justice will finally prevail, page-19

Dear All Ords

I agree with the sentiment you express regards losses suffered by CAZ holders in the event that the Minista is shown to have stuffed up.

By "stuffed up" I mean made an decision under s.111A that empowers him/her with a financially sensitive decision.

I'm not expert on the laws of compensation, but it seems to me as a first estimate (stab in the dark) that a case for COMPENSATION via a class action might make sense.

If the government enacts a law, such as s.111A (of the Mining Act in WA) that grants a Minista unfettered power to choose between conflicting interests on the basis of a criteria that is undefinable, (that is, deciding what is in the public interest) , then surely such a decision is made on behalf of the Public.

Therefore, the Government (through the Minista) is acting on behalf of the Public and if the Minista acting as Agent for the Public stuffs it up, the Public should have to pay for any resulting damages of that stuff up?

The trouble is that “laws” can be (and probably have been) written to exclude compensation.

For me, the GREAT FAULT with s.111A is that an appeal DIRECT to the Minista becomes a secret trial. Unbelievable! And in my opinion, an outrage. And the mind of the Minista becomes as clouded and secretive as god's. Except there is no way you can pray to the Minista. But you can invite him to your footy party. And you can black mail him. Because he really is not a god. But you better be just as powerful as he/her. I for example could never black mail a Minista. Even if I had the goods. It can become a question of who dies first. I’d be a goner!

For all we know the truth as to what took place inside Bowler's grey matter was anything from agonising to a decision via a trial by ordeal. He could have flipped a coin or made his decision with the darkest of motives or with the greatest sincerity. He could be on a personal vendetta or be the subject of personal threats. In so far as, nothing is impossible. And no trial decision is every absolutely certain. No such thing.

Being raised to the status of Prince is not achieved only by becoming a Minista. Being a company director is sufficient. Having the power is what it is all about. But of course democracy is all about limiting the power of Princes.

And a mere citizen has power too. To that extent allowing your country to go to war that you know is actually the extension of your country's overwhelming military superiority and proceeded with as a mere exercise of that superiority, is the act of a Dark Prince. We once called him Adolf Hitler. And we who endorse or acquiesce become identified with this Dark Prince. For example, the intoxication of power that drove the war in Afghanistan & Iraq.

So of course the root of the problem with s.111A is s.111A applies to all tenements other than a Mining lease.

I personally see no good reason or place for applying s.111A in the case of RIO v CAZ.

To extend the ill-defined idea of "the Public Interest" to a case where an exploration licence expires in order to prevent one party's a private loss (in this case at the expense of another party's loss - CAZ) is totally different to the notion of restitution to right a wrong.

In RIO v CAZ, has any wrong has been committed?

Cazaly, which is identical to the shareholders, did no wrong. Or presumably did not knowing do a wrong. Yet CAZ is directly punished for the errors of another party!

Well may there have been an intention of government to secure the tenure of Shovelanna in favour of the RIO mob, but if the machinations of that process were taking place over Shovelanna even up until the EL expired (26.08.2005), but they were being carried out in secret, presuming that the 1979 letter, which I suspect was not made public, and presuming that the machination over Shovelanna were taking place for all that time in secret, then where is there a law that says CAZ, or any other person should have been aware of what was taking place regarding Shovelanna’s security of tenure?

Was there a notice at the boundary or next to a peg (at any of the corners) notifying any would-be pegger that the government will not take kindly to ANYONE making a claim or trying to re-peg Shovelanna? Or a direction that should anyone want to submit an EL application they should first ask the Minista?

Or a notice that "This land is the subject to ongoing negotiations between the current holders of the EL and the Govt. regarding bring of the land under an evolving State Agreement"?

Of course I'd love for someone to educate me as to where an equivalent situation could arise via other legislation? Where a conflict can arise and the Minista can restore an expired tenement at the expense of a subsequent innocent party. Or where, when a lease or licence is allowed by the holder to expire, it does so with an undefined period or window of grace.

Or where a subsequent interested party has to make inquiries to ensure that the previous holder (interested party) has not only let the holding expire, but actively solicit the previous party to acknowledge that they realise it has expired, before it actually and lawfully does expire.

Did RIO mob’s EL expire? YES! Did RIO mob cry? Definitely YES. Did RIO mob’s right to develop Shovelanna iron ore deposit expire? No, according to the Minista. Is the right to develop attached to the existence of a matching tenement? No, according to the Minista. And what about Cazaly? According to the Minista and the “Public Interest”, losses suffered by Cazaly are the collateral damages of war.

All hail the Dark Princes of W.A.

All hail the Dark Prince whose name is “the public interest” for it is that Prince who especially hates to pay for the mistakes of its representatives in power. Hence the probable law that says Cazaly, you’re stuffed! Ha ha ha.