RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Selling Ice in the Winter and Boats in the Desert
What is your point, Junglej? I wrote that I did not want to settle anything, because at the time I wrote that post I expected Mr. Cremonese must have had excellent reasons for not handing over title. I didn't know what those reasons were, but now I believe his decision was the correct one. Would you have turned over title, if you knew what he knew, mindful that you would be exposing your company to forking over 49% of substantial exploration costs in the event American Creek chose to back out of its Nine Percent Option, given what you had been hearing and reading and with important documents and records having been misplaced? Would American Creek have turned over title, if the shoe had been on the other foot? Be honest, Junglej. More importantly, realize that this is one of the major problems that must be overcome, if ever the two companies are to explore at Treaty Creek.
In the meantime, you are welcome to claim righteousness and hide behind Judge Grauer's robes. The judge never heard Mr. Cremonese's reasons for withholding title and accordingly this judge determined that the dollars that had been spent met the requirements solely because Teuton did not provide any evidence to show why it should be otherwise. In fact, The Law prevented Teuton from doing so. Your sacred Law. The same Law that bit you last November and left your balance sheet in tatters. This does not mean that Teuton could not have shown why it was proper to withhold title, if its lawyers had presented the right kind of witnesses, but don't blame Teuton or Mr. Cremonese for this "miscalculation." It was just a matter of the nature of the witnesses, Junglej. And so American Creek got its title, as well as the appropriate costs as determined by The Law, and by definition this means that any costs expended above this award are not the responsibility of Teuton or the result of any decision made by Dino Cremonese. That's The Law, too, eh Junglej? Tough, huh? Get over it. You can't hide behind The Law to claim The Right in one instance and then complain about not getting enough compensation in another.
Ah, but you don't like this result, so you want more money and the defamation suit is the only arrow you have left in your quiver. It seems to me we are at the end of it, Junglej, at least insofar as Treaty Creek is concerned, yet somehow you wish to connect the defamation suit with the Treaty Creek litigation. They're two different things, Junglej. Try to appreciate that fact.
Now you say there MUST be more courtroom drama. For years to come. More legal fees. More burn rates. For years and years and years. The Company has no alternative (or at least you can't think of any). Are you going to partake of the next private placement, Junglej? The Company will need money for these years and years and years, but victory is all but assured, right? There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow waiting for you. Teuton, Dino, and Texasidiot will get what they deserve for causing all of your problems, right? Well, Junglej, must there really be more litigation? Am I the one forcing American Creek to choose this course of action for the benefit of its shareholders? Is Dino? And if we're not, then who is? Who is responsible for making the decision to continue the defamation litigation? What will be its cost? What will be its reward, if there is a reward? Who will get this reward? One thing's for sure: the burn rate will continue to burn and burn and burn, devaluing whatever assets American Creek might own. Remember last November's surprise when Judge Grauer didn't do what you expected. Surely that can't happen in Calgary, eh?
I asked if you had any solution to the problem and didn't want to provide one. Your only response was that American Creek has no choice but to continue down a road that I think hurts American Creek's shareholders way more than Teuton's. Way more. In fact, Junglej, if the defamation suit is getting in the way of exploring at Treaty Creek and it must be the case that any meaningful exploration at Treaty Creek will require Teuton to put up 49% of a huge sum of money, effectively what is happening is that your beloved defamation suit is PREVENTING Teuton from what otherwise would be a ruinous dilution while simultaneously denying American Creek's shareholders the fruits of their recent legal and costly victory. That's good, Bunglej.
But vengeance can be sweet, so go right ahead. Choose the course that prevents exploration at Treaty Creek. I should thank you. Do you think the other shareholders of American Creek also should thank you?
Well, I guess you want us to be off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz. Just stay away from those curtains. You might not want to experience what's on the other side -- again.