I found this paragraph below as sticking out to me, and perhaps showing that we are definitely not alone in thinking that we may not be protected by the very institutions that proclaim this type of protection. The first sentence says as much. And this is very like our present problem. After many letters sent to these institutions and many more bodies, we see no action, and jaws drop wondering why. So when you see no action on what appears to be blatant problems with management, and our pleas for help are ignored, what is one left to believe the reason for this may be?

I guess we are well justified in a casual belief that perhaps our whole system is corrupt. At least this may explain the non action. By the judge tackling the latest case from a technical standpoint, he denied our voice from being heard and also indirectly condoned the argument that allowed it. My expectations from the particular judge, were to recognize the real issue here, the discarding of a majority opinion, instead he decided to ignore the strong voice, by looking at a technicality that pushed and didn,t even allow the rights thing into the picture. It may suggest to me, that he didn,t want to deal with it, and decided perhaps to take a less complicated way out.

I also guess, that if we look at the documentation presented to the BCSC, TSX Exchange and even IIROC, by us shareholders, that these institutions see nothing wrong as well. Even though they mention the laws. policies and guidlines that our problems seem to contradict, we see inaction, and to see inaction suggests that they condone this behaviour by our management as acceptable. This is where a lot of head shaking comes in, as many investors and others look on in disbelief. This is what allows one to think that these institutions may have a corrupt factor alive and well within.

It is also very interesting in seeing the justice that granted an injunction against me for posting supposed allegations, to Lori. In doing this, the justice relied on no imput from me, and took a stance that the allegations were supposedly untrue. Even though there is much evidence to back up any allegations and this has not be proven by a court process, how could the justice rule that the allegations were "unfounded" orv even untrue? Would this not be a biased decision? I cannot see how a justice could have taken that stance, with only one side of the story, and not knowing if the supposed allegations were true or not.

Lets look at the political aspect of the below paragraph for a minute. We have sent numerous letters to numerous politicians, directly and indirectly tied to the justice system and protective institutions, inaction, no replies, except for Jim Flaherty. What does this tell us? For me, it tells me that politicians don,t even care and more so, don,t care about the voters of their individual ridings. It tells me that, your concerns are non of your elected officials concerns, so why then are these representitives even in office, if they are not there for the people? Are they only there to collect their pays and forget any obligations they may have to the people that allowed them to receive that pay, by voting for them?

We see in our financials, a ~$7000 per day travel expense incurred by our company for the latest 3 month period of Nov 2012 - Feb 2013. This is an exploration company that has and had, a precariously low treasury for many months now, this type of extreme expenditure alone, is enough to warrant any investigation by the so called protectors of these markets. Do the protectors really think that this kind of action is in the best interests of shareholders and inline with fudiciary duty?

It looks at this time that the above mentioned has failed us as protectors, we have one chance left out of that list, the RCMP. If they fail us, there are still many more avenues that are accessible in the future to see that justice is served. As more and more institutions fail us, it only adds to the amount of those that may be held accountable or responsible at a later date, when are the individuals of these protective services gonna realize that and help us? Surely there are some in these areas that understand a victims perspective, it is a requisite of their job.

"After surveying 114,000 people across 107 countries, the group found that people have the least amount of trust in institutions meant to protect them. In 36 countries, respondents said they viewed the police as the most corrupt, 20 countries saw the judiciary as the worst, and 51 countries saw political parties as the most corrupt institution."

IMO