phx, ... I was wrong about the cert. You are right. It is the 1010 cert - not the CMKM cert. And, it, also, is part of the attempt by ETGMF to roll back or rescind the deal.
From the 6k:
"As well, since CMKM failed to distribute the 45,000,000 (15,000,000 for Hatchet property and 30,000,000 for Smeaton property) shares and because 101047025 Saskatchewan Ltd. (“1010”), in the opinion of the Company, failed to operate the Smeaton property in an operator like fashion and failed to comply with the Company’s various requests to have all previous claim materials sent to the Company, on August 27, 2007, the Company filed, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against 1010and CMKM seeking to have the court set aside the October 20, 2005 Mineral Property Option and Assignment Agreements for Hatchet and Smeaton property between the Company and the Defendants (collectively, the “Contracts”) and requesting that the defendants return the 45,000,000 shares (the “Shares”) paid to CMKM and the 3,888,888 shares paid to 1010. to consummate these agreements. This matter has yet to be resolved in the Courts."
So, why would Koch's company assign the 1010 cert to Casavant? Where did Brewer get $200K to make the loan? And, what about the rest of the time line I recommended pursuing? In other words, CMKM cert or 1010 cert, does it make a difference? ... eom
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
