Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavidA who wrote (1060)	5/8/1998 12:04:00 AM
From: GULL	Respond to of 7235

The court case is imminent. I am sure that we will all be most interested as to who followed procedure and took the ' moral high road'. I am quite sure that the heirs could have been recruited just as quickly by SUF to make them a reasonable offer. It is a matter of legal record that the heirs were unaware of these rights but that SUF and RG were well aware of this fact. No attempt was ever made to contact them even though it was a simple matter to locate them.

To: DavidA who wrote (1060)	5/8/1998 12:31:00 AM
From: INFOMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

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 The facts cannot be altered by repeating the same old garbage about the 2 year registration period. SUF did not follow correct procedure and the court documents will show this. The way SUF acted is sailing very close to wind as far as theft is concerned. Obviously I will expect to receive threats that I have been libelous however none of my facts has ever been rebutted. Has anyone at all even attempted to do a small piece of DD on the documents already submitted to the relevant legal bodies involved in this case? I await the court case with anticipation and all apologies can be posted to me in alphabetical order.