This is a good post in my opinion. I'd like to see the email...

This is a good post in my opinion.

I'd like to see the email because if what you are saying is true (and I do believe you - it would contain information - about the companies processes and thinking) but completely respect your right not to show it.

An email in you hands is at very least substantial information for you.

I received an email reply to a question I sent the ASX - was there anything in the ASX rules that would have prevented Klaus from sending out an explanatory note at the same time as the Appendix 3Y became public - I reported the content to the forum - and the answer - no - but didn't post the email because I hadn't asked permission to do that - and besides no one asked me for it - had they I'd have considered providing it.

"you'd have more chance of winning lotto than having the company secretary reveal some undisclosed information that could jeopardize his position.".

This might be true also, but I don't believe it.

In my research into how the trading policy rules 12.9 - 12.12 and Appendix 3Y question came to have the form it has I found some reports by the ASX that specifically looked at how often directors breached their trading policys selling shares - I also looked at how often ASIC has been successful in cases made for breaches of directors duties and how many cases there has been.

This gives me some sense of the relative numbers - and I reckon there would be a higher chance of an AVZ secretary jeopardizing his position through revealing information than of winning the lotto.

The company secretary not Klaus completes the Appendix 3Y.

Remember Klaus resigned ahead of the appointment of a replacement. Company directors and company secretaries are both officers of the company and the company recruits from a limited circle.

The newly appointed company co-secretary has been with Okapi resources. Klaus also worked with Nigel and Rhett Brans on other companies.

It is no stretch to say that directors create a culture.

ASIC has powers to question - those powers to question exist because sometimes questioning gets answers even people with something to hide don't want to reveal - its the same reason police and prosecutors do interview the 'people assisting them with their inquiries'. Because sometimes people do give stuff up that discloses that they have done something wrong when questioned.