Ann: Results of Meeting, page-16

Well I must say ... I find some of what has been noted recently rather bewildering.

However, having read some of the more recent posts and particularly the ones by the poster after they attended a board meeting with 2 other holders, I think this post meeting afterglow ought to be challenged.

Let's clear up the Volcan loan.

Fact - Volcan owed CGB shareholders over $1,200,000.00 - read the financial documents for heaven's sakes. Is there someone here saying that the information noted in the published financial documents cannot be relied upon? Is there someone arguing that Volcan do not owe CGB shareholders just over $1,200,000.00? It does not matter one iota that it wasn't a cash loan. CGB transferred an asset (ML1492) that they valued at $1,200,000.00 to Volcan. That is an inescapable fact. Simply saying it was not a cash loan is churlish to say the least - head in the sand stuff. And if it is such a small deal - then simply transfer the asset back to its rightful owners.

CGB has also loaned money (cash) to other related parties - AGM e.g. - inescapable fact! Please read the financial documents. Have AGMPL paid back their interest free, unsecured loans to CGB shareholders? If not - why not?

And why doesn't the BOD collect those debts and stop asking holders for more of their cash. Evidently, CGB has had enough because it apparently has or, has had at times, such an excess of cash that they felt it prudent to make loans to related parties! Fact!

Does anyone find it ironic that holders have been called and asked if they are going to participate in the issue when the company has money owed to it? One poster was allegedly asked for $500 - they should have given Volcan's number to the caller.

"I am very grateful though for @wasss.35's post. I believe it is an honest post. He went and got answers for himself and reported back here that, in his opinion, the information he gleaned from Sholom, does not match a lot of the criticism and commentary that is currently on the forum."

Honest or otherwise - a post should be supported by facts. Nothing that I have read could even be remotely regarded as a sensible, coherent rebuttal of the facts - nothing! I learned absolutely nothing from those posts. It sounded to me like a clumsy, hamfisted PR exercise.

"... the information he gleaned from Sholom, does not match a lot of the criticism and commentary that is currently on the forum."

No it doesn't and why is that? Irrespective, neither was the "information gleaned" and presented here even close to representing a rebuttal of the facts that have been raised on numerous occasions.

"In fairness, it would be great if the forum could return to having both voices been given a fair hearing here. Members who believe in the story of the company need to come back and have their say just like @wasss.35 has done. I have spoken with quite a few who want to do that. "

I am not sure how you want this paragraph to be regarded?

All voices are given a fair hearing - are you saying that they are not given a fair hearing? By fair hearing - do you mean that a pro-poster or even a contrarian should be able to post unsupported information and not be challenged? It seems to me that you are equating posts that question the details as somehow depriving others of a "fair hearing". I would recommend ignoring the 'for and against' dichotomy and focus on the facts.

"I have spoken with quite a few who want to do that."

I do not see the point of this sentence. While you may have once been the company representative on HC, it seems you now want to be the spokesperson for a group of holders! I would recommend resisting the urge to create and "us and them" environment. I believe that will degrade the quality of discussion very quickly. I do not think any poster should position themselves as the 'champion' of any other poster or group of posters. I most certainly do not see myself as championing any cause - I question the facts. And the facts are to be found in the published reports and announcements.

Questioning the existence of loans (e.g. Volcan & AGM) to related parties is pointless - they exist - the evidence is in the accounts.

What is up for discussion is why would CGB make those loans and fail to collect on those loans when it has its hand out for more cash from their shareholders?