Sun, Dec 28, 2014, 5:46 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Barrick Gold Corporation Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • madeoff@rocketmail.com madeoff May 2, 2011 4:07 PM Flag

    Chile cannot enforce its own laws!

    John,

    Each time you post, your one step closer to accepting the truth. At first, you were outraged at the notion that Barrick was even in a legal battle over Pascua Lama. Then you switched, and accepted the legal battle saying Barrick would win hands down. Then you started to rant about how the Chilean government would never let Barrick lose Pascua Lama saying "money talks."

    From your most recent post, it is clear that you have embraced the truth that Barrick lost Pascua Lama in the Supreme Court Decision. Your post clearly states such. Now, you're trying to defend the notion that even though Barrick lost, they still own Pascua Lama.

    You have been provided ample evidence demostrating Barrick lost Pascua Lama and that the mineral rights are in the name of Jorge Lophendia. You are stuck in limbo - half denial and half knowing the truth. Good luck with your voyage out of Hade - the truth will set you free.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • So what is the bottom line?
      If you are correct about Barrick not owning the mining rights.... what is the potential impact of a decision to abandon Pasca? What percent of Barrick's revenue going forward could be lost in a worst case scenario?

      • 1 Reply to chemlem
      • madeoff@rocketmail.com madeoff May 2, 2011 5:22 PM Flag

        Let's face it, Barrick is a huge company and they have many mines. They will be able to weather this storm, when it finally breaks into mainstream media. The two problems I see Barrick faced with are the following:

        1. Their failure to disclose the information to stockholders.
        2. The leveraging of Pascua Lama when they actually didn't own it. This would be considered fraud, I think.

        From my understanding, boards members, and Munk himself, have been indicted in Chile.

    • All I am asking is if the surpreme court ruled in 2008 why is this still going on. If you say a lower court over ruled the surpreme court I find that hard to believe. That would not and could not happen in the U.S. Once the U.S. Surpreme court rules it is set in stone and if a lower court tried to over rule it the federal marshals would swoop down and arrest the judge if he did not recind. I thought that the Chileans were more fair and just than the U.S. or most other nations if you listened to some of the posters on this board,so once again, "PLEASE EXPLAIN"and quit side stepping the issue.

      • 1 Reply to jojhnkurz
      • Dear Sir:

        In the words of the Attorney General of USA, no foreign judgment weighin against a USA national shall be acknowledged in USA.

        There are some immigration restrictions to USA that may result on arrest without charges, even if an innocent person may be profiled when going to get justice served.

        If Chile's SUPREME COURT ordered 2008 that the lower Civil Court, in this case 14th circuit Court, recall parties to re-hear Judgment, that is what SUPREME COURT ordered 2008, was to BARRICK'S detriment, a negation of their 2007 Court of Appeals wishes and desires against Mme. Justice Reyes.

        At 2011 there are appeals to the 2010 Civil decision, running contrary to the SUPREME COURT decision 2008.

        Appeals will see to elevate matters back to SUPREME COURT OF CHILE, where no doubt the adverse judgment to Barrick of june 19th 2006, shall be restored in all its parts and prevail.

        Supreme Court of Chile Judged against a motion by Barrick's side 2007 in Court of Appeals to impeach the Judge Mme. Maria Isabel Reyes.

        Barrick lied via STOCKWATCH regarding this very point in law.

        Barrick lost at 2008 and lied via STOCKWATCH to MWR and Mina Pascua ownership.

        ABX's public record stance at 2011, runs contrary to Judicial courts records in the country of Chile, were the exact opposite is the truth of public record.

        Barrick wanted the lifting of the 2001 - 2011 C-1912-2001 Mina Pascua area mining property injunction.

        But will not and may not lift such C-1912-2001 Injunction over Mina Pascua, by 2008 SUPREME COURT Order.

        SUPREME COURT will ultimately decide Brrick's fate on its rampage 1996-2011(12).

        However as per MINA PASCUA titles at 2011, that is another story.

        For that,you have to speak to the holder of record, in Barrick's areas at PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL and his own areas of MINA PACUA CHILE.

        I understand the party is being callously sued by Barrick in Canada via a "MEDIA GAG oriented LIBEL ACTION".

        Mina Pascua owner is Canada's cyber villain #1, the yard stick, and the poor man is innocent. ABX fraud!

        More than "un-fair legal play of ABX v. Mina Pascua owner.

        SEC and TSX should halt ABX and allow MWR to trade and make press releases to let us see what is really cooking @ Pascua affair.

 
ABX
10.58+0.27(+2.62%)Dec 26 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.