Her you go longtime.

Your right this is very well written

As there seems to be a lot of fear mongering going on reagrding the upcoming vote, allow me to post a few educted facts.

1. The company will have to raise additional funds. The question is, do you want someone at the helm who has demonstrated historically a complete disregard for prudent financial management? If you believe that using company funds to promote a lifestyle of the rich and famous is appropriate while issuing insiders countless options in order to continue that lifestyle then you should stick with current management. The idea that this would somehow change if they stayed in place is sheer lunacy.

2. Directors do not run the company. That much is painfully obvious given the historical performance. The directors have been insiders or connected to insiders. The proposed directors are vastly more qualified as businessmen who have built companies, have mining experience, and most importantly are shareholders. Not people who get on a board in order to get the free options that they sell, but people who have put up their own money not only to buy into the company but also to attempt to fix the calamity that has occured by existing management. Directors bring in management to accomplish the strategic, operational, and financial objectives of the company then hold that management accountable. The existing boad has failed in this regard.

3. The defense of Lori thus far has been that she was successful at promoting the stock? That right there should be the only fact you need to make a change! The CEO is responsible for creating sustainable shareholder value through the execution of the business plan. The promotion of the stock shoudl be a reflection of the realistic performance capabilities of the company. Here is where it gets fun! The company fired a director for promoting only to turn around and tout that the greatest achievement of the CEO was in the promotion? I am smelling a wrongful termination suit there! Incredibly stupid! So then the arguement is that she was so brilliant for promoting it to the moon then selling her shares off? That sounds like a brilliant arguement to make to the shareholders who bought from October 2011 - Current!

4. The optioning of properties to IGD. This will be a great one to try and defend. "You see your honor, a few friends of mine built up the SLI company then formed IGD with the same management team and virtually the same board. THEN we granted ourselves big blocks of options in IGD with FAR FEWER shares than SLI so we owned a bigger percentage. THEN we optioned assets of SLI to IGD and blew all of the funds in SLI. The kicker of it is, along the way we sold all of our SLI and loaded up on IGD. No kidding, this was in the best interest of the shareholders!" I am sure that after the judge pees on himself from laughing, he will COMPLETELY agree there was no conflict of interest there!

Here is the real choice you have.

1. MORE OF THE SAME - Massive dilution in a company that spends 100% - 1,000% more on promotion than comperable companies while maintaining a private jet & presidential suite lifestyle. A stock down 95% from its high. Leadership that communicates only when it dang well pleases but always wants you to buy, buy, buy! Board comprised of insiders, friends, and associates who have demonstrated ZERO oversight into the unrelenting and excessive spending of management.

2. A CHANCE FOR CHANGE - A new board comprised of businessmen who have built companies, who have put their own funds into the company, and who, by their most recent actions, have stepped forward to right the destruction of value that has been undertaken by existing management. Directors who can bring in competent management focused on the execution of a professional program designed to explore, quantify, qualify, and maximize the value of each of the holdings of the company. Directors who will actively oversee the allocation of funds to insure a balance between promotion and execution. And most importantly, directors who will insure that the shareholders' value is being maximized and not just a select group of shareholders.

There is a reason that posters are so prominently promoting fear on the boards trying to get shareholders to either not vote (a vote for management by default) or using every tactic of misdirection to convince people to maintain the status quo.

For me and my family, the status quo (95% drop in value, lavish lifestyles of private jets & presidential suites, shameful sponsorship of completely unrelated events and consistent optioning of the properties we invested in to companies created by the very management that is supposed to maximizing MY value) is unacceptable.

VOTE FOR CHANGE