Dear CIGAs, The short seller, legal and illegal, who manipulate the shares of companies they select, even for high trading volume trading reasons, do so taking cold comfort that civil litigation cannot force regulators to regulate. Most of the targets of these debilitating attacks sit quietly because either they do not know the law, do not have funds to retain the best counsel or fear retaliation if they resist the short in a meaningful way. That retaliation takes the form of what is known in the industry of destruction as dirty tricks. Dirty tricks can be anything from arranging negative write ups about the company under attack to complaining about the company to any regulator or ministry that will listen be that in the country of incorporation or the country of activity. What gives the shorts their best advantage is the lack of the up-tick rule on selling short. They can enter the market anywhere on the planet during the trading session, before the trading session or buy at the market sell on the close orders, in my experience as high as 4,000,000, to sell down to a mere 700,000 to sell after the official close. All of that can be short stock without the enforcement of the up-tick rule by regulators. A hedge fund or primary broker on behalf of the hedge fund can declare themselves a market maker, thereby allowing the short to go naked for 21 days. The way the markets works today favors the interest of the short selling manipulative interest by design. I am not referring to a legitimate short that has an opinion, executes his trade, borrows the shares and declares the short. My focus is on the entity that manipulates with pounding bids with naked or covered stock and then resorts to attempts to destroy the company via dirty tricks. As a side note the naked short actually creates counterfeit unregistered shares in the market, increasing the company capitalization in their efforts to destroy. It is my feeling that there is case law under British Law whereby one company cannot resort to dirty tricks and manipulation where one of them intends to hurt a competitive business for financial gain. A clear example is Virgin Airlines versus British Airlines. My approach would be to use the business conduct of the short seller, most certainly any errors made in the execution of the order by the seller, the specialist or the exchange whereby intent to destroy for profit is provable. I am sure there is US case law that would support the improper use of business tactics in order to make financial gain as an action that would succeed in court. I feel the defense available to the victim of this type of unethical business activity lies in civil action, which in this case may well both be the US Federal court and under British law in Canada. The other option is to succeed and punish the shorts as was done in two popular US situations. My tactic is to do both. Please share this with your associates and their excellent investigators. You are the strongest legal minds and barristers I have ever met. You can be sure that I could be in my death bed and will not yield. This is a war someone capable, able and determined must fight to the end. I believe that it is my duty to take this on all out, nothing held back. I believe that someone is me via your firm and an equally powerful Canadian barrister. I firmly believe in action on all possible fronts. We are defending an industry, the mining juniors, that really cannot defend themselves. We must repeat this tactic any time such an attack takes place. I am now defending against perpetrator number 3. Your friend, Jim