My Dear Friends,

In order to be successful in law and recover from a market manipulator that inflicts definable loss, I feel you must be a going concern in the business that is manipulated. The manipulation must cost your business measurable value such as cap value and/or reputation that forms the ability to finance among others. The method of manipulation must be against the rules of the game. In this sense the regulator need not enforce the regulation, but if the regulation is there and violated the rules of the game have been violated for profit by inflicting injury on your business. The way to proceed against the manipulator is not via securities law but rather by common commercial code. In this sense your lead counsel will advance from violation of commercial code while your securities attorney will prove that the tactics are "against the rules of the game" regardless of whether those rules were enforced by the present referees.

I have had great success in various aspects of the gold business from analysis, mining to trading. There is one job left to be done, and that is to seek redress from the manipulator of gold and gold shares that seeks to profit by destruction of the commercial viability of a business using market manipulation and dirty tricks. These are not real short sellers. They are destroyers of the commercial viability of businesses utilizing means that run afoul of the rules of the game even if the present referees prefer not to enforce what is without any doubt set in cement by law. It is first a commercial common law violation which seeks to profit by short sales. If I can get redress from those that have attacked an entity in which I am directly evolved my life will have meant something in the little corner of the world of finance that I live. To this end, I am totally dedicated. This does not fit the form of a class action, but might set very important precedent for participants in the production of gold and silver.

"A trader may lawfully engage in the sharpest competition with those in like businesses by holding out extraordinary inducements, by representing his own wares to be better and cheaper than those of others, [but] when he oversteps that line and commits an act with the malicious intent of inflicting injury upon his rival’s business, his conduct is illegal, and, if damage results from it, the injured party is entitled to redress."

"To prevail on a claim, a plaintiff must prove that it had a reasonable expectation of economic benefit in an actual or prospective business relationship that was lost as a direct result of a third party’s malicious interference, and that it suffered some loss."

"The difficulty rests in determining whether the interference was “malicious” or a justified competitive conduct. Certainly, the line is clearly drawn at fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal conduct. But what about the “sharpest competition” that does not quite reach that level? In those cases, the courts use a flexible standard. “Malicious interference” means conduct both “injurious and transgressive of generally accepted standards of common morality or of law;” in other words, it must be outside of the “rules of the game.”