via Securities Regulation In Saskatchewan - Disclosure Requirements

I would say that shareholders are being sorely prejudiced by the utter fabrication of results over the last four years, when you can point to factual information that contradicts company information.

Available information perhaps meets with disclosure requirements, but the preposterous absurdity of results shows that requirements are clearly not being met, though laws are being observed.

For instance, how do you provide a gold-backed security when you are presumably not producing gold?

How do you produce a loss when you are clearly in profit? Or continue to produce spectacular losses and pay all the bills? Or why accounts payable greatly exceeds costs incurred?

How do you explain that there is little in the way of reserves when prospects have clearly been drilled off unannounced?

Or what about the fact that Komis provided absolutely zero ore, and that you can see the prospect has been drilled off sometime 2012/2013 in aerial photos?(Waddy Lake) Only a very tiny amount has been actually stripped off, but clearly the emphasis was on drilling this prospect, rather than mining it.

There would have to be a discretionary exemption under the circumstances, but I would maintain that shareholders are prejudiced just the same. For example, if the company is allowed a discretionary exemption, then the discretionary exemption must be disclosed.

An important material change occurred with the close of the gold commitment on May 9, yet nothing was reported. A news release must be issued immediately and the company has 10 days to report material changes. A capital raise from the escrow account is BOUND to have material impact. I would say that a material change would have occurred if traders knew the substance of the engineering study.

http://ow.ly/wKjW2

-F6