kcac1, I have a few nits on your summary. You say "...He chose a QP person to do a very important 43-101 that had his previous 43-101 for Rubicon found not compliant by BCSC."
I don't recall seeing anything about the BCSC saying the Rubicon technical report was not compliant. In fact, Rubicon never released any details about what the BCSC query, other than the fact that the BCSC had a query, and the BCSC never released any details about the issue and always answered any questions by saying go ask the company. After Rubicon filed an updated NI43-101 report, the major delta between the update and the original was the application of a top cut to the intercept grades.
The facts look to me like the BCSC had questions about the Rubicon technical report but nobody ever said the report wasn't compliant or wasn't filed in the correct form. One of the critisims leveled at the BCSC over the Rubicon affair were complaints about their lack of transparency -- there was never a clear statement of what the issue(s) were that caused the BCSC to question. It looks like the BCSC learnt a bit for Rubicon and in the case of BGM made it very clear what the issues were -- the report was not filed in the correct form. That is a very general statement but it covers every issue I can see with the report. Enough said.
I believe a class action against BGM could be in the books if the ultimate CM resource estimate isn't with the expected error margins for an Indicated resource of 10.6M oz as announced on June 28th. If you bought shares based on the June 28th disclosure, then you have a strong case IMO if the final numbers come it at the 2M oz Inferred per Bigbab's worst case resource estimate -- I'd also be extremely surprised if the final CM resource estimate came in at anything less than 2M oz Inferred.
The numbers Snowden signs-off on will make for interesting reading.