Member Info for fulmar29

Yes thanks,but I'm "clueless" so info shared with those more " clued in" !

Unusually I thought, for a merger ? T/O announcement Duncan went out of his way to explain the synergy of the two companies (in their N+S American operations) But then went on to express where they were investing elsewhere DW-"and supporting broader partnerships across Anglo Teck's operating footprint, particularly in South Africa and southern Africa. As part of the effort to support the junior mining sector, Anglo Teck also plans to make financial contributions to South Africa's Junior Mining Exploration Fund in partnership with the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and the South African Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, which seeks to assist qualifying junior miners to conduct prospecting work."

With Anglo not overjoyed ATM with SA ,that says investing for the future and then the reference to the SADMPR is one of the reasons the sp is moving.

Https://www.mining.com/web/anglo-american-nears-deal-to-acquire-teck-resources/

Matt,instead of just moaning and posting naive comments,do a tiny bit of research.Or read the recent CA substack article which amply covers your questions

I wonder if our old pal Singhy has any other dodgy trading names or aliases ?

It's not about what Singhy does in the future,but it is all about showing association and collusion with publicly available documentation and their own past desperate attempts at destructive and illegal actions...!

If you knew what C o Court was,you wouldn't post such a stupid suggestion!

Not for Mushy and Singhy !

Cont...Regarding concerns over deliberate publication of market-sensitive material and possible market manipulation, confidential legal information is being made publicly available online, which may constitute offences under UK law:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/cyber-online-crime

Potential social media offences applicable to JRCP’s actions include: trolling under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003; online threats (causing harm to individuals or a group); online harassment through repeated unwanted communications; stalking online, defined as persistent unwanted contact; and virtual mobbing involving coordinated harassment campaigns.

I hope you will reach out in the interest of the defendant by pursuing this line of enquiry. As I strongly believe Mr Singh is now operating openly and trolling the defendant’s shareholders online without consequence.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Regards,

—/END/—

Cont...Mr Stuart, with your guidance, I hope you will facilitate this additional request as a concerned shareholder of Arc Minerals.

https://changestoukcompanylaw.campaign.gov.uk/identity-verification/

Finally, Mr Stuart, as I conclude this email, I would like to briefly summarise the key points for clarity:

The presence of the JRCP account posting on ADVFN and LSE serves as strong circumstantial evidence linking it to Mr Singh. This UK based case appears directly connected to ongoing legal matters involving his counterpart, Mr Mushinge, in Zambia.

Said account’s postings on ADVFN and LSE align closely with significant legal milestones. Most notably, Caseboard has tracked and recorded an event relating to Mr Singh’s case which could well reflect a milestone tied to a legal fee he owes the court. Significant as Mr Singh was struggling to pay fees owed to the court.

Last case activity: 18 July 2025

hxxps://caseboard.io/cases/29befdac-abfb-44f1-89c2-af83673e4007

Crucially, 18 July 2025 was the exact day JRCP resumed posting on ADVFN after four years of watching and waiting to strike… post no. 11006 at 22:09… and simultaneously created a new user account on LSE under the same public ID of JRCP. This timing coincides with renewed activities aimed at attacking the shareholders of the defendant, which cannot reasonably be dismissed as coincidence.

All the information I have collected is publicly available. Of course, you have more immediate insight into the case. From my perspective, public case notes suggest that approximately £60,000 in court fees could have potentially been paid by Mr Singh; whether personally or through friends, family, or crowdfunding; to advance the case.

hxxps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/1990.html

Additionally, another new account briefly appeared on LSE under the username “Yoboyobo,” which has subsequently been deleted, and was also established on 18 July 2025.

hxxps://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/yoboyobo/

I have attached screenshots of several posts made by Yoboyobo on 19 July, which further illuminate the ongoing discourse and attacks associated with JRCP and the ongoing cases in Zambia.

I strongly recommend opening an additional IP tracking inquiry with LSE to this end… just to determine its location, whether in the UK, Zambia, or possibly sharing the same proxy IP as JRCP.

Finally, the Termination of Directorship dated 15 March 2025 warrants further investigation questioning, as it appears to be a premeditated move, possibly aimed at avoiding other legal matters linked to an event exactly 12 months earlier (March 2024), when a spike in search analytics was reported. Notably, within just three months, a request to reinstate Mr Singh’s Directorship was initiated.

I trust this information will be treated with the seriousness it deserves in supporting a shareholder of the defendant.

Cont...Mr Singh, also known as SINGH WALIA, Jagjit Robin in the past, shares the same correspondence address in Nuneaton, Warwickshire.

hxxp://www.datocapital.com.gi/executives/Jagjit-Robin-Singh.html

Additionally, he holds an executive appointment at a company registered in Gibraltar.

This is particularly noteworthy…. under the name Mr Jagjit Robin Singh, the record reveals a noticeable spike in search activity during early March 2024. Outside of this period, the pattern remains relatively consistent… which suggests that during that time, his background was subject to increased scrutiny from multiple IP addresses. Such activity would have been flagged and recorded by analytics, indicating a specific trigger. Whether related to litigation, corporate manoeuvres, or something more discreet, the data strongly suggests he was involved in an event that attracted significant attention from a third party or group.

From what I understand, name change filings currently do not require additional ID verification, meaning Companies House still allows changes without confirming identity. However, from my observations above, the repeated unverified name changes (Should only happen once in error, or marriage/divorce)… where it appears Mr Singh (the same individual) is merely shuffling parts of his name around in different orders…must be regarded as a red flag to any basic observer.

This kind of deliberate name manipulation is not just misleading; it is an attempt to obscure true identity and evade scrutiny, which must be classed as unlawful in this instance.

Companies House requires accurate and truthful information on all filings. Under the Companies Act 2006, knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information…including through these deceptive name changes…is a criminal offence punishable by unlimited fines.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 further strengthens this, introducing aggravated offences punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

If it is proven that these actions are intended to hide from creditors, they may also lead to charges of perjury and other serious consequences.

Importantly, from 18th November 2025, mandatory ID verification for all directors and persons with significant control (PSCs) will come into force. This requirement aims directly at preventing loopholes, such as those above, which have allowed unverified filings and such name shuffling tactics. After this date, submitting filings like CH01 without verified identity will be impossible.

Given the ongoing pattern of frequent, unverified, and manipulated name changes by Mr Singh, this must raise serious questions under the Companies Act 2006. The new ID verification rules underscore the urgent need for transparency and accountability, behaviour like this is not to be tolerated, especially from a opportunist like Mr Singh, and I know shareholders will also be supportive of this move by the

Cont...#ARCM And it continues, without a word from the company. Arrest warrants, legal suits, newspaper headlines…and yet they continue the farce.”

This was posted on the very same day the Law360 article dropped… hardly a coincidence.

Overall, this follows a very predictable tried and tested modus operandi by Mr. Mushinge and associates … a calculated pattern of coordinated attacks and disinformation designed to manipulate public perception and shareholder sentiment. Key events typically revolve or front-end hearings or court cases, and from then until now this tactic has remained consistent… a strategy to control the narrative and influence opinions in the run-up to those events.

How else could Gavin Cornish have known about or accessed that Law360 press release on the exact day it was published? It’s unlikely anyone would be constantly monitoring court cases with such precision. Whether tipped off by Mr Mushinge or Mr Singh, this alone confirms coordination behind the scenes.

This, proves that the UK case involving Mr Singh, published through Law360, is far from independent. There is clear collusion between Mr Singh and Mr Mushinge, it could be inferred both are working together to exploit the situation and take full advantage of the company.

This isn’t just litigation, it’s a carefully orchestrated campaign designed to manipulate perceptions and leverage legal proceedings for their own gain on multiple fronts.

Turning now to LSE:

JRCP LSE profile. Member Since: 18th Jul 2025

hxxps://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/jrcp/

JRCP has been a member since 18th July 2025, which coincides with JRCP’s first post on ADVFN.

The intention is to be heard and ensure shareholders read his message and then panic into selling their holding.

It should be noted there have now been several coinciding posts on both ADVFN and LSE by JRCP, these posts have included the same content, and the objective is fairly obvious.

As I have stated above, Mr Singh is a calculated operator, but in reality, he is a man who thinks he is clever… but is really just a clown juggling false names! As the information below for Companies House demonstrates.

http://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06927625/filing-history

- 12 Oct 2009 – Details prior to change: MR JAGJIT ROBIN SINGH (Director)

New details: MANAGING DIRECTOR

- 20 Sep 2016 – Director’s details changed: JAGJIT ROBIN SINGH

New details: MR ROBIN SINGH WALIA

-18 Oct 2016 – Director’s details changed: MR ROBIN SINGH WALIA

New details: MR ROBIN SINGH

- 15 Mar 2025 – Termination of a Director appointment: MR JAGJIT ROBIN SINGH

- 10 Jun 2025 – New appointment: MR JAGJIT ROBIN SINGH as Director and Company Secretary

- 12 Jun 2025 – Details prior to change: MR ROBIN SINGH WALIA

New details: MR JAGJIT ROBIN SINGH

http://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09010967/filing-history

Cont...are not accused of wrongdoing, but they are in possession of evidence that could establish whether confidential material has been misused in a manner intended to mislead the market, damage sentiment and interfere with ongoing legal proceedings.

In respect of the above, please find below a timeline for JRCP:

JRCP ADVFN profile. Member since: 06 Apr 2021

To the best of my knowledge, as a regular contributor to the community Bulletin Board of Arc (symbol ARCM) on ADVFN, I do not recall JRCP having made any contribution prior to the prescribed ADVFN timestamp of 18 Jul 2025, 22:09 (Post 11006) which marks the first post by this user.

I would speculate that the creation of the above-said account on 6 April 2021 coincides with the first Law360 press release:

hxxp://www.law360.com/amp/articles/1407136

By Lucia Osborne-Crowley

August 2, 2021, 5:07 PM BST

“A British financial consultancy is suing a mining company and its parent for £14 million ($19.4 million) for breach of contract after they allegedly broke an exclusive contract to mine copper and other…”

“J Robbins Capital Partners Ltd. has told the High Court that Zamsort Ltd. and two other companies in its corporate group owe the consultancy just over £14 million after a deal to mine copper in the African country went awry.

Zamsort, a Zambian mining company, entered into an exclusive contract with J Robbins as it sought investment for an untapped copper mine in the country, according to the June 14 claim, which has now been made public.

The written agreements state that Zamsort would seek financial backing for the project with the aim of creating a new company and management team to run the mining operation and listing it on the stock market.

But Zamsort and its co-defendants - parent company Ortac Reso Ltd. and another firm, Arc Minerals Ltd. - broke the contract by other finance companies and involving them in the project.

Zamsort used confidential contacts it had acquired through its exclusive relationship with J Robbins to make other investment deals linked to the same copper mine, according to the claim.”

This would establish firstly a link between Mr Singh and Mr Mushinge and, as events will show, Mr Singh is a calculated operator who has maintained a discreet profile within the shareholder community while gathering opinions on the case and related matters during his ongoing litigation since 2021. Knowing exactly how to adversely impact the shareholder sentiment and dent the share price.

This Law360 press release landed during an orchestrated public attack by Mr Mushinge. This was a high-profile campaign led by Mr Mushinge, his family, associates and his then right-hand man, Gavin Cornish. Mr Cornish was, at that time, a staunch public advocate for Mr Mushinge, effectively acting as a gang master under his pay.

Attached is a screenshot of the now deleted Tweet/X post from Gavin Cornish’s account in which he makes reference to legal

I am writing on behalf of some long-term and significant shareholders in Arc Minerals. I understand that you are actively involved as legal representative in the following matter:

J ROBBINS CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED – Claimant

– and –

(1) ZAMSORT LIMITED

(2) ORTAC RESOURCES (UK) LIMITED

(3) ARC MINERALS LIMITED – Defendants

Case No: LM-2022-000242

I believe it is important that both you and the High Court be made aware of what appears to be coordinated collusion between Mr. Singh of J Robbins Capital Partner Limited (UK) and Mr. Mumena Mushinge (Zambia). It is evident that Mr. Singh is acting in concert with Mr. Mushinge, by way of circulating confidential material that could only have originated from Zambia, in what appears to be a deliberate and targeted attempt to damage Arc Minerals’ reputation and sentiment as a viable investment.

Naturally, Mr Mushinge would not risk posting such material himself given the Zambian Settlement Agreement (ZSA) announced by Arc Minerals on 18th February 2022. Instead, Mr. Singh… who appears to have little else occupying his time… has taken it upon himself to lead an online campaign, releasing tactically timed and potentially prejudicial documents aimed at destabilising shareholder sentiment and influencing parallel legal proceedings in Zambia. If this coordination is confirmed, it raises serious concerns regarding both the source and intent of the materials being distributed and thus a breach of the ZSA.

As a shareholder, I find this behaviour wholly unethical and entirely unacceptable, and I would suggest the vast majority of shareholders would support a formal forensic examination of this issue.

Accordingly, I have attached various screenshots of posts made by the user ‘JRCP’ on the ADVFN and LSE bulletin boards, along with the corresponding downloads and PDFs referenced within those posts. For your information, while LSE forums are publicly viewable, ADVFN requires a registered user account.

I respectfully submit these materials as supporting evidence and request that legal counsel initiate an application under CPR Part 31.17 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs third-party disclosure. The relevant rule allows a party to apply for an order requiring a person who is not a party to the proceedings to disclose documents, where such disclosure is necessary to dispose fairly of the claim. In this case, I submit that both ADVFN and LSE, as third-party forum operators, are in possession of critical data — namely, the IP address and associated login metadata of the user ‘JRCP’.

Given the striking similarity between the JRCP alias and the name of the claimant in the above matter — J ROBBINS CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED — and the nature of the confidential material being shared, I believe this application is both reasonable and urgent. Unless disproven, we must reasonably infer that the user in question is acting either on behalf of the claimant or in activ

Africa is full of trash sites that you can get to publish any rubbish for 5 Bob !

Https://x.com/MiningWeekly/status/1963961592078389296/photo/1

Reported him and suggest others do the same.

In your briefer statement China you have amply described why you are as big a fool as "Smart".

Trolls on a soppy little site like this have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the sentiment surrounding this company . Reet is a fool and a half for thinking it does and all anyone on the Pensana BB has to do to "Smart" is what I've done to Reet , just filter the moron.

Cheapest producer of REE in the world with a new Eco friendly green production method while cleaning up polluted sites and turning the by product into clean usable building materials probably sounds too good to be true. I've been in for years and piece by piece it's all coming together,my only worry is that we get sold before massive value is realised.