Sat, Sep 20, 2014, 7:17 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


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

Barrick Gold Corporation Message Board

  • pascuaforensics pascuaforensics Nov 19, 2012 10:56 AM Flag

    ABX Pascua Chile filings at SEC/OSC banks, = 100% flawed legal misrepresentation of ownership 2012

    Barrick has been found impersonating Chile asset MINA PASCUA.

    ABX's subsidiaries in Chile court admitted not to own filed assets by ABX with SEC and OSC as PASCUA Chile areas of PASCUA LAMA.

    Barrick has a lot of work to do to repare damages to Mina Pascua owner and his clients MSX (MWR)

    It turns out that Barrick libeled them and not the other way around.


    Barrick has failed to account for Chilean Criminal and Civil actions affecting PASCUA LAMA, PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL and its filed SEC - OSC information,

    CIVIL RICO daily trades are being conducted by ABX & SLW plus others at PASCUA PONZI SCHEME 1996-2012.

    Peter Munk, Greg Panagos admit it, your Pascua Project is a PONZI SCAM. 1996-2012.

    8.5 Billion and more excuses aggravate the fault of having a USD minus 200+ per Gold ounce cost mine.... closed due to low Gold prices....

    What a farce and fraud to financial markets, if I ever seeing any. ENRON & Bre-X come to mind.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Your research is incomplete and forgets one thing, the mineral deposit is on Amarillo 1-3000 for Barrick is non metallic titles and can not be used for the mining of the Pascua ore. Tesoro 1 to Tesoro 12 is the property of Jorge Lopehandia. Barrick included Tesoro titles into their OSC 43-101 and SEC 6K as recorded as owned by Barrick when Barrick has no ownership of those properties. Barrick also said they owned AMARILLO NORTE and AMARILLO SUR in their lawsuit against Jorge Lopehandia to which Jorge did not even show up to nor any reprentitive. Barrick lied in Canada in that lawsuit as they do not have ownership of AMARILLO NORTE and AMARILLO SUR. AMARILLO NORTE and AMARILLO SUR are registered to Jorge Lopehandia at Sernageomin and cover bothe Amarillo 1-3000 (which are old dead non metallic titles) and the Superimposed Tesoro titles which have benn injunction and are the property of Jorge Lopehandia.
      Due to Barricks fraudulent ownership of titles and court that are not Barrick, there are multiple lawsuits in Chile including a criminal and civil trial as well as a process to which Barrick failed to stop the nullifying of the protocol between Chile and Argentina to which is need for the Pascua Lama Project to even exist. All material in the market of North America which Barrick is trying hard to avoid to report.

      All the proof which mtstack is not recognizing is in Barricks regulatory filings as well as in the Chile mining registry at sernageomin and documents provided through MountainStar Gold.

      Btw when is Barrick going to open Pascua Lama again, only a sucker believes Barricks Pascua lies now.

      Originaly Pascua was to open in 2000 and cost $500 million, it's in Barricks 1997 filings.

      • 2 Replies to voodoo.three
      • You had better inform MSX that JL owns the Tesoros claims, then, because they are convinced that they are titled to HUL.

        From MSX August 1 news release: "The Tesoro Concessions are in fact owned by “Hector Unda Llanos”, not Barrick."

        From MSX August 21 news release: "The Tesoro Concessions documents of title show “Hector Unda Llanos”, not Barrick, as the owner"

        Are you telling me that MSX has issued false and misleading news releases?

      • You are correct Voo.doo only a sucker would believe that Barrick owns what it claims to own and all the little barrick trolls are doing their best to make potential investors scared and confused but with time I am sure Barrick will lose face and money and a whole lot of pain coming their way for what they have lied and cheated about for years, next we will see another PR from barrick $10B and time to walk away from Pascua I am sure that would be 1 exit strategy
        worse then a strong sell I say for Barrick

    • The fact that Barrick lied about MSX or Jorge Lopehandia not having an interest in AMARILLO 1-3000 or Tesoro 1 1/30 to Tesoro 12 1/5 titles in a PR last year sure is gonna cost them. Research shows Tesoro titles are in the name of Jorge Lopehandia as well as the Pascua deposit. Hey Barrick you gonna sue Jorge Lopehandia or MSX? Didn't think so LOL

      On the other hand, MSX publishing a cease and desist for ABX to stop faking ownership at Pascua looks like a little foreshadowing of things to come.

      • 1 Reply to voodoo.three
      • You haven't researched too well, then. If you would go to the sernageomin website, the chilean mining authrority website (sorry, yahoo no longer allows links), you will find that JL does not have registered ownership in the Amarillos 1-3000 nor the Tesoros claims. Hector Unda Lllanos (who despite all predictions from JL/PF is still a free man) is and has been the registered owner of the Tesoros claims, National Role #s 03304032 through 03304043, along with being the owner or the Barriales claims, National Role # 033040525 through 033040529. You will also find that the registered owner of the Amarillos 1-3000 is the Chilean subsidiary of ABX. These claims are processed and paid in full by their registered owners per the Chilean government.

        A widespread misunderstanding of the definition of the word "injunction" is prevalent on IHub. An injunction does not transfer ownership. Property does not get "injuctioned to" someone. An injunction is a court order that requires the person to whom it is directed (in this case HUL) to perform or (in this case) refrain from performing a particular act (in this case the act of selling or entering into a contract on the Tesoros claims).

        The statement that Barrick made in Decemeber 2011 that: "Neither Jorge Lopehandia nor MWR have a registered ownership interest in the Amarillos 1-3000 concessions or the Tesoro Uno 1-30 to Tesoro Doce 1-5 concessions," is absolutely true. As of November 19, 2012, JL is not the registered owner of either of the sets of claims per the Chilean authorities, and MSX isn't registered on any claims whatsoever. Barrick did not lie in their statement.

        In addition, Barrick's statement that: "Furthermore, these concessions are not necessary for mining the Pascua-Lama deposit. Barrick holds all the necessary rights for mining the Pascua-Lama deposit," is also true since the UTM coordinates of the disputed claims do not impinge upon the PL mining pit. This can be also factually ascertained by comparing the UTM coordinates of the drill holes published in Barrick's published 43-101 with the coordinates of the disputed claims published on MSXgold's website.

        Barrick has already sued JL in the famous or infamous case of Barrick v Lopehandia, which I think should be required reading for anyone who wants to invest any money with JL. JL seems to think that he can get that case overturned, and be vindicated. In my opinion, he has as much chance of doing that as the Atacama has to become a rain forest. Since Barrick has not collected any damages from JL from the prior judgement, I believe that Barrick might find that it will be more effective for JL to spend a great deal of money (even it is MSX's money) and fail than to stop him from trying. I'm sure that you are familiar with the phrase, "Give him enough rope."

        Time will tell.

15.65-0.35(-2.19%)Sep 19 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

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.