To:Goalie
From:Gull
Your response to my queries were aggressive and churlish to say the least.
I have no doubt as to the integrity of the President of SUF.
Your accusations levelled at the barrister,acting on behalf of the heirs to these specific mineral rights is libelous,and in any country,against the law.
You are in breach of the terms of use for this web page,and I will refer you to section B of the summary which states that "You will agree not to use the service for illegal purposes or for the transmission of material that is unlawful,harassing libelous etc..."
It is self evident that you have no use for ' the rules of the game ' and the readers of this web page must be circumspect in what information you care to publish.
To say that the barristers initial moves were 'nefarious' (wicked) is once again an attempt on your side to cast his integrity in a bad light.
Mudslinging is in general the last resort of a person unsure of his facts.
Be that as it may...
Firstly I would like to commend you on your in-depth reply.
A pity that you don't always stick to facts instead of going emotional over some barrister and heirs on the other side of the planet!
As far as the rest of your reply goes...
Imho if it was as simple and straight forward as what you make it out to be then why all the legal complications?
You seem to have an in depth working knowledge of the the entire case,which is very impressive.I just hope that instead of me being a shortie...
The facts..
I am not at all concerned as to who the injunctions main parties are and in which particular order that they appear,rather I am interested in SUF which is sitting on a very valuable commodity.
You seem to have access to details regarding exactly who knew about the exploration including the heirs as well as the barrister.I quote "everyone knew about it including the lawyer".
I am sure that if the heirs and the lawyer knew about the existence of the exploration permit,a settlement would have been reached.
Why would RG and SUF take a chance on what appears to you to be a very fragile legal system when all it would have required would have been some sort of negotiation?
As far as the heirs being the offspring of some "Boer farm owners" why the political connotation?
Keep your eye on the ball .. I would expect the owners of a farm to be farm owners.I believe that in SA they have moved away from using terminology such as " Boers" and "natives" etc..
Have you ever considered the fact that maybe the so called heirs never knew of the existence of the mineral rights and therefore were not afforded the opportunity of re-registering them ?
RG drew up the family trees etc.. how difficult could it have been to track down the heirs?
No doubt in SA there are laws which come into effect when there is uncertainty over inheritances.RG obviously looked into this aspect.
I doubt that the interim injunction was a 'normal' legal process and as easy as you mantain it to be,surely facts pertaining to the mineral rights would have had to be presented in the application?
As far as examining who is not doing their job...
Once again I commend you on doing yours!
Certainly the Minister would have acted on the info as provided by RG (by the way Randgold have just had a major change in upper management?) as regards the original permit.
The heirs were known to RG as they had done all the research as you mentioned,wouldn't it have been more prudent to have hedged the bets a bit?
The 980,000Rand translates into +-C$250,000.The M1 pipe according to SUF calculations contains 685,000 tons @ 3.4 carats/ton @ $140/carat = +-$300,000,000!
Why indeed run after the heirs with so little at stake!
According to SUF reports the M1 pipe was to be the jewel in the Klipspringer Project crown.
A low cost open cast mine which would have provided cash for the rest of the project.
I hope that you don't lose your money and I am sure that justice will prevail etc...Keep your eye on the ball and lets all make some money.
P.S. I thought DD meant due diligence.
P.P.S.I am sorry that you got your hair (heir) up.
GULL |
