According to our sources there is another massive fraud taking place in the Gold market.
These allegations have not yet been proven in Court nor have we at BC Securities Commission a Sham seen all of the evidence, however at least one of us was a former shareholder in this company and got out when something didn't smell right. When we learned of what has been happening with St Elias we were not surprised.
The following information will be simply sourced from letters and questions sent to various government agencies whose mandate is to ensure the rule of law and justice.
We will however give readers a brief synopsis as we understand the current situation. If anyone including employees at the BCSC or the OSC as well as shareholders of SLI has different understanding of events with hard copy information to document the situation we welcome them to contact us at bk1092003@yahoo.ca. Our interest is the truth and we would like to clear up as many misunderstandings as possible so we may focus on the real issues.
There was a company named St. Elias Gold (SLI), it had a flagship property with vast potential in Peru not far from a Barrick Gold operation. The property is the Tesoro property which had underground imaging done by Quantec indicating a mass of mineral wealth what could be one of the largest gold deposits yet discovered on the planet.
Drills were brought in and results were supposed to be made public, instead of making the results public as SLI should have management /directorship of SLI hid the (complete) results of drilling WITH the help/approval of the Regulators involved from the shareholders. To this day the full results have never been revealed to the public. This reminds us of the time the ASC let Goldman Sachs get away with thousands of exemptions while hiding this form the public
http://bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.ca/2016/12/securities-commissions-actions-in.html
SLI Executives then declared that the flagship Tesoro property was worthless and would be spun off in a new company/ swapped with other properties of a dark money company. Other properties were bought or sold way over or under the real value, whichever way screwed the shareholders and left the other party holding the real good. As in our case multiple shareholders report that harassment, wiretaps, obstruction of justice, hacking etc.. in order to attempt to silence them on this subject.
SLI shareholders were left with a stock that had gone from 34 cents to over $2 in short order.. started with much fanfare and ended with nothing and its executives running and ducking questions.
As mentioned we don not know the whole story however we know something wasn't right, hence we got out and had forgotten about St. Elias until now.
The following is a copy of a letter from activist shareholder Rick Jewers which simply demands answers for rules and laws broken during the saga of St. Elias Mines.
Hi Chris,
I am forwarding this 4 page letter I sent out to many authorities,media etc several years ago. This original letter was tampered with and rearranged by someone that hacked my email account at that time, so some of this letter is not in chronological order as written and all so possible that the hackers took some info out of it. I did at one time briskly try to straighten the letter back out, but upon reviewing it last night, I see there are still areas of it in which need to be fixed back to its original state.
You will see that another SLI investor attempted to get the letter to a politician, but not limited to, because my pc was further compromised shortly after I wrote it. They always had my phones and pc compromised to varying degrees. Sometimes they would let it work so that they could SEE what I was writing. There were several documented and witnessed times where they had my pc,s and phones compromised, with many many times I alone saw there sophistication.
This letter was written several years ago, with perhaps many more pages that could be written now, lol.You may share all or any part of this you wish. I thought you may be interested yourself in reading i whereas you were a SLI shareholder once yourself. I stand fully behind everything I ever wrote and remain consistent.
Thank you,
Rick
From: (Name Redacted)
Sent: January 4, 2017 11:13 AM
To: Rick Jewers
Subject: Fwd: Undeliverable: St.Elias Mines Ltd. - Forwarding for Rick Jewers who email has been compromised
Sent: January 4, 2017 11:13 AM
To: Rick Jewers
Subject: Fwd: Undeliverable: St.Elias Mines Ltd. - Forwarding for Rick Jewers who email has been compromised
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <postmaster@assembly.ab.ca>
Date: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Subject: Undeliverable: St.Elias Mines Ltd. - Forwarding for Rick Jewers who email has been compromised
To: (name redacted)
Final-Recipient: rfc822;dfraytonvalley.devon@ assembly.ab.ca
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: (Name Redacted)
To: <dfraytonvalley.devon@assembly.ab.ca>
Cc:
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:18:10 -0600
Subject: St.Elias Mines Ltd. - Forwarding for Rick Jewers who email has been compromised
From: <postmaster@assembly.ab.ca>
Date: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Subject: Undeliverable: St.Elias Mines Ltd. - Forwarding for Rick Jewers who email has been compromised
To: (name redacted)
Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
dfraytonvalley.devon@assembly. ab.ca
The e-mail address you entered couldn't be found. Please check the recipient's e-mail address and try to resend the message. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk.
Diagnostic information for administrators:
Generating server: assembly.ab.ca
dfraytonvalley.devon@assembly. ab.ca
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##
Original message headers:
dfraytonvalley.devon@assembly. ab.ca
The e-mail address you entered couldn't be found. Please check the recipient's e-mail address and try to resend the message. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk.
Diagnostic information for administrators:
Generating server: assembly.ab.ca
dfraytonvalley.devon@assembly. ab.ca
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##
Original message headers:
Received: from outgoingmail.assembly.ab.ca (172.16.0.78) by
outlook.assembly.ab.ca (172.16.0.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id
14.2.342.3; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:18:13 -0600
X-AuditID: ac1e000a-b7fd88e000000fc6-8c- 52541423bfc3
Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com (mail-pd0-f174.google.com
[209.85.192.174]) by outgoingmail.assembly.ab.ca (Symantec Messaging Gateway)
with SMTP id 33.5C.04038.32414525; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:18:11 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y13so8771242pdi.5
for <dfraytonvalley.devon@ assembly.ab.ca>; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:18:10
-0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message- id:subject:from:to:content- type;
bh= Krsgyp1mKPxrwCdV7jz6UtesqsT14U V1jkr69MDz6pk=;
b= 0g7C899OdiF5mi9sf4QF8GsCFXQnkP zY3K5l9Zyaf5BhY2qvCtGIrnpw5nfX IHxgQO
jz9ME/OxA8MEqM8GrFW/ TssPaFMfYg9pJSzuPhkBaGogX4V4/ eyrUj5dleWzwQg2nvTf
bEOShIGFjRegKpD8aimrC3C7/ d1yOnFvKaTCOPnSGsyreC0IFpPGVIU SKlEzKeccKF63
KLwpUExLD3nk3F+lyhDUmzWq9i/ VgzixWgO3UIEiEHK7vzATn5pyM4Ibz uysq6G4RvRD
3ZeQdsxJGzfTsA6ajDRLIuI0xnpciG uBlIl1CJe9jf6XAWkkFrAVKY/ nhv2CQunmypb8
iYDQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.161.38 with SMTP id xp6mr3799488pab.145. 1381241890435;
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.4.2 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:18:10 -0600
Message-ID: <CAD5YLiUqjVGRP=hLQyR3+oCq4- 16M=bZ5KzGe-bEt8SejHU+8g@mail. gmail.com>
Subject: St.Elias Mines Ltd. - Forwarding for Rick Jewers who email has been compromised
From: >
To: <dfraytonvalley.devon@ assembly.ab.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=" 047d7b6d87b23aac1604e83b706e"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+ NgFtrAKsWRWlGSWpSXmKPExsVyMfTA Ol1lkZAgg+1btC0mnFvJ6sDosWDt
AfYAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujOO39j EXHLrIWvHty222BsZb51m6GDk4JARM JCaeNO1i5AQy
xSQu3FvPBmILCdxilFi/ sLqLkQvInsco8WnDREYQh0XgE4vEk3 sLmUCqeAUEJU7OfMIC0V0s
8bp9EytEt5vE2fdzweIsAioSqzcegK oPkDh24AtYjbBAhMSM911gcTYBA4lD v2YzgtgiAuoS
bzbfA7OZBbwkrm9qZp3AyDcLybpZSF IQtp7Ejuu/ oGxtiWULXzND2LoSi7atYEcWX8DIto pR
Or+0JD0/My89NzEzRy+ xuDg1NymnUi8xSS85cRMjMFTXyDFw7 WD81WF9iFGAg1GJh7eDNyRI
iDWxrLgy9xCjJAeTkijvCUGgEF9Sfk plRmJxRnxRaU5q8SFGCQ5mJRHeafxA Od6UxMqq1KJ8
mJQ0B4uSOO/ PXR8DhATSE0tSs1NTC1KLYLJMHOyHG GU4OJQkeI2FgboFi1LTUyvSMnNKkNV w
gmzgAdoQC1LDW1yQmFucmQ6RP8Voz7 Hg3sqvjBx951cDyZ6utUByRv/ Bb4xCLHn5ealS4rwm
IG0CIG0ZpXlwk2EJ6RKjrJQwLyMDA4 MQD9BpuZklqPKvGMWBoSHMmwgyhScz rwRu9yugs5iA
ztJlDwQ5qyQRISXVwHj+ aE5r4ccsK6kL07JFejTO3d3lmO3YZq q9Mm7ju1XlCQv1Dx2q3vql
mv94vcrGaG2RbTZ2H/JPRHaosP/ w6Hc9s3w+u+TSLFMF/R/ 8N1h2LOzdsCp3/sMpGZLM1T7i
Sx988/10t7dgiUCCRhCz+ nHHeRGH2tf83npKd26U/m/DD7qy7+ 7UWyuxFGckGmoxFxUnAgCM
SPqOQwMAAA==
Return-Path:
Final-Recipient: rfc822;dfraytonvalley.devon@ assembly.ab.ca
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: (Name Redacted)
To: <dfraytonvalley.devon@assembly.ab.ca>
Cc:
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:18:10 -0600
Subject: St.Elias Mines Ltd. - Forwarding for Rick Jewers who email has been compromised
I personally entered the SLI stock around the fall of 2009, upon reading a news release of bulk samples averaging over 1 ounce per ton gold. At the time, I was trading stocks for personal gain and my interests were mostly in mining stocks. As a prerequisite to being a successful and prudent manager of my own trading funds, I did a lot of research on geology and understanding news releases from mining stocks, which in turn enhanced my success on trading these stocks for gain.Once in awhile, I would come across what I deemed as buyout targets, in which considerable gains could be made, I was fortunate enough to correctly identify a couple, which added to my confidence and that my research held merit and could be relied upon. Having said this, the news release put out by St Elias Mines in 2009 of their Tesoro property in Peru, definitely caught my eye and caused me to invest, whereas bulk samples are usually indicative of a mining grade, and at the time, shaft mining required around 7 g/t gold grade to be feasible and open pit mining safely at 3 g/t, as a rule of thumb. This formula was dependent on the price of gold (POG), of which at the time was somewhere around $1000 per ounce. As the POG rose dramatically above this base figure of $1000 per ounce, it enabled much lower grades to become economical, but not directly proportional because of inflation in mining costs, nevertheless, a much lower grade than the ones mentioned above were becoming economical.
So, with news releases of bulk sampling being around an ounce per ton gold, it looked pretty evident that SLI would have an economical deposit that could be mined or eventually sold to the highest bidder, in which investors make the biggest returns, usually. Upon further research, and to my delight, I find that there is also disseminated gold, that could warrant an open pit mine, which further assured that this could be a buy out scenario.Also add here, that a corporate presentation as well as an audio of the CEO at an AGM, ascertains that 1 ounce per ton gold was taken from DEVELOPMENT MATERIAL. The Mining Act of Ontario defines material this way:
(2) In the definition of “advanced exploration” in subsection (1),
“material” means rock, ore or any other substance excavated during the process of developing, mining, evaluating or testing any mineral or mineral deposit, but does not include excavated overburden; http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ html/regs/en..._e.htm#BK0
The CEO goes further to say in a recorded audio of the 2011 AGM that the company was not even following veins when they put the shaft in that averaged 1 ounce per ton gold, it was the material that averaged this in its entirety and that clearly suggests that if veins were encountered during this development, that they were most likely of much higher grades than the 1-2 ounce veins that are commonly found on the property and that there is most likely a very strong mineralization of disseminated gold also, to allow for this high of an average grade. And, as I mentioned above, only 7 g/t would give you the feasibility needed for a shaft mine. While the shaft averaged 1 ounce per ton gold over its length and not following veins, simple analysis may suggest a wide area of mineralization that is well above the average 3 g/t gold needed for an open pit scenario. This is only one example of many, that suggests the property has economics to sustain a very profitable mine/mines, and only one area of the property out of several that have displayed similar characteristics of probable feasibilty. All historical geological data seems to support this, as well as local geology. I should also mention here, the added copper and silver element that adds to a properties value, is present in some sampling, be it economical or not on its stand alone scenario, doesn,t really matter in this scenario, whereas the gold is the dominant mineral and during processing of a gold mineral, the copper and silver elements become by products of a later stage of processing if it is feasible to do so, in which in turn, in some cases , can create a cost free situation per ounce on your gold processing, depending on the grade of the by products.
Upon investing a small dollar amount initially, I continued to diligently research this company, as I became more intrigued with its prospects. There were more news releases of bulk samples along with a Gluckenstein Silverspoon 2010 (an equity research firm) report on the property, which suggested over 2 million ounces of gold could be possible in known veins. This only reinforced a buyout scenario in the future, whereas majors at the time were looking for deposits of gold with the possibility of containing a million ounces or more. I should mention here that Buenaventura , a major mining company in Peru,http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Buenaventura_(mining_ company) has recently been very interested in junior companies having as low as 200,000 ounces of gold, this keeps a buyout scenario for our Tesoro property always a present possibility, as well as another SLI property (Cueava Blanca)that is currently being let go by SLI management for a measely $100,000, where it had an historic resource estimate of 200,000 ounces of gold along with almost a million ounces of silver. I will elaborate on
this property further, later on in this letter.
2010 company review; http://www.marketwire.com/ press-release/...374675.htm
In Oct 2011, the Mining Stock Report came out on the Tesoro property, (note; this should be read meticulously from a geological perspective). The stock price at the time of this release should also be noted as well as the stock price forcast. Also, the trading that happened on the day of this release, in particular, about 2 hours before the release of this report, there is selling pressure coming on the stock, which followed a steady share price increase before the release. The stock hit is all time high that day of around $2.83 per share, ending the day around $2.63, with a report suggesting a future stock price of over $3.00. Also keep in mind here, that the company at this time is in the process of the first ever drilling from the property, in which initial results could come at anytime on a property that could very well be a huge gold find, as well as trenching results from this same property that began in May of the same year. The hype that got this stock up to such a high level for a company with little to no initial reserves, is the results of a Quantec Geosciences geophysical survey, which is what it is, it suggests substantial mineralization. So, the big question here is, why would anyone sell prematurely to initial drill and trench results from a property that could very well be the next big gold find? And especially where these initial results did not start being released to the market in Jan 2012. I should add here, that even 2 days before the initial results were released, the stock started a dramatic decline from around a $2.00 share price.
So, as you can see the 2 above mentioned reports, a 2010 technical report done by an independant geologist, (which seen him later becoming a director of SLI), and other news releases pertaining to the geology of the property, video interviews of our CEO and corporate presentations, I would say a pretty solid case was made to substantiate that the main Tesoro property alone was very valuable and could easily justify an elevated stock price. As excitement grew over the few years leading up to initial results, it resulted in many shareholders connecting to other shareholders and sharing thoughts,info and friendship, to substantiate their own thoughts on this being an excellent investment and perhaps seeing if the adage "too good to be true", had any life here. As a result of communication between shareholders, it was found that an impressive number of shareholders had geo/geophysicist friends that they would consult, directly or indirectly for a second opinion, if you will. The most critical questions asked of these professionals, were their opinion on the geophysical anomalies portrayed by Quantec in their geophysical report of the property and in conjunctuion with historical data from the property. The remnants of BRE-X still lingered in the thoughts of some, hence the consultations of an independent review, which seemed positive to very positive, depending on the degree the geo analyzed the data. I personally had one geo look at some of the geophysics, his first reply was that the anomalies looked impressive, but could really be anything. Then I informed him that we had tangible data from down to the 100m level with sample results and information on the mineralization found there, and plotted this info on a side view of the appropriate geophysical slide, once he saw the corresponding sample numbers his reply was, "oh yeah,what else are you supposed to believe", meaning that my initial thoughts conveyed to him that this had mass potential, were well substantiated by this determination. I also consulted another respected geo for his opinion, he being a geo that didn,t really like geophysics, moreso opined on the regional geology saying that it looked favourable. Although substantial data was sent to him for review, he only took a general look at it, hence his general reply. I consulted a friend that had a geo look at the first set of drill results to come from the property, his opinion, there seemed to be a huge disconnect from drill results to the historic data, which were and are mine as well. A lot of this disconnect is due to the fact that the news releases pertaining to the drilling and trenching are very vague and important information seems to be non existent, which in turn, does not allow the reader to this day, make a reasonable investing decision. The missing info from these releases does not allow one to connect the dots to verify that the geophysics is incorrect or not and disables one to successfully coordinate this drilling/trenching info directly and clearly to the property. So, one is left with, a reasonable investing decision cannot be made because of inadequate released information. We dont have the drill hole angles to see where and how they intersected the Quantec anomalies and the drill hole information we do have, seems to end prematurely to the intersecting the anomalies expressed by high chargeability, with little to no sample results even though the drill holes pierced these anomalies, some holes by 100m or more. These anomalies are high chargeability anomalies which are usually a result of sulphide mineralization in this circumstance and a direct association to gold content to sulphides is established on the property. To enhance, the gold grade goes up with the increase in sulphide content, at least on the available historic data. Meaning, that these high chargeability anomalies should not be present if the sulphides are not there, a quote from the CEO "its impossible", in which I agree totally. So, the geophysics from Quantec is that accurate, that you can coorelate it to all historic data precisely, yet the drill holes from depth do not correlate. The geological attributes of this property are very interesting and perhaps to fully understand the dynamics of which I speak, great consideration should be taken of this aspect as well.
Shareholders started to become restless around mid to late summer of 2011. We were waiting for a drill permit previous this time that was applied for in summer of 2010 and not received til May 2011. Also around this time, the financials were showing huge increases in the travel expenditures, I believe if you take the 3 year average of this travel expenditure from Feb 2013 back to 2010, it will equate to around $3000 per day being spent on travel alone! This is an exploration company looking for minerals, the travel expenditures initiated grave concerns from the shareholders as well as smaller concerns showing up in the financials, such as salaries being paid to certain executive/directors. This company, on paper in the financials, does not have a revenue stream derived from sale of products or services, it is, as per the financials, totally dependent on securing financing from the market in the line of issuing stock. As we know, issuing of stock dilutes existing shareholders and becomes a concern. It is realized that a company must raise funds to operate, but it is also expected that discernment goes into the spending of these funds by management. This flamboyant travel expenditure also was coinciding with TV appearances, a Forbes interview, many meetings in Europe and the U.S. with what appeared to be distinguished firms and high net worth individuals, giving the impression to some shareholders that perhaps this was a huge find and that in the course of business, this leg work had to be done. Here is a link to the Forbes interview, take note of the remarks near the end "major gold find" "I know", and others,
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=em44IC18CwM
Also perhaps, the question as to why to even do this interview, should be entertained. Sure, these are promotional efforts, but wouldn,t most believe that more discretion should have been used by the CEO? The date of this interview should also be noted, Sept 27/2011 in conjunction of when we started trenching the property in May of that year and started drilling somewhere between June and Aug of that year, (the news releases concerning the start date for drilling are unclear, hence the variable date).
Also, reports from investors and others around the flamboyant travel time, suggests the CEO being under the influence of alcohol during some presentations and meetings, causing a less than desirable impression for future funding that may be needed by the company. Another concern related to this travel expenditure, was the use of private jets/planes, with on one occasion, lobster being served in the sky, as rumoured by a source/s. If this was shareholders money being used for this extravagant lifestyle, the shareholders have/had justifiable concerns. Sure, if she had confirmation that we had a huge gold find, she deserved to have fun and I had no real problems with this at the time, because I believed she was competent and my investment security was enhanced by her actions. In reality, what CEO would publicly reveal a lavish lifestyle, perhaps flaunt a property, if it could not be justified at the time?
continued.....
Page 2
At the AGM of Nov 2011, a message was sent to management by shareholders voting down managements request for increased stock options. This action revealed 2 messages to management, the strength of the shareholders as per the amount of votes voting "against" and that shareholders were not happy rewarding management in light of the ridiculous travel expenditures and what seemed a considerably long time waiting for drill/trenching results that began as much as 6 months prior. An audio of the presentation that followed the AGM is documented and contains much information conveyed by the CEO concerning the property. One comment in particular, pertains to Quantecs involvement with SLI on a "day to day basis" and the resemblance of the Tesoro property geophysics to that of Red Lake, owned by Goldcorp and considered one of the richest gold mines in the world. After disappointing drill results, Quantec was consulted by some investors in June or so of 2012, approximately 7 months after the CEO made this statement, and were told by Quantec, that Quantec had no communications with SLI for the previous 18 months, which would approximately place last contact around Jan 2011, a time when the company was not working on the Tesoro and 5 months prior to the commencement of any work.
So, when investors heard that management was not in contact with SLI as was recorded in the AGM audio of 2011, alarm bells went off and only enhanced our concerns even more with management. I should make reference to the audio of the Feb 2012 conference call held by the CEO in which one of her remarks addressing shareholders was "go harass an immigrant".This is very disturbing anytime, when a CEO or anyone speaks like this, let alone that we have investors in this stock that are immigrants, this not only effects a small portion, it affects all shareholders. Also at the end of this conference call, investors were supposedly allowed to enter a question and answer period with the CEO, but suspiciously, as you hear in the audio, the CEO says "no questions ?" "bye". There were investors that tried to get through with some very important questions and concerns, I was one, but for some reason, the connection was broke for calling in,and no investors could participate. This should be an operable link to the conference call;
https://docs.google.com/file/ d/0B0Me5nTl..._web&pli=1
I believe around this time(June 2012) investors started communication with regulators over the compounding grave concerns they had, they believed in the company strongly, as they still do today, but not the management and considered them a risk to their investment. Investors could have sold their investment, but the value had declined by then to a ridiculous low, by the inability to make a reasonable investment decision prior and the belief in the properties hadn,t wavered, some investors talked about legal action while others talked about trying to change management at the upcoming AGM that would carry a lower cost. There was also the hope that regulators would step in and uphold protection to shareholders. Finally, a dissident group stepped forward to attempt changing management and alleviate the many concerns investors had going forward. Around the same time the dissidents announced their nominee of directors, the company put out a news release announcing a huge private placement (PP), that would dilute shareholders substantially if filled, notice the dates. A large group of shareholders retaliated by writing numerous letters to the regulators, politicians, the TSX Exchange,etc, whereas we considered this proposterous, and asked for help, whereas we had grave concerns at this time with management in light of everything that had transpired up to this date. There was also a petition drawn up at this time that was sent to various government and regulators, I forget the amount of signatures we had on it, but believe it was between 200-500. It came at a time when our share price had been severly beaten up and when some investors asked if they could participate in the PP , they were told no, that it was full. Then in this news release of Jan 30th, a few months later, you will see it is withdrawn. If it was withdrawn due to the Exchange not approving it , I believe this may have had to be disclosed to the public, saying specifically that.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1701
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1705
The majority of investors threw their support behind these dissidents and an unofficial count of the votes at the AGM resulted in this dissident group receiving 91% of the votes cast, which equated to roughly 54% of the entire share float, the BOD at the time received about 9% of the voted shares. I should add here that the shareholders voting for the dissidents only had around 5 days or so to cast their votes, and that many problems arose that all investors voting for the dissident group did not get their voice heard. In comparison, management had around a couple of months for investors to vote for them. But, at the AGM, the CEO took the chair of the meeting and proclaimed all the dissident votes being invalid due to inconsistencies in the dissidents circular. The CEO accused the dissident circular of being misleading and disqualified all our votes as a result. The CEO had informed the dissident group before the AGM that she saw what she considered misleading statements in their circular and ask for them to be corrected. The dissident group did not correct them and I guess the dissident group considered them to not be misleading. The CEO pointed out well before the AGM to the public what she considered misleading, this appeared to be her and the BOD,s interpretation, although none of these were proven before hand to be false, the CEO took the Chair and disqualified the votes. Where the CEO pointed these so called deficiencies out to the public before the actual voting deadline, investors had the chance to change their vote if they desired, so in fact, the investors were not mislead, because by the CEO,s interpretation, she offered the correction well before hand to the shareholders, and shareholders had the opportunity to change their vote right up to the AGM. Because of the CEO changing the AGM date twice before and adopting the Advance Notice Policy, this caused delay times in the dissidents getting their voting proxy out and helped limit the voting window for the shareholders of the dissident proxy. I should also add here, that I consider the BOD,s proxy to be misleading in regards to one of the elected directors, Robert Krause. My research did not allow me to fully verify the profile for Mr Krause in the managements circular in regards to his credit for helping find a million ounce deposit and the buyout of such by a major. I believe the CEO took a biased position at the AGM by taking the Chair. Also, the TSX Venture had recommendations years ago about allowing any CEO to take the Chair , whereas it may be considered a conflict of interest and perhaps an abuse of power. I should mention here also, that the TSX has the power to intervene, as well as the BCSC, but they let it go to court and let a judge rule on a decision that involves many shareholders and their lifes savings. The Judge ruled in favour of the company.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1484
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/ news/st-elia...00930.html
http://www.marketwire.com/ press-release/...740856.htm
So, then we see on Feb 15 th, shortly after the AGM and before the Judges ruling months later, that the company commences litigation against posters on Agoracom, http://agoracom.com/ and an ex director, naming conspiracy and defamation as 2 of the allegations in this proceeding.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1940
This suit is considered a SLAPP suit with its intent being to silence shareholders among other things, in my opinion, as well as others. We cannot see where it holds any merit and a review of the filed Notice of Civil Claim should present typical characteristics of any SLAAP suit quite easily, in its format and intent. The very online posters the company is accusing, are the very supportive shareholders of the company that always strongly supported the company, but had growing concerns of management as time progressed. The comments made that the company may consider defammatory, have not been proven, but do suggest to have merit. These are grave concerns of the shareholders and they should be allowed to discuss and voice their opinions openly. Over the years, there have been what shareholders lable "bashers"on these online discussion forums, we shareholders constantly battle these online posters whereas their usual intent is to scare people out of their investments by spreading false rumours and bad mouthing a company. These bashers are usually in groups, tied to professional shorters with their intent to drive the price of a stock down, to make a profit on the decline of a share price. These bashers have been constantly plaguing SLI and even to this day, they have also sent threats to some posters/shareholders in the form of private messages, as well as public online messages. The company seems to have ignored these bashers over the last couple years, which may have contributed to a huge share price decline, and have taken action against the supporters of the company instead, ludicrous. I have received death threats as well as other threats over the course of the last 19 months as a result of this stock. A few other shareholders have been intimidated as well. To see someone go to the extent to intimidate and try to scare sholders out of their investment while a stock price has been in steady decline, raises a lot of questions with us shareholders. I will say here that the RCMP is investigating, but time is of the essence for shareholders, where our company,s treasury has been severly depleted and current management are selling off assets.
Here is an example of what the company is trying to do to me.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1972
I will make a brief comment on this excerpt of the release above; "The application was unopposed.", there is a question of denial of due process with this matter, among other things, I will not comment on any more particulars at this time, but will talk of it freely if desired.
continued.....
Page 3
As I have said previously, lots of information surrounding our investment has been delivered to the BCSC, (British Columbia Securities Commission), the TSX Exchange, IIROC ( Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada ), Securities Exchange Commission in the U.S. ,many politicians, shareholder advocates, etc,etc,etc. We are trading at .045 cents today, down over 95% from our all time high of $2.83 per share. Our treasury is dangerously low and the current BOD has started to sell off assets. There has been no further attempt at a PP nor attempts that shareholders are aware of, to cash up our treasury and prevent a total loss for shareholders. I believe the company had several options of raising badly needed funds, but seemed to pick what appears to be the most damaging to shareholders, selling or letting go assets. The company was offered a cash infusion of $90,000 from the dissident group to make sure our Peruvian properties were in good standing while the court battle was pending a decision.
http://www.stockwatch.com/ News/Item.aspx...I®ion=C
The company came out with this release shortly after, ascertaining to shareholders that the properties were in good standing.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 2018
The properties are in good standing, but apparently they are subject to penalties which will incur heavier costs to shareholders in the future, as per Peruvian Concession provisions. Also I should mention here, that since then, the current BOD has entered into a letter of intent with Elementos 79 to sell one of our Peruvian properties, the Cueva Blanca, for $100,000. Even though this property was not considered the flagship property of the company, it did have the biggest unofficial resource estimate on it at one time, actually making it the most valuable in a reserves estimate calculated by evidenced work on the property. In comparison to the unofficial resource estimate of the flagship property Tesoro, being around 4400 ounces of gold, the Cueva Blanca property was estimated to have a resource of
" In an internal St. Elias report by Sivertz (1999),
an inferred mineral resource was calculated at 2.3 to 2.8 million tonnes containing
154,000 to 190,000 ounces of gold and 945,000 ounces of silver"
In the link below on page 8, when Amarok had the property in 2010, a $225 million dollar value was placed on the Cueva Blanca , considering the price of gold and silver at that time. Also, there has been more work done since then in verification of historic samples, whereas later .Buenaventure had expressed interest,
http://intigold.com/ newsrelease/st-elias...y-in- peru/
http://intigold.com/ newsrelease/update-c...y-in- peru/
Below is an excerpt from Grassroots, a small cap research firm, that expresses a value of $225 million on the Cueva Blanca property, while they had it optioned from SLI, it mentions the property as only being 1200 hectares when this value was established, on the SLI home website, at the end of 2011, the property was 5800 hectares.
An internal summary report completed for St. Elias by Sivertz indicated an inferred resource of up to 190,000
ounces of gold and 945,000 ounces of silver on the property, to a depth of 100m. Using current gold and silver prices, this inferred resource has a value of over $225 million. While the company has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the historical results, the data should not be relied upon until confirmed by the Company's own exploration that meets NI 43-101 standards for disclosure. Historical results and the work that generated them.
predate the enactment of National Instrument 43-101 and accordingly may not meet the requirements of tha
policy.
http://www.grassrootsrd.com/ grassrootsrd...3_2010.pdf
Here is a technical report done on the property in 2002.
At this time, the property size was 20,600 hectares.
https://docs.google.com/file/ d/0B-hwvUB-...edit?pli=1
This news release below , from the year 2000, with the excerpt itaicized by me, suggests major mining companies interest in the property 13 years ago.
"Additional personnel are being mobilized by the Company to the Cueva Blanca project as the drilling will be operating 24 hours per day for the duration of the program. On a separate note, St. Elias has signed confidentiality agreements with several of the world largest mining companies. Several of these companies have already reviewed the Company's technical data sets and have recently visited the property. Due to the terms of the confidentially agreements the Company is not in a position to disclose their identities."
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ Cueva+Blan...a066712520
I should add here, that the size of the property has changed over the years and it is unclear where the boundaries of the most up to date concession may be. I know I made a request to the company a few years back to update their maps on the SLI website, but to no avail. Regardless, it is most likely and there seems to be supportive evidence, that the main mineralized resource area was kept by the company, as far as I can see.
By looking at this statement following, it suggested a large anomolous gold area;
"The Zona Verde is a broad area of anomalous gold mineralization that extends for over 1,600 meters in strike length and over 300 meters in width and remains open in all directions. It is one of several large areas of gold mineralization within the property"
http://steliasmines.com/?page_ id=59
So, to sum it up, Cueva Blanca seems perhaps a little more valuable than the $100,000 , mentioned in a current LOI.
Continued..........
Page 4
I believe I have made this elaboration long enough and will just point form a few other things that encapsulate investors concerns of current management and the seemingly reluctance displayed by regulators to act on our behalf. As shareholders, our research resources are limited and many doors shut on our face in trying to get answers. Perhaps, if interested, this can be picked up where we left off and maybe some questions answered for us and announced in the public domain if such is warranted. It is my belief, and other shareholders, that our story involves more than just the SLI shareholders. During the course of our own investigation, we have encountered many existing problems , not only with legislation of the regulators, but our government as well, and the passing of the buck issue that resulted in loss of confidence of the protection of Canadian and global citizens in our markets.
1) A loss of portion of our Carmi Moly project which has a resource estimate of Molybdenum of 50 million pounds at a current trading price for the moly oxide of $9.75 per pound. SLI investors still hold a 49% interest in this property, also referred to as the "Kettle River", and parts of the claim were allowed to lapse by the optionee, which resulted in a SLI geologist and some sort of consultant picking up the expired leases as soon as they lapsed, but not coming back to SLI investors as of yet, to my knowledge.
2) Investors have found several cases of late filing showing up by individual directors of the company over the years, the ABS late filing list, shows several. There has also been late filing of financials a couple times that resulted in the stock being halted . A search on the reprimand list, turns up nothing for these people, at least for our searches. It is supposedly a violation to late report, and if it becomes repetitive, the threat of discipline is an option of the regulators.To find no disciplinary action taken, seems weird.
3) There has been an out of court settlement with a "Lombardo" to the amount of over $200,000 that only shows up in the company,s financials and no news release was released to the public on this matter, other than a brief in the financials. Although this was settled out of court, there may be a certain admission of guilt on SLI,s part, even though no wrong doing has been registered. This is a disturbing concept in itself, the act of out of court settlements by any public traded company, and as we see this practice grow among companies that are subjected to questionable practises. This is contradictory to disclosure and transparency issues between the investor component and the company itself.
4) Intigold Mines(IGD), is a sister company of SLI and enjoy most of the same directors. An aquisition of TTAGIT by IGD last year, had shareholders of the belief, and as per a TSX review, that shareholders had to vote on this transaction. On the Proxy, there was no item as such for an investor to cast their vote. IGD put out a news release on Dec 11th/ 2012 that they received shareholder approval, see below;
"Pursuant to an investment agreement between the Company and TTAGIT, dated November 14, 2012, Intigold agreed to purchase and TTAGIT agreed to sell a 51% interest, subject to a 2.5% royalty, in TTAGIT, in consideration of Intigold paying to TTAGIT the aggregate sum of $300,000 in cash and funding $500,000 for the development and marketing of TTAGIT over a 12 month period. The Company has now received shareholder and final Exchange acceptance to the Transaction."
http://web.tmxmoney.com/ article.php?news...symbol=IGD
5) Current management has only about 13,000 shares held total at this time.
6) IIROC has been alerted to what appeared to be suspicious trading in the stock, several times, we see no explanation or reply if anyone/trading house has been reprimanded. The non transparency towards investors by regulators on these types of suspicions, hampers investors abilities to make reasonable investment decisions, whereas, the investor is left with never knowing if an investigation is ever closed or if it is closed and there are no findings by the regulator. There is never a conclusion to the investor, so the investor is always under the assumption that an investigation is ongoing, when in fact, it may be closed.
7) There have been much shorting recorded of this stock, as well as FTD,s recorded state side. The naked shorting element appears to perhaps have a place in this investment/stock as well. I will comment that this stock is tightly held and has been for a few years. Investors have made what appear to be connections with short positions being taken up before news or when expecting news in the past.
8) Investors also monitor Google Earth as part of their DD. A photo placed on the property, by what appears to be an independant photographer, may suggest that at least one leach pad has been set up on the property to process minerals. There has been no news release stating that we are processing on the Tesoro in this manner. Also, there seems to be some conflict between actual news releases from the property, in the line of surface work, and what actual satelite images of the property suggest.
9) There appears to be ongoing investigations by authorities on this company. The problem is, and why this letter is informing more interests at this time, is because assets of our company are being sold at what we consider ridiculous prices. A rumour from Peru has mining equipment there being perhaps sold at pennies on the dollar. The company does a little gold mining on the property and the proceeds help to create a source of revenue to further advance the property, perhaps toward a sale, that would benefit shareholders. If this equipment is being sold, its definitley not in the shareholders best interests and in fact is detrimental to the future of their investment. There are many ways a company can raise funds, shareholders have seen no new attempts lately to do so, so the selling of assets is worrisome and perhaps not justified. Shareholders are running out of time to try and save this company and their investment, which is life savings for some, and believe there is a vindictiveness being displayed by management toward shareholders. We cannot wait for authorities to take years to investigate, as being prudent, we are trying going public in hopes that perhaps incriminating evidence, if any, or any support may surface as a result and help us remove those from office that clearly don,t have shareholders best interests at heart. Our situation is a blatancy and it is little understood why protective agencies have not stepped in here to protect the overall integrity that our situation encompasses.
10) A recent search of Kulwant Sandher, the CFO of SLI, has revealed that the SEC has asked for clarification on some Brinx Resource Ltd filings in 2012. I see that he resigned this year from that very company.
11) In an IGD PP of last year, there is evidence of several placees of being of off shore jurisdiction.
12) A property bought in 2011 or 2012, North Rim property, saw an amount being paid for this property of $230,000. There was no news release issued on this and was discovered in the company,s financials. Its not totally clear, but it seems this property may have been purchased from the CEO,s husband at the time, or his company, Madman Mining Co Ltd. It appears a high price to be paid for this property in comparison to the purchase of the "Gold Summit" property, which seems the prospect potential is much greater.
13) There is a component and element of mistrust among a small portion of shareholders of their computers and phones. These shareholders have witnessed many anomalies with such and can attest to what seemed to be private and sometimes personal information, being revealed on the Stock House investor forum for SLI, shortly after phone discussions were ended, by so called bashers or opposition. To see this type of behaviour surface, along with serious threats of other times, seems to suggest a suspicious element of its own, with this stock. I will also say here, or ask the question, "why are there so many risky and desperate actions by some, if a company has something of little value, and the stock price continuously decreases, who would really care to attack those that are supporting their investment?"
14) There is more, but this should suffice for the time being, and I believe its enough for one to get the picture of what has been happening to us shareholders of SLI over the last few years. Shareholders have much information documented and disseminated for safe keeping whereas computers could not be trusted, and Google searches started to see links broken to what are deemed to be important historic information about the company and its properties.
15) Many shareholders wish to endorse these letters of information that are sent to many by me at this time, so as can be seen, this is another concerted effort by shareholders and not by just me.
To my knowledge, all information is accurate in the entirety of this information package. There have been limited opinions by me expressed to perhaps better enable the reader to grasp our perspective. There is the possibility that some information is not accurate and is only as accurate as the transparency of such to the limited resources investors have. Perhaps everything is above board with our investment and company, but as can be seen by the information, our perspective suggests there may be grave problems.
We, a group of investors of SLI, believe in our Peruvian properties, mainly the Tesoro, as capable of containing a very valuable resource. All our evidence and interpretation of such, points to this being so, hence the current and lengthy battle to get answers to the vague information we have been offered by management. It may be in the readers interest, to consult several professionals in the fields of geology and geophysics, a quick glance would perhaps miss important information and a meticulous approach is suggested. This property has a history going back to approximately 2003, and it may be hard to find some older data, but shareholders seem to have a file that may be more complete than a general Google search may present.
I will reiterate the dissemination of this letter to many sources, including but not limited to, government, regulators and media, internationally and globally. Many shareholders are willing and open to interviews and further questioning on this investment, and this can be easily arranged.
For the record, my alias on the online investor forum Agoracom http://agoracom.com/ir/ steliasmines, is Sculpin. It is there that I post and offer indepth opinions on all aspects of SLI as well as views and perspectives on the dynamics that pertain directly or sometimes indirectly to SLI. To my knowledge, some media and government representation has been familiarizing themselves with the comments I have recently been putting out there in the last few weeks. It is important information and does pertain to this letter and does expand on some of the contents written here. This is not a conceited effort on my part to attract attention to my postings, but rather a further attempt at public awareness to shareholders concerns and the affecting components of the markets. Another reason for my directing readers to Agoracom postings, is because of the proof mechanisms and supporting documentation that is usually revealed with accompanying links, it is my understanding that sometimes when links accompany emails, that certain email spam programs may filter out emails that contain links, then the email does not arrive to where it should.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this in its entirety. Any initial contact can be made by email, a phone number will be provided upon further interest/request. A record is being kept of all interests emails as well as the important non interests and any non replies are recorded and considered as non interest. This record may be released publicly at a future date.
Rick Jewers
So, with news releases of bulk sampling being around an ounce per ton gold, it looked pretty evident that SLI would have an economical deposit that could be mined or eventually sold to the highest bidder, in which investors make the biggest returns, usually. Upon further research, and to my delight, I find that there is also disseminated gold, that could warrant an open pit mine, which further assured that this could be a buy out scenario.Also add here, that a corporate presentation as well as an audio of the CEO at an AGM, ascertains that 1 ounce per ton gold was taken from DEVELOPMENT MATERIAL. The Mining Act of Ontario defines material this way:
(2) In the definition of “advanced exploration” in subsection (1),
“material” means rock, ore or any other substance excavated during the process of developing, mining, evaluating or testing any mineral or mineral deposit, but does not include excavated overburden; http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ html/regs/en..._e.htm#BK0
The CEO goes further to say in a recorded audio of the 2011 AGM that the company was not even following veins when they put the shaft in that averaged 1 ounce per ton gold, it was the material that averaged this in its entirety and that clearly suggests that if veins were encountered during this development, that they were most likely of much higher grades than the 1-2 ounce veins that are commonly found on the property and that there is most likely a very strong mineralization of disseminated gold also, to allow for this high of an average grade. And, as I mentioned above, only 7 g/t would give you the feasibility needed for a shaft mine. While the shaft averaged 1 ounce per ton gold over its length and not following veins, simple analysis may suggest a wide area of mineralization that is well above the average 3 g/t gold needed for an open pit scenario. This is only one example of many, that suggests the property has economics to sustain a very profitable mine/mines, and only one area of the property out of several that have displayed similar characteristics of probable feasibilty. All historical geological data seems to support this, as well as local geology. I should also mention here, the added copper and silver element that adds to a properties value, is present in some sampling, be it economical or not on its stand alone scenario, doesn,t really matter in this scenario, whereas the gold is the dominant mineral and during processing of a gold mineral, the copper and silver elements become by products of a later stage of processing if it is feasible to do so, in which in turn, in some cases , can create a cost free situation per ounce on your gold processing, depending on the grade of the by products.
Upon investing a small dollar amount initially, I continued to diligently research this company, as I became more intrigued with its prospects. There were more news releases of bulk samples along with a Gluckenstein Silverspoon 2010 (an equity research firm) report on the property, which suggested over 2 million ounces of gold could be possible in known veins. This only reinforced a buyout scenario in the future, whereas majors at the time were looking for deposits of gold with the possibility of containing a million ounces or more. I should mention here that Buenaventura , a major mining company in Peru,http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Buenaventura_(mining_ company) has recently been very interested in junior companies having as low as 200,000 ounces of gold, this keeps a buyout scenario for our Tesoro property always a present possibility, as well as another SLI property (Cueava Blanca)that is currently being let go by SLI management for a measely $100,000, where it had an historic resource estimate of 200,000 ounces of gold along with almost a million ounces of silver. I will elaborate on
this property further, later on in this letter.
2010 company review; http://www.marketwire.com/ press-release/...374675.htm
In Oct 2011, the Mining Stock Report came out on the Tesoro property, (note; this should be read meticulously from a geological perspective). The stock price at the time of this release should also be noted as well as the stock price forcast. Also, the trading that happened on the day of this release, in particular, about 2 hours before the release of this report, there is selling pressure coming on the stock, which followed a steady share price increase before the release. The stock hit is all time high that day of around $2.83 per share, ending the day around $2.63, with a report suggesting a future stock price of over $3.00. Also keep in mind here, that the company at this time is in the process of the first ever drilling from the property, in which initial results could come at anytime on a property that could very well be a huge gold find, as well as trenching results from this same property that began in May of the same year. The hype that got this stock up to such a high level for a company with little to no initial reserves, is the results of a Quantec Geosciences geophysical survey, which is what it is, it suggests substantial mineralization. So, the big question here is, why would anyone sell prematurely to initial drill and trench results from a property that could very well be the next big gold find? And especially where these initial results did not start being released to the market in Jan 2012. I should add here, that even 2 days before the initial results were released, the stock started a dramatic decline from around a $2.00 share price.
So, as you can see the 2 above mentioned reports, a 2010 technical report done by an independant geologist, (which seen him later becoming a director of SLI), and other news releases pertaining to the geology of the property, video interviews of our CEO and corporate presentations, I would say a pretty solid case was made to substantiate that the main Tesoro property alone was very valuable and could easily justify an elevated stock price. As excitement grew over the few years leading up to initial results, it resulted in many shareholders connecting to other shareholders and sharing thoughts,info and friendship, to substantiate their own thoughts on this being an excellent investment and perhaps seeing if the adage "too good to be true", had any life here. As a result of communication between shareholders, it was found that an impressive number of shareholders had geo/geophysicist friends that they would consult, directly or indirectly for a second opinion, if you will. The most critical questions asked of these professionals, were their opinion on the geophysical anomalies portrayed by Quantec in their geophysical report of the property and in conjunctuion with historical data from the property. The remnants of BRE-X still lingered in the thoughts of some, hence the consultations of an independent review, which seemed positive to very positive, depending on the degree the geo analyzed the data. I personally had one geo look at some of the geophysics, his first reply was that the anomalies looked impressive, but could really be anything. Then I informed him that we had tangible data from down to the 100m level with sample results and information on the mineralization found there, and plotted this info on a side view of the appropriate geophysical slide, once he saw the corresponding sample numbers his reply was, "oh yeah,what else are you supposed to believe", meaning that my initial thoughts conveyed to him that this had mass potential, were well substantiated by this determination. I also consulted another respected geo for his opinion, he being a geo that didn,t really like geophysics, moreso opined on the regional geology saying that it looked favourable. Although substantial data was sent to him for review, he only took a general look at it, hence his general reply. I consulted a friend that had a geo look at the first set of drill results to come from the property, his opinion, there seemed to be a huge disconnect from drill results to the historic data, which were and are mine as well. A lot of this disconnect is due to the fact that the news releases pertaining to the drilling and trenching are very vague and important information seems to be non existent, which in turn, does not allow the reader to this day, make a reasonable investing decision. The missing info from these releases does not allow one to connect the dots to verify that the geophysics is incorrect or not and disables one to successfully coordinate this drilling/trenching info directly and clearly to the property. So, one is left with, a reasonable investing decision cannot be made because of inadequate released information. We dont have the drill hole angles to see where and how they intersected the Quantec anomalies and the drill hole information we do have, seems to end prematurely to the intersecting the anomalies expressed by high chargeability, with little to no sample results even though the drill holes pierced these anomalies, some holes by 100m or more. These anomalies are high chargeability anomalies which are usually a result of sulphide mineralization in this circumstance and a direct association to gold content to sulphides is established on the property. To enhance, the gold grade goes up with the increase in sulphide content, at least on the available historic data. Meaning, that these high chargeability anomalies should not be present if the sulphides are not there, a quote from the CEO "its impossible", in which I agree totally. So, the geophysics from Quantec is that accurate, that you can coorelate it to all historic data precisely, yet the drill holes from depth do not correlate. The geological attributes of this property are very interesting and perhaps to fully understand the dynamics of which I speak, great consideration should be taken of this aspect as well.
Shareholders started to become restless around mid to late summer of 2011. We were waiting for a drill permit previous this time that was applied for in summer of 2010 and not received til May 2011. Also around this time, the financials were showing huge increases in the travel expenditures, I believe if you take the 3 year average of this travel expenditure from Feb 2013 back to 2010, it will equate to around $3000 per day being spent on travel alone! This is an exploration company looking for minerals, the travel expenditures initiated grave concerns from the shareholders as well as smaller concerns showing up in the financials, such as salaries being paid to certain executive/directors. This company, on paper in the financials, does not have a revenue stream derived from sale of products or services, it is, as per the financials, totally dependent on securing financing from the market in the line of issuing stock. As we know, issuing of stock dilutes existing shareholders and becomes a concern. It is realized that a company must raise funds to operate, but it is also expected that discernment goes into the spending of these funds by management. This flamboyant travel expenditure also was coinciding with TV appearances, a Forbes interview, many meetings in Europe and the U.S. with what appeared to be distinguished firms and high net worth individuals, giving the impression to some shareholders that perhaps this was a huge find and that in the course of business, this leg work had to be done. Here is a link to the Forbes interview, take note of the remarks near the end "major gold find" "I know", and others,
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=em44IC18CwM
Also perhaps, the question as to why to even do this interview, should be entertained. Sure, these are promotional efforts, but wouldn,t most believe that more discretion should have been used by the CEO? The date of this interview should also be noted, Sept 27/2011 in conjunction of when we started trenching the property in May of that year and started drilling somewhere between June and Aug of that year, (the news releases concerning the start date for drilling are unclear, hence the variable date).
Also, reports from investors and others around the flamboyant travel time, suggests the CEO being under the influence of alcohol during some presentations and meetings, causing a less than desirable impression for future funding that may be needed by the company. Another concern related to this travel expenditure, was the use of private jets/planes, with on one occasion, lobster being served in the sky, as rumoured by a source/s. If this was shareholders money being used for this extravagant lifestyle, the shareholders have/had justifiable concerns. Sure, if she had confirmation that we had a huge gold find, she deserved to have fun and I had no real problems with this at the time, because I believed she was competent and my investment security was enhanced by her actions. In reality, what CEO would publicly reveal a lavish lifestyle, perhaps flaunt a property, if it could not be justified at the time?
continued.....
Page 2
At the AGM of Nov 2011, a message was sent to management by shareholders voting down managements request for increased stock options. This action revealed 2 messages to management, the strength of the shareholders as per the amount of votes voting "against" and that shareholders were not happy rewarding management in light of the ridiculous travel expenditures and what seemed a considerably long time waiting for drill/trenching results that began as much as 6 months prior. An audio of the presentation that followed the AGM is documented and contains much information conveyed by the CEO concerning the property. One comment in particular, pertains to Quantecs involvement with SLI on a "day to day basis" and the resemblance of the Tesoro property geophysics to that of Red Lake, owned by Goldcorp and considered one of the richest gold mines in the world. After disappointing drill results, Quantec was consulted by some investors in June or so of 2012, approximately 7 months after the CEO made this statement, and were told by Quantec, that Quantec had no communications with SLI for the previous 18 months, which would approximately place last contact around Jan 2011, a time when the company was not working on the Tesoro and 5 months prior to the commencement of any work.
So, when investors heard that management was not in contact with SLI as was recorded in the AGM audio of 2011, alarm bells went off and only enhanced our concerns even more with management. I should make reference to the audio of the Feb 2012 conference call held by the CEO in which one of her remarks addressing shareholders was "go harass an immigrant".This is very disturbing anytime, when a CEO or anyone speaks like this, let alone that we have investors in this stock that are immigrants, this not only effects a small portion, it affects all shareholders. Also at the end of this conference call, investors were supposedly allowed to enter a question and answer period with the CEO, but suspiciously, as you hear in the audio, the CEO says "no questions ?" "bye". There were investors that tried to get through with some very important questions and concerns, I was one, but for some reason, the connection was broke for calling in,and no investors could participate. This should be an operable link to the conference call;
https://docs.google.com/file/ d/0B0Me5nTl..._web&pli=1
I believe around this time(June 2012) investors started communication with regulators over the compounding grave concerns they had, they believed in the company strongly, as they still do today, but not the management and considered them a risk to their investment. Investors could have sold their investment, but the value had declined by then to a ridiculous low, by the inability to make a reasonable investment decision prior and the belief in the properties hadn,t wavered, some investors talked about legal action while others talked about trying to change management at the upcoming AGM that would carry a lower cost. There was also the hope that regulators would step in and uphold protection to shareholders. Finally, a dissident group stepped forward to attempt changing management and alleviate the many concerns investors had going forward. Around the same time the dissidents announced their nominee of directors, the company put out a news release announcing a huge private placement (PP), that would dilute shareholders substantially if filled, notice the dates. A large group of shareholders retaliated by writing numerous letters to the regulators, politicians, the TSX Exchange,etc, whereas we considered this proposterous, and asked for help, whereas we had grave concerns at this time with management in light of everything that had transpired up to this date. There was also a petition drawn up at this time that was sent to various government and regulators, I forget the amount of signatures we had on it, but believe it was between 200-500. It came at a time when our share price had been severly beaten up and when some investors asked if they could participate in the PP , they were told no, that it was full. Then in this news release of Jan 30th, a few months later, you will see it is withdrawn. If it was withdrawn due to the Exchange not approving it , I believe this may have had to be disclosed to the public, saying specifically that.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1701
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1705
The majority of investors threw their support behind these dissidents and an unofficial count of the votes at the AGM resulted in this dissident group receiving 91% of the votes cast, which equated to roughly 54% of the entire share float, the BOD at the time received about 9% of the voted shares. I should add here that the shareholders voting for the dissidents only had around 5 days or so to cast their votes, and that many problems arose that all investors voting for the dissident group did not get their voice heard. In comparison, management had around a couple of months for investors to vote for them. But, at the AGM, the CEO took the chair of the meeting and proclaimed all the dissident votes being invalid due to inconsistencies in the dissidents circular. The CEO accused the dissident circular of being misleading and disqualified all our votes as a result. The CEO had informed the dissident group before the AGM that she saw what she considered misleading statements in their circular and ask for them to be corrected. The dissident group did not correct them and I guess the dissident group considered them to not be misleading. The CEO pointed out well before the AGM to the public what she considered misleading, this appeared to be her and the BOD,s interpretation, although none of these were proven before hand to be false, the CEO took the Chair and disqualified the votes. Where the CEO pointed these so called deficiencies out to the public before the actual voting deadline, investors had the chance to change their vote if they desired, so in fact, the investors were not mislead, because by the CEO,s interpretation, she offered the correction well before hand to the shareholders, and shareholders had the opportunity to change their vote right up to the AGM. Because of the CEO changing the AGM date twice before and adopting the Advance Notice Policy, this caused delay times in the dissidents getting their voting proxy out and helped limit the voting window for the shareholders of the dissident proxy. I should also add here, that I consider the BOD,s proxy to be misleading in regards to one of the elected directors, Robert Krause. My research did not allow me to fully verify the profile for Mr Krause in the managements circular in regards to his credit for helping find a million ounce deposit and the buyout of such by a major. I believe the CEO took a biased position at the AGM by taking the Chair. Also, the TSX Venture had recommendations years ago about allowing any CEO to take the Chair , whereas it may be considered a conflict of interest and perhaps an abuse of power. I should mention here also, that the TSX has the power to intervene, as well as the BCSC, but they let it go to court and let a judge rule on a decision that involves many shareholders and their lifes savings. The Judge ruled in favour of the company.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1484
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/ news/st-elia...00930.html
http://www.marketwire.com/ press-release/...740856.htm
So, then we see on Feb 15 th, shortly after the AGM and before the Judges ruling months later, that the company commences litigation against posters on Agoracom, http://agoracom.com/ and an ex director, naming conspiracy and defamation as 2 of the allegations in this proceeding.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1940
This suit is considered a SLAPP suit with its intent being to silence shareholders among other things, in my opinion, as well as others. We cannot see where it holds any merit and a review of the filed Notice of Civil Claim should present typical characteristics of any SLAAP suit quite easily, in its format and intent. The very online posters the company is accusing, are the very supportive shareholders of the company that always strongly supported the company, but had growing concerns of management as time progressed. The comments made that the company may consider defammatory, have not been proven, but do suggest to have merit. These are grave concerns of the shareholders and they should be allowed to discuss and voice their opinions openly. Over the years, there have been what shareholders lable "bashers"on these online discussion forums, we shareholders constantly battle these online posters whereas their usual intent is to scare people out of their investments by spreading false rumours and bad mouthing a company. These bashers are usually in groups, tied to professional shorters with their intent to drive the price of a stock down, to make a profit on the decline of a share price. These bashers have been constantly plaguing SLI and even to this day, they have also sent threats to some posters/shareholders in the form of private messages, as well as public online messages. The company seems to have ignored these bashers over the last couple years, which may have contributed to a huge share price decline, and have taken action against the supporters of the company instead, ludicrous. I have received death threats as well as other threats over the course of the last 19 months as a result of this stock. A few other shareholders have been intimidated as well. To see someone go to the extent to intimidate and try to scare sholders out of their investment while a stock price has been in steady decline, raises a lot of questions with us shareholders. I will say here that the RCMP is investigating, but time is of the essence for shareholders, where our company,s treasury has been severly depleted and current management are selling off assets.
Here is an example of what the company is trying to do to me.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 1972
I will make a brief comment on this excerpt of the release above; "The application was unopposed.", there is a question of denial of due process with this matter, among other things, I will not comment on any more particulars at this time, but will talk of it freely if desired.
continued.....
Page 3
As I have said previously, lots of information surrounding our investment has been delivered to the BCSC, (British Columbia Securities Commission), the TSX Exchange, IIROC ( Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada ), Securities Exchange Commission in the U.S. ,many politicians, shareholder advocates, etc,etc,etc. We are trading at .045 cents today, down over 95% from our all time high of $2.83 per share. Our treasury is dangerously low and the current BOD has started to sell off assets. There has been no further attempt at a PP nor attempts that shareholders are aware of, to cash up our treasury and prevent a total loss for shareholders. I believe the company had several options of raising badly needed funds, but seemed to pick what appears to be the most damaging to shareholders, selling or letting go assets. The company was offered a cash infusion of $90,000 from the dissident group to make sure our Peruvian properties were in good standing while the court battle was pending a decision.
http://www.stockwatch.com/ News/Item.aspx...I®ion=C
The company came out with this release shortly after, ascertaining to shareholders that the properties were in good standing.
http://steliasmines.com/?p= 2018
The properties are in good standing, but apparently they are subject to penalties which will incur heavier costs to shareholders in the future, as per Peruvian Concession provisions. Also I should mention here, that since then, the current BOD has entered into a letter of intent with Elementos 79 to sell one of our Peruvian properties, the Cueva Blanca, for $100,000. Even though this property was not considered the flagship property of the company, it did have the biggest unofficial resource estimate on it at one time, actually making it the most valuable in a reserves estimate calculated by evidenced work on the property. In comparison to the unofficial resource estimate of the flagship property Tesoro, being around 4400 ounces of gold, the Cueva Blanca property was estimated to have a resource of
" In an internal St. Elias report by Sivertz (1999),
an inferred mineral resource was calculated at 2.3 to 2.8 million tonnes containing
154,000 to 190,000 ounces of gold and 945,000 ounces of silver"
In the link below on page 8, when Amarok had the property in 2010, a $225 million dollar value was placed on the Cueva Blanca , considering the price of gold and silver at that time. Also, there has been more work done since then in verification of historic samples, whereas later .Buenaventure had expressed interest,
http://intigold.com/ newsrelease/st-elias...y-in- peru/
http://intigold.com/ newsrelease/update-c...y-in- peru/
Below is an excerpt from Grassroots, a small cap research firm, that expresses a value of $225 million on the Cueva Blanca property, while they had it optioned from SLI, it mentions the property as only being 1200 hectares when this value was established, on the SLI home website, at the end of 2011, the property was 5800 hectares.
An internal summary report completed for St. Elias by Sivertz indicated an inferred resource of up to 190,000
ounces of gold and 945,000 ounces of silver on the property, to a depth of 100m. Using current gold and silver prices, this inferred resource has a value of over $225 million. While the company has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the historical results, the data should not be relied upon until confirmed by the Company's own exploration that meets NI 43-101 standards for disclosure. Historical results and the work that generated them.
predate the enactment of National Instrument 43-101 and accordingly may not meet the requirements of tha
policy.
http://www.grassrootsrd.com/ grassrootsrd...3_2010.pdf
Here is a technical report done on the property in 2002.
At this time, the property size was 20,600 hectares.
https://docs.google.com/file/ d/0B-hwvUB-...edit?pli=1
This news release below , from the year 2000, with the excerpt itaicized by me, suggests major mining companies interest in the property 13 years ago.
"Additional personnel are being mobilized by the Company to the Cueva Blanca project as the drilling will be operating 24 hours per day for the duration of the program. On a separate note, St. Elias has signed confidentiality agreements with several of the world largest mining companies. Several of these companies have already reviewed the Company's technical data sets and have recently visited the property. Due to the terms of the confidentially agreements the Company is not in a position to disclose their identities."
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ Cueva+Blan...a066712520
I should add here, that the size of the property has changed over the years and it is unclear where the boundaries of the most up to date concession may be. I know I made a request to the company a few years back to update their maps on the SLI website, but to no avail. Regardless, it is most likely and there seems to be supportive evidence, that the main mineralized resource area was kept by the company, as far as I can see.
By looking at this statement following, it suggested a large anomolous gold area;
"The Zona Verde is a broad area of anomalous gold mineralization that extends for over 1,600 meters in strike length and over 300 meters in width and remains open in all directions. It is one of several large areas of gold mineralization within the property"
http://steliasmines.com/?page_ id=59
So, to sum it up, Cueva Blanca seems perhaps a little more valuable than the $100,000 , mentioned in a current LOI.
Continued..........
Page 4
I believe I have made this elaboration long enough and will just point form a few other things that encapsulate investors concerns of current management and the seemingly reluctance displayed by regulators to act on our behalf. As shareholders, our research resources are limited and many doors shut on our face in trying to get answers. Perhaps, if interested, this can be picked up where we left off and maybe some questions answered for us and announced in the public domain if such is warranted. It is my belief, and other shareholders, that our story involves more than just the SLI shareholders. During the course of our own investigation, we have encountered many existing problems , not only with legislation of the regulators, but our government as well, and the passing of the buck issue that resulted in loss of confidence of the protection of Canadian and global citizens in our markets.
1) A loss of portion of our Carmi Moly project which has a resource estimate of Molybdenum of 50 million pounds at a current trading price for the moly oxide of $9.75 per pound. SLI investors still hold a 49% interest in this property, also referred to as the "Kettle River", and parts of the claim were allowed to lapse by the optionee, which resulted in a SLI geologist and some sort of consultant picking up the expired leases as soon as they lapsed, but not coming back to SLI investors as of yet, to my knowledge.
2) Investors have found several cases of late filing showing up by individual directors of the company over the years, the ABS late filing list, shows several. There has also been late filing of financials a couple times that resulted in the stock being halted . A search on the reprimand list, turns up nothing for these people, at least for our searches. It is supposedly a violation to late report, and if it becomes repetitive, the threat of discipline is an option of the regulators.To find no disciplinary action taken, seems weird.
3) There has been an out of court settlement with a "Lombardo" to the amount of over $200,000 that only shows up in the company,s financials and no news release was released to the public on this matter, other than a brief in the financials. Although this was settled out of court, there may be a certain admission of guilt on SLI,s part, even though no wrong doing has been registered. This is a disturbing concept in itself, the act of out of court settlements by any public traded company, and as we see this practice grow among companies that are subjected to questionable practises. This is contradictory to disclosure and transparency issues between the investor component and the company itself.
4) Intigold Mines(IGD), is a sister company of SLI and enjoy most of the same directors. An aquisition of TTAGIT by IGD last year, had shareholders of the belief, and as per a TSX review, that shareholders had to vote on this transaction. On the Proxy, there was no item as such for an investor to cast their vote. IGD put out a news release on Dec 11th/ 2012 that they received shareholder approval, see below;
"Pursuant to an investment agreement between the Company and TTAGIT, dated November 14, 2012, Intigold agreed to purchase and TTAGIT agreed to sell a 51% interest, subject to a 2.5% royalty, in TTAGIT, in consideration of Intigold paying to TTAGIT the aggregate sum of $300,000 in cash and funding $500,000 for the development and marketing of TTAGIT over a 12 month period. The Company has now received shareholder and final Exchange acceptance to the Transaction."
http://web.tmxmoney.com/ article.php?news...symbol=IGD
5) Current management has only about 13,000 shares held total at this time.
6) IIROC has been alerted to what appeared to be suspicious trading in the stock, several times, we see no explanation or reply if anyone/trading house has been reprimanded. The non transparency towards investors by regulators on these types of suspicions, hampers investors abilities to make reasonable investment decisions, whereas, the investor is left with never knowing if an investigation is ever closed or if it is closed and there are no findings by the regulator. There is never a conclusion to the investor, so the investor is always under the assumption that an investigation is ongoing, when in fact, it may be closed.
7) There have been much shorting recorded of this stock, as well as FTD,s recorded state side. The naked shorting element appears to perhaps have a place in this investment/stock as well. I will comment that this stock is tightly held and has been for a few years. Investors have made what appear to be connections with short positions being taken up before news or when expecting news in the past.
8) Investors also monitor Google Earth as part of their DD. A photo placed on the property, by what appears to be an independant photographer, may suggest that at least one leach pad has been set up on the property to process minerals. There has been no news release stating that we are processing on the Tesoro in this manner. Also, there seems to be some conflict between actual news releases from the property, in the line of surface work, and what actual satelite images of the property suggest.
9) There appears to be ongoing investigations by authorities on this company. The problem is, and why this letter is informing more interests at this time, is because assets of our company are being sold at what we consider ridiculous prices. A rumour from Peru has mining equipment there being perhaps sold at pennies on the dollar. The company does a little gold mining on the property and the proceeds help to create a source of revenue to further advance the property, perhaps toward a sale, that would benefit shareholders. If this equipment is being sold, its definitley not in the shareholders best interests and in fact is detrimental to the future of their investment. There are many ways a company can raise funds, shareholders have seen no new attempts lately to do so, so the selling of assets is worrisome and perhaps not justified. Shareholders are running out of time to try and save this company and their investment, which is life savings for some, and believe there is a vindictiveness being displayed by management toward shareholders. We cannot wait for authorities to take years to investigate, as being prudent, we are trying going public in hopes that perhaps incriminating evidence, if any, or any support may surface as a result and help us remove those from office that clearly don,t have shareholders best interests at heart. Our situation is a blatancy and it is little understood why protective agencies have not stepped in here to protect the overall integrity that our situation encompasses.
10) A recent search of Kulwant Sandher, the CFO of SLI, has revealed that the SEC has asked for clarification on some Brinx Resource Ltd filings in 2012. I see that he resigned this year from that very company.
11) In an IGD PP of last year, there is evidence of several placees of being of off shore jurisdiction.
12) A property bought in 2011 or 2012, North Rim property, saw an amount being paid for this property of $230,000. There was no news release issued on this and was discovered in the company,s financials. Its not totally clear, but it seems this property may have been purchased from the CEO,s husband at the time, or his company, Madman Mining Co Ltd. It appears a high price to be paid for this property in comparison to the purchase of the "Gold Summit" property, which seems the prospect potential is much greater.
13) There is a component and element of mistrust among a small portion of shareholders of their computers and phones. These shareholders have witnessed many anomalies with such and can attest to what seemed to be private and sometimes personal information, being revealed on the Stock House investor forum for SLI, shortly after phone discussions were ended, by so called bashers or opposition. To see this type of behaviour surface, along with serious threats of other times, seems to suggest a suspicious element of its own, with this stock. I will also say here, or ask the question, "why are there so many risky and desperate actions by some, if a company has something of little value, and the stock price continuously decreases, who would really care to attack those that are supporting their investment?"
14) There is more, but this should suffice for the time being, and I believe its enough for one to get the picture of what has been happening to us shareholders of SLI over the last few years. Shareholders have much information documented and disseminated for safe keeping whereas computers could not be trusted, and Google searches started to see links broken to what are deemed to be important historic information about the company and its properties.
15) Many shareholders wish to endorse these letters of information that are sent to many by me at this time, so as can be seen, this is another concerted effort by shareholders and not by just me.
To my knowledge, all information is accurate in the entirety of this information package. There have been limited opinions by me expressed to perhaps better enable the reader to grasp our perspective. There is the possibility that some information is not accurate and is only as accurate as the transparency of such to the limited resources investors have. Perhaps everything is above board with our investment and company, but as can be seen by the information, our perspective suggests there may be grave problems.
We, a group of investors of SLI, believe in our Peruvian properties, mainly the Tesoro, as capable of containing a very valuable resource. All our evidence and interpretation of such, points to this being so, hence the current and lengthy battle to get answers to the vague information we have been offered by management. It may be in the readers interest, to consult several professionals in the fields of geology and geophysics, a quick glance would perhaps miss important information and a meticulous approach is suggested. This property has a history going back to approximately 2003, and it may be hard to find some older data, but shareholders seem to have a file that may be more complete than a general Google search may present.
I will reiterate the dissemination of this letter to many sources, including but not limited to, government, regulators and media, internationally and globally. Many shareholders are willing and open to interviews and further questioning on this investment, and this can be easily arranged.
For the record, my alias on the online investor forum Agoracom http://agoracom.com/ir/ steliasmines, is Sculpin. It is there that I post and offer indepth opinions on all aspects of SLI as well as views and perspectives on the dynamics that pertain directly or sometimes indirectly to SLI. To my knowledge, some media and government representation has been familiarizing themselves with the comments I have recently been putting out there in the last few weeks. It is important information and does pertain to this letter and does expand on some of the contents written here. This is not a conceited effort on my part to attract attention to my postings, but rather a further attempt at public awareness to shareholders concerns and the affecting components of the markets. Another reason for my directing readers to Agoracom postings, is because of the proof mechanisms and supporting documentation that is usually revealed with accompanying links, it is my understanding that sometimes when links accompany emails, that certain email spam programs may filter out emails that contain links, then the email does not arrive to where it should.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this in its entirety. Any initial contact can be made by email, a phone number will be provided upon further interest/request. A record is being kept of all interests emails as well as the important non interests and any non replies are recorded and considered as non interest. This record may be released publicly at a future date.
Rick Jewers
Much more will be made available on this subject as soon as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment