Thank You Molson! A very important and valuable point!

If it is written in the option agreement between SLI and IGD, then the property has to be kept in good standing as an obligation of that agreement. In event that IGD does not comply with the obligations of the contract, it then can be a breach of contract and damages could be brought forward against IGD by SLI. In the event that SLI was responsible for the upkeep pertaining to property fees, then it is the requirement by IGD informing the public through a PROPER news release that SLI has breached the contract, and damages can be sought against SLI by IGD. But, whereas IGD is a sister company of SLI and the relationship is non arms length, it becomes difficult to sue the company, but easier to sue the individual directors of a company.

Either way, a news release IS required by BOTH companies, SLI and IGD, and in a timely fashion.

The violations of policy appear to be mounting on IGD,s side as well, and these violations have some of the same people behind them, mainly the CEO of both companies. As with SLI, it is very easily seen that the CEO has an imunity to any protective policy for shareholders. I question how TTAGIT ever got shareholder approval when there never was an opportunity for shareholders to vote on it?

As for the Carmi Properties, (and investors may wish to read this carefully whereas it is new information for some, but the RCMP had this information as well) Lori was informed well in advance that Hi Ho could not raise the required amount of money to keep all the Carmi Properties in good standing. When Lori was first approached by Hi Ho, asking for monetary help in keeping ALL Carmi Properties in good standing, her reply was " we don,t have the money to help you". This statement by Lori came at a time shortly after the Calgary meeting of Mar 2012, where Lori openly said to investors that SLI had about $9 million in the treasury. Hi Ho asked for help and was denied it by Lori, and as a result, a portion of the Carmi Properties came up for renewal one morning, and within minutes, were snatched up by Dorian Leslie and a few others. The biggest thing here is that "intent" by Lori to let these properties lapse is totally apparent and uncontestable. You see Lori at a later date, with hardly any funds left in the treasury, helping another company to comply with keeping one of the least valuable properties we have, in good standing. This type of action is absurd, when one choses to secure a property with no defined resource instead of securing property that connected to a defined and valuable Moly resource. So again, for the RCMP to say they could not prove "intent", is absurd, to prove intent, you merely have to prove dishonesty in the equation, this dishonesty is proven when Lori stated "we don,t have the money", when in fact, we had millions of dollars then.