Either way there is something wrong with the claim BTDG owns 10% of SSM,

Let's look at the alternatives :

1. BTDG does own 10% of SSM : This means (a) BTDG is releasing inside information to one shareholder because the BTDG filings sohow differently (b)BTDG filings are incorrect and CEO knows this but hasnt amended.(c) BTDG financial stateents are not in accordance with US GAAP.

2.CEO believes BTDG owns 10% of SSM : This means because of a letter or intent or something CEO believes BTDG owns 10% of SM because he doesnt understand basic business documents. Thus (a) CEO who has diploma degree mills doesnt undestand enough tomake proper disclosure (b) is misleading investors.

3. BTDG only owns 2,000 shares of RHN which means they dont own 10% of SSN,and wee not savvy enough to get included in the RHN registration statement.

---As of now BTDG pulic filings do not show BTDG owns 10% of SSM. It is up to those who claim they do to identify a BTDG filing that definitively shows this, otherwise they are participating in misleading investors.

Just how do you know this if this is not in the public filings ?

Dont get me wrong, it certainly would be fairly earth shaking news if BTDG actually was sucessfull in developing some value- and support your long term optmism about this stock. Why wouldnt you want to clarify things for everyone ?

Well either you are totally confused or you have access to information no one else does.

Please show us where in BTDG filings that it says what you have stated that definitively they received 10% of SSM and not 2000 shaers of RHN.

Second, why does none of this show up as an investment acquisition on their balance sheet ?

So where does BTDG show in their filings or financial statements that they own 10% of SSM, and why do they show instead they own 2000 shares RHN ?

I am being open minded, what is it ?

Well your opinion we certaily have noted ! I still think there is a possibility CEO simply puts out press release or filing basedon anything that comes his way, and believes making a filing makes it so. I mean really, he issued what 500 million shares for a lead generation business that per BTDG had no assets andnever has generated even $1 of revenue.

Cant blame him as he doesnt evidently have any academic background to preparehim for such a role.

It is clear BTDG hasnt a clue of even basic accounting 101, their financial statements are miselading at best.

However this is an interesting situation- company CEO evidently saying BTG owns 10% of a company, yet filings either do not confirm this or show something different.

With all due respect, and I admire your positive attitude, BTDG filings do not show that ownership. How can a publicly traded company CEO tell you something that doesnt show up in their fiings and financial statements ? In fact the filings show the opposite- they show that BTDG received 2000 shares of RHN.Which is correct- some verbal indication or what BTDG has actually filed ? If what you have said is true , then why doesnt BTDG correct their filings pronto ?

No one is naked shorting this stock.The shorts reported to FNRA include situation where a broker sells but can deliver via DTC to settle accounts which can happen for a variety of reasons. There is no retail broker in USA that for retail clients naked shorts such a stock as this.

I cant say for certain, but since there are only two brokers I know who would maybe take BTDG stock, maybe they sold thinking a cert they received would have cleared faster.

Having said that,someone was buying which of couse is quite interesting.Maybe someone who believes the idea that BTDG owns 10% of SSM

You will note that there has been no response about the apparent fact that BTDG doesnt own 10% of SSM but according to BTDG filings 2000 shaers of BTDG.

Funny some people can be insulting via private messages when they cannot answer a simple and objective question.

Lets be professional here. Where in RHN filing does it say RHN was SSM, when it says SSM owns shares of RHN.

Lets be productive. If you feel BTDG represents value based on any obective factors I will be the first to jump in the market.Just name 1 single initiative of company that has worked, anything. They entered into numerous "gold deals" none worked out. They bought a mortgage lead generaton business, not one dollar in revenue. They tried to give impression they were merging with SSM, never happened. You and BTDG try to give impression there is some benefit to BTDG of the RHN IPO,but at most BTDG filings indicate they may make $10,000- but even then, BTDG is not registering there shares.

I have said continually in this dialogue I admire your positive attitude, please do back up your numerous posts that BTDG owns 10% of SSM.I am not bad mouthing CEO, he probably is a good tech guy and for someone with no college education he probably does the best he can.

There is a speculative case for investing in exploration companies, most of which will never mine but in right market can deliver speculative profits. However junior penny exploration companies have been devastated in USA and Canada, worse in USA because most brokers cant even take their shares from private placements.

Have you read BTDG and RHN filings ? It doesnt support what you are saying. It is 2000 shares not 20,000, and BTDG not listed anywhere in the RHN filings. Second SSM is not RHN, you are confused. The RHN filings show clearly that SSM is a seperate entity.

I now understand why you are confused as obviously you havent looked at the RHN filing.

Ii consider this a long term investment to be accumulated, but would be nce and I think possible to get to $3.50 to $4.00 range by the fall, and 2015 should be much higher.

HL stock has everything going for it- conservative management, growing production profile, exploration prospects, and a good price to start accumulating.

The Lucky Friday cost per ounce considering by product costs is higher than what would have been expected, increasing volume will adress this in 2014.

Just a speculation but since CEO has IR background, and company spent money getting up to date financials, it seems a reasonable bet that the stock will show some movement this year As with any sub penny stock one accepts the high element of risk.

what is so hard is that BTDG filings show they received 2000 shares of RHN stock not 10% of ssm.

It is unclear to me whether you actually read what BTDG files with otcmarkets. BTDG itself states they received 2,000 shares of RHN not SSM. Why do you keep saying they own 10% of SSM when BTDG states it doesnt ? I even posted BTDG's exact wording.

Do you read their financial statements ? Why dont they show this "investment" ?

It seems someone who continually posts positive posts regardless of any objective reason for doing so could be classified as promoting the stock,ie a promoter. This seems even more true when the posts made dont have any objective basis. I mean no offense by considering you a promoter and you have freely admitted receiving non public information several times.

Like saying CEO is qualified because he has degrees, then when it is discovered the degrees are form diploma mills,not admitting this flaw in how BTDG presents itself.

Maybe BTDG owns 10% of SSN but their own filings do not clearly show this. Maybe a mortgage lead generation business exists, but nothing shows BTDG ever received a single dime from that investment either.

Hundreds of junior exploration companies in same boat in USA and Canada.Few ever produce anything. SEC really deosnt have time or resouces to investigate comapnies just because price goes down .

In terms of estimating costs then for audit and xbrl you estimate $20k to $37k just for audit/review and XBRL. Add in Edgar costs, any legal review, and form 4/8k/etc easily figure is $50k minimum I estimated.

In case I am still curious- if a company doesnt have money to pay for such costs, why is it illigitamate for the company to de-register ? So are you stating that if a company cant raise funds to stay reporting, but by your definition it is not legitamate to be non reporting, what is a company supposed to do ? Isnt it better they at least try as a non reporting company ?

Please note that I do not diagree that some if not most as you say may de-register simply to avoid scrutiny of whatever sort.How many companies de-register becasue they cant afford the costs, and instead of rushing to do a promotion just go dormant or semi dormant because of funding problems ?

As far as CGFI my own opinion is they will eventually de register to save money, and just to avoid having to report the incerasing disaster that seems to be occurring.

BTDG states they received 2000 shares of RHN, that is from the company's own filings with Pink Sheets. Since you are in contact with CEO which is it- 10% of SSM or 2,000 shares of RHN, cant have it both ways.Second, can you ask why this transaction if BTDG thinks it has value, is not shown as an investment on the balance sheet ? Why doesnt it show in the footnotes ?

Why is it so difficult with BTDG to figure out even basic information ?

This is ridiculous that a promoter of this stock cant show precisely from BTDG's own filings whether they own 10% of SSM, or simply 2000 shares of RHN stock.

As usual a very interesing and pertinent discussion.

With all due respect , if you feel $50,000 is not the minimum to maintain a reporting company, I would be quite curious what figure you would estimate.Each 10q requires reviewed financial statements, XBRL, and edgar work The XBRL alone can cost $1,000 to $1,500 per 10q. The accountants can charge $2,500 to $5,000 per quarterly. Then some edgar costs and then lawyer review, etc. The 10k of course requires an audit,definitely legal review,XBRL, and edgar work. Then on top of all that, if a reporting company,then 8k's, form 4's, etc etc. The second issue is painting all companies that de-register as not legimate doesnt address simple fact some companies cant raise the money in the current market especially if a low priced stock. Placing low priced stock with a broker is not very easy these days so that alone restricts financing options.So if they cant raise money in a private placement, cant afford an S1, why would it be illegitamate to de- register ?

I do agree there are less options available to a non-reporting company, and for the long term a lot tougher for a non reporting company to succeed these days.

As far as CGFI concerned I would guess they are already in default of their convertible debt terms, and it would seem they have tapped out all the convertible debt they could get. Just my opinion, but they simply wont have the money to stay reporting.

IF that is true then how does BTDG explain that in their filings it said they received 2000 shares of RHN not 10% of SSM ? If that is true why doesnt this show in their financial statements ? If they own 2000 shares of RHN why arent they being listed in the registration statement ?

It would appear not unreasonable a starting point is what BTDG has filed publicly , and of course one would assume BTDG would endeavor to make clear the situation to investors. Do you think maybe CEO is just confused ? If not, then why does BTDG file unclear public filings on otcmarkets ? Do they or do they not own 2000 shares of RHN ?

This is so weird !

Why not answer the questions and not post misleading press releases ?

BTDG has stated they have 2,000 shares of RHN, at best $10,000 in IPO, but note those 2000 shares not being registered in the S1 anyway !

Nothing confirms BTDG owns 10% of SSM, BTDG filings appear to indicate the opposite.

Posting informaton on RHN to try to promote BTDG is a bit misleading to nay new investors.

It would seem fair to first confirm what BTDG's interest is which hasnt been done.

Only asset CGFI has is a symbol and prior distribution. Maybe form a bitcon subsidiary, declare bankruptcy and distribute shares of subsidiary to shareholders.

Maybe Hennis simply felt better optics to show himself down and out , would not be illogical strategy in a mining camp.

BTDG states 2000 shares of RHM. Where do you get information that 2000 shares of SSM is 10% of SSM when BTDG itself states 2000 shares of RHN ?

I admire your wishful thinking but in order to not unfairly influence innocent investors it is important to be factual and precise.

Plus BTDG is not listed as a selling shareholder, so it is unclear any cash benefit BTDG would receive.

Plus it is entirely illogical to see why on earth anyone let alone SSM merge with BTDG ?

Please show exactly how BTDG owns 10% of SSM wen BTDG clearly states they received share sof RHN ? How do you state that it is 10% of SSN ?

Is it unfair to aks rpecisely what is the status of BTDG's relati0nship to SSM and RHN ?

This press release states they are "working towards a merger".

The Real Hip filing does not mention BTDG as a ten percent owner of SSM. Nor is it even known IF BTDG has 2,000 shares of SSM, what percentage that is today.

Wow ! And bye bye the mill !

Company incurred over $80,000 in legal fees it seems in just three months, and no money brought in from convertibles during this period. Company spent $12,000 in cash which I assume was related to 10q filing.

One of convertible debt holds assigend a lien on the mill as well, so does that make now 3 liens against the mill ? Does anyone think company will still own the mill by end of summer ?

It cant be both ways- that only factors outside of control of company blamed for the decline, and management never is considered responsible for anything !

However in response :

1. Yes mining stocks have hit pretty bad, look at blue chip silver stocks like HL and PAAS down 40% from 52 week highs, and some juniors probably down 80% or more.
-CGFI after doing 2 reverse splits,and now not trading, certainly did worse than its peers no ? As you bring it up isnt it fair to compare their performance to other juniors ?

2.Is not filing 8k's on material events, filing 8k's late, or being hyper promotional in press releases with non-sensical references to NI43-101 reports ,all signs of experienced and competent management ? Is it unfair to point out CFO seems to have made a poor situation even worse because of inexperience with mining sector and public companies ? CFO apparently couldnt read a few pages of SEC Guide 7.Yu may consider this just opinion, but 1manband showed pretty conclusively that at best CFO just totally inexperienced in this sector.

I quite agree no one could hold management of any junior company responsible for the decline in mining stocks overall the last 12 to 18 months.

I dont follow US Silver but since you brought up I just looked up the stock chart which shows a 52 week high of 2.11 and a low of .25, and a current price of $.50. This is an example to show on a comparitive basis the CFO of CGFI is doing no worse than anyone else ?

3 Then there is issue of DTC chill. While some state DTC was unreasonable for many chills,it seems legitamate companies get them off eventually. CGFI not only didnt but DTC then put a global lock on CGFI. Is it unfair to consider after all this time that management not responsible for clearing up this matter ?

So which one is it- do they own 2,000 shares of RHN, 10% of SSM ?

This is what is so frustrating or perhaps amusing, whatever promoters claim about this stock never ends up being true.

I ask what qualifies CEO and am told because he has MBA, but it is from diploma mill.

Company issues million of shares for a mortgage lead generation that from all appearances doesnt exist.

Now we are told the company has an interest in RHN, and the company's own disclosures make it unclear if it has any interest or if it does what it is.

To be fair to CEO, I think the lack of educatin means whenever he gets something in the mal he instantly creates a press release, but then gets confused when he writes the disclosure documents. How could anyone use a SEC 8k form to file with Pink Sheets ? He may be good tech guy but time for a massive reverse and someone to handle the administrative side of things.

Just my opinion but rather than put blame solely on the method of financing and gold price, I think the inexperienced CFO would not have been able to make this a success regardless. The press releases in early 2013 show a complete ignorance of the current regulatory climate, and what serious investors in mining sector look for.Hiding from shareholder contact doesnt build confidence.

Looking at this company the past year it seems everything that seemed to make it a speculative possibility in 2012 just disappeared in 2013. They dont even have clear title to the mill instead 1st and 2nd liens, plus a potential judgement against it, and a new lawsuit that may result in a judgement against it.

The minting of silver coins would be great marketing/branding move. Sunshine Silver Mining Company did this in 80's, and in fact out of this came todays Sunshine Mint in North Idaho. Pan American Silver recently did this. Sterling Mining Company ( now not trading) did this in 2003-2008.

In response to your comments, what is expensive for a smaller reporting company is a function of what capital it can raise.Expenses for running even the smallest reporting commpany can be $50,000 to $80,000 a year considering that in addition to auditing and edgar costs one now has XBRL reports to file as well. Combine that with the difficulty placing private placement shares under $.05 with brokers,it is not illogical that perfectly legitamate companies simply cant raise the capital to stay reporting. You may be completely correct that this is not always or usually the case, but it is illogical to state that every company that de-registers is shady. I know of a company that was perfectly legitamate but couldnt raise funds to stay reporting .As far as CGFI they certanly have a rather curious track record though.

So are you saying if a company is faced with either closing, or trying to stay open using convertible financing, it should
just choose to close ?

I dont disagree that convertible debt financing rarely leads to a successful company, nor there are not many instances as you indicated that shady operators engage in such financing.And in the case of CGFI convertible financing combined with certainly misleading and silly press releases, became a road to destruction for whatever shareholder value the company had.

i think first problem with silver coin as dividends would be how that would be done via DTC/CEDE as a pratical matter. second, hecla would have to issue i think a 1099 for every shareholder for value of coins, so there woudl be a tax hit for some. last, this would be probably too aggressive a move for hecla.

i think if Hecla improved its silver-linked dividend policy, and grdually yearly incerased dividneds, this would build support for the stock.

as far as acquiring another silver miner i think this would be driven by strategic financing considerations to build market capitalzation : hecla still too small for some funds and institutions.

a question- if CGFI has run out of money to stay a SEC reporting company, and convertible debt holders didnt wish to put up these funds, then what is hold period for convertible debt holders ? is it still 6 months, or is it now 12 months ?

I agree that de-registering doesnt necessarily reduce potential SEC scrutiny, but it saves money and reduces ongoing reporting issues. I would think you would agree some companies simply de-register because they simply cant afford to stay reporting.

As far as companies taking on convertible debt I would hazard a guess the companies often know the risks but it is their last resort, and not all self enrichment schemes. If alternative is simply shutting down is there not an argument they should at least try to keep doors open ? As far as CGFI who knows, it doesnt seem too clear what they made but the stated amounts look pretty low comapared to their contracted salaries and the amount of convertible debt funding over the years.Hoever I think you are basically correct once convertible debt funding arrives rarely can a company get away from it.

Situation aggravated by difficulty placing legitamate stock under $.05 with brokers, how appealing can private palcement be if few brokers will accept the stock when it comes off restriction for a retail account.

My understanding is that they will be in Limited Information status for 6 months since their last SEC filing

Let's focus- what exactly is BTDG's interest in either SSM or RHN ? I have posted words from BTDG's own filings that indicate that (a) they do not own 10% of SSM (b) that instead they were to receive share sof RHN, but this doenst show anywhere in RHN filings.

Since BTDG doenst have any real eassets sales or income this I understand is the only reason promoters of this stock feel it has potential. And this issue shows exactly the problem with this cmpany : even the company is confused what they have or dont have!
Sicne CEO only has educaton from diploma mills, it must be hard for him to understand basic business. He may be good tech guy but clearly he is very confused- and that is also why BTDG financial statements make no sense.

Again, which one is it ? Does BTDG own part of SSM, if if does why do their filings show differently ? If they own part of RHN first is it 2000 or 2 million shares, and if the latter it doesnt show in RHN filings with SEC ? If CEO is qualified to be CEO of listed company isnt some degree of clarity required ?

has anyone asked CEO exactly what BTDG owns in RHN ?

Where do you get this from ? BTDG disclosure stated below states that BTDG didnt get 10% of SSM.

The RHN s-1 filing doesnt have any reference to BTDG owning 10% of SSM.

The BTDG disclosure doesnt make any sense anyway- it says they will get 10% of SSM by means of a stock certificate in RHN,which would then imply RHN owns SSM. ( and this is accepting the 2000 shares is a typograpical error).Nothing on s-1 shows this RHN ownership.

---Plrease clarify where it states that BTDG has definitively acquired 10% of SSM.

According to BTDG :

" Board of Directors accepts a “Share Exchange Agreement with SSM Media (RHN)”. Under the terms of this agreement B2 Digital would
exchange 10%of the ownership in B2 Digital for 10%of the ownership in SSM Media Ventures. Under the terms of this agreement B2 Digital
would issue 500 million shares of B2 Digital restricted Common Stock under Rule 144 for 2,000 share of common stock in RHN a private held
Corporation, a subsidiary of SSM Media Ventures, Inc. a Delaware Corporation. Share Exchange Agreement can be found on. "

According to BTDG Financial Statements : Nothing shows on financial statements except the 500,000,000 share issuance.