Its plain to see that management has its stooges consistently planted here,trying to sway the opinion of reality. No, investor would even attempt to come on this forum and condone actions of management or policy that is totally against investor/shareholders best interests, as well as public best interests. They are so vain as to continuously promote an idea that all is well with their actions and that it must be accepted by shareholders. They have failed to recognize the real problem and are actually oblivious to democratic policy that is incorporated into law. They do not understand that their actions are not contained to a box anymore,that in the past, consisted of investor getting taken advantage of, nothing done, the next lot of new investors preyed upon, and the circle within the box continued. While focusing on the old way, they were ignorant to the things happening outside their scope of view. The very laws that have enabled investors to be taken advantage of in the past, will be the same laws that spell the demise of the past and will bring down the very ones that manipulated these laws for their own selfish benefit.

In the box, accountability is never assigned, its when you go outside the box, that the realization hits, that accountability must be placed somewhere. This accountability can be placed at the bottom, or it can be placed at the top, this is the choice of the ones that become accountable in the end. The more times that accountability is passed, the more valuable it becomes into associated with the initial cost. For instance, had the BOD been detained at the AGM, accountability would have taken care of itself and placed. The non enforcement allowed the accountability to attract value as time progressed and now has become substantially more than what the original value ever was, as attributions of spin off effects enter the picture. Not only can someone be sued for the couple hundred million lost off the market cap, but also any incurred and accrued damages suffered over time, monetary and personal as well.

Lori seemed like a compassionate and fair person prior to 2010, doing what was an amazing job at helping build a very strong company with considerable assets. One rumour has her helping a waitress in a restaurant, by giving her options, this was a compassionate gesture, and an act of kindness. What has transpired since 2010 in this company, certainly does not contain any respect, consideration or compassion towards shareholders, the very backbone of this company. For the continued neglect of addressing shareholders concerns, only shows and enhances the perspective of the BOD,s intent, they don,t care for shareholders concerns. This very action contradicts policy put in place for the protection of shareholders by regulators, exchanges, governments and even constitutional wise.

I find it interesting that Lori was doing a great job with this company before the 2010 Quantec geophysical report, and what appears as coincidental timing of Jeff Ruskowsky and Bob Lachance coming on the scene around that time. I further find it very interesting that Bob Lachance decides he and some other investors are getting out of SLI after Murry,s trip to China, when rumour has it, that Bob Lachance himself was in Texas prior to the trip, helping set up the China trip. I am leaning towards Lori being influenced by these individuals and possibly being led astray.

I also say, I was definitely not happy with the appointment of Don Bastien and Paul Macdonald, out of Montreal or that region, to our BOD. As we know, Bob Lachance is from or resides in that area, Montreal, and I believe that the two above directors are aquaintances or friends of Bobs. Shareholders never had the opportunity to vote for these directors, whereas they were appointed by Lori upon resignations in Jan 2012, and subsequently, the majority of sharehiolders were unable to vote against them at the last AGM, because our votes were thrown out by the CEO that took the Chair of the AGM. So, in reality, the BOD is entrenched, with shareholders denied their right, at least twice now, of approving or disapproving the entrenched board which is contradictory to the majority of shareholders best interests. Where the TSX or Securities Commission has not intervened, it can be considered aiding and abetting such actions against shareholders best interests as well as the publics best interests, where they have been assigned authority to uphold integrity of the markets in this respect.

Whistleblower policies are attainable by those who wish to utilize them, the choice is still there. Sometimes whistleblower provisions allow for immunity and/or rewards. I would guess, that some of the first scapegoats to be thrown under the bus by the big guy/s trying to squirm away, may be the online posters that are sometimes hired to do a job for the big guys. Or who knows, perhaps this time may be different, where no perpetrator goes unscathed? Food for thought. I should add here, when will it be realized that intimidation does not work with me, as well as others.

Note, I have also heard a rumour that a shareholder may have been coerced into giving testimony. Coersion is a crime and is punishable by law in Canada.

IMO

thank you

love,

rick