Replies to post #14612 on DD Support Board and Research Team

[nodummy]

EXTO - I think Louis Porter was falsely claiming rights to the Mary Ann property during the whole BYSD merger debacle.

The lawsuit between the Moore family and Bayport Petroleum against Louis Porter is still pending. Maybe the Mary Ann property is some how tied up in that litigation and Porter believes that the litigation will end in his favor and he will then assume rights to the property. I think that is a stretch and a very unlikely outcome, but for the sake of trying to justify Porter's claims that is all I can think of.

Bayside (BYSD) obviously didn't agree with Louis Porters claims because they made very clear why that merger was called off in their OTC filings:

http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=54550

In early May, 2011 it became apparent that neither Bayport nor their officers or Directors had actual ownership of the assets to be conveyed, and merely had verbal agreements to acquire them. Further, it was discovered that the newly elected Chief Executive Officer, Louis Porter, had a prior criminal conviction that was not disclosed. Accordingly, Mr. Johnson, acting as the Trustee of the Managing Member of DZ Energy, LLC called for a Special Meeting of Shareholders that was held on May 11, 2011. As a result of the actions taken by a 94% majority of the voting shares of the Company the newly elected officers and Directors were removed from office, the transaction with Bayport Corp. was rescinded


Maybe the Mary Ann property is one of the assets that BYSD found out that Porter didn't really own despite claiming otherwise.

I stand by my research and belief that neither the Mary Ann properties or Gem Inc belong to Louis Porter. To date Porter has not made any claims about Gem Inc or the Mary Ann properties in relationship with EXTO.



As far as the other part of your post. Yes Curtis Moore was involved in finding a partner for the production of the Mary Ann claim as early as January 2009 based on his twitter posts. I think that Louis Porter was still running Bayport Petroleum at this point.

The signed agreement between Gem Inc and Hardrock was from October of 2009. I think that was after Louis Porter had stepped down and stopped participating with Bayport Petroleum Corp.

I would guess that despite the signed agreement no further progress of note has taken place with the mining claim and that is why relatively nothing can be found after 2009 about the property. Could have something to do with the ongoing lawsuit. Could be that Hardrock Exploration doesn't have the resources to follow through with their part in the production process. Maybe the agreement between Gem Inc and Hardrock has since been terminated.