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
  • jojhnkurz jojhnkurz May 2, 2011 11:49 PM Flag

    Chile cannot enforce its own laws!

    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.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 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
6.70-0.36(-5.10%)Aug 3 4:00 PMEDT