Under the BCBCA of which SLI was incorporated under and of which this regulatory Act applies to all business of SLI, WE HAVE what appears as several violations. During the course of at least Molson and I requesting certain information and perhaps "Inspection of records", from SLI office regarding the sale of our Cueva Blanca, we received NO pertinent information to the transaction. We already KNOW that there was one violation incurred by management under the BCBC Act, the selling of the property without giving the shareholders FORWARD knowledge and the OPPORTUNITY to discern if the transaction was a non arms length transaction or not. This act by management violated our rights and the law, by depriving shareholders of the ability to stop a transaction that WAS/IS not in their best interest and OBVIOUSLY WAS a NON ARMS LENGTH transaction.

Also, under "joint tenacy" of the BCBCA, I do not believe Lori could have let the valuable Peru concessions lapse, WITHOUT first consulting the shareholders

As we have come to find out, the sale of the Cueva Blanca and the circumstance surrounding the transaction is totally deceptive and concealed, demonstrating a fraudulent action once again. To demonstrate fraud, AND AS TOLD BY THE RCMP, intent must be shown. It is very blatant that there IS INTENT when management violates several laws in attempt to cover up full details of a transaction, that WAS/IS required by law to be revealed to them. So, even the RCMP are in violation of their duty to the public and subsequently, have jeopardized their individual oaths of office to a degree. I must add here, that the RCMP oath was changed several years ago to read as such or close now as this, an RCMP officers DUTY is not to the CITIZENS but rather to protect the Queen and any corporate governing arm thereof. So where you see that oath has been changed, it becomes very clear that the RCMP MUST protect such arms of the Queen and government, OVER AND ABOVE the citizens of this country. This should make perfect sense to you as to WHY NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE IN OUR FAVOUR and also why the RCMP FAILED to prosecute. It is because the government is involved and the RCMP'S DUTY is to serve the Queen, above ALL Citizens. This is the reality of the society you live in. Legally, and by International Law, it can be easily shown that because of this SLI case, any participating RCMP officer and unit, are aiding and abetting a democratic crime against its people. This very act can very well be termed a facet of terrorism by the simple acts of refusing to uphold law and endangering the populace, by allowing their sustenance to become at considerable risk, which ultimately is supposed to be protected under the Constitution or Constitutional Law.

The above gives you a little more of HOW HUGE this must be, the Tesoro, for a government and its arms, to put foundational law at considerable risk. Individual RCMP officers are able to withdraw their consent from being a part of such a conspiracy and whistleblow, this alligns them with morality and integrity, which is favourable observed by an International Court and more importantly, the populace of this planet.

Getting back to the original intent of this post, as you can see below, upon our request to view the transaction records of the Queva Blanca, yet another violation by management under the BCBCA. This violation is most notable when the minutes of the meeting CONCERNING the sale of the Queva Blanca were DENIED by ignorance.

Inspection of records

46 (1) The following persons may, without charge, inspect all of the records that a company is required to keep under section 42:

(a) a current director of the company;

(b) if and to the extent permitted by the articles,

(i) a shareholder of the company, or

(ii) any other person.

(2) A former director of a company and, if and to the extent permitted by the articles that were in effect immediately before the person ceased to be a shareholder, a former shareholder of a company may, without charge, inspect all of the records that the company is required to keep under section 42 that relate to the period when that person was a director or shareholder, as the case may be.

(3) The following persons may, without charge, inspect all of the records that a company is required to keep under section 42, other than the records referred to in section 42 (1) (l) to (o) and (r) (iii):

(a) a shareholder or qualifying debentureholder of the company;

(b) a former shareholder of the company to the extent that those records relate to the period when that person was a shareholder.

(4) Any person may, without charge, inspect all of the records that a company is required to keep under section 42, other than the records referred to in section 42 (1) (l) to (o) and (r) (iii), if the company is a public company, a community contribution company, a financial institution or a pre-existing reporting company.

(5) In the case of a company that is not one referred to in subsection (4) of this section, on payment, to the person who maintains the records office for the company, of the inspection fee, if any, set by that person or by the company, which fee must not exceed the prescribed fee, any person may inspect all of the records that the company is required to keep under section 42, other than the records referred to in section 42 (1) (i) to (q) and (r) (ii) to (iv).

(6) Despite subsections (1) to (5) of this section but without limiting any obligation to pay the fee, if any, required under this section, a person may inspect a record kept by a company under section 42 (2) (c), (d), (e) (ii) or (iii) or (f) (ii), (iii), (v) or (vi) only if and to the extent that,

(a) in the case of a record kept under section 42 (2) (c) or (f) (ii), the person was entitled to do so under the corporate legislation of the jurisdiction that, before the continuation, was the foreign corporation's jurisdiction,

(b) in the case of a record kept in the records office of an amalgamated company under section 42 (2) (d) or (f) (iii) in relation to an amalgamating foreign corporation, the person was entitled to do so under the corporate legislation of the jurisdiction that, before the amalgamation, was the foreign corporation's jurisdiction, or

(c) in the case of a record kept under section 42 (2) (e) (ii) or (iii) or (f) (v) or (vi), the person was entitled to do so under the Company Act, 1996.

(7) Subject to subsection (8) of this section, an inspection of a company's records that is authorized by this section may be conducted during statutory business hours.

(8) A company may, by an ordinary resolution, impose restrictions on the times during which a person, other than a current director, may inspect the company's records under this section, but those restrictions must permit inspection of those records during the times set out in the regulations.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20B%20--/Business%20Corporations%20Act%20[SBC%202002]%20c.%2057/00_Act/02057_02.xml#section45

ALSO UNDER 42 (K) of the Act, another violation. Any change in the Articles of Incorporation HAS to be approved by the shareholders. Whereas there WAS NO vote on changing the Articles to allow for an "Advance Notice Policy", the "Advance Notice Policy" WAS NOT RATIFIED and COULD NOT, I REPEAT COULD NOT BE ACKNOWLEDGED by the judge in our first court appearance. The act of management putting this initially before a judge was also part of managements violation in this regard and depicts intent, through even perhaps deceiving a magistrate, which may have weighed in his decision. There is definitely no excuse by Lori nor defence in this violation, whereas her public and Securities proclamation emphasises her background in business and securities law.