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

Barrick Gold Corporation Message Board

  • island_looker island_looker Jun 8, 2013 2:29 PM Flag

    Barrick Gold Sued In Chile As Well????

    Friday June 7, 2013 | 19:14
    Declared admissible complaint against Barrick for mining the Pascua Lama

    As was declared admissible the criminal complaint for falsification and / or malicious use of false public instrument.
    Financial Daily Online

    As was declared admissible the criminal complaint for falsification and / or malicious use of false public instrument, that the attorney Barbara Salinas along with attorney Alejandro Muñoz presented to the 7th Court of Santiago Warranty, representing mountainstar Gold.

    The lawsuit is against Derek James and Laura Riehm Phyllis Mary Emery, both legal representatives SpA Nevada Mining Company, which in turn is the legal entity Chile Barrick Gold mining by the Pascua Lama project, now suspended for serious environmental offenses .

    Salinas was very satisfied with the resolution, since this first processing step welcomes the complaint and subsequent investigation by the North Central Office.

    According to the professional, "is another front that opens to Barrick, since according to the mining history would not have obtained the domain or the mining on a cloth major concessions that are located within the Pascua Lama".

    It should be recalled that the State of Chile allows individuals access to the exploration and exploitation of minerals provided has been obtained by court order granting mining rights conferred for such purposes.

    But in this case, Salinas emphasized that as stated in a folder-initiated research and Complex Crimes Unit of the Attorney North Central, mineral property titles for Minera Nevada SpA (Barrick) do not exist and, consequently, this latter would have no domain or right on the mining Treasury calls One 1 to 30 to 1 to 5 Twelve Treasury.

    For professional is relevant - while serious - than in 2004, subscribed by the State of Chile a Protocol Adequacy with the State of Argentina who sought to establish certain standards between the two countries in order to give a boost from the point of more pragmatic view,

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Yes, Barrick has received an MSX lawsuit, accepted already by Chilean Judicial powers.

      Due to FALSIFICATION OF PASCUA LAMA PROTOCOL and malicious use of the same.

      There is nothing that ABX can do v. MSX as now MSX will be able to sue in Canada as follow up to Chile action.

      Word has it that even Mr. Lopehandia will toss his kitchen sink at Barrick and MSX detractors, to bring ABX fake action v. Lopehandia into an overturn making ABX a symbol of INTERNET LIBEL worldwide.

      Now we know why all top ABX insiders fled.

      Barrick will never recover and shall exit financial markets in shame, fraud, theft and insider trading mode

      • 7 Replies to pascuaforensics
      • I thought the shocking news against ABX would have been out by now via MSX

      • Mtstack is a paid ABX troll. What he's forgetting is Barrick submitted they owned Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur to the Canadian courts in Barrick vs Lopehandia, which is a lie. Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur cover Barrick dead and flawed Amarillo 1-3000 titles which cover the deposit of Pascua Chile.

        Barrick was forced recently in Chile court to try and prove they owned Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur. Barrick could not prove ownership of Amarillo Norte and Amarillo Sur. Mr Lopehandia was able to prove ownership of the titles Amarillo Norte and Amariilo Sur to the Chike courts as recently as 2012 in Chile court. That leaves Barricks lawsuit against Mr Lopehandia ripe for a counter suite as Barrick has committed purjury to the courts in Canada and in Chile. Such purjury has opened Barrick to criminal charges and multiple lawsuits in Chile over titles to Pascua Lama.

        Mtstack is in for a rude awakining as his company Barrick gets sued into oblivion.

        Mountainstar Gold Inc. (the Company), issues the following update to its shareholders to provide a historical summary and clarify title ownership (1996 -2013), of Mina Pascua, Chile.
        As of February 1, 2013, the Company's lawyer, Mr. Alan G.S. Hultman, received clean titles to the Mina Pascua, Chile, mining concessions. The Mina Pascua titles were issued by the Mines Registrar of Vallenar, signed and sealed by Vallenar's Mines Commissioner (Conservador de Minas) Mr. Pablo Cortes Olquin, for Mr. Ricardo Olivares Pizarro on January 16, 2013. The Conservador de Minas Vallenar, is the sole person in Chile, at this date, with full legal jurisdiction over the Mina Pascua concessions, their title, and confirmation of certified domain.
        These titles were authenticated by the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile. They have been validated by the Canadian Embassy in Santiago, Chile.
        The Conservador de Minas, Vallenar, issued title with clean Certificado de Dominio Vigente (Current Certified Dominion), over the following Mina Pascua Project areas in Chile:
        1. Tesoros Uno 1 al 30 through to Tesoros Doce 1 al 5-- Mr. Jorge Lopehandia is legal title holder as of 2013. Barrick Gold Corporation (ABX), or its Chilean subsidiaries, have never had title for these concessions. False statements from executives of Barrick's Chilean subsidiaries, concerning these titles, have led to criminal charges being applied, accepted and enforced in Chile. Lawyers representing Barrick's Chilean subsidiaries, at Vallenar's 2nd Civil Court in 2012, admitted to not owning Tesoros titles or domain. This falsification of the Pascua Lama Protocol has initiated further criminal charges.
        2. Amarillos Norte (5200 hectares) and Amarillos Sur (3400 hectares)--owned since 1996 by Mr. Jorge Rodrigo Lopehandia Cortes through his mining agent Mr Villar. These Amarillos titles were in existence before the Tesoros concessions of 1997. The Tesoros titles were constituted after Minera Nevada SpA swindled Mr. Lopehandia and Mr. Villar of their existing claims. The Amarillos titles have had an injunction in place by the Supreme Court of Chile, as of June 5, 2001, showing Mr. Jorge Lopehandia Cortes as the registered title holder through to this date.
        Mr. Lopehandia was sued by Barrick Gold Corp. regarding ownership of the Amarillos concessions in Ontario, Canada 2002. Barrick won this libel case against Mr. Lopehandia with false title claims and letters of opinion. Minera Nevada SpA then used this information to attack Mr. Lopehandia in court proceedings in Vallenar in 2012, at the 2nd Civil Court, in an effort to discredit Mr. Lopehandia. This court proceeding took place to strike out the Amarillos 1-3000 titles (the salts and nitrates claims owned by Minera Nevada SpA) from the Chilean Mines Registrar.
        At this proceeding Mr. Lopehandia was able to show his Amarillos Sur and Norte titles. The judge then requested Barrick Gold Corporation (ABX), and its Chilean subsidiaries to produce the same. Barrick failed to produce the Amarillos Sur or Norte titles in its or its Chilean subsidiaries' names.
        Amarillos Sur and Norte were validated by judicial judgment by the Supreme Court of Chile. This judgment ordered that both sectors be reconstituted at the original 1996 UTM coordinates. These claims override the ABX / Lac Minerals 1994-2013 Amarillos 1-3000 concessions (for salts and nitrates only).
        With the injunction C-1912-2013 in Mr. Jorge Lopehandia's name, the Amarillos Sur and Norte concessions engulf and override the Tesoros claims of Hector Unda Llanos, which have now also been legally titled in Mr. Jorge Lopehandia's name 2001-2013.
        The Tesoros concessions are inside the area of Amarillos Sur, and are considered to be the areas of greatest geological interest to Mina Pascua, Chile.
        The continuation of the assertion of Barrick Gold Corporation's ownership of the Tesoros claims with the SEC and OSC, is misleading to the NYSE and TSX stock exchanges, and the investing public. Barrick's filings with the SEC and OSC are fraudulent, and libel Mountainstar Gold Inc. and Mr. Jorge Rodrigo Lopehandia Cortes.
        On behalf of the Board of Directors,

      • PART IV – Other options
        Since the libel case has already been taken to appeals court, Mr. Lopehandia would need to request an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. As with the SCOTUS, the Justices of the Canadian Supreme Court can choose which cases they will hear. They grant permission of appeal to only between 40 and 75 litigants per year. I am unable to imagine sufficient grounds that would prompt the Canadian Supreme Court to grant judicial permission for appeal to a man who chose not to defend himself in any manner in a case that is over ten years old.

        Because of the doctrine of res judicata (a term which with MSX shareholders should be familiar), meaning a matter already decided, Mr. Lopehandia could not sue Barrick for previously bringing a lawsuit against him.

      • Part III – Legal case law continued
        Given the nature of the “voluminous statements”, it would be impossible to argue that each and every allegation included in the “nine thick volumes” of Mr. Lopehandia’s internet messages, made between July 31, 2001 through February 14, 2003 that were submitted as evidence, was not defamatory.

        In addition, the default judgment against Jorge Lopehandia was issued in 2003. The intervening ten years between the trial and the present mean that the prompt action requirement, test # 3, was not met.

        Mr. Lopehandia cannot meet at least two of the mandatory three criteria, therefore the default judgment will not be overturned.

      • Part II – Legal case law
        If Mr. Lopehandia seeks to overturn the libel decision in Barrick v. Lopehandia, he has some major hurdles, in my opinion impossible hurdles, to overcome. As found in the case of “Molson Canada 2005 (An Ontario General Partnership) and Coors Brewing Company v. Drake J. Beachamp” a default judgment will not be simply set aside, but must meet all of the following criteria to be overturned:
        1. The defendant must have a reasonable explanation for his failure to file a Statement of Defence;
        2. The defendant must have a prima facie defence on the merits to the claim; and
        3. The defendant had moved promptly to set aside the Default Judgment.

        Because, in the case of Molson v Beachamp, the defendant did not satisfy the Court as to each aspect of the test for setting aside default judgment, the defendant’s motion was dismissed and the default judgment upheld.

        Applying these tests to the case of Barrick v Lopehandia, ownership or lack of ownership of any claims was not the basis of the judgment and is totally irrelevant to a libel defense. The judgment was rendered on the basis of defamatory statements that Mr. Lopehandia made against Barrick on the Internet. These statements included “ allegations of fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, manipulation of world gold prices for Barrick’s own benefit, misrepresentation to government officials, improperly influencing government officials, obstruction of justice, pursuing organized crime, attempted murder, arson, and genocide and crimes against humanity.” There is no question that Mr. Lopehandia made those statements. So to meet test #2, Mr. Lopehandia would need to present a prima facie defense that those statements were not defamatory to Barrick.

      • I see you brought up the libel case again. If anyone has not yet read Barrick v. Lopehandia, I urge you to do so. The case had nothing to do with any titles or ownership. The suit was entirely concerned with the malicious Internet defamation made repeatedly over a substantial period of time of Barrick Gold by Mr. Jorge Lopehandia. The suit was both lawful and, as explained below, will continue to stand as Canadian case law with JL as the poster child for Internet libel.

        PART I - Background
        In the 2003 case of Barrick v. Lopehandia, the Judge of the Superior Court of Justice “correctly found that the voluminous statements published by Mr. Lopehandia were defamatory of Barrick and, on the deemed facts, published with malice. Indeed, the libel was of a most serious nature. “ Mr. Lopehandia chose not to defend himself in Superior Court, and a default judgment was rendered against Mr. Lopehandia for Internet libel. Barrick was awarded $15,000 for general damages.

        Barrick then appealed the case on the issue of damages and injunctive relief. After examining the evidence, the appeals court set aside the prior award and ordered $75,000 in general damages, $50,000 in punitive damages, and a permanent restraining order from disseminating any defamatory statements regarding Barrick or its officers, directors, or employees.

        Mr. Lopehandia has made statements on the Internet to the effect that the above case was unlawful and he will seek to reverse the judgment.

      • IF MSX has indeed sued ABX in Chile, I would think that MSX will have to report this to shareholders sooner then later, imo, wonder if barrick will report to their shareholders of the lawsuit or not

16.92-0.12(-0.70%)Oct 21 4:00 PMEDT