% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Barrick Gold Corporation Message Board

  • yourdeadmeat69 yourdeadmeat69 Dec 25, 2010 6:22 AM Flag

    Who Owns Pasqua Loma?

    So far, the way I read it, courts have ruled AGAINST Barrick. How about some intelligent comments as this makes its way to the Supreme Court.

    The title to the Pascua Project mining claims has been the subject of a long-running Court action (Action No. C-1912-2001) in Chile on the Court's website, initiated in 2001 by Mr. Villar, against Barrick's Pascua project Company, Minera Nevada SA.

    In 2006, the Court ruled that the contract whereby Barrick obtained title to the Pascua claims was null and void. Barrick obtained the acreage for literally pocket change from an illiterate who signed it away.

    The Pascua claims were ordered resurrected and returned to their original owner, Villar's principal.

    There were some technical delivery issues with respect to the court order making Barrick turn over the mine. In 2007 the Court of Appeal ordered the 2006 lower Court decision re-written exactly as it was originally written and re-delivered properly to Barrick as required by the Chilean Constitution. It was.

    Barrick's "parallel" Court action against the Judge that issued the original 2006 decision against Barrick, for lack of competence to issue the 2006 decision. was ruled proper November 28, 2008 by the Supreme Court of Chile ruled that the Judge's decision. The Court ordered the Clerk of the Court who originally failed to ensure delivery of the original 2006 Judgment be suspended and investigated why he didn't do his duty.

    Just before the end of 2008, Peter Munk, Barrick's Chairman, dumped one million shares of Barrick Gold Corporation. The time frame coincides with the big crash of end of 2008.

    The Court case is moving to a final conclusion at the Supreme Court level in Santiago's 14th District Court.

    The project became viable FOR WHOEVER OWNS THE PROPERTY with the adoption by Chile and Argentina of the Mining Integration and Complementation Treaty[3], ratified by Chile and Argentina in 1997 which permits investors to explore and exploit mineral deposits that straddle the their border. For the purposes of OWNERSHIP, the ecological issues are "over".

    Now, forgeting ecological sidebars, who the fook OWNS that property, and what is the impact on Barrack when and if the Supreme Court ratifies the ownership as NOT Barrick.

    Intelligent responses are requested.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Barrick is guilty of fraud to its own Prospectus, fraud to SEC - fraud to Banks.

      Barrick never held title to Pascua Chile where the Gold and Silver are a plenty.

      Barrick intercepted Mr. Lopehandia's client HOMESTAKE MINING to land in a fraud transaction, moose pastures in Argentina that are NOT the giant MINA PASCUA CHILE.

      Barrick altered and defrauded its own PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL by inclusion of stolen property and inclusion of no metallic claims to justify a Gold metallic project.

      Barrick is guilty of a bogus and fake PASCUA LAMA PROSPECTUS why do you think that they have 16 years and NO CIGAR?

      Mina Pascua a USD$40 Gold ounce, permitted for Gold mining 1994-2001 in Chile was de permitted with the invention of LAMA + GLACIARS FRAUD. LAMA & GALCIERS were invented to run away from mining property fraud at MINA PASCUA itself 1996 to date.

      GAME OVER Barrick's dirty insider dumpers of stock...

      How did Randall Oliphant an accountant, manage to discover MORRO in Chile, or was it a swindle of Barrick's shareholders value to coverup Gold debts to Swiss Banksters little ol Randall Oliphant and Barrick?

      SEC better step up and stop treating PETER MUNK like Bern Maddof, 14 years accussed and 14 years defended by the powers to be... until the massacre to innocent investors could no longer be done eh?

      SEC and TSX ought some decent law enforcement when it comes to BARRICK'S Mina Pascua fraud.

      Barrick sued a Jorge Lopehandia, falsely impersonating titles it does not and did not own at the time, purpoting ownership of MINA PASCUA with titles held my their accussed a Mr. Jorge Lopehandia.

      At this date, Mr. Lopehandia and not Barrick figures prominently in mining titles in Chile.

      ABX shareholders should investigate and sue the con artists publishing the contrary...

    • I've been following the lawsuit the best i can. Did Barrick lose the recent Appeal? I cant find info if they had lost or not or where its going at the moment.

      Can you expand on what you found out recently so i can do my own DD.


    • ...and by the way, under Napoleonic Law, which governs, I understand that facts previously reviewed in evidence can be reexamined, as opposed to common law, where those nations are bound more to precedent. In English, Barrick has a better shot at introducing material earlier decisions.

16.62-0.510(-2.98%)May 27 4:00 PMEDT