Boom !, page-89

Thing is spotty1 is the only one who claims (believably in my opinion) that he (?) actually went to the Warden's Court when the hearing(s) were on - so even if he is biased and even if he misunderstood what he heard - he might have some information compared to people who did not attend. Or something that can be translated into usable information - he mentioned a Supreme Court of WA appeal case (Brewer) I think as being mentioned by representatives as relevant.

And the most recent report I can find from KDR doesn't even acknowledge that a forfeiture application was still in train.



Yet this descriptive header from 27 October includes "application for forfeiture" - so it seems "forfeiture applications" were still in train at that date.

Spotty describes surprises in the court room. (okay so what?).

But then Peter Lester resigns as chairman on the 2nd of November whilst the company looks for a replacement and another existing board member acts as chairman in the meantime. Why the urgent departure of Peter if they haven't got a replacement yet? Could it be he stuffed up in the eyes of others on the board - perhaps transferring shares to Capri too early? (I don't know but the timing of departure gives me food for thought).


And from KDR's earlier reports these were the three possible outcomes envisaged.




I am inclined to think your and sharpey's and mistie's conclusions about this being greenmail and largely hopeless action are very probably correct - but your conclusions are summary - so I am wary of confirmation bias (mine and yours) - so for myself - I want to see more detailed working out.

"Idiots" are not always wrong. And because one poster has a bias doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Facts still matter.

The thing I am most concerned about is that if Montague Resources when it was not owned by KDR did have the tenements and a valid forfeiture application was raised by *anyone*, that anyone could (I don't say must just could) still have priority. That is priority under the Mining Act.

I get that Wardens are not Judges - more like magistrates - and I get that Mining Ministers can have a lot of discretion - however it does not sit right with me that Ministers would have complete discretion to override black letter law (hard written provisions in the Mining Act itself for instance - if they give priority to persons raising forfeiture applications) - such would be bad public policy - it would put Ministers in a situation where corruption would occur.