AVZ Discussion 2022

Dave Evans

Regular
My thoughts are the opposite, they're targeting shareholders with a larger number of shares (500,000+ ?) and only offering to pick them up on the cheap. They're looking to get in a bulk supply on the cheap and don't want to do so by dealing with thousands of mini-transactions. Imagine picking up $2M shares for $2k after shorting at $0.80 - $1.00 level. Or buying and then this gets back to $1+ps valuation on selling the asset or coming out of this shitshow with the DRC. Insane.

Purely targeting the potentially large holders who aren't paying attention and hoping for a panic sell. I would rather suck a dog's fart direct from the source than take an offer of $0.001. Rather it just went to zero :ROFLMAO:

I suspect shareholder’s SMSF were amongst those Jamie Mitchell targeted. It’s also possible he included a number of other shareholders in his emails which I believe violates privacy as well as ASIC laws
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thinking
Reactions: 9 users

Azzler

Top 20
Announcement out Re: this (purported, lol) Mitchell cunt. ;)
Screenshot 2024-05-23 164859.png
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Haha
Reactions: 24 users

Hudnut

Regular
If anyone was selling 500,000 shares for $500, I'd buy them in my SMSF.
Better odds than a lotto ticket into a tax advantaged environment I reckon.
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Haha
Reactions: 22 users

antimatter

Regular
If anyone was selling 500,000 shares for $500, I'd buy them in my SMSF.
Better odds than a lotto ticket into a tax advantaged environment I reckon.
Heck, I am willing to pay 10 times $500 for 500,000 shares.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Fire
Reactions: 15 users

BRICK

Regular
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

wombat74

Top 20
Heck, I am willing to pay 10 times $500 for 500,000 shares.
I'll do the same , plus , I'll throw in 5 nights at the Fleuve Congo Hotel Kinshasa with breakfasts included and late check out .
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 29 users

Samus

Top 20
1716451191568.png
 
  • Like
  • Thinking
  • Fire
Reactions: 20 users

Prod

Member
I suspect shareholder’s SMSF were amongst those Jamie Mitchell targeted. It’s also possible he included a number of other shareholders in his emails which violates privacy as well as ASIC laws

From memory, Super Funds are an area where dudbrook has experience
Dave, I'm not sure how or who's been targeted by these guys (dipsticks) I have well over 500,000+ shares in each of my entities superfund, individual and joint names and yet no email received from them, not that I'm complaining. I can't help but think that AVZ and the board must still be in a position of power/influence otherwise why would these pricks still be wanting to purchase our shares??? Just a thought and my opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 17 users

oxxa23

Regular
I suspect shareholder’s SMSF were amongst those Jamie Mitchell targeted. It’s also possible he included a number of other shareholders in his emails which violates privacy as well as ASIC laws

From memory, Super Funds are an area where dudbrook has experience
Part of me says target those that could be more elderly and not willing to wait it out... which could be those in smsf... but, plenty of younger people have smsf's also...
 
  • Like
  • Thinking
Reactions: 8 users

oxxa23

Regular
If anyone was selling 500,000 shares for $500, I'd buy them in my SMSF.
Better odds than a lotto ticket into a tax advantaged environment I reckon.
Fyi only, Just for those of you that want to transfer avz shares into your smsf... can't do it while unlisted... have to acquire from an unrelated party to do so....

So as long as auditor and ato don't find out about it you can always do a dealnwith someone else wanting to do the same thing.... you buy theirs, they buy yours...
 
  • Like
  • Thinking
Reactions: 5 users

LX600

Regular
Fyi only, Just for those of you that want to transfer avz shares into your smsf... can't do it while unlisted... have to acquire from an unrelated party to do so....

So as long as auditor and ato don't find out about it you can always do a dealnwith someone else wanting to do the same thing.... you buy theirs, they buy yours...

Who want to be my buddy?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

Spikerama

Regular
I'll do the same , plus , I'll throw in 5 nights at the Fleuve Congo Hotel Kinshasa with breakfasts included and late check out .

Fuck you are a funny bugger Wombat. I gotta give you that.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 14 users

BRICK

Regular
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I have less than 500 000 shares and got an email.. has everyone checked their spam? That’s where mine was .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

cruiser51

Top 20
I have less than 500 000 shares and got an email.. has everyone checked their spam? That’s where mine was .
Mate consider yourself fukkin special. 🤸🏼‍♂️
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users

BigA

Member
My thoughts are the opposite, they're targeting shareholders with a larger number of shares (500,000+ ?) and only offering to pick them up on the cheap. They're looking to get in a bulk supply on the cheap and don't want to do so by dealing with thousands of mini-transactions. Imagine picking up $2M shares for $2k after shorting at $0.80 - $1.00 level. Or buying and then this gets back to $1+ps valuation on selling the asset or coming out of this shitshow with the DRC. Insane.

Purely targeting the potentially large holders who aren't paying attention and hoping for a panic sell. I would rather suck a dog's fart direct from the source than take an offer of $0.001. Rather it just went to
I also received the generous offer from Jamie, got way less than 500k and I’m not that old….leads me to think the fucktards just got an incomplete list of shareholders…tried to reply back my response but it bounced
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2122.jpeg
    IMG_2122.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 43
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 11 users

Roger2018

Regular
I believe I did not get an offer because I some what resemble Chuck Norris.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 7 users

Frank

Top 20
1716466848283.png


1716466802288.png


1716466672334.png



1716466635899.png



1716466589620.png


1716466475249.png


1716466506895.png



dog with a bone.png
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Wow
Reactions: 26 users

Bin59

Regular
The Minister of Justice Rose Mutombo Kiese has lost her seat to Ms. Anne Mbuguje,

From memory MoJ left the IGF report sitting on her desk rather than forwarding the report to the courts for prosecution of those named in it.


Senatorial elections: soundly defeated in Kinshasa, Rose Mutombo moves heaven and earth to usurp Anne Mbuguje's seat​

May 15, 2024 Faustin KUEDIASALA 0
Rose-Mutombo-622x381.jpg
Taking advantage of her position in the outgoing government, Mrs. Rose Mutombo wants to usurp the seat of Anne Mbuguje won with 4 votes in the senatorial elections in the city of Kinshasa.


Taking advantage of her position as outgoing Minister of State for Justice, Mrs. Rose Mutombo, soundly defeated in the senatorial elections in the city of Kinshasa with barely two (2) votes, chose to appeal before the Court constitutional, Ms. Anne Mbuguje, elected to the regular senator of the city of Kinshasa, to steal her seat. The arguments brandished by Mrs. Rose Mutombo Kiese border on lightness. Opposite, Senator Anne Mbuguje, with her four votes in the senatorial elections, has sworn to fight, with legal arguments, to block the path to this imposture.

Ms. Rose Mutombo's attempt to seize the seat of senator for the city of Kinshasa, legitimately held by Ms. Anne Mbuguje, sparked a wave of indignation and disapproval within the Congolese political class. Indeed, the arguments put forward by Ms. Mutombo to contest the election of her competitor are considered not only unfounded, but also hypocritical.

Indeed, Ms. Mutombo attempted to call into question Ms. Mbuguje's Congolese nationality, arguing that she also held Belgian nationality. However, this accusation was quickly swept away by the fact that Ms. Mutombo, in her capacity as outgoing Minister of State for Justice, had herself certified the Congolese nationality of her rival a few days before the senatorial elections. It is therefore clear that this attempt at destabilization rests on fragile and hypocritical foundations.

Furthermore, the weak legitimacy of Ms. Mutombo, who obtained only two votes in the elections, compared to the four votes obtained by Ms. Mbuguje, underlines the opportunistic and malicious nature of her approach
. It is clear that his attempt to cling to power by using his position as Minister of State for Justice to influence the Constitutional Court is reprehensible and unacceptable.

Faced with this attempt to manipulate justice, Ms. Mbuguje's entourage is determined to defend the legitimacy of her election and to denounce the malicious maneuvers of her competitor. They affirm that justice will not allow itself to be exploited and that the truth will ultimately triumph.

A request without clear evidence
In a bold but unfounded attempt, Rose Mutombo filed a request with the Constitutional Court alleging that Anne Mbuguje violated the law by running for the mandate of senator while she still held Belgian nationality. These allegations are based on Anne Mbuguje's alleged trip with a Belgian passport on May 10, despite her recovery of Congolese nationality in February 2024, attested by a document signed by Rose Mutombo herself.

However, at the hearing before the Constitutional Court, Rose Mutombo was unable to provide any tangible evidence to support her accusations. Despite the absence of any supporting documents, the Public Prosecutor's Office curiously took the side of supporting Mutombo's request, asking the Court to consider it admissible, thus going against Senator Mbuguje's rights.
As a former magistrate on the Council of State, Rose Mutombo should have remembered that the burden of proof lies with the applicant. This attempt at political destabilization, which seems to be tinged with influence peddling, only tarnishes the image of Congolese democracy for which the Congolese people have fought so much.

Rose Mutombo's attempt to seize the seat of Senator Anne Mbuguje is not only unfair, but also contrary to ethics and democracy. It is imperative that Congolese justice demonstrate independence and neutrality in this case to guarantee respect for the will of the people and the legitimacy of democratic institutions.

The Democratic Republic of Congo and its people deserve better than this kind of politico-judicial show based on unfounded allegations and dubious maneuvers. It is imperative that Congolese justice demonstrate independence and neutrality in this case in order to preserve the integrity of its institutions and respect for the rule of law.
The integrity of justice at stake
Anne

Once again, the constitutional judges of the Democratic Republic of Congo are faced with a crucial dilemma: to say the law impartially, without being influenced by external pressure. In a case between Ms. Anne Mbuguje and Ms. Rose Mutombo, the stakes are high: the legitimacy of the election of a senator and the integrity of Congolese democracy are at stake.

With two votes to four, the verdict is not the subject of discussion: justice must be done in all objectivity, respecting the fundamental principles of the rule of law. Ms. Rose Mutombo, by launching a request without evidence to the Constitutional Court, seems to engage in a battle lost in advance, built on fragile foundations.

It is stressed that Ms. Mutombo would be better inspired to continue her fight in Civil Society, which opened the doors of the Government to her, rather than engaging in dubious judicial maneuvers. The integrity of Congolese justice is at stake, and it is imperative that constitutional judges demonstrate independence and neutrality to preserve the confidence of the Congolese people in their institutions.

This meeting with history is an opportunity for the Constitutional Court to demonstrate its ability to resist political pressure and guarantee the rigorous application of the law. Respect for the rule of law and the preservation of Congolese democracy depends on the correctness and integrity of the decision that will be rendered in this case.
Econews.

Confirmed:​


During the day of May 16, the Constitutional Court gave its opinion on the current electoral disputes of some Honourable Senators.

WhatsApp-Image-2024-05-17-a-10.48.33_fd42177a.jpg

As a result, she gave a favorable opinion by confirming the election of Me Anne MBUGUJE as Senator of Kinshasa while rejecting Mrs. Rose MUTOMBO's request.
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Wow
Reactions: 23 users

Winenut

Go AVZ!
I suspect the shareholders that got touched up by a special fucking email from Ja’mie
1716474684039.jpeg


were the ones that had email addresses on their file with Automic.
Between the good wife and myself we’ve got a significant holding but no contact from Ja’mie and i think it’s because we’ve never provided an email address to the registry…..lucky us
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Thinking
Reactions: 23 users
Top Bottom