Unwarranted and useless aggrandizement of management and self aggrandizing proclamations by promoters in order to add false weight to their words is always a red flag when it comes to investments. They need to do this because the story can't stand on its own. Those who do this and claim they are "connecting the dots" usually tend to ignore the numbers on the "dots" and connect them any way they wish, adding dots of their own here and skipping some there, in order to make the picture look the way they want it to.
What's the assay ton on their proved claim(s)? If they are predicting a revenue stream, they must know this already. Funny that the only possible mining asset they list in their latest report appears to be the 150k they "invested" in Ontage, apparently for the 10% stake in Slashwood.
Now, Slashwood is not a new venture. They have been around for a while and should know what to expect in the way of ongoing revenue, therefor one can safely assume that the Ontage people knew what the fair value of their 10% stake in Slashwood was worth, unless they just fell out of the tree. Since they accepted about $150k worth of a penny stock in a company with few prospects other than what they were selling them (Ontage), it should be safe to assume the stock was discounted against the purchase to make up for the risk. Being reasonably generous in favor of LLSR, that would make Ontage worth perhaps $75k in cash.
Just skimming the transactions reveals layers of private companies with no reporting or accountability and no transparency. A perfect setup for creating "cover" from disappointed investors by pointing fingers at "the other guy". Hard to disprove, especially when the other guys are in different countries. This creates the kind of situation where the case gets thrown out because of "proceedural irregularities" because it's difficult to pin anyone down.
AI
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
