first responce to letter, page-4

Hi guys am back in town from the roof of the world. Been watching yr great efforts when able.

Apart from the obvious Qs which have been plaguing us, one further indigestible concern of mine which no Oz regulator has (yet) asked ... and it amazes me why FH themselves have not ... is how does a US hedge fund which begins dumping stock, naively(?) given them by the Board at the worst possible time (instead of the Board going to willing shareholders for a placement at the time to avoid the inevitable), thus directly causing a fall of 80% in the sp over a short period and directly leading to the administration, ends up with 80% of the company for a song?

If this happened in the US, reckon the SEC would have been all over them asking these Qs, as they did of many others at the time and even at the senate level.

I really dont think FH have delved deeply enough into any of this ... something a forensic investigation would hopefully do ... and certainly not to the satisfaction of shareholders inc myself. I mean for one, the lack of pilot operation on a previously untested process 9on this ore type) before committing to a major capital expenditure was unforgivable IMO. Oh forgot, who was it that "empathised" with shareholders plight as consolation ? Was it really a director ? That was actually stated on FH's opined response to our legal opinion ... freakin unbelievable !

And if we go a bit further into this, remember the monitoring of short selling we used to regularly discuss in here whilst the stock was plunging ...... in physical and CFDs. IMO that too should also be investigated as part of the norm just in case, tho all these things might be labelled "circumstantial" and "irrelevant" as have all other concerns been labelled in the OPINIONED reponse by FH to our FPOD legal opinion. All ours really did was suggest there were enough Qs asked to warrant a forensic investigation being done by the administrator, yetthis brushed aside in an "opinioned" response.

(Shizen, we even suggested, at the very least, a compromise deal with shareholders by way of a few crumbs like a spin-off of non-JV assets to avoid all this shize ... and we would have paid for it as well !)

Therein lies another deficiency in our corporate laws when dealing with the globals now ie how can an administrator assigned by the Board and acting on behalf of creditors conduct a forensic investigation when shareholders concerns are aimed at creditors themselves ? Sounds like a bit conflicting of interest hey ?

No wonder HNC are also peed off right now and wont accept FH DOCA change. But their passive role in not wanting to be associated with the Ozzie shareholders in paying out the two main creditors for greter equity, thus keeping a sino-Ozzie JV INTACT and ALIVE under their management, Ozzies who could and would otherwise support them in the long run, is another tactical misjudgment IMO. Come on bros, we are waiting for yr interest.

All things considered, methinks we need our own government enquiry for unbiased and thorough investigations and reckon thats what individuals might want to ask for, before some corporate-legal technicality delivers a multi-billion buck Ozzie asset away from its 5000 Ozzie owners and their kids and grandkids for a pittance.

The court of public opinion tends to be the most effective in the long run. Ozzie citizens and their elected representatives should be made aware of such serious situations as this where more precedents for "easy transfer of ozzie assets into non-Ozzie hands are being established by deficient corporate laws which need immediate overhauling, before we all end up as servants to a new foreign tourist industry in our own country.

Opinion without prejudice as always .... am only seeking independent investigation, assessment and adjudication at the highest level for some kinda "fair play".

IMBOOC