Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[stephen1946] 26/11/2016 10:26

Not in any particular order, but reason for positive thinking.

1. When chl was accepted by icsid tribunal, ROI president told cabinet, "expect the worst".

2. ROI police have raided both chl premises in indonesia looking for a silver bullet, none has been found.

3. CHL offices are burnt out, in what police describe as arson. As yet nobody has been arrested for the crime.

4. During the early proceeding, roi accused chl of fraud, a spurious charge as it turned out and the charge was later withdrawn by roi within the proceedings.

5. Much of roi case revolves around the evidence provided by Mr Noor, who during the latter part of the hearing failed to appear at the proceedings. It was necessary for the tribunal to ask mr noor questions in relation to certain matters and mr noor gave reasons for his absence. The tribunal later instructed Mr Noor to attend, it was then he refused and said he would not be appearing in person nor by video link. At that point, Mr Noor evidence was struck out, and that evidence CANNOT be referred to by either party in their pleadings.

6. We are currently awaiting a verdict on a forgery charge laid by ROI, that is a conundrum, first of all roi have been categorical in the absence of fraud laid, then withdrawn against chl, then to return with a forgery allegation, beggars belief. Simply put, forgery is fraud, and roi have stated, "we, roi, withdraw the fraud allegation against chl".

7. ROI are in the process of changing the contracts of work held by dozens of mining companies. Currently those contracts, signed and legally binding, allow those mining companies to follow CHL example should they have a dispute with ROI. ROI are going to the indonesian supreme court to get the icsid clause struck out and insist, that in future all disputes are handled by indonesian courts and that decision is binding.
This legislation is a direct result of the CHL case. Make of that what you will.

Not a comprehensive list i know, but it is an adequate amount of reasons fòr me to leave my money where it is, in CHL shares until pay out. Imho.

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 26/11/2016 10:07

This is the level of understanding or rather total bile that goes totally unchallenged on the ramp thread.
Again at the risk of repeating myself, this is no more than a procedural hearing. In no way is the forjury claim the end of the road decision. Moreover, it has no part that decides Quantum meruit "what one has earned". In the context of contract law
The suggestion that if CHL win this, it's just a matter of working out how much compensation they get thereafter, is totally without doubt a huge fabrication.
The final hearing on Quantum meruit has not even bean scheduled yet!

You may recall another procedural hearing that the ROI instrumented on jurisdiction, in 2014, well this is the same tactic they employ again.
Was that the end of the road when the arbitration ruled in CHL favour in that procedural hearing on jurisdiction? No! and this is the exact same situation.

Neo (debs) the ROI did not and can not demand this be 'heard separate', it's by its own definition separate, it's a procedural hearing that offshoots the main proceeding.'
I ask you are you rally this unaware of the process?
Amazing!


neo26

25 Nov '16 - 23:28 - 11295 of 11299 0 1
sparticus
that's one of the main reasons why i believed roi demanded forgery case be heard separate, so roi will still be in control over settlement value.

After this there is only the quantum phase as nothing else can be challenged.

[maks1] 26/11/2016 09:48

what makes me feel better ladt two trades yesterday were buys, one 200k shares at a price of 36 ie 72k£ followed by 9.9k£ buy

[patviera] 26/11/2016 09:47

MaksAssume you lose all your money if we loseBetween 2 and 5pNeo the ramper thinks we go up but that's cos he doesn't want anyone selling stock now for some strange reasonThis is a court case so it's risky but most holders believe we are 75pct to get to a pound and 25 pct to zero!!

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 26/11/2016 09:33

The problem i believe most people have with individuals that claim to be long term holders but who are really trading the shares in and out without disclosure, is the dishonest nature of their posts.
When for example, they have a short term trade and they are suggesting "a settlement is near"or "the price is going to spike", they do so without informing about the short term trade they hold.

They sure as hell tell us when they buy, but don't offer the same lip service when they sell do they?
Can you see how this is disingenuous and deceitful and dishonest when the individual concerned are putting themselves up as the solid long term holder in it till the end, but really looking for a short term price move?

With the greatest of respect, what profit?
The CHL share price is lower now than when Debs started her holy war as a CHL jihadist many years ago .

In your post three above this one, you reference Debs 'intelligent and rational posts' without citing or proving evidence of one iota of such qualities to prove up this claim. I asked you to re-post such like or provide a link to this material, you failed to do so.

Now you reference her understanding of 'the auite complex history and context'. I again would ask you to provide copy of any of these qualities please!

I would put forward that the myth of these 'intellectual' posts have been created by the tens of fake names debs employs to both converse with and reinforce the pigeon holed opinion that she holds.
It reminds me of Mark Twains quote “Give a man a reputation as an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon.” only the reputation has been created by herself ,using all her names.

I obviously am not alone in noting the alias names Debs employs. The 'Red tick' man seems on the ball. i note he only 'red ticks' Debs names.

[mrphiljones] 26/11/2016 09:27

-95%.......IF we lose...:-)

[maks1] 26/11/2016 09:20

if we lose how bad will be the fall? i think i have invested too much ( for my picket) -and trying to work out how much i can afford to write off

[neo26] 25/11/2016 23:28

sparticus
that's one of the main reasons why i believed roi demanded forgery case be heard separate, so roi will still be in control over settlement value.

After this there is only the quantum phase as nothing else can be challenged.

[spartikas] 25/11/2016 23:13

Neo, they have done no favours to their own defence...they certainly haven't behaved like the winning side.

They have been arrogant throughout the years with all the drama's this is going to be the game changer for us!

The result of this hearing will open the door to Negotiations for a settlement.

[pug151] 25/11/2016 23:05

People are complicated so i imagine she is obsessed with Chl and has an interest in trading and mm behaviour while also understanding the auite complex history and context. She should have taken profit along the way - i certainly have. Unless you are a major share holder or Bod you would be very rigid not to have traded this from time to time. She presents herself as a long term holder until the end -perhaps she is ( an error) or perhaps she trades and does not declare. Who knows and really who cares.

[pb01] 25/11/2016 22:59

Good luck to all holders next week. A truely exciting week lies ahead.

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 25/11/2016 22:12

Can you please point me to the 'intelligent and rational posts' please?
You see, after 6 years of reading the same lowball ramps or childish woefully inadequate analysis of every single share trade .I get the distinct impression that if she/he had an enema at night, see could very well sleep in a match box!

[pug151] 25/11/2016 22:07

I was responding to your attack on Debbie who ( while obviously a bull) makes interesting posts which are intelligent and rational. Posters post for many reasons i think most do so honestly for decent enough reasons.Some don't obviously.

[pug151] 25/11/2016 22:01

No that's completly accurate.

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 25/11/2016 21:51

The licenses in question were issued to RTD and not Chl. Chl later then asked for confirmation on the validly of the licenses when the ROI changed the protocol from local issue to the mining governance issuing of licenses. They (chl) were told by this body that the licenses where correct when CHL had to reapply.
Now can you see how it could be true that the original license may have been issued incorrectly(Forged) but CHL are not at fault due to A, not having the licenses issued to them personally and B, later having them confirmed by the ROI?

As i understand, this is the salient point, the crux of the whole argument on the forgery case

[tivoliworldgaming] 25/11/2016 21:44

At least this is a safer 50/50 than offered on red or black at the local casino, IMHO.

Some of the people had debts thanks to trading Langbar, that took over ten years to pay off. Lets hope this time it will be rewarding.

[pug151] 25/11/2016 21:42

I recall DQ describing the pending ICSID decision as a gateway event. It may be a complicated judgement but if the weight of the judgement favours Roi it is game over.

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 25/11/2016 21:30

On reflection Pug,i would invite you to reevaluate your assumption that my post suggesting that CHL may actually lose the procedural forgury order, but the ICSID rule in CHL favour ,is in any way a deramp?
is it not the case that most normal minded readers would be fair in believing it's quite the opposite?

To summarise, i am suggesting that it's very possible CHL could be in a no lose position in this procedural hearing, even if the body finds the license forged or not authorised!