I was hoping you'd ask about the Constitution. Let me quote you:
"You seem to forget that there is a Constitution in place in SA.
The fundamental duty of which is to protect the rights of the
individual" (Infoman)
If I may quote you again: "The Constitution takes precedence over any law that might infringe on any group or individual rights including Parliament itself." (Infoman)
And, to quote you once more "Mineral rights, as a property right,
are protected against expropriation in the Constitution of South
Africa." (Infoman)
I'm not sure I even need to say anything else at all. You brought up the Constitution in the above quotes, and you invoked the Constitution to protect your "rights". If you would like the dates of those quotes by you, or the URLs for the posts, I'd be glad to supply them. You're the one that brought up the Constitution in your *own* post and stated that they are "protected against expropriation in the Constitution of South Africa." And you surely are familiar with the current status of the dispute. Or do you need to phone a shareholder like Gull to find out the latest "information"?
I was hoping you'd bring up the 100 Million. I quote you once again in your own post dated Monday April 20, 1998: " It was confirmed that the price range of the offers NGS had received, and expected to receive, was between R 50 million and R 100 million."
Now you know where the figure of R 100 million comes from. It comes from your own post.
So, I have had to go no further than information provided in your own posts to refute your entire post.
I don't see any point in responding to speculative accusations and spurious statements about what I do or don't know about the Constitutional Court or who I do and don't call and how often. I'm not sure why you find it hard to understand that people are fascinated by the case of a Canadian mining company that discovers diamonds and then finds the mineral rights being spirited away by what appears to be representatives of an outdated system. I'm a shareholder, and I'm more than a little put off by the actions of some of the attitudes and actions that Southernera has run into. If it's your intention to drive me or others away, my skin is thicker than you may think. I myself do not have any intention of engaging in or responding in kind to ad hominem arguments. Also, I just can't think that foreign investment is at all impressed by what's going on, and the kind of treatment and ridicule to which they are subjected here and elsewhere. It is extremely discouraging for foreign investment in South Africa.
I personally am not going to be put off by some gratuitous comments calling my motives or identity as a shareholder into question. I assume you are questioning that I phone SUF and other companies daily, on the basis that my information is "inaccurate". I remind you that the R 100 Million figure is from your *own* post. (Er, you've basically called yourself inaccurate!) I'm well aware of the actual offer by SUF. Go ahead and question that if you like, it makes no difference to me.
As for indicating that I "constantly refer to Constitutional experts": it's a well-known fact that Constitutional law experts from Canada and other countries were advisors to the South African Government, if you're trying to dispute that. You don't really seem to really be making any point at all, as far as I can tell.
To sum up, you're the one that mentioned R 100 million (if I may remind you of your quote above). Thank you for the opportunity to use your own words to demonstrate to you and everyone on this group that one doesn't have to try very hard to refute your "information".
Oh yes, one more thing, to quote you again: "I am quite sure that the Constitutional Court's is not there to assess property value." Yes, if read my post, you'll see what I'm getting at. I'm afraid you've painted yourself into a corner with your own words.
Nempela |
