our day in court looms closer, page-21

EvenSteven - You only appeared on HC about the time CHM relisted and you have only posted on the CHM or MMX threads. Thus you don't seem to be a trader and only have a very singular interest, the dispute between CHM and its listed respondent, MMX. You detail that you hold MMX so you should have an interest in the issue but it may be wise to diversify your portfolio.

If you read the SOC you would be aware that CHM never had any funding agreement with NiCu and the convoluted arrangements NiCu contrived to purchase the Jack Hill or Weld Range leases. Rather it alleges that Grimaldi( chairman of NiCu and defacto director of CHM) together with Barnes(CHM managing director) and Roberts(CHM secretary) used CHM funds and placement shares to finance about $700K of the $1.15M paid to the vendors to secure the leases.

“where are the documents which prove for what purpose the loan was given ?’ – There was never any loan or even intention to record the purposes of the transactions. Gramaldi, Barnes and Roberts appear to have used their positions to simply use CHM funds to secure a major personal gain to the detriment of CHM shareholders.

“You have lots of unsubstantiated claims, and lots which you think you can substantiate, but which can be refuted.” – I make no claims, I have read the SOC and I accept for what it is a sworn statement and it appears that Gramaldi, Barnes and Roberts did not act in the interest of CHM shareholders. The moneys raised from the various CHM share placements and the related transaction that enabled NiCu to secure funds to pay the initial payment for the leases is complex and I expect some serious forensic accounting is required to prove that matter. However, the two CHM cheques deposited by lease vendors Hinch and Zeedam Ltd are simple and traceable transaction and were detailed in the SOC. Why was CHM bank account depleted by more than $150K to pay Hinch and Zeedam Ltd. CHM was not it the loan business, it was a junior miner.

‘Think about it... 100+ pages of statement of claim !!!’ - There were two part totaling over 120 pages.

‘If this case had any merit you would be producing a 4-5 page document and MMX would have paid you long ago...’ – If you take out the preamble and all the repetious mandatory formal legal padding for each respondent the SOC would reduce down to about 20 pages worth reading, about 4-5 pages for each respondent.

‘Where are your killer facts ??? ‘– There are no killer facts and that is why CHM is going to court to see what a judge determines the facts to be and provide a remedy.