Not speaking as an attorney,lawyer or Esq, but let me give you my feedback on the issue.  To the point, when 2 people do not see eye to eye, WE are in for a fireworks, sometimes.  When 2 folks do not agree to the same terms, then usually 1 is wrong and 1 is right. 

Then we can have it as is often the case 1 is beligerant against the other and the other 1 is thusly very offended and the beligerant 1 will continue to harass the person offended.  That is where we are at, but let me clarify the numbers #1 then #2.  Number 1 is Mr. Beligerant(the offender), he has to have his way or #2 gets the highway.  Now #2 only wants to preserve what is his creation,HM, an asset that was fully his creation and under his tutaledge from the very start, but Mr.Beligerant pulled off a "COUP" to overtake thru manipulations, that which was #2s legacy.  The question is HOW did we end up in the middle of this crazy mess and the one that appears as the creator of the "COUP" is thee "ceo" as we speak.  Many shareholders do not want a transition of the CEO office as the former CEO all in all was very consistant in His endeavors in Az&Ak to promote LBSR.   Somehow Mr.Beligerant masterminded this "COUP" and Mr.2 is rightly very offended by Mr.1s slight of hand/the offense.