Santa, I gave you a thumbs up for your post, in case you wonder where it came from. I decided to thumbs you because I appreciate and respect the time you have taken to present your perspective clear and concise, and perhaps from a legal perspective as well. But, as for any perspective, it is limited to the knowledge derived to produce the presentation. Having said that, perspectives change constantly dependent upon the amount of information available for construction, and if one wishes to entertain and incorporate new information into the perspective. A vague perspective involves so many variable linear paths, while a perspective in progress, constantly grows and changes, perhaps limiting the linear timelines that it can occupy, and thus narrowing to a refined point.

1) Transfer of property, I agree that Lloyd may be safe from harm in the respect that the title transfers are within the legal confines of applicable and pertaining law, however,if part of a bigger picture, the legalities could change. Even while under contract to SLI, although the transfers may seem unethical, they still are not illegal. In any investigative proceedure though, these types of transactions are considered red flags and prompts further investigation to encapsulate them within the realm of merit or not. I would elaborate perhaps more on what may be a distintive red flag in respect to these transactions. I am not sure if I remember correctly, without verifying it at this time, but it seems to me that perhaps the North Rim property may have been transfered from Jeff Ruskowsky to Lloyd, then to SLI in the same day. Regardless of the transfer track in this particular transfer, the amount of $235,000 for that property may represent some problems with justification by SLI. It appears there was no technical report nor historic data from that property released to the shareholders and/or public at, or shortly after the time of aquisition, what justifies that type of value paid for a property, when base recorded properties for SLI appear to be much lower?. In terms of perhaps material or even a creation of value for shareholders, many things seem absent. I detect a familiarity of contractual service as well as perhaps management skills in your writing, so I feel comfortable in believing, that you understand and can expand upon this yourself. I should comment that in the course of investigation, that a non paper trail can be as bad as having a paper trail that suggests crime. It is a responsibility for each party to a transaction to keep proper records to ascertain a legal position, it is not acceptable to declare oblivion in such matters if they enter certain courts.

2) too many properties, hindsight in the discussion of this matter should not be included, whereas it may misconstrue or bias the opinion. I agree its a matter of opinion, and perhaps an honorable and/or admirable venture on SLI managements part to enhance value for its shareholders. However, there is a degree of strategy that becomes apparent in this practise, and upon execution and even non execution, depicts perhaps intent and motive. Meaning, that a resource should have been defined to establish a base value for a company before building further. Example, its futile to build a 10 story house upon a foundation that could collapse from the weight of one story. This is the problem that is indicative of so many pump and dump schemes and easily allows one to identify red flags, when there is never no concrete value created. In SLI,s position, this is not a pump and dump scheme per se, whereas there is considerable proof that the Peruvian properties are quite real and have been worked on, to create value, and to further support that, all historical evidence backs up the potential fully. The most simple distinctive aspect when trying to fit SLI into a classic dump and pump, that doesn,t allow you to do this, IS BECAUSE WE ARE MINING. But, many indicatives of pump and dumps are present, although they may not actually be indications ,which complicates what really is going on with our investment. Its this source of discovery that investors here have been burdened with, when regulators do not act nor assure investors, enter the "Negligent Act/s"

3)Late Filings, Again, I believe the perspective should be broadened here to fully understand the dynamics and mechanisms that intertwine and cause to effect the shareholders interests.

4) Jeff Ruskowsky, Who cares? You being a shareholder, perhaps should care. Although what I am about to say is only hearsay and rumour at the moment, I believe it should be examined for the status of merit. It has been told to me by a source, that I have no reason to doubt at this time,although not verified by my available resources, that Jeff, when asked where he was getting all the money from to drink and party with all the time, replied; " from the gold, where do you think I am getting it?". I will also add in here another rumour, which may or may not hold merit. I was told that a few years ago Jeff Ruskowsky borrowed a considerable amount of money from Harry Ruskowsky, to "box " the SLI stock with. This borrowed money was supposed to have been put into one of Jeffs off shore accounts, to effect the stock price, in some way. As the rest of the rumour goes, Jeff didn,t and was unable to pay the money back, because he supposedly lost it all. If I can put an approximate timing on when and if this event occured, in relation to the stock price, lets say mid 2011 and prior, there should have been no reason as to lose the money if stock was bought, whereas the sp kept rising until Oct 2011 to reach an all time high of $2.83 and in conjunction with an analyst report which suggested huge potential for the Tesoro and a near future stock price possibility of $3.50 per share. What is very odd and sticks out as a sore thumb, is why the stock price contiuously fell from that Oct point to resting around $2.00 mark, two days prior to the release of the first drill results ever of what could very well have been the revelation of the worlds biggest gold find? There was no reason whatsoever for the stock price to fall between Oct-Jan of that time period lawfully. I will also add, that if the rumour is correct, that Jeff lost the money that may have been used to box the stock with, then was he shorting? And if so, why? Understand that I am not incinuating anything on anyones part, merely disecting rumours in the course of protecting my investment whereas it appears that any of the authorities neglect to offer assurance to us investors and we must defend ourselves.

5) Defamation, Its very clear in this point what your current position/involvement may be in respect to the frivilous suit/s. I believe you should appreciate that considerable time has elapsed since the introduction of the frivilous suit, this has allowed for more supporting evidence to surface, perhaps in the favour of the defendents. Nothing had to be revealed in any response to the civil suit, whereas it was quickly established that the suit contained no merit and many complications were/are involved in proceeding with that action. Worthy of further mention in this respect, it is quite possible that legal council and aspects of the judicial system may have had their credibilty compromised in more ways than one, legally preventing them from condoning and moving ahead with any proceedings. There are so many legal aspects that can be entertained in relation to the SLAPP on the part of supporting parties, that the repercussions and jeopardy may not be desirable for them as a result, and they may wish to wash their hands clean of this immediately, if they haven,t done so already. So, I am confident not just under our constitution that it can be proven I have done nothing wrong, but as well as further pertaining litigation. An obstruction to justice can also easily be applied and argued in any court, among numerous other arguments and I would suggest that any professionals code of ethics and oath of office be reviewed by any professional in doubt.

The implication that I allowed a "cow post" remain, is not entirely true. I don,t have the ability to remove that post directly. I feel confident that I could have removed it by other means, but I let it remain, in hopes that perhaps Lori could see how much she may have hurt some of our SLI family and that it may help in her finding her heart to do what is right and stop this senseless hurt. This is a very powerful company, but it is weakened severly when management attacks their shareholders and not embrace them. When this is realized, this will be one of the strongest companies ever. We believe in what Lori told us about the properties prior to Jan 2012, and we sent a message of our displeasure about the extensive travel expenses at the AGM of 2011. Instead of Lori embracing the shareholders and fortifying that immense strength, she kept elusive and actually non responsive. The communication gap and lack of information depicted a position of "abuse of power" on her part, along with blatant vengeance. It is sad to see this, but this is the way it is perceived. I supported Lori for as long as I could, til eventually, even I had to give up on her of making choices with the shareholders best interests in mind. I even hung on as far as being the last one trying to support and justify her actions, here. She had every reasonable chance to change and still does today. I see that spark of good in her yet and speak my truth when I say that, but understand, that spark will never become nothing more than a spark, unless she does what is right. It is her choice always, and I will still at this very moment give her the benefit of the doubt, because I look within. But just because that spark of good may be in her, the chances are great that it may not be revealed to others, depending upon her choice and free will.

I have reached out to her several times in the recent past, to no avail, and my intentions were/are to help our company. I have emailed her and even phoned here, no reply yet, but I do feel she may contact me at some point so that we may find a solution. If she needs my help, I am here, and will offer the best I can offer, with no bias or judgemental perspective projected. This should not be misconstued as an egotisticle act, but merely an offer of help and perhaps unity. I don,t feel that Lori is a bad person, I believe influences and perhaps even temptation in a good way has clouded her judgement and from realizing who she really is inside. I hope she accepts my help.

thank you

rick