update. cbox. wendy syme and neil fleming, page-5

Oily Man and Noggie,

Firstly, Oily Man, I know who you are; I knew your “friends” who eagerly at the time told me who are on HC. It would be logical then to assume that I also know that you have benefitted from the resolutions we opposed. It is my opinion, that integrity is sorely lacking with many parties close to the Board, not surprisingly, “like attracts like” - I do however respect your right to privacy and the HC forum intentions so will not divulge your identity. Therefore, when you speak of “ulterior motives” I ask you yet again, before you conveniently disappear for a time in the hope that people will forget the last time I asked you to come clean, please tell everyone who you are and what your position is. Be upfront about what your real motives are, whether its Mining or perhaps Construction?... you may find it liberating.

BTW Noggie - I did not receive a call from you nor was any message left from any shareholder that I have not spoken to. So if you want to speak, you can call me on 0404001277.

People know who I am, what my position is and know if I am moderated or you try to discredit me again, I will come back with proof because I do have it. My agenda is completely open, I don’t use your style of influence and manipulation through innuendo or speculation, I use only facts.

I didn’t notice you at the meeting we attended with the Board? When you say you were “pleased” that they were “willing” to meet with me – I respectfully suggest, that you should be very pleased that I was willing to meet with them after repeatedly trying only to be ignored; I facilitated the meeting they requested and paid for my solicitor’s very expensive time to try to find a solution in the best interests of the company. Did you ask the Board what their contribution to this meeting was? Neil Fleming is someone I know you know, he’s been a shareholder of the company well before your or my time, and he too attended the meeting for the 249D component as he wrote the document for me being quite familiar with this part of the Corporations act.

As for another AGM as you put it; it is actually an EGM to be accurate and is my right as a shareholder to call this. In terms of the costs involved, I suggest you ask this Board why there are no funds after 12 months of approximately 163,000,000 shares diluted with no revenue return to be able to facilitate a valid meeting under the Corporations Act requested by a material shareholder. You have just made my argument about the questionable level of competency of this Board.

I wish cBox obtained 60,000,000 shares plus the recent options selected people received for the minimum $$ they put in to obtain this – our company was worth much more than what revenue was raised by these shares and options. Further, the truth will come out as to why we kept the shares and took the company back… let’s just wait for the outcome of the litigation shall we?

About the litigation, you can download the case file from the County court – its publicly available. You can see the validity of my claim and then judge or assess how the Board intends to “vigorously defend the claim” – believe what you want to, I don’t really care what you think, again its only speculation with no facts to back anything you say. There will be an outcome and people can make their own judgment then.

I appreciate you may have put “serious funds” into MOT – I respect this. I do ask you to consider the many other shareholders who did so also fund the company, back from the MVH days. And as for us, we gave our clean, profitable company to get MVH out of suspension and then further gave; blood, sweat and tears to lift the SP. So, please spare me the diatribe, you are not the only one to have given to this company.

I reiterate – cBox was withdrawn and is no longer a proposal for consideration. We are worth significantly more than MOT now so it’s not a good deal for us, you can thank your Board for this at least. Before any projects go in, due diligence has to be done and the company needs to be cleaned up, starting with this Board or we will very likely end up suspended by ASX indefinitely.

Whether I win or lose with the 249D – As a shareholder I can only try to protect what we have. I thank you Oily Man, you have reignited my resolve with the litigation and 249D – your comments serve my motivation well as you continuously target my credibility with ambiguity and conjecture; you should realize that this battle will obviously be fought in the public arena for all to see, there will be nowhere for this Board to hide in the end, and no amount of hyperbole will be able to spin it for them in the face of facts.

So, based on your comments, my question now is; why has this Board allowed the company to become so vulnerable to litigation and insolvency?

IMO DYOR