Here are more comments from the same shareholder mentioned in a previous post of mine, that does not have an Agoracom account.

What is current management going to do for you if they retain power?

Let’s look at recent events.

1) Lori wants to push through a PP for 50 to 100 million shares (with full warrant attached as seen in her Recent PP News Release).

What does this mean for you and your investment?

Well we now have 117+ million shares outstanding. If she eventually gets her PP which you can be sure she will ram through if she and her cronies get voted back in, you can now possibly add another 200 million shares to the float which will dilute your investment by almost 170%.

That means that if this company all of a sudden were to hit the big one you would only receive a third of the price in a buyout that you would have gotten if the PP didn’t happen.

But wait, it’s not over yet.

Of course she has now devastated your investment with one private placement, because in essence if you had 100,000 shares originally, you now for all intensive purposes have 33,000 shares. You have technically lost 66% of the value of your investment and she and her crew have gained absolute and total control over every aspect of the company and your investment (if her friends finance it) and literally shoved you out and destroyed all shareholder value you may have had or could potentially have.

But, she has shown such disrespect, hatred and distain towards us shareholders in the past because we have tried to hold her accountable, that IMO she would not be done with us yet. It would not be enough to gain total control of the company back, We imo would have to be wiped out as seen in her contempt for us after we voted down her options in the November 2011 AGM vote.

What I strongly believe you will see is something like what a particular poster on stockhouse was eluding to who appears to be very close to management as he appears to strangely put out insider news before the company releases it publicly and has done so on a number of occasions.

As an extra measure to kick you while you are down considering how we have been treated to this point, it would not surprise me to see as this poster said in his post. Management then doing a 20 to 1 rollback or 10 to 1 rollback to then drop the total company float from say 317+ million outstanding shares to around 16 or 17 million shares.

If this were the case, what affect would this now have on the 33% of the investment you would now have left?

If you had originally 100,000 shares you have lost 2/3 of its value as of a fully prescribed PP. Now you would lose another 95% of your investment.

Do you see the picture here?

Even many of Lori’s so called friends should not be happy with this scenario, as they will be on the receiving end of the a**whooping as well. Do you think if a friend of mine running a company asked me to invest my hard earned money into their company and then through careless poor management damaged it to such an extent that I lost 98% of my investment that I would in any way garner them my vote to continue with more of the same.

I may be a friend, but I’m not foolish enough to realize that a change has to be made. Friend or no friend.

People you have to ask yourself a hard question.

Has Lori acted in the best interests of the shareholders and has she embraced her responsibilities under her Fiduciary responsibility?

As a reminder I will add the definition of Fiduciary responsibility below:

Fiduciary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the legal term. For optical field-of-view markers, see Fiduciary marker.

The court of chancery, which governed fiduciary relations prior to the Judicature Acts A fiduciary (from Latin fiduciarius, meaning "(holding) in trust"; from fides, meaning "faith", and fiducia, meaning "trust") is a legal or ethical relationship of trust between two or more parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money for another person. One party, for example a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to the other one, who for example has funds entrusted to it for investment. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. —Bristol & West Builg Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 at 18 per , Lord Millett A fiduciary duty[1] is the highest standard of care at either equity or law. A fiduciary (abbreviation fid) is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty (the "principal"): he must not put his personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from his position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.

If the answer to the above question is NO.

Then it is very clear that a change in Management is not only necessary, but essential for the future of this company and the well being of its shareholders.

Note:

In the companies Aug. 31, 2012 Audited financial statements it is stated:

As of August 31, 2012, the Company had not yet achieved profitable operations, but had

working capital of $3,283,805 (year end 2012: $4,467,631) which should be adequate to sustain operations over the next twelve months.

So PLEASE explain to me again why we need to dilute the stock by almost 170% now if the PP was fully financed????????????????

Change is a MUST.