Christmas, 1975.  Turcaud's family implored him to to return to France, and for the first time in nine years Turcaud did so, taking the longer route via New York in the hope that he might meet with Newmont's Chairman, Plato Malozemoff, and settle the matter. Prior to departure Turcaud wrote to New York, informing Newmont of his visit. He received no reply and so telegrammed, advising of his estimated time of arrival. Turcaud wrote:-

"Indeed, a few days before departing I had met by chance in Perth, Hunt, Newmont's Western Australian administrator, and asked him to inform Searls of my trip to New York, so as to try and get, at least, a fair deal. Hunt wished me good luck! ...On December 19, 1975, I called at Newmon't head office, 300 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, in New York, and I was immediately received to my surprise, by Jacques Leroy.

In the event however, Malozemoff was occupied with company business and Turcaud was met by Jacques Leroy, Newmont's International Counsel.  After exchanging introductory small-talk Turcaud records:-

"As we sat down in his office, we spoke in French and Jacques Leroy clearly and pointedly commented on Searls' managerial competence, referring to the latter's inability to resolve such a small affair." "I cannot understand that!" he said.  "He took my OR (Own Report) a copy of which I had sent to Newmont in June 1975 and which lay on his desk, and said he had read it.  Then in a confident tone he added, to my amazement and unbelief, that Searls was afraid that I might be putting a 'bomb in his aeroplane'. NO COMMENT NEEDED.  He picked up another document lying on his desk and said that this was Newmont's indenture I had refused to sign in May 1974, adding, "You do not agree with the historic, I believe?"  "That is correct," I said, I "don't."  Finally he took a third document lying on his desk and said, "That is another indenture we have drafted with a slightly modified historic",  yet without showing it to me he added, "But you are not going to sign that one either!  Well then, let's forget this indenture business and historic.  Will you accept A$60,000 as an Overall Reward and Final Settlement?"  To which I answered, "Yes."  Leroy then said he would have to refer the matter to Plato Malozemoff and get his approval.  He left the office for a few minutes and returned saying Plato Malozemoff was agreeable to our settlement. Leroy requested that consistent with the spirit of the verbal agreement I communicate with all the people who had written to Newmont, so as to inform them that the whole affair had been settled to my satisfaction.  Leroy told me that he was fed up with all the correspondence my friends (known and unknown) were sending to their office.  With my usual credulity I did so, before receiving a copy of the promised agreement - AN AGREEMENT WHICH NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME NEVER REACHED ME.
"The whole meeting lasted about half an hour and in conclusion Leroy said my new verbal agreement would be drafted and forwarded to my La Rochelle address in France.  Before we parted he invited me to his private club for the evening and there we had a very informal and friendly exchange lasting some three hours during which he told me of his plans to retire to Montana to do part-time farming etc."  (JPT _ Own Report.)

However one month later Turcaud was to receive a telegram (23/1/1976) withdrawing that offer, with instructions to contact Searls in Melbourne.

[Author's note:-  A month elapsed between Leroy telegraming Turcaud to confirm the agreement and then withdrawing it.  Why the delay?  The meeting had been one of reconcilliation and settlement, and even bonhomie, not at all as Searls says, ".. to reinforce the position we had consistently taken with him, i.e., that he had no claim, legal or moral, in respect of the gold mineralisation at Telfer" (Searl's above).  One part of Searls' letter above is therefore untrue.   Turcaud states categorically (pers. com.) that the initiative that Leroy meet him was that of Leroy and Malozemoff, suggesting the other part is also untrue.  The delay was most likely Searls', and due to the long Christmas - New Year holiday, which is usual in exploration in Australia because field work takes the opportunity to shut down during that hot spell. So here it seems that Searls is playing loose with the truth in order to claim authority for the enclosure that accompanied that letter to Jones.]

By telephone to New York Turcaud protested, on grounds that he believed the matter was settled there under the authority of the Chairmain, but was told that Leroy had no authority to deal (link to "key people")  and therefore any agreement was void.  In response to Turcaud's rightly indignant protest the New York end angrily broke the connection.  No authority to deal?  But just six months earlier, Leroy with others met with the Premier and the Minister for Mines.  Tyrwhitt (1995, p.32) referring to "BHP's involvement in Telfer (being) another example of key people and relationships" wrote:-

"A meeting was set up by me in Perth for Searls with WA Mines Minister Andrew Mensaros.  Bob brought Jacques Leroy, general counsel with Newmont Mining and Ed Fontaine, Treasurer, also from New York Office."

So apparently Leroy was authorised to negotiate with the Minister for Mines, and Premier Court, but not (six months later) with Prospector Turcaud.  Either Leroy in the interim had been demoted, or Leather (as Turcaud believes took the call) was being disingenuous.  One gets the impression that Leather may have been displaying factional allegiance, for in blocking the agreement, Searls (in Australia), son of the Geological Founder of the Newmont Empire was overriding Malozemoff (Chairman of the parent company) in New York.  Clearly when it came to Leather's bread, one side was more buttered than the other.  So, ...more wrangling.

The outcome was a meeting in the middle of February 1976, in the Sheraton Hotel in Perth in which Newmont's representative offered Turcaud  $10,000 in return for which Turcaud  "would withdraw all claims and allegations connected with Telfer and cease to harass this company and its employees."

Turcaud refused.  Having already been offered $60,000 by Newmont's American office, and believing this to be a more reasonable recompense for his discovery than the ("insulting") $10,000 offered by Searls,  Turcaud decided to pursue his claim for a reasonable settlement, and asked for intervention by government on his behalf.  However that government (and successive ones)  have taken the view that Turcaud has failed to substantiate his claim to 'discovery', ...or have followed Newmont saying Turcaud "did not recognise gold and therefore has no right to claim 'discovery' ", ...or that "the matter has been previously discussed in and out of parliament and that no further discussion is warranted", ...or that it was "a personal matter between Turcaud and Newmont".  Successive governments have merely copied the template:-

"You are advised that the Hon.Premier believes that Mr Turcaud's claims for compensation have been fully discussed on previous occasions both inside and outside Parliament.  In these circumstances it is felt that there would be no useful purpose in undertaking further discussions with you on the matter." (Court, 5/12/78)

(Premiers Sir Charles Court,^ Brian Burke, ^ Carmen Lawrence, ^ Richard Court,^ Geoff Gallop)
(^ = Mines Ministers)
 

Following the failed settlement in New York for $60,000 at Christmas, 1975  Turcaud's lawyer, Mazza, offered the advice that since that deal was brokered in New York and  "Australian Courts will not exercise jurisdiction where non-resident foreign nationals (here yourself [sic] and the Parent Newmont) enter into an agreement overseas .  Hence we cannot proceed in Western Australia", any future claim would have to be made in New York.

..................................................

In (April or May), 1982 Turcaud sought the advice of a US international lawyer in Paris, who referred Turcaud to a lawyer friend in New York, Bruce Bordelon.  A sum of $300,000 was estimated by the Paris lawyer as a reasonable figure based on the original offer of $60,000 in 1974, the depreciation in money over time, a figure to compensate for break-of-contract, plus damages, plus interest.  It was a figure that Bordelon confirmed, and said he would claim and pursue to Court if necessary.

However it appears that once having secured Turcaud's business by this promise, Bordelon was to be of little help whatsoever in representing Turcaud's case at all, far less winning for him anything like this estimated figure.  After preliminary discussion with Newmont Bordelon wrote to Turcaud to inform him that now there had been a change of Administration in Australia (which there hadn't; Searls remained in charge) Newmont were prepared to settle the matter for an offer of $10,000.

Bordelon to Turcaud, October 02, 1982:-

"Recently I was advised by Newmont that because of a change in Newmont's administration in Australia, Newmont is willing to consider the settlement of this action.  Newmont initially offerred $10,000, I countered that $30,000 at this time would be a fair settlement to all parties. Newmont has now offered $20,000.  I do not know if Newmont will go to $30,000, although I will try for $25,000.  Would you accept $20,000 if I can get no movement past that point?"

Turcaud replied, saying $10,000 was the figure he had refused in Perth  following the previous agreed settlement with Leroy/ Malozemoff (aborted by Searls) for $60,000, and that:-

"although I would like this case to be settled once and for all, I am not prepared to accept (just) anything, especially taking as a basis for a discussion this most contemptuous offer Newmont made to me in Perth in February, 1976."

Turcaud also pointed out the fall in monetary value that had occurred in the intervening period.  In reply Bordelon referred to "confusion", and was abruptly and heavily dismissive of relevance of any previous offer or promised settlement, emphasising only what was currently on offer, and strongly advised Turcaud to take it, further pressuring him with references to costs should the matter go to court and Turcaud's witnesses have to travel from Australia and secretarial costs be met.  As further pressure, Bordelon's letter was full of references to what had supposedly been discussed at their initial (only) meeting, which, according to Turcaud's pencilled underlines and queries on Bordelon's letter, were apparently questionable.

So much for pursuing the matter to court!  Bordelon was on a 40% contingency fee, and as the correspondence shows, apparently only interested in securing Turcaud's signature and collecting his fee with the least possible trouble.  For a short preliminary consultation in New York (for which Turcaud had to travel) and an exchange of few letters, Bordelon had won $10,000 from Turcaud's settlement of $25,000.   Turcaud felt he had been lured by the supposed feasibility of $300,000..  But he knew too that if he refused to sign there would again be no record whatsoever of Newmont's recognition of his role as discoverer.  On the other hand by accepting this amount (and only by acceptance), undesirable as this course was, was there finally acknowledgement by Newmont of his role as discoverer, and conversely, by that very same token, negation of Newmont's continuing claim that he had no role in the discovery.  Therefore he saw that by not signing he would be in fact 'signing away' an opportunity to expose as false Newmont's previous negation of him.  He took the view that in the face of the promised Royal Enquiry (during which all would be re-examined) signing 'for justice' trumped the 'legalities' of acceptance under duress and deceit.   Though uncertain, he was aware that he was appealing to, and willing to be judged by, a higher order of legality than contrivances which were designed to advantage Newmont, disadvantage him, and again circumvent a fair and just settlement.  He took the view that the test was yet to come, and that justice would trump law.

It was a view tempered with experience in previous dealing with Newmont that was to prove justified. He was dismayed to find that after signing and Bordelon had taken his fee, Bordelon soon went to work for solicitors situated very closely nearby to Newmont's offices, and, Turcaud believes, working for Newmont.  He felt he had been tricked, that he had signed under duress, and that his signature had been obtained by deceit.

However the flip side of this was that at least he had established the connection that Newmont had all along denied - his discovery versed against their ownership, and thus had negated Newmont's attempts at severance.   He hoped that the legalities of implied forfeiture would in due course be balanced against this deceit and duress and negated, and that his full entitlement as discoverer would yet be due him..   Thus was his resolve strengthened and that as regards justice he had, under the circumstances, taken the best option open to him.  As Turcaud observed with disgust, for the sake of the promised Royal Enquiry at some point in the future and to put these "mining criminals" and their "political and legal manures" - (man(oe)u(v)res) - to the test, he "would have signed for a dollar!".
 

Sheppard (2002) writes:

In New York Newmont eventually settled the claim with Turcaud on 20 April 1983 with a payment of US$25,000 of which Turcaud received an equivalent of $10,000 after expenses were paid..  The settlement was a final quit claim against the company and would end forever legal wrangling between the prospector and the company.

---

Or would it?