1. LEGAL EVIDENCE: Court decisions, dates, docket numbers. See link here https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1j7-CEZauEDNjgzOTQyYmQtNWIxMS00NjA3LWE1OTUtODRjZDg5MGZjNzM5&hl=en
2. Silver Wheaton didn’t see documentation of Pascua Lama Mineral Concessions for the Chile side. This was stated in their 2009 Report.
“Barrick, through its wholly owned subsidiary CMN, owns the surface property and the legal
concessions for mineral exploration and exploitation of the Project in Chile. The mineral
concessions have not been independently reviewed and verified by SRK. SRK have relied upon
legal opinion supplied to Silver Wheaton for this information”.
To verify above statement check link here www.infomine.com/index/pr/Pa800523.PDF
3. THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION
Below is Catalino Albanez’s statement regarding Pascua Lama ownership. This statement can be found on the bottom of page 9 on this link
“In accordance with the Title Deeds and the Ownership Certificates current as at 2011, the deeds DO NOT register any dominion valid in Chile as at January, 2011, which hands over dominion or property to Barrick Gold Corp, Barrick Chile or Mineral Nevada Limitada. This legal privilege corresponds, to today’s date, to Mr. Jorge R. Lopenhandia according to current Title Deeds and Ownership Certifacates…”
Click here for full statement
4. THIRD PARTY CREDENTIALS
Catalino Albanez provides third party verification of Pascua Lama (Chile) ownership. Below is a link verifying his credentials. Go past the blue links and look for Article One located in the centre of the webpage. He is the second name on the list. Note this is an official Chile government website and identifies him as being a specialist in mining matters.
Great research. All links are of verifiable sources, especially the last one, clarifying, for sure, who the individuals named in the Mar. 2 press release are and what their positions are. While this is certainly not all the evidence needed to convince me this is real, it certainly has my level of confidence on high and I await further confirmation with future news releases.
I'm hoping such documentation will come forward from MWR. Their significant and thorough news release of March 2, 2011 requires a follow-up.
This entire process shows how easily information can be marginalized. MWR makes a significant, should I say, earthshattered news release, clearly demostrating with massive amounts of evidence, that Barrick doesn't own Pascua Lama, yet there is little traction. Suprising!
In that same March 2nd MWR news release it goes on to say that "there are many issues in the sequence of event that have transpired in this case which we are not mentioning at this time".
The included Expert Mine Surveyor reports say it all, however it would appear there is even more to be told with additional legal events and documents out of Chile.
Watching this one with a lot of interest, thanks for everyone’s input.
There is a WEALTH of information on Pascua Lama here:
There looks to be additional info from MWR on Pascua Lama by April 21st.
Lot of info here as well:
Plaintiff: VILLAR GARCIA RODOLFO
Defendant:UNDA LLANOS HECTOR
Defendant:W LILL JOHN
Defendant:COMPAÑIA MINERA NEVADA SA
Thanks for the link
it helps to note that the Civil Cause Role is what impeaches barrick at TESOROS
Its role is to be entered at the samll windo at the left of the screen
As in C-1912-2001 injunction to HECTOR UNDA LLANOS (today JORGE LOPEHANDIA at law) et al, not to trespass TESOROS or to include TESOROS in any act or contract 2001 to date.
If UNDA LLANOS was impeached, he did not deliver to MINERA NEVADA (PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL), who also did not deliver to BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION.
Who as ABX can not deliver title to the markets 2011 is all a criminal charade of Barrick.
There is serious breach of public's purse trust by ABX unheeded by regulators at the top of the exchanges.