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: INFOMAN who wrote (1312)	5/28/1998 11:41:00 PM
From: nempela	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

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

To: INFOMAN who wrote (1312)	5/29/1998 3:56:00 AM
From: BozkurtD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7235

InfoMan; When you mix facts with fiction, your credibility becomes very questionable. I can not believe that you keep posting without a remorse and Gull has the nerve to demand an apology on your behalf. You have been claiming that you only post so called "research based" and "reputable" information. I guess those words mean something totally different in your dictionary. No wonder everybody else calls you misINFOMAN. Some of things below are past history but they are necessary to establish your lack of credibility. You accused SUF with theft on your posting (#891). That is a very serious accusation. If you don't have the proof, then that is very IREESPONSIBLE. I dare you to prove that they did something illegal. Otherwise I demand an apology on SUF's behalf. You also said"Many others are contemplating legal actions against SUF.". Again, if you don't have any proof (a few names would do), DON'T BRING YOUR HERESAY TO THIS THREAD!!. Because that is malicious and harmful slander. I don't know how it works in SA but in most countries that is a criminal offence. Because of this M1 incident I have learned a lot of things about the legal system in SA. Seems like there are a lot of shady and questionable areas. If I were you, I wouldn't be bragging about it. For example, I was under the impression that it took several months to register the mining rights. But NGS was able to do that in couple of weeks. As you said on your posting (#891) "The Master of Supreme Court EXERCISED HIS DISCRETION and CONSENTED the sale of the Mineral Rights to NGS." How convenient !!. You (or Gull) claimed later that M1 was a very small issue for Dr. Maduna to get involved. But it seems like it is not a small issue for THE MASTER OF SUPREME COURT to get involved so quickly. Hmmm..I wonder. I am also puzzled about something. Please enlighten me with your "infinite wisdom(!)" since you know everything (!). If NGS is formed by the "heirs" and the Mineral Rights belonged to the "heirs" then why did NGS buy the rights. And most importantly how much was the purchase price ?. You also said (#991), " IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION the DME in SA is in the process of issuing a press release to the general media." I guess you are not the general media. You also must have GOOD CONNECTIONS. It is an embarrassment that you can reveal an official press release of the DME four days in advance. See SUF and the other foreign investors are up against?. If this was to happen in Canada, more than likely there would have been an official enquiry about this incident alone. I guess in SA you can getaway with this. Posting (#1260): You said "Financial institutions WILL not back SUF unless they have the mineral rights registered to their name". I hope you are talking about M1 only. Because they have all the other mineral rights registered to their name. English is not my native tongue but if I am not wrong, WILL defines a definite statement in the future. I did not know that you controlled the financial institutions in SA, UK and Canada. So that you can talk on their behalf. You also said "They have no money". You know what? While you are wasting your breath and trying to keep your master(s) happy with these meaningless and totally unjustified accusations, SUF keeps digging out the Diamond from different areas. BECAUSE, If you have not noticed yet, M1 IS NOT THE ONLY PROPERTY THEY COUNT ON!!. In your answer to nempela (#1312) you said "only a fool would pursue a particular action when it is so evident that the cause was lost". I totally concur. The minute(!) difference is, IMHO, the only fools are the "heirs". They are being manipulated by DeBeers. But by Gull's admission seems like they don't mind being used as pawns. How sad !!. Money can lower individuals so much and bring out their true vulturous personality. Posting (#1210). You downplay the SUF's importance for SA's economy. That shows how narrow-minded and short sighted you and your collaborators are. Don't you see SUF is not the only issue here. (Also see posting #1318 by jadrew). I also know a couple of portfolio managers (and I am sure they are not the only ones) who are following this issue with great interest. If the results are against the foreign investor, they may think twice before they buy the shares of a company that may want to invest in SA. Because this whole issue of manipulating the legal system creates big question marks. Not just the land claims but all the other legal tools that protect the interests of the foreign investors would be questioned. Simple logic. That wouldn't be good news for SA. Also you are not part of NAFTA, EU nor Pacific Rim Countries. THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY IS. So before you say this whole thing is not going to effect SA, think again!!. Because do not forget: THE CANCER STARTS WITH ONE AND ONLY ONE CELL ALONE!!!. But it seems like Dr. Maduna is a visionary and can see the bigger picture. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to scrutinize everything you post. But I believe I gave enough examples to show that YOU ARE NOT CREDIBLE!!. Finally, if you believe that you and your "heirs" are happy and this whole thing is over (you claim that NGS has won), the you have accomplished your mission. BUT YOU ARE STILL HERE!!. Why? You have been using the "Best Defence Is Offence" tactic since you have started posting here. This tells me that you still have to defend something. So this proves that this whole issue is far from over for you and for collaborators and YOU KNOW THAT!. Regards BozkurtD

To: INFOMAN who wrote (1312)	5/31/1998 12:18:00 PM
From: GULL	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7235

An earlier DB press release which might provide food for thought. De Beers signs agreement on Marsfontein mineral rights with NGS Minerals (Pty) Limited De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited confirms that following a competitive bidding process between several interested parties and NGS Minerals (Pty) Limited, the registered owner of the mineral rights relating to certain portions of the farm Marsfontein 91 KS, De Beers has signed an agreement which entitles it to purchase these mineral rights from NGS Minerals. De Beers has given a commitment that it will not take transfer of the mineral rights until mid May at the latest, in order to allow a local court to consider an application for an interdict restraining NGS Minerals from alienating or encumbering its Marsfontein mineral rights. Provided that the appropriate authorisations and environmental approvals have been obtained in terms of the Minerals Act, 1991, and that due diligence findings are satisfactory, De Beers will embark on a small-scale mining operation on the property. Marsfontein is situated a few kilometres north of Zebedelia in the Northern Province of South Africa in an area which has been the subject of intensive diamond prospecting activity by De Beers for many years. Following on from its discovery of a kimberlite dyke system west of Zebedelia in 1985, De Beers extended its prospecting search over a greater area, and has discovered a number of other kimberlites. Negotiations with other mineral rights owners in the area have been ongoing, and the conclusion of this agreement between NGS Minerals and De Beers will enable De Beers to consolidate these Marsfontein mineral rights with its other mineral rights holdings in the Zebedelia area. P.S.The last paragraph is interesting.