Originally posted by scm211
AICp, anyone can type an email and cc someone in it, the question is is this a proper email or a fabricated one to try and mislead people.
Lets take a good look at the reply email you posted, the different colours in the header to the actual text makes it look fake (I am not accusing you of typing a false/fake email but it my opinion it is definitely not a legit email), also the grammar is atrocious, if an actual solicitor wrote it, you would be truly concerned having them represent you. If you look at the email address from the solicitor DNS & Partners (Donald Marahare) (
[email protected]) and do a google search you will find that this email address is also used by a solicitor that represents indigenous landowners so if Donald Marahare who wrote the Letter of Demand and replied to your email is the same solicitor that Axiom have been claimed to have used it would be a complete conflict of interest don't you think.
Also if you go into the Solomon Island Business Registry and type Marahare in the business owner section (you need to search all sectors) you will find he is listed as the director of HAUS a Computer and Information Company (computet whizz) which uses the same email
[email protected] and has the same phone number, also this company HAUS was mentioned in then Island Suns article regarding Court Abuse, Marahare was also President of the Solomon Bar Association and is still a general member on it, so he could have had much influence in the courts as reported.
So there are a lot of interesting things that don't add up, so rather than tell people in this forum to ring or email the solicitors why don't you actually take some time out and do more research or are you actually trying to spread false information in the hope others won't check for themselves.
Information concerning business dealings that is illegally leaked, irrelevant of its content, factual or not factual, is delivered to gain a business advantage. It is still unethical and illegal.
Axiom mining has the experience and ability to challenge these foolish processes that aim to derail business plans of those involved in these confidential dealings. Court decisions would look at these specific circumstances and then conclude if a breach has occurred. In these unusual cases where a confidentiality agreement exists, trust has been broken and sensitive company information is leaked or falsified with the intention to gain financial advantage or undermine sensitive company dealings. None of what appears to have been leaked is general information.
Axiom will continue to gather evidence in these unusual and corrupt circumstances. In particular cases it may be an unfortunate situation of a rouge associate that breaches these agreements, in which case an equitable situation would still be negotiated. Some protocols may not be clear, however if Axiom has indeed had financial damage as a result of these breaches it would be entitled to legal processes.
It is not unusual and for any company to have protocols in place to protect confidentiality, particularly where bilateral or more interests are involved.
GLTA
