Member Info for Dulwichman

TSB1
Hi, I would not take too much notice of SN looking glum and or to what may be an appearance after coaching by his legal team (happens a lot in the States) It is clear that the relationship with you know who has broken down badly, he has already made it clear that he took ZeeM into the bosom of his family and that ZeeM seems to have done the dirty on him personally. He may be feeling sad at the lost friendship or feeling guilty who knows but it is certainly not nice to have to take a good friend into the box over your business dream. add the pressure of just being in the Box and you can easily get a false reading. its rather like the case itself on this board. many think the evidence so far points to a slam dunk, as oopsi points out we are not there yet but a few are jumping up up down with joy, perhaps a little early for that.

The problem with quoting case law is that it should be an exact fit to be a solid argument. In my limited experience case law is often used when a 99% fit and it will then be up to the judge who may or may not be in a good mood. That is not to say that a 99% fit is not useful or unhelpful depending on which side you are.

Mole Re your last Para
I do not disagree with the roles as you describe them but that is the whole point. Directors have their role and responsibilities laid in Law. Nomads Auditors etc have Charted Status and therefore their loyalty is to their Profession NOT their pay masters ( the number of times I have used this in my own profession is quite huge even telling Government ministers I will not do that unless you change the Law and I have survived) I suppose what I am saying is that a lot of things are out of date. There is far too much loyalty to pay masters these days the number of times I have seen Accountants spotting things that do not add up and yet still sign them off. I would add that not for the first time have I challenged the Chair of a Company at an AGM over a failure to have a statutory valuation yet all is signed off by the auditors. In one case a footsie 100 Company. My calling out altered the share price, it should never have got to that stage as it was embarrassing for the Company et all but not me. There was no penalty even after I complained to the Stock exchange. Finally I complained about the Company secretary which had Chartered status and that only admonished the individual. I then had a charming letter from the chair thanking me- over lunch he said " thanks etc but has really upset our future plans" so they Knew they were conning share holders !
I can not change what has happened but call is for change for the future. Even HMG is thinking about splitting the big boys up re auditing and consultancy but it does not go far enough. Share holders expect that a Company is run well on their behalf otherwise how can any market work and peoples hard earned be safe either as a PI or on their behalf in there Pension fund. I accept most Companies do comply with present regulations but even they do push to the limits a lot of the time.

freeatlast Firstly I am not suggesting any one individual is or is not a fraudster/con artist Atypical approach by any con artist is to gain peoples trust to the extent that who ever is being victimised is so convinced that they do not believe there own doubts even if the chips all line up. The technicals are very well known in a much lower determination level are taught to sales staff in quite legitimate day to day jobs. A complete con artist may take years to develop levels of trust with out even having the thought of conning somebody# all the way up to being best mates then suddenly something happens and they turn. In hindsight most victims still do not want to believe they have been conned even after a conviction in a criminal court even though all the signs were blindingly obvious - victim embarrassment- for obvious reasons I am suggesting anything here but I have no doubt my thoughts are very similar to yours and if all goes well further action will follow by others. The worst comment I will make publicly at this moment is that there was some bloody awful management and a complete lack of oversight. It is the won reason I am so annoyed possibly with the role of any Nomad, IF that spot something which is illegal they just seem to resign -the same goes for auditors. It leaves shareholders any chance of an escape route To be fair it is not there job to be a policeman but the system allows people to remain involved from an ill informed point of view.

Looks like a part of the new documents will be withheld when they resume. Pity I am sure some pepes would love to go through them with a fine toothcombe. I don;t think we will see a reason why the Nomad quit. I have always been fascinated by that.

Who buys I have been using https://video.ibm.com/channel/sSquTrGTjBg for video. I presume it will be the same link when they resume

Well a picture is certainly being painted even if by numbers but that is how courts go. Thankful for oopsi putting a steer on things. I wish this was was in a UK court though (I prefer the methods of presentation) If zaza comes back after this break he must have something in his defence they believe to be of quality I can't wait.
Being a good boy I have not recorded it but hope somebody has as it is out of jurisdiction as it will make a good book but should also go to a UK journalist who is interested in the AIM market and the role of NOMADS

OOpsi Are you suggesting a slam dunk?

You can understand the bad blood between them

The defence on this is going to be fascinating. I hope it takes place!

Mr Mole
Many thanks for your time and explanation. I am sure it will be of benefit to others as well. No Doubt in my mind then this will keep running.

It is difficult for many of us lay people to fully understand what is a very complex set of legal actions and quite a long time period without having had experience of some of the game playing. Could some body -if they have a spare moment hazard a guess to help[ identify just where we possible could be as part of a time line? My own dealings with the big boy legal people is that there is normally a strategic goal which may have a number of twist and turns with plan B in place. In effect this is chasing game. Are we at a point now where SN is chasing the money or chasing the asset? or is it simply two grown men with big egos trying to save their personal reputations.
I would like to think I am not stupid ( many will disagree) but I am completely lost this now in terms of what is trying to be achieved and where anybody is on this. i at the point now where I have gone back to basics of two men having a fight with some very expensive fountains of law in front of a judge who may or may not be sufficiently experienced for such complex matters who may make a ruling which is weak in law so it can be appealed to a higher Authority.
Help!

Seems the Judge at a very early stage is needing to get her heard around the complexities. It would appear to me that opening arguments have not even been covered yet let alone developed argument

Any ideas what this mysterious exhibit may be?

If Knobber Norris is around hang on to your daughters!!!

Actually water is a bit of problem. Its a bit like Andre Preview and Eric Morcombe playing all the right notes but in the wrong order! Even in Norfolk water is a bot of a problem , not so much with global warming but the high yield crops need vast amount of water. Out in the middle East there are vast desalination plants. On a global basis with increased population and a shift of industrial processes which need water it may well be there are wars fought over water just as there has been over oil. All those geologists and reservoir mappers and exploration crews will not be out of work!!!! As far as Cumbria goes nothing so sweet as water out of the River Eden near Kirkby Stephen

According to seeking alpha Bp have agreed to sell its stake in the shearwater field in the North sea for an undisclosed sum. The selling off of assets is quite normal but there is a limit. when do we reach that limit?

Whilst I totally agree with you some of the demands by the IEA are just plain madness. I accept that there reserves etc which can be used but some are so expensive to to get into use. it will deter people from using them BUT the world will stop if all hydrocarbons are banned . NO steel (you need coke what is the representment) No gas boilers try heating a hospital on electricity this is all too much too soon. Add in that the demand for power is going to increase year on year unless they are going to say to Africa you can not send an email. I accept at present the direction of travel is being laid out but the time span is daft. I can not see international agreement in that area is simply not going to be achieved what ever they say.

Sorry off topic but this is beginning to annoy me

I am no lawyer but a quick feeling relating to the documents and contents I have a feeling that the need to appeal was already in ZM.s plan and is part of his legal strategy. I fully expect this to run and run for some reason.

Pryo
You may well be thinking along the lines of my own thoughts, however I certainly do not think there is enough to stand up YET. I also have that same view as Mole that the approach of a Light touch by not only Authorities in the financial sector may not be helpful ( this includes my own professional where in my view Professional; standards have hit the floor and feel sad for the younger members who think they are held to account too heavily!) however the game in my book on information has a while to run. Who knows what may come out and perhaps more importantly where and who else was involved. It may allow other Authorities to get involved!