"MMX clearly acknowledge they have received money or shares from...

"MMX clearly acknowledge they have received money or shares from CHM but they deny that this was used for the purpose of purchasing jack hills or Weld Range. "

"MMX backs this statement with the announcement earlier in the year stating they have foreisic accountants check the accounts & they had found all but $5000 & it had nothing to do with CHM."

Ignoring all the complex issuing of CHM shares for which they received no payments, the subsequent sales of those share and the resultant money trail, the matter of the two cheques CHM for more than $150K requires some very detailed explaination. The two CHM cheques fully detailed in the SOC were offered to Hinch (a vendor of the Jack Hill lease)and Zeedam Ltd (a vendor of the Weld Range lease)which were presented for payment and the funds subsequently deposited into their accounts.

In accepting the cheques and depositing the funds what did Hinch and Zeedam Ltd give in consideration, their second cars, contents of their rubbish bins or their proportional ownership of the Jack Hill and Weld Range leases? If it is shown that Hinch's and Zeedam Ltd's portions of the Jack Hill and Weld Range leases were given in consideration for the two CHM cheques what aggreement provided for that conideration to be transferred to Crossland without some formal benefical agreement with CHM.

Without an agreement with any other party for providing their funds for which Hinch's and Zeedam Ltd's portions of the Jack Hill and Weld Range leases were given in consideration, CHM could reasonably expect to have a claim to that consideration. Anyway that up to the judge to decide!