I have been reading over the Notice of Civil Claim, and many points are confusing me, however, this is one of the top points, that makes no sense to me, IMO:

Part 1: Statement of Facts (paragraph 24):

You need to review this paragraph, as I cannot cut & paste it. It deals & talks about Hole 6 & the Jan 10, 2012 NR

But, on Jan 23, 2012 clarification NR, this was a section from it: (I did the bolding & underlining)

Drill Hole TE-11-06 returned compelling initial results and, while additional drill testing is required, the Company is in the process of completely sampling Drill Hole TE-11-06 from 60m to 170m on minimum 1.5-metre intervals to more accurately define a potential, bulk-tonnage mineralized target. The interval from 90.6m to 128.5m in Drill Hole TE-11-06 assayed 0.74g/t Au over 37.85m, and includes 0.74m of 23.5g/t Au at 112.26m and 0.35m of 9.6g/t Au at 113.32m.

So, if the company is in the process of completely sampling from 60M - 170M, as of Jan 10, 2012, on minimum 1.5M intervals, and if the original results showed the numbers it did within that same area, how did we not get any more information that was above the 1000 ppb, which is 1g/T?

Did we get all the info, or didn't we?

Or was all the resampling below the 1g/T cuttoff, and simply not worthy of a NR?

I don't remember seeing a followup NR, with the above data?

This is all IMO, according to the information I have access to.