people they represent the more conflicts in direction that may take place. Gowling and the committee seem to have a strategy on how to proceed. If Gowling had to wait until all shareholders decided to opt in or not we would all be sitting here still waiting. Also all shareholders whether they opy in or not will probably get the same amount if Gowling is successful. The judge at some point may turn this into a class action so everyone is represented and pays the same fees. (only fair way IMO) Opt ins and committee members would get more if a deal was struck with Tenor for those shareholders. Don't know if it will happen or not or what form it would take.

On the other hand, suppose we find out we will not get special attention of an exclusive greater percentage, can we send a letter saying we want out of the opt-in group?  Does it work both ways?  There has to be a lock down at some point.

I believe those things are covered in the opt in agreement. Some people earlier talked about being on the hook for money to Gowlings. Gowlings is not doing this for free. It costs money and they need to be paid especially if they are successful. I believe there are clauses that cover if some one like yourself said thanks for doing all this work just before our settlement win is distriibuted but I have chosen to opt out and not pay you. Actually this might qualify you for CEO of crystallex. Like any other business Gowling needs to be paid. The fact they are footing the bill themselves and will only get paid if they are successful should be all you need to opt in and help the cause.

Gowling should voluntarily come out with something to us opt-ins soon. No ponit in me writing them a letter about my qustions because I would get the same response "We don't work for you and don't have to answer to you".

Again I'm guess you are not using actual quotes even though you have them in quotation marks. If these are real quotes please share them with us and send a copy to Justin Fine.

We are talking in the millions of dollars and our millions of opt-in shares and we should be respected for our risk.

Agree and Gowlings should be respected for their risk of capitol to take this case on a consignment basis. That is what we are doing by opting in.

JJ