How am I mischaracterising? I've only responded to exactly what...

How am I mischaracterising? I've only responded to exactly what you've said, which I've included below again for your benefit:

Hard on the heels of the last time Hay did these soothing 1-on-1’s with individual investors, some of which were alluded to or recounted (in part) here, Leo:

• came out of suspension only to go right back into one,
• received an ASX Aware letter,
• lost ASX’s confidence with its response and thus was suspended by the exchange for failing to meet listing rule disclosure requirements,
• walked back GF’s direct investment into Leo resulting in a relinquishing of equity in the JV instead, and
• then sold them another 5% of the JV.

None of the above was part of the script they were selling to rattled investors at the beginning of September, so it’s fair to be somewhat sceptical of their latest airbrushing too. Formal market announcements is what is required, not circumventive public relations activity.

Now in relation to your new point ('goverment relations'), Simon was transparent with me (incl. others) on 7th September 2023 that their relationship with the Mali Government had changed. He mentioned that;

1. Its clear that the relationship has changed;
2. The company is continuing to engage with the government on a professional and courteous level to try to understand their position as they would like to establish good relations with the new government; and
3. Ministry changes, regime changes, but the Project won’t change as they will operate through the political cycle.

While he didn't disclose the corresponse received from the Mali Government or what the confidental discussions involved, from September onwards (which is when I started to engage with the company), he was very direct and clear about that. Even mentioning the fact that the fundamental risk to investing in Leo Lithium is the sovereign risk (e.g. this situation), which is why the company trades at a discount compared to other companies.

So back to you @camban. Did he or the company make any public statements or say anything to suggest otherwise at that time? If not, there's another misleading statement.

While I'm also not happy about this situation, I do believe it's important to back up what you're saying.