Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Timberline Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: balaw who wrote (33)	2/9/2014 3:54:44 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 104

Two obvious issues: First, the NYSE listing means applying rules that work to prevent company insiders from stealing assets... or wrongly transferring them by making deals not fully capable of being justified by the economics... while other exchanges have rules that tend to enable bad management in doing deals that benefit themselves at shareholders expense, or that otherwise aren't in shareholders best interest. If the management are planning on conducting a "take down" to pilfer TLR assets... or are planning on cooperating with others while enabling others in doing that... the first step would necessarily be taking TLR down from the NYSE, in order to enable avoidance of the exchange compliant rule sets: timberline-resources.com timberline-resources.com Given the obvious in the presence of vultures circling... that risk being made apparent requires awareness... and something in the way of proofs that management do intend to preserve the listing... and aren't going to be co-operating with crooks in seeking transfers of assets or benefits enabled by the application of lesser standards of corporate governance. Second, the wording of the statement doesn't appear to mince any words in ascribing blame while announcing a meaningful impact resulting from the failure by RocksTar... which should have two impacts worth noting... one in relation to showing there are damages accumulating which directly result from RocksTar's failure to perform under their agreements... also again suggesting that tortuous interference may be the purposeful object of RocksTar's failure. The exchange should take careful note of that issue and the source... That potential that there is an issue in tortuous interference... that may be tied to an interest in creating an opportunity for stealing assets... also suggests that there is now a very reasonable concern that there may be related criminal activity occurring... and it may now be worth looking carefully for additional evidence showing that such may be occurring. I don't know Montana law that well... but, I think it is probably illegal in Montana to bribe, intimidate, otherwise influence or interfere with public officials... and my guess is that is where pro-active shareholders might want to focus their gaze, now, while rounding up the wagons and setting up a picket. Owners of valuable assets... do have to pro-actively guard them from thieves. Thieves tend not to be overly innovative or clever in how they go about trying to steal things... usually depending on a lack of preparedness and a lack of resistance to enable them in succeeding... while assuming they're smarter than their marks. I didn't bother with it... but, if you have a question... might want to check out the value of and the nature of the "deal" that RocksTar just did on the Oregon property... and the "fairness opinion" addressing it... while looking for the same sorts of "issues" in influence applied that you'd naturally have concern with here ? There's obviously nothing wrong with seeing that we may be forming a bottom in gold, soon, if its not already happened, so looking to buy cheap assets now makes perfect sense... But, that shift in trend clearly also means that thieves will be more interested, too... The timing for investment in gold assets being propitious... and the already obvious increase in funding flowing into the market... isn't a reason to expect badgers to be friendly... or porcupines to be cooperative ?