|TRIBUNKALTIM.CO, SAMARINDA - Kaltim PKS cadres are prepared to go forward in the selection of East Kalimantan Governor 2018-2023, Hadi Mulyadi, likely paired with Aspar and Syaharie Yusran Jaang.
The plan, MCC conducted a survey simulation Kaltim candidate candidate in April 2017.
"Potential Jaang-Hadi, if the survey simulations have a chance. Because each has a desire developed in Pilgub East Kalimantan. However, it needs to embrace the party medioker such as PKB, Hanura, and PPP," said Jauchar, provides political analysis to the Tribune, Sunday ( 26.03.2017).
But, he added, the potential opportunities that PKS cadres will also terbukan if paired with Yusran Aspar. Later, PKS and Gerindra Kaltim quite intimate in a meeting. Moreover Yusran have experience in eksskutif and legislative.
(See also: This She Results Rakorwil MCC, Listen Recommendations on Pilgub Kaltim)
"Both of these parties, being intimate communication. But it still needs to find two more additional seats to qualify carry. And both of them have a pretty solid political machine," he said.
In contrast to the figure Isran Noor. According to him, if paired with Isran Noor Hadi still doubtful to participate in the 2018 gubernatorial election.
The reason, the former Regent of East Kutai already stated that developed in pilgub as an independent candidate (individual).
"I see it is still doubtful. Because Mr. Isran want to progress in independent pathway. Meanwhile, Hadi, if carried MCC has only four seats. So the possibility of pairing a bit difficult, because the number of seats political vehicle is still lacking," he.
Meanwhile, Hadi Mulyadi paired with Rita Widyasari, also have strong potential. However, the question whether the MCC can receive perempun figure as a leader?
"Because this is a fundamental issue in the party," said Jauchar. (*)
|Should we get the judgement annulled, do the ROI have a means of appeal over that decision?|
That is not a good idea, but there will be idiots on ADVFN that would do that.|
|Also if this award gets annulled the chances of Roi bringing back the forgery case is nil, then off to the merit and quantum phase. Annulment can take upto a year to reach a conclusion, i hope by then roi cave in and settle.
If CHL do manage to get a funder and they request multiple return in their investment, roi will have to pay that out of their own pocket and pay the award separetely if we win.
Then they can delay all they like, because chl will not be going bust and roi will be getting an expensive bill.
They thought they could put costs of $12m for forgery case while our costs were only $3m. We will get them back.|
I believe this is the case and it sounds very similar to ours it sets a excellent precedence, basically it was a "David and Goliath" case, As case went on Essar started making new serious allegations of fraud and deception against Norscot, which were totally unfounded. One of Norscot official even had to remortgage his house to keep case going. The tribunal accepted that by Essar delaying they hoped Norscot would give up and run out of cash. Norscot went to a litigation funder where funder agreed to pay funding and in return receive 300% of legal costs if they won, tribunal agreed with Norscot that this was fair, as the other party delayed alot and without funding Norscot would never have got justice.
So it begs the question have chl agreed to pay litigation funder by claiming off roi if they win?|
|DW, a legal funder will be the preferred route. Let's see how strong the CHL case is and if it is as strong as I hope and perceive it to be then there will be no shortage of legal funders looking for business.
I haven't looked at it myself but I understand there has been one recent case where the losing party was required to pay the cost of the legal funder which was about 55% of the award. That's a very interesting precedent.
I can see where neo is coming from regarding Putra and certainly the lies by Indonesia and their representatives are useful to CHL and that should enable them to put their main points in strong context.
I don't think, however, the Putra issue will form the lead point for the annulment submission. I think it will more likely be linked to whether there were fair procedures and the presentation of other new material facts. The wording within any submission means the basis for annulment has to be material. We might think things are material but of course in the legal world there are different standards to fulfil definitions. CHL and their lawyers do of course have to meet the crieria for the very narrow grounds that are allowed to submit for annulment. I'm not sure the Putra issue fulfils that although undeniably it is an unhelpful development for Indonesia.
The Tribunal jumped around all over the place first denying ROI the opportunity for the authenticity hearing, then somewhat randomly changing their mind and subsequently presenting an eleventh hour case that even ROI didn't submit relating to the legal precedent from the Minot case. I'm no lawyer but if they have exceeded their powers in doing so and not followed due process then I surmise CHL have a very good chance of annulment success and a subsequent award.|
|Never thought of it that way, the "Govt of Indonesia" told a material lie to squirm their way out of paying $1.3b + interest in compensation.
Let's see if they tell more lies to cover it up..|
|Should we go down the route of an appeal, Churchill will need new funds to pay legal fees.It will be interesting to see whether the usual issue of shares is kept to the select few or whether a general share issue is done. With the amount of evidence apparently floating around on these bulletin boards, I suspect we are being softened up for the latter.|
|The lies put together by ROI are "new evidence" unknown to CHL or the Tribunal.
The procedure will be CHL via C.C. send ICSID the notice of appeal and ICSID will then send copies of the appeal to ROI and copies to ROI counsel.
ICSID can prevaricate as much as they want, but ROI counsel will be the first to blink, ROI lies are indefensible, ROI position is built on sand. The roi legal team have a reputation that they will jealously defend, under these circumstances, roi legal team becomes chl ally, inasmuch as they will want this case closed asap.
The world and his wife know that Indonesia is a crooked country run by the local mobsters, having bullied and lied for years it is in their culture and this is the case that tells the world, Indonesia is not a place to invest a single penny. When a Government tells bare faced lies in a court,in an attempt to steal an asset from an investor, that is when that country becomes a, Pariah.|
|question needs to be asked, were Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP aware of this material lie, before they took it to the tribunal?|
|It might be worth starting a new thread with the above named legal firms in the heading?|
|Putra stills works for the GOVT will they bring him in as a witness in the annulment?
I dont think so, the case will fail and the award will be annulled IMHO.
Best thing for Roi and Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP is that they settle, and its not going to be couple of hundred million now but the nearer to the full amount.
|There is a genuine fear in the CHL camp of ROI reading information that may be of use to them, therefore the only disclosure here are in general circulation.
1. Lies to the tribunal.
2. Errors made by the tribunal in names of respondent and claimant.
3. Burden of proof loaded onto the wrong party, in the forgery appendix.
4. Large areas of procedural errors.
5. Noor jet aircraft is tracked electronically on a daily basis, identifying its whereabouts and passengers.
There are copious other details unknown to me, but from a confidence point of view, CHL are confident, but very wary, after all, a lions den is safer than icsid H,Q.
For anyone else wondering about chl case merits, read the award again and satisfy yourself that ROI said they had no idea where Putra was. CHL made the same enquiries previously and Putra was missing. Then After the forgery award hearing, CHL traced Putra and Noor to tanah tindung kabupaten in the province of north kalimanton, where they were employed by ROI. Noor has since left after threats by ROI to his family and himself of physical harm. Then look at the result of telling lies in any court or tribunal on google, the result is always, case collapses.|
I dont know and even if they did i dont think the company would tell us that just in case nothing comes of it.
Annulment app needs to be put in by next wednesday, i do hope CHL submit all appeal info on the company website like they implying, it will put Roi in an awkward position.
I hope they use the putra lies to annul the award also..|
Thanks for posting,from what you have heard you appear confident in the case.
Am I correct in this assumption?
Has there been any hint of contact or discussion with ROI or are CHL waiting till the evidence is displayed? In your knowledge.
|Rutter, D.Q. told me the appeal would be lodged on or before, April 7th, the appeal could just as well depend solely on the lies told by ROI in relation to Putra. When the chairman of the commision reads the appeal, the lies aspect will be uppermost in his mind. How could a prolonged appeal case be justified when just this one aspect, there for all to see, is enough to destroy the reliability of ROI.
In a normal case, the counsel of the offending party would be called into chambers and told of the offence, in this case lies, and that on that basis the offenders case collapses. Again generally counsel would then withdraw from the case, advising his client to settle, as no other counsel would act for them.|
|When do you think that CHL's appeal may be heard. How long does it take. 3/12 ?|
Thanks for update, i must confess i also got over excited about corruption by one of the arbiters, i was wrong.
we are getting closer now, and i DO hope CHL put the full appeal submission on the company website so the world can see how bias the tribunal has been with this case.|
|Masarap, whoops, correct, apologies for that to the thread, certainly not an intentional error. In my defence, speaking to Australia on a mobile is difficult, not least of the problems is the time lag, it takes some getting used to and leads to a disjointed conversation.
With regard to the main claim, which in itself is irrefutable, roi lied to the tribunal, i would add a latin phrase, rarely used for obvious reasons, but extremely important in this case. FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS.
which means, as far as the Tribunal will be concerned;
FALSE IN ONE THING, FALSE IN EVERYTHING. Roi case collapses.|
|We should get results late this week and further information on the anullment submission soon after.
Stephen is right that it was odd that the burden of proof was on CHL to show that ROI's case on authenticity didn't stand up. The burden of proof in this phase of the case should have been with ROI.
With respect to Stephen he has in his own inimitable way crossed wires / got over excited / misinterpreted DQ with regard to his bribery reference. DQ was alluding to another case rather than about CHL. Yes, the CHL case doesn't stack up on so many aspects but CHL have no evidence as such of corruption within the panel.
Stephen is, however, correct on the star witness and well done to Stephen for using his influence and booking President Trump who will be followed by Michael Jackson making a posthumous video link appearance along with Bubbles. An interpeter will be on hand to translate ... for Trump not the chimpanzee. Joking aside, Stephen may be right here and I suspect that there will be useful submissions / testimonies from one or two with stature.
Regardless of the fact that the submission will not be based on panel corruption, it transpires CHL have very solid legal grounds for an anullment and, if the legal reps allow, the intention is to put up the full submission via the website.|
|Up to date, the only place where it state Putra is the criminal is the award, no Indonesian news outlets have mentioned him?Ask yourself why?He is part of a billion dollar fraud if you follow roi narrative...Roi/counsel conned the tribunal.Remember you only need one ground to annul award, one can speculate judging the way the award waswritten chl will have half a dozen grounds..Imho|
|Simple, is not a word recognised in legal terms. Procedure is, and must be followed.
The forgery case is a seperate entity from the original case, therefore, whoever brought the forgery case to the Tribunal is the claimant.
You may not like it, or agree with the logic, but that is the way it is.|
|By the way, I hope I am completely wrong and you are right, but a simple explanation such as the one put forward by myself would cut your argument down straight away. IMHO.|
|I know that and if this was the only thing being reported on the ICSID site I would agree, but it is not. We had about 20 procedural orders before this hearing took place and we were the claimants in all of them. It would be foolish and cause confusion to change us over for this hearing and I believe that is why they were referred to as the claimants for continuity purposes.|