and to put us all out of our mysery, page-6

Joker1

You said:

“reliance on two aspects were weak to say the least -The hansard that supported the amendments were re:pancon 100's of workers stood down....”

Was that the hansard I posted?

Also, "weak to say the least"....? Are you saying that you know a fair amount of what was argued by the RIO mob at the Judicial Review last Monday & Tuesday?.....because!

Because I would really love to know if the RIO mob presented ANY argument, and I mean any skerrick, the tiniest reference to the negotiations between them and the Government about incorporating Shovelanna into a State Agreement.

I think it was 1979 when the then Premier (I think it was the Premier. Not a Minister) wrote to the then owner of the tenement, now known as Shovelanna, indicating the government of the day’s intention to include Shovelanna into some sort of State (or other) Agreement.

Of course if there had been ongoing but “unconsummated” negotiations over Shovelanna they would have stopped when the RIO mob’s Exploration Licence expired Friday 26.08.2005. And I assume become extinguishes as fully as their Exploration licence.

I recall that date, as it is the day prior to a good friend’s birthday.

I have been itching to find out what was argued in court but, until the Kevin Rudd Super Highway is constructed, Second Life will not be allowed into any Courtroom. Though I envision the day that the real courtroom is video projected into either my home office or into a Second-Life computer simulation from where I can observe the courtroom in real time, from the Second-Life gallery, as my Avitar dressed or even undressed.

Though if it ever comes to pass, I would expect that simulated sex in any Second-Life courtroom will be against the laws of Second Life.

But now, back to reality.

The reason I have been dying to know this, and finding it so frustrating when finding the Supreme Court of Westralia can not and possibly does not wish to make transcripts readily, quickly and cheaply available (to me) via the internet, is because, apart from the Minista, Mr. Bowler, not being prepared to provide the RIO mob with any number of glowing references, which they no-doubt deserve to receive, if they asked him for one, because, as we all know, they are not recalcitrant and convicted criminals….the reason I’m “dying” to know what RIO mob argued in court is because the RIO mob seems to me to have but 2 legs to stand on.

1. The Minister takes a shining to them (as he did) as they fall within a category of Persons constituted of iron. And such people need the State to guarantee their iron ore tenements because the iron-ore mining industry needs long term guaranteed supplies, regardless of whether that person’s long term investment is or is not jeopardised (now or in over 20 years from now) by the loss of a particular tenement due to that person’s own mistake(s)….which is how I interpret the Bowler Decision, and

2. The RIO mob either do or do not have any claim upon Shovelanna (the second leg) based upon the ongoing negotiations (since 1979?) between them and the government, which negotiations were halted at the end of 26.08.2005.

So?

Well, if I can discover that the RIO mob argued a weak case, and especially “not at all” upon their claims over Shovelanna based upon ongoing negotiations for an agreement with government to bring Shovelanna into a State Agreement, (or whatever!), then that to me indicates the RIO Mob’s appeal to the Minista is truly (as many people feel it is) weak. IMHO.

Does that make sense? It does to me……after all, I wrote it.