options, page-62

tranquil,

Just quickly you were close but the case is not based on what you have posted in it's entirity. Rather it is based on the second point "2. Set aside the answer to questions 1 to 5 inclusive."

Which are as follows and I suggest you go back through the post and these point have been debate on this forum with some good points raised.

Question 1 - Was the letter to SMMS dated 23 November 2010 (CB2/408) a valid and effective letter of intent for the purposes of the Mines and Minerals Act (cap 42) as amended?

Question 2 - Further to question 1, if it was a valid and effective letter of intent at the time of its issue, did it lapse because of SMMS's failure to lodge a Form 1 application within 30 days?

Question 3 - Assuming the additional facts stated in paragraphs A-C below, is the prospecting licence No.74/11 in favour of Axiom KB (CB2/569) a valid prospecting licence under the Mines and Minerals Act as amended?

Question 4 - Was the "registration" of the perpetual estate in favour of the seventh defendants?

Question 5 - Was the "registered" of axiom's lease effective to vest a leasehold interest in Axiom, subject to any question of rectification?

Ok so my two bobs worth is this.

1 - was it valid? TThis is from my last post "

In January 2011 the Minister of Mines wrote a letter cancelling the Award and LOI only one month after it was awarded without providing reasons or an opportunity for SMM Solomon to comment. A copy of that letter was only
received by SMM Solomon in March 2011.

I am speculating here but I assume sumitomo cancellation was due to an I quote "This fact is primarily due to the majority of the customary landowners enforcing their constitutional rights of final veto and refusing SMM access to their land" end quote, and unfortunately for sumitomo end of story there was no need for the minister to hear their comments.

On 12 April 2011, the Minister issued an LOI to Axiom KB Limited (“Axiom KB”)

3 days later granted Axiom KB a prospecting licence over the Takata area.

2 - Yes they did lodge their application after the 30 days. Their fault and their problem.

3 - This question had to be raised by SMM to try to establish that Axiom had the correct trustee landowners.
Then we got this right at start of the trial hence the trading halt (even though some posters here cried about the TH)
"His Lordship Commissioner Brown determined in favour of Axiom KB’s application and made an order pursuant to rule 3.42 requiring the second to seventh claimants and the seventh defendants to provide proof of their entitlement in custom to act as a representative of their community, tribe, line or group. This evidence is required to be provided by the relevant parties by the time that party closes its case in the current trial."

3,4 and 5 - imo 3,4 and 5 have already been declared by the courts in Axioms favour by the courts and then the co ann to the ASX for the extension of the 50 years licence to Axiom. You bloody beauty.

Again just my two bobs worth.

Also I have noticed some people are saying why if the case is going into next hasn't the co ann it? Someone even suggested that it's price sensitive? I must have missed something here I read that the case will go for 8 weeks.

For what its worth I never make an investment choice based on what is posted on a internet forum and or from what someone or a number of posters have posted. For me it's just a share of research base, but must not be taken as reliable research.

If you are not comfortable with your own researching abilities then may be spec stocks are not for you.