Good stuff Molson!

As for us losing any more properties, I believe the current BOD would have an awful hard time of justifying this, not only because of the past incident of losing part of the Carmi Property, but because of all the questionable things so far and the many laws they may be infringing upon.

IMO, the current BOD are bordering on so many crimes with what looks like considerable ease to establish a strong case against them. Now I know the first thought that may jump to ones mind, is the cost of legal battles. But if you think a little deeper about this, and how the regulators have not helped, nor stepped in to avoid any future harm to shareholders, any lawyer at all would most likely seize the opportunity of launching a suit against one or all on a contingency basis. The laws that seem to be blatantly broken here and the lack of protection towards shareholders appears to becoming a more solid case everyday.

The lawful description of coersion could fit in the picture very well at this time in regards to the SLAPP suit. Shareholders are being FORCED to stop voicing their concerns here through a form of intimidation, by threatening law suits. This also fits into the shareholders rights considerably, not only their rights as shareholders of SLI , but also as Canadain citizens under Canadian law. For any lawyer to be supporting these actions, makes me question the integrity of that legal firm themselves, as a law firm, what are they thinking. Law firms are not immune from the law either, they have a code of conduct by which must be followed, and if not, the law firm can become a victim of legal prosecution against their very actions, by condoning and supporting a blatant case of manipulation. The legal firm could be portrayed as an accomplice to a crime and although they may not get convicted or reprimanded, the effects of the bad publicity could be damaging to their firm. A reputable law firm will pass up cases of that nature, consider them messy, and in our case, I find it very intriguing that Lori is able to find legal counsel.

The lawful description of extortion may fit into the picture here as well in regards to any more properties being lost at this time. I have to say that I have never been happy with the Beaverdell option to Intigold, (IGD), and cannot see how a valuable property can be 100% given away to another company that the SAME CEO is also president of, at a very low cost and possibly at the expense of SLI shareholders. Although SLI gets shares as a part of the deal and a small renumeration, this profit is capped to SLI shareholders at a set rate and the opportunity for us to enjoy further value is cut off, while the CEO of SLI and IGD, as well as some of the same BOD, are able to continue on realizing any future profit or value through their own involvement with IGD. So, one could say, a slight of the hand passes the BeaverDell onto a select few, with all of their interests intact, and out of the hands of SLI shareholders. This practise borders on extortion to me, and not only do we see it here, but we have also seen what I would call, convenient attempts at other option agreements written up on other SLI properties.

Without going and getting the exact numbers, I will take a guess that IGD can receive 100% of the BeaverDell property from SLI shareholders for most likely a consideration of less than $2 million. Now just use that figure as a simplicity figure to understand what I am trying to say, please.

We know the BeaverDell is a valuable property and extensive work was done on it and at one time it was a producing mine. There are very impressive silver grades as well as gold grades from that property. There was another sample program done on that property about 2 years ago that has not seen the light of day, in which is also a violation under the timely disclosure policy. The way the price of gold, silver and precious metals are going, there are properties being scooped up by big guys that only have a couple hundred thousand ounces of gold on them, so the demand is definitly there in the industry.

So lets look at some numbers. Lets say the BeaverDell is sold in a couple years for $120 million. At that time 2 years from now, IGD owns the BeaverDell outright and gets the full reward. SLI shareholders would have received a portion of those proceeds if the option agreement was set up as building value for SLI at lets say SLI retaining a 40% interest in the property,instead of being a closed deal and SLI shareholders interests are terminated. So, SLI shareholders may have got .30 per share out of the deal, whereas this way, we realize nothing, its gone. But current BOD of Intigold may realize the full potential profit and don,t lose a thing, but actually gain at what looks the SLI shareholders expense. Also, where SLI shareholders were NOT ALLOWED to participate in the last one or two PP,s that IGD put out, we were not offered the chance to retain some of our original partial interest in not only the BeaverDell property, but the other properties Intigold has optioned from SLI. So one could say, that the BeaverDell is taken from SLI shareholders on the cheap and deposited in a bank account of IGD, an excellent investment for the obtainees, imo.

So, the whole idea above also contradicts SLI motto to get optioned partners to prove up OUR (SLI) properties for us and sell them so that SLI shareholders can realize a profit and/or a reflection in the SLI shareprice by the proceeds of sale going into the SLI treasury. So also, when SLI states that it practises the above, this could be considered as a misleading statement to investors and may present false pretenses which can be considered another unlawful act. I see this on the new website;

"We finance exploration primarily by issuing shares from our treasury or by negotiating option agreements, under which other companies pay to explore our properties in return for receiving an ownership interest."

It says that companies pay to explore to receive an ownership interest. This is vague and would cover the current circumstance with the BeaverDell, however, it does not negate the fact that IGD can enjoy all the future profits under the same CEO and make SLI just look like a holding company for properties that can be dished out on the cheap and perhaps at the expense of SLI shareholders. I believe on the SLI website the wording of the above quotated statement may have changed from its previous wording that may have gave a different interpretaion of the wording. Someone may wish to check the archives of copied material from the home website before it was changed.

The above are areas of grave concern for me, being a shareholder of SLI at this time as well as an individual.

IMO