its in a federsl court of course its got to be proved beyond all...

its in a federsl court of course its got to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt civil or otherwise lol.

civil or criminal a claim has to be proved and burden of proof is on the claimant..

thats why you have a defence team for mmx and a legal team for chm who have to prove that claim.

you cant just get a civil case up in a federal court with out establishing that you proved the claim to be true and accurate that you are bringing for goodness sake read up on some basic law principals ..

if chm cannot establish a binding legal claim or document that says that mmx used thier money to gain from the sale of jack hills after lending them some money to buy it.

they have no prrof of that any documents to say if mmx made money of what they lent them to buy jack hills mmx had to give them half

read up how many contructive trust claims have ever been successfull nothing more than a money grab by a very grubby bunch of people thats all but it must be heard as under our laws anyone can make a claim not everyone can prove one 98 per cent of constructive trust claims fail..

find me some examples of contructive trust wins in Australia good luck the list is short

its like me saying here cranswick heres 1000 to buy 2000 mmx shares at 50 cents they go to 2 dollars does cranswick have to pay me back the 1000 or half the 2000 if thier was no agreement in pace then i dont have a leg to stand on all cranswick owes me is the 1000..

how come chm hawked that case around and no one wanted to touch it for so long???

why is the former funder chaseing chm for money?

where is the value to chm holders form the recent payout from mmx in cash and shares where is the money for holders?

wake up chm people your living on fantasy island this claim has more holes than swiss cheese and WILL NOT get up

you can take that to the bank