Member Info for Orbiter

From what I've read, some countries are concerned International arbitration results in too many wins for the claimants. ROI are desperate to replace current arbitration agreements with systems over which they have more control. ICSID therefore have a problem, they fear losing businness and therefore income because some countries, like ROI, want more state-friendly arrangements and wish to review their licenses without involvement with organisations like ICSID. How could ICSID make so many basic errors of judgement unless there's been pressure to give ROI a win keep the income flowing to ICSID. Hopefully this has badly backfired but will ICSID maintain their position to try and keep countries like ROI 'on board' or will they risk their reputation and lose the faith of potential claimants like us?

While I'm here, apologies for all the typos on my threads, I cant believe 3 on my last post. Must be a dodgy keyboard, annoyance with the ICSID decision,or more likely just old age. I am going to try to stop checking the website so frequently so goodbye for a while.

Despite feelin as positive as I can given the ant CHL bias by ICSID I have just had to remind myself that ICSID sqaid this of Churchill. The tribunal agreed the signatures had been forged – in some cases using digital cut-and-paste jobs so crude the signature block obscured surrounding text, and in some cases with a level of sophistication indicating that an auto-pen device may have been used. It also pointed to other irregularities, such as “nonsensical” legends on survey maps reading “I Lover you” and “Oh yes/no.” Autopen is excusable but crude cut and paste? This of course still shouldnt excuse ROI's responsibility for its 'insider'

What would be damning in Uk law would be the fact that ROI have not been held responsible for the action of its employee who the tribunal indicate probably was complicit in forgery. I presume that maybe CHL have searched for other mining licences to examine to see if any have been signed with Autopen despite the Regency saying it is never the practice? It would be quite incriminating and is very likely I would think that other licences could be found. CHL's licences were issued before the discovery of coal, i.e of no great value at the time so where would be the motive for forgery and therefore what reason would there be for using autopen other than if it was a normal practice at some times?

A criticism of ICSID from an ICSID arbitrator http://www.derainsgharavi.com/2014/11/icsid-annulment-committees-the-elephant-in-the-room/

GPback, I agree on the point you mention but its paragraph 225 I was referring to which is open to argument for the reasons I mention, I was just curious about peoples opinion on this particular point and if they agree I wondered why CC include it if there seems to be so much other 'meat' in their case?

I know legal definitions are sometimes different or somewhat obtuse relative to everyday use but I can not find a definition anywhere that contradicts our normal understanding of the "Exceeded its powers" reason for annulment? Exceeded means, more than, excessive, etc. From my brief reading of the annulment application the Tribunal did 'less than' not 'more than' in its requirements as far as I can see e.g. 225 " The Tribunal did not apply the international law of State Responsibility. In not doing so, the Tribunal exceeded its powers" I found the above rather strange and wonder if I anyone else was puzzled? Maybe its just CC throwing everything they can wether admissable or not just to highlight the tribuna shortcomings?

To answer my own question: If the annulment is granted we then are able to get the tribunal re-heard but hope that meanwhile ROI realise that their forgery case is so flawed with 'own goals' that they decide to come to an agreement with CHL. I was beginning too enjoy not having to keep an eye on this investment after I thought everything was finished after the tribunal made its judgement. I think I originally invested about 6 years ago so it's certainly turned into a marathon.

So I guess what I am trying to ascertain is that if the Tribunal award is succesfully annuled this reflect's badly on ICSID but does nothing to establish that ROI were guilty of the accusations from Churchill. The documents were still forged and as the Tribunal did not uphold any errors or wrongdoing by the ROI why at this stage should ROI be worried other than it leaves things rather up in the air?

So either the Police didnt hire an expert handwriting exper and were not thorough or they were leaned on by ROI possibly. So if this results in annulment is the forgery issue now irrelevant? As far as I am aware CHL did not dispute the handwriting expert or the legitimacy or otherwise of autopen?

Is it still beyond dispute, that the documents were forged because of the use of autopen which the 'officials' say they never use? Churchill have not disputed this finding it seems?

I did not realise untill now that it was Churchill who instigated the Polce report into alleged forgery and not the ROI, what more could CHL have done? I had previously thought ROI had instigated this Police action and I wondered why the Police had not stitched up CHL with false ,or actual, evidence of this. To me, this in itself absolves CHL of not conducting due diligence.

maestro1, may I congratuate you on informing us correctly of the path CHL was taking with the annulment application. I did doubt that there would be so many apparently glaring errors that our Lawyers would be able to actually use in its appeal. How is this all going to pan out because with all the breaches of procedure in the tribunal it is difficult to think this is down to negligence rather than bias to benefit RO?. If the tribunal lawyers have made these mistakes it would be a major embarrasement for ICSID and I wonder if they will try to handle it openly, or try to justify the tribuna'sl conclusion? They will in effect be investigating themselves this cant be a good thing can it?

When our shares are relisted for trading again I am not sure yet wether I will stay till the end, come what may, or continue what is a roleercoaster gamble. I think I have written the money off already so I might as well gamble> Has ayone else got strong feelings at this stage?

Any more fake news, e.g Arbiter being investigated? A lot of the speculation here is not backed up from what I can see. I know the standard answer is 'ring Curchill' but if its htat easy to get what should be confidential information it would available online by news hungry reporters.

I've just read a bit more. The United Nations Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (the “ILC Draft Articles”), which have been supported by the U.N. General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, provide that a responsible state is obliged to make full reparation for the injury “caused by the intentionally wrongful act of a State.” If the respondent state, however, is able to prove that the claimant contributed to that loss, it is likely that the amount of compensation will be reduced or maybe even voided. The contributory fault defense is a means to weaken the claimants’ submissions with respect to the causation link between the state’s conduct and the injury caused to the investor. It can also be an important factor in determining the state’s liability in the first place. Article 39 of the ILC Draft Articles provides the basic rules for contributory fault: “In the determination of reparation, account shall be taken of the contribution to the injury by willful or negligent action or omission of the injured State or any person or entity in relation to whom reparation is sought.” Even though the ILC Draft Articles deal primarily with diplomatic protection, an ICSID annulment committee has stated that there is no reason not to apply “the same principle of contribution to claims for breach of treaty provisions brought by individuals.”

I didnt get time to read much of this article but I did get the impression that ROI would be equally guilty of not performing due diligence with the registering of falsified documents and accepting payment for invalid licenses etc etc. Whether this means that CHL should be the only party that bears responsibilty and financial suffering is not so clear to me but in my biased opinion this appears not to be fair?.

Why has my excitement level not lifted one iota after having a quick look at ADVFN? I suppose it's because so many 'posters' on these forums are too easily persuaded by unconfirmed rumours. How is it that certain posters here seem to know so much about what is supposed to be going on behind the scenes, stuff that financial reporters would love to know and report on, stuff that would be very damaging to ROI. I will just wait and if we have invested in a bumper payout from an embarrased ROI I will rejoice along with everyone else but meanwhile I will only react to fact's.

Trouble is with picking up the phone and contacting Churchill is that they will be just as optimistic about Annulment as they were about winning the arbitration.

maestro, My worry would be that if the allegations are found to be true it could open such a can of worms that 'they' would try to cover it up are incriminate CHL even more to divert the blame. It would be great if you are right though, but I have to say that I dont even bother to research such allegations you mention because after years of hope for CHL only to be completely discredited I refuse to be optimistic about this. Regarding the investigations into ICSID you say are underway, are these facts in the public arena?