Is this what you mean?

Do you have information about the updating of the Azurite report other than what is posted on the website? What needs to be updated? Do tell....

Also, why would GDSM remove a report from their website, pending its update? Was there something incorrect ("factually challenged") in the original Azurite report? Wasn't it good enough to keep investors informed, pending its update? Or did someone get nervous about the on-going investigations against the authors of that report? Will the updated report come out unsigned?

Also, what other reports are being updated? Any timing on the release of all these updated reports? Will the results from the Gold Crown sampling be released? You haven't been talking to the stepbrother of a second cousin of one of the mine engineers that we have heard so much about in the past, have you?

Officially yes, but unofficially, do you think that owners of those convertible shares are really just going to sit on them forever? They are either converting, or will shortly, in my opinion. And how will anybody know since the TA is gagged?

Makes you wonder how many don't get caught. Even with the NI 43-101 process in place, there are obviously many ways to cheat the system and walk away with big bucks. What, no helicopter for the geologist to jump out of this time? They should make it an option.

But without any controls at all, as we see on OTC stocks like GDSM, DGRI, SRCH, etc. it is a license to lie and steal, in some cases for years and years and no end in sight.

Yes, the JV between GDSM and WSRA appears to be over. No stockholders meeting, no sample results at the Gold Crown, no updates on the Azurite, less and less info on the GDSM website. Pulling information off a website is not just a random act - there is a pretty obvious reason.

When the "funder" does not come through with the money to fund even the most simple of sampling programs, it does not bode well for a JV. WSRA filed a Plan of Operations in May for 25 surface samples because they could not get funding to do the necessary archaeological and biological studies at the Gold Crown. As ineffective as 25 surface samples were for 320 acres, they couldn't even finish that sampling!

And where are the results?

Not too many hills in Florida, feinanddandy, but I think you're right. GDSM's gutted website has no "Projects", no "CEO Blog", no "Investor Information", and no Azurite report, and it seems that there is very little information they want to pass on to investors. Transparent as Florida mud.

I cannot imagine what the next PR could possibly say - another mine in the pipeline? I doubt it, investors are still not happy with the bait and switch from the Gold Star to the Azurite Mine. 90 days from funding to producing gold - not in a million years given the Arizona regulations.

Maybe the next PR will be an announcement of what the true A/S is? Doubt that too. Since the TA is gagged, investors can only guess whether or not the A/S is still 750 million shares. With the 15:1 conversion of Preferred Stock to common shares potentially unleashing 900 million new shares, who knows?

In your opinion, how long do you think it will take to "validate" their reserves? And do you think they will try to do this "validation" at both the Gold Star/Gold Crown placer mine and the so-called Azurite Mine? Will we ever see the results of the bucket sampling at the Gold Crown state lease parcel? It is now approaching 5 months since they were issued the exploration permit to do a week's worth of sampling.

Considering there is a blank page under "projects" on GDSM's website, do they have any projects anymore? Can they drag themselves away from the beach long enough to spend the ten minutes to update their website?

So many questions, so few PR's!

Well, the ore reserves are still there in the FAQ portion of the website. I guess a warning from the SEC isn't enough for these guys.

As a favor for a friend? A real NI 43-101 is a huge effort, so if he just did this as a favor, he was either unemployed with plenty of time to burn, or it was just a compilation and cut and paste out of old reports (which is what it sounds like).

You know, there is nothing wrong with compilation of past data, and in fact, it is a really good idea to pull together all the past data. It just shouldn't be called a 43-101.

Name sounds vaguely familiar.....

Not quite sure how the SEC perceives websites, although I would think that it counts as "promoting" their stock. Someone should hold their feet to the fire. Maybe a stockholder who has been burned should make a call..... There are a few of those, right?

You're right, the ibox should be updated, but what I was talking about was Sungro's own website. They have information in there that is apparently no longer true, although they have at least disabled the link to the 43-101 report. But why leave any mention of that 43-101 if they do not have the property anymore? And why have ore reserves numbers in the FAQ part of their website for an ore body that they no longer have the rights to?

For someone like me that is pretty unfamiliar with the history here, and I stumbled on their website, I would be led to believe that they have a pretty amazing ore body, almost ready to mine (if you believe what they say)!

Doesn't the SEC treat what is on their official website as promotional material, and if it ain't true, isn't that a problem?

So, the preparer of the supposed NI 43-101 report himself was not a Qualified Person? Or just the sources of the data that he was compiling? Who was the author?

Thank you, appreciate it! I have not opened the links yet, but I wonder if it will be a geologist that I know. We'll see.....

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of stuff I was expecting to see, have seen more than a few "43-101" reports that were nowhere near compliant. I apologize for not being up to date with SUGO, but it seems to fit the mold of a whole lot of other similar pseudo junior "mining companies".

That explains why the link no longer works. Maybe Sungro ought to remove a few other things from their website as well, if the claim(s) are no longer theirs.

Still curious though, would have been an amusing read. The reserves they claim in the Frequent Q&A section of the website seem farfetched to say the least, and I was hoping to see the technical report to support those claims. Moot point, I guess.

Point the way to the 43-101 please! Seems the link on SUGO's website has been disabled. Just want to learn more about what must surely be one of the most exciting ore deposit finds in decades, if the claims on the website are to be believed.

Don't want to argue about whether a 43-101 is appropriate or not, just want to see the technical data.

Gee, I wonder why!? You have brought up the key question of the day - how would one trust that the A/S has not increased, if the only thing you can rely on are pinkie financial filings and PR's (both of which are like reading a grocery store tabloid - interesting but completely unreliable).

There is the potential for 900 million new shares hitting the market in coming weeks or months, and that should be very unsettling news for investors. How can GDSM mount the next "run" if there are so many unaccounted-for shares that can be dumped without any notice?

Makes it awful tough, especially with no news, no meeting in Prescott, no permits to mine, and no reserves. And less and less information on the GDSM website every time I look (somebody at GDSM is nervous about what was posted on the website, obviously).

Actually even a couple more than three scambusters, but not all show up every day. Your help, as an old Skull Valley veteran, is appreciated!

Where is the 43-101? This sounds like a very interesting read, considering the truly incredible ore reserves claimed on the Sungro website. Not only are there 2 million oz. of gold, but staggering amounts of silver, lead, zinc, copper, etc. For a world-class, polymetallic ore deposit like this one, why haven't I heard about it? Why isn't this being mined?

Under "Projects" on the website, there is nothing. And, the link to the 43-101 goes nowhere. Has it been removed from public access? Why would they do that - is there a problem with the 43-101? Why did they do a 43-101, was this also traded on a Canadian stock exchange?

What permits? The only permit I know about is a Plan of Operations for exploration, issued to Michael Chaffee by the State Land Dept. It was for the collection of 25 surface samples at the Gold Crown lease area, and as far as the PRs have indicated, the sampling program was never completed and the results have not been released.

If you know about any other permits, let's hear it, please. GDSM investors could use some good news.

Interesting timing to have that information removed from the website, considering the discovery of GDSM's recent filing with the State of Florida to allow 15-fold conversion on 60 million Preferred Stock shares to common shares. Potentially allows up to 900 million shares to be dumped into the market.

Don't forget about the mysteriously disappearing "Azurite Mine" report. And how about the page for Projects - just says coming soon! And the CEO Blog - no blog, just a link to the Jenkins Gold Star report.

Pretty soon, this website will have no information at all, just links to empty pages, and the usual Facebook and Twitter crap.

Good catch on the missing investor information!

Maybe, but "remotely to do with gold" is a good way to put it. SRCH has never, ever provided the reports for all their testing and sampling of the slag. Until these reports are provided, they don't exist. It is a slag pile from a copper mine whose original ores never had even a tenth of the gold grades that are being claimed to be in the slag.

I was wondering too. No news release, no financials released, no nothing. Just a whole bunch of small buys on Friday. Interesting...

And still no gold, 7 years into this.

Gold increasing so much in the last 10 years is nice, but a subeconomic deposit ten years is very likely still a subeconomic deposit in 2012.

First and foremost, the gold has to be there at economic grade and tonnage, which a report by two fake mining engineers does not prove.

Secondly, the cost for exploration, permitting, etc. have to be figured into the equation, and permitting a new hard rock mine in Arizona is not easy or quick. And no, being on private land does not exempt them from environmental rules.

Thirdly, not only has the price of gold gone up, but so have the costs for everything else including mining.

GDSM a JR Miner? That's comical. GDSM was supposedly selling produce to grocery stores in their last iteration and now they are a junior miner? Give me a break.....these guys haven't a clue, and their JV partner has no mining experience either. Plenty of mine promoting, but no mining.

Just today, somebody on this board stated that the deal for the Azurite Mine was $1.3 million and that the deal was almost done. Which is it - $1.3 million or $4.5 million?

Great, thanks for the pretty charts! However, please list a few real reasons why this mine has value. The price of gold is irrelevant to a "mining" company with no reserves, no drill data, no mining permits, and no hope of gold production. Gold could double next week, and they'd still be no closer to mining gold.

Then why respond?:) Why bring up the Alaskan registration that is probably no longer valid, and never was valid in Arizona?:) Even Jenkins knows better than to sign reports in Arizona as an Alaskan RG, although it is still amazing he got away with signing with his SME membership number for so long.:)

I have seen a 1993 report he wrote - guess what - signed with his SME membership number as though it was a mining engineer registration.:) Long history!:) Apparently posting reports on the internet for ALL to see (not just handing a hard copy report to an investor) has changed things?:)

Let's go over this again.

1) CPG is not recognized by the State of Arizona

2) RG in Alaska is not recognized by the State of Arizona

3) RG in Alaska is BASED SOLELY ON PROOF OF REGISTRATION as a CPG issued by the AIPG. Jenkins resigned, therefore, his Alaskan RG is no longer valid. Stay tuned, Alaskan officials will eventually make that phone call to AIPG.

4) Current complaints against Jenkins are for his fraudulent signature as a mining engineer. Signing as a CPG is not the main issue but AZBOTR might object to that as well.

And I am very puzzled why you think owning claims in Arizona lends credibility to an individual. There is no connection......

What about the dilution that will be hitting GDSM investors because of the 15:1 conversion? Can't be good for sustaining the next "run".

Are you saying GDSM is buying the Wharton's property for $1.3 mil.? What happened to the $9mil price that was tossed around a while back? Discount for environmental liabilities?

Not new to mining, but until early this Spring when I started researching mining scams in Arizona, I had no idea that there were so many dishonest, unscrupulous and incompetent penny stock "miners" out there. Arizona seems to attract some real beauties - maybe because we are so far from most of the investors who live on the East Coast, Florida, etc. Just a guess....

As I've said before, I am pretty new to penny stocks. If you had a large number of shares that you recently received as part of a 15 to one conversion, and you wanted to cash them in without driving the price to zero, how would you do it? Share some knowledge.....

As for being "associated with gold", that is a long stretch for a company like GDSM with no reserves, no past production, little hope of future production, and a JV partner who can't finish a basic sampling program.

The usual victims are gullible investors and I think they can look out for themselves.

I was pointing out that the mess the wannabe miners make is another aspect that few think about. As soon as the tailings at the "Azurite" are disturbed by GDSM and their JV partner WSRA, they become regulated under the Aquifer Protection Program. When that happens, a Notice of Violation will be issued to the property owner (which is not GDSM or WSRA, according to Assessor's records). Guess who slinks away and leaves the mess for others to clean up at that point? Seen it happen......

Not really the reason I post here, was just pointing out that running a scam penny stock mining company is not entirely victimless.

I have my reasons and they are probably nothing you would believe. And I doubt there is a 50 percent chance of you believing anything I post, so why bother?

I'd recommend you go buy some gold. At least you know it won't go to zero, like this and most other pennies eventually do. Or buy a sluicebox and shovel some dirt for a few days - good exercise, fresh air, and it might even pay for the beer you drink around the campfire. That's pretty much all the Gold Star and Gold Crown claims are good for - hobbyist-level mining for weekend warriors.

I will say one thing more - you say that "The concern is ours and ours only." Not really - I have seen the aftermath of aborted attempts to mine by "mining" companies, and it is always a mess. Tab for cleanup goes to the taxpayers because the culprits are long-gone.

Partially right on the first one, so I guess 50% is not bad. Complaints have simultaneously been filed by folks who are not IHub posters.

100% wrong on the second part, if you mean the investigation is over. Takes time to wade through 20 years of fake mine engineer certifications. Jenkins will get his chance to respond, but I don't believe his day has come.

Do you think it is ethical to sign a report with your mining association membership number as though it is a mine engineer registration number? Do you think it is illegal? Just curious......

Jenkins was a CPG, correct, when the report was issued in 2010. However, the CPG is not recognized by the State of Arizona, and since he was commissioned by the Whartons to conduct the appraisal (see page 2 of report), he was in violation of rules regarding who can perform geological services in this State.

Also, he deliberately used his SME number (a mining association membership number) as though it was a mining engineer registration, which it is not. That was a deliberate act meant to fool people,and he has been doing that for 20 years on almost every one of his reports. Do you not agree that is, at a minimum, a bit unethical? The false claim of being a mining engineer is what he is under investigation for, although the AZBOTR may also get picky with the CPG thing.

A technical issue that will get "cleared up"? I don't think so.

As for GDSM not knowing that they couldn't use the Jenkins report on their website? That's hilarious! It was posted for how long - since the end of July? I don't know how web-savvy Chaffee is, but I find it hard to believe that he or someone else from WSRA would allow their JV partner to improperly post a report like that for so long. It only got "yanked" this last week because of the hubbub caused by the current AZBOTR investigations.

IMHO, as you say.

Do you really think a "run" is imminent? Isn't hard to sustain a run when 100 million+ new shares of stock are constantly being dribbled into the market?

No, not a gold play. GDSM and their JV partner have no permits to mine, they have no reserves, and their "appraisals" and technical reports were prepared by a phony mining engineer currently under investigation by the State.

The price of gold could double next week, and GDSM will have no way to take advantage. They've spent the summer taking a dozen 5-gallon bucket samples, and couldn't even finish that sampling program.

And now it appears that stock is being dumped into the market without stockholders knowledge. Same old story.

And to set the record straight, I don't believe I have said that no money can be made here. If they pull out all the stops, send out some brochures, and get some new folks all excited, maybe there is another run to be squeezed out of GDSM. Doubtful though.