Silver Wheaton Corp. Message Board

Despite what you have been led to believe by JL, Chile is a modern country that completely overhauled its criminal justice system with the implementation of a new, German-inspired, adversarial system, gradually implemented throughout the country, with the final stage of implementation in the Santiago Metropolitan Region completed on June 9 2001. Defendants enjoy a presumption of innocence and have a right of appeal.

From the Globalex website: "The former Chilean criminal procedure (code for which was enacted in the early 19th century) was a legal system based on an inquisitorial process, and characterized as mostly in writing and secret. In addition, the crime investigation, the prosecution of its authors, as well as the final judgment of the case was made by the same person: the criminal judge. All the foregoing resulted into a violation of fundamental rights protected by the principle of the due process of law under the Chilean Constitution."

"The main purpose of the Reform - the most transcendental reform experienced by the Chilean criminal regulation in its whole history - is to incorporate the respect of human rights and international standards regarding the justice administration programs performed in Chile. The Reform aims to shape such programs pursuant to the social, political, economic and cultural development experienced by Chilean society in the last decades. The core element of this new system, which is an accusatory one instead of the former inquisitive system, is that the different stages of the process will be handled by different institutions, in order to guarantee the impartiality of the judges, the efficiency of the investigation and the transparency of the whole process."
~
Chile no longer has a "Napoleonic Code" inquisitorial system in place, no matter what you have been told by persons who should know better. Human rights are no longer violated by assuming guilt upon accusation.

As Jorge Lopehandia wrote on IHub post 16325, "Easy to name people to lawsuits"

"Before people prejudge, remember, the right to innocense (sic) before proven charges are laid, still remains intact"

I didn't know that JL could tap dance, too.

Unfortunately for MSX, JL is their problem not Barrick's. Once all the court cases work themselves through the system, Barrick doesn't need to have anything else to do with JL. OTOH, MSX has a few loose ends with him. They haven't yet published the terms of the current option extension. They haven't yet disclosed the "free" Chilean mine that JL promised to give MSX. And per the first option extension, MSX still owes JL quite a sum of money. It seems that between the above suit for the benefit of Mrs. Jackholm and JL, MSX could go back to their primary business of litigation for years to come.

LOL Looks like Mountainstar Gold will soon be owned by an 85-year-old woman since the MSX supporters believe that if a suit is filed the defendant *must* be guilty.

From an article on Stockwatch:
Mountainstar Gold Inc. and two of its directors are facing a $1.24-million lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia filed on behalf of an 85-year-old woman. The woman lent money to the company while under "unacceptable pressure" from Mountainstar's Brent Johnson and Tom Jackholm, the suit claims. The men arranged for her to take out mortgages she could not afford, according to the suit.

The allegations are contained in a notice of claim filed on Thursday, June 6, at the Vancouver courthouse by the guardian of Jytte Jackholm.

LOL The class action suit has nothing to do with JL concessions.

Barrick has not mined on the disputed claims, indeed, they have not even been on the disputed claims since 2001 because of the injunction. As far back as 1996, which is the oldest map I can find on the Internet, Barrick's plan was to develop the Pascua Lama mine exactly where it is now - which according to JL is 11 kilometers from his "Mina Pascua". So even prior to the injunction, the disputed claims were not included in the planning for the Pascua Lama mine pit. The illegality of mining on the disputed claims is a non-issue because they have never mined.

If Barrick has no ownership of the so-called "Pascua deposit", it is of no consequence because they never planned to mine it, nor have they developed it, nor have they included any of its resources (if there are any resources) in their filings.

Barrick's Pascua Lama pit area is located exactly as mapped in their 43-101 with ALL the included resources described as being in the pit area. If JL also has a deposit on his concessions that are 11 kilometers distant from PL, then he should go ahead mine them. However, JL does not have any rights, titles, or ownership claims on the actual Pascua Lama mine no matter how much he has tried to equivocate "Mina Pascua" and Pascua Lama.

And I wish I were paid for writing on message boards. I would be a rich woman.

Nope. I'm not paid by anyone to write on message boards.

I did see, however, that JL finally admitted that Pascua Lama is, according to him, 11 kilometers away from "Mina Pascua". I can't verify the distance, but as I have ascertained more than a year ago that Pascua Lama and JL's claims are in totally separate locations.

From Post 16223 on the IHub MSX board: "Barrick and SILVER WHEATON as per 43101 have PASCUA 11 kilometers away from the ore body NORTH EAST of MINA PASCUA in barrten areas at the purported end of a TUNNEL TO NOWHERE + BARREN DRILLED AREAS"

JL believes that "the real ore body" is on his concessions and all the resources described in Barrick's 43-101 is a sham. According to JL, Barrick is digging in 'moose pastures". As yet, of course, JL has no drill reports or exploration done on his concessions, but he "knows" the ore body isn't where all the geologists confirm it is.

JL is, however, absolutely wrong when he states in the same post that "Barrick and ROYAL GOLD have PASCUA way Soutyh of litigation areas Villar (Lopehandia) v. ABX or at the IV Region (Real Mina Pascua is in the III Region)"

According to Royal Gold's 2012 Annual Financial Statements:
"Pascua-Lama Project (Region III, Chile)
As of June 30, 2012, we own a 0.78% to 5.23% sliding-scale NSR royalty on the Pascua-Lama project, which straddles the border between Argentina and Chile, and is being developed by Barrick. The Company owns an additional royalty equivalent to 1.05% of proceeds from copper
produced from the Chilean portion of the project, net of allowable deductions, sold on or after January 1, 2017. The Pascua-Lama project is located within 7 miles of Barrick's operating Veladero mine. Access to the project is from the city of Vallenar, Region III, Chile, via secondary
roads"

And a map on the Royal Gold website displays a map showing Pascua Lama at the exact location as detailed in Barrick's 43-101 in Region 3. His information seems to be defective in many areas

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.

Read the article in The Citizen about the hearing on May 24th. It doesn't even mention the word Protocol. It is a separate action solely against Ms. Emery. And yes, Mr. Torres has a hissy fit when the government prosecutor wanted to dismiss because he (Mr. Torres) said that he hadn't been given the investigative file. The prosecutor thought that since Mr. Torres had filed the charges that he already knew the particulars, but he didn't. So the Judge ordered the Prosecutor to give Mr. Torres a copy.

Since links aren't allowed on Yahoo. Go to the MSX IHUB board to post #15950. Click the link. Read the article. I invite you to copy any reference to the Protocol from the news article about the hearing.

And it was a motion to dismiss, not a motion to deny. Barrick lost nothing as no decision was rendered, but I guess JL has to take his victories every time he doesn't completely lose. So we will see how this plays out in three weeks when this case is due back in court. Not the Protocol case, of course, this case - the Emery case.

That's really peachy about the titles. JL should go mine them. If he has clean title, I don't know why he isn't mining already. It won't affect Barrick or the Pascua Lama mine at all as the Amarillo 1-3000 and the Tesoro claims are in a totally separate location from the PL mine.

The last court hearing had nothing to do with the PL Protocol. It was a hearing in the case of the perjury charges that JL brought against Ms. Emery. The Prosecutor wanted to dismiss all charges. The judge agreed that JL's lawyer could see the investigative file, and continued the case until June 21.

It wasn't a "win" by any stretch of the imagination. It was a "JL didn't actually lose on May 24th" in the fact that the case was continued rather than being summarily dismissed.

Don't be silly. I never insisted that PL would be in production this year.

Chile will do what Chile will do and it doesn't really make any difference to Barrick. The bottom line is that JL does not own the concessions that cover Barrick's Pacua Lama mine and no amount of filing of lawsuits or even winning them by JL will change that fact. The UTM coordinates are undeniable proof.

LOL I really enjoyed JL's rant on IHub a couple days ago. In his inimitable style he said that since the government of Chile wanted to dismiss the charges JL brought against Ms. Emery, he really has them on the ropes now.

Quote: "Plus ABX was counting on a (extrangely) harengued FISCAL that sought to show the judge and to impress upon the Judge that EMERY was mother THERESA

This is the same Fiscal who decided that ABX CANADA had nothing to do with PASCUA so it was IMPERTINENT to cite its directors to Chile."
~
Classic JL! How dare the government of Chile refuse JL's motion to depose ABX's executive's in Toronto. Hilarious.

Quote: "Cheers to MSX and our legal teams, we have them closer than ever to check mate, imploding at law., unable to face us without lies and innuendo. However, all lies are now contested and challenged and there is no way they will be able to prove a thing of what the FISCAL said were GOOD REASONS TO set EMERY free.

0% chances of the FIscal being CORRECT AT LAW. "
~
Yep, the government of Chile does not want to try Ms. Emery so JL is "closer than ever to check mate".

ROTFLMAO JL has spin worthy of a politician schtuping an intern.

They never really talked about walking away. Barrick said they were considering "suspending" the project.

Quote: "The company said April 24 it was considering options including suspending the project after construction on the Chilean side was halted because a court accepted an injunction filed by indigenous communities concerned about water supplies."

I think it was a talking point. Chile does want the mine to be built. It provides about 5,000 Chilean jobs and will provide a lot of tax revenue when it starts producing.

I think that they will mine the smaller Penelope deposit in Argentina while they build the required infrastructure in Chile.

Yes. That is how long it is estimated to build the water containment and diversions required by the Chilean environmental agency.

from Reuters: Barrick's (ABX.TO) suspended Pascua-Lama gold project will likely be reactivated in 1 to 2 years at the earliest, given the infrastructure that needs to be built to avoid water pollution, Chile's environmental regulator told Reuters on Thursday.

"The water management canals and drainage systems that were only partially implemented cannot be built "from one day to the next," environmental regulator Juan Carlos Monckeberg said in an interview.

"It could be one year, two years," he noted, underlining that the potential reactivation hinges on how diligent the company is.

Monckeberg also stressed that predicting time frames is tricky given that the regulator, which started operating in December, is navigating in uncharted territory.

Once Barrick completes the required works, the regulator will take a "reasonable time" to assess whether the mine is upholding environmental standards, "given the seriousness of the issue," Monckeberg added.

"As long as the project meets all the requirements, it shouldn't face a permanent paralyzation," he said. He declined to comment on whether the regulator was looking into other potential environmental harm at Pascua-Lama.

~

there is a lengthier article from the globe and mail

search for "chilean-president-gives-barrick-gold-its-pascua-lama-fix-it-orders"

from the Wall Street Journal:

OTTAWA--Chile's President Sebastian Pinera said Thursday he hopes Barrick Gold Corp. (ABX) will continue with its flagship Pascua-Lama mine project in his country, provided the Toronto-based company complies with environmental rules.

Mr. Pinera, who was on a state visit to Canada, said Barrick didn't comply with all the conditions set out in the environmental impact assessment for the project, which was originally approved in 2001 and re-approved in 2006.

He said Chilean authorities have identified 23 areas where Barrick will have to "improve their behavior with respect to the environment, and the company has agreed to that."

"And therefore, I hope that if they comply with all the conditions that were set from the beginning when this investment was approved, that the investment will be able to continue," Mr. Pinera said during a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He described Pascua-Lama as a "very important" investment, citing its location close to Chile's border with Argentina.

The Chilean government recently fined Barrick, the world's largest gold miner, $15.8 million for alleged breaches in environmental controls at the Pascua-Lama mine, throwing its future into uncertainty.

Hmmm. I see no other way to read "the Chilean justice system, which ... has refused to try those responsible, the representatives of Barrick Gold, who are facing calls for jail sentences." The sovereign nation of Chile can decide if and whom they will or will not prosecute .

You are more than welcome to post the entire article, and please include the part where the Diaguitas claim to own the titles to the land.

"Álex Quevedo, the lawyer heading the legal team defending the communities, has explained that land titles were given in 1903 to the indigenous inhabitants of the Atacama, which were subsequently updated in the nineties. Indigenous people with these origins and title deeds are to reclaim the property rights to these lands, covering an area of around 390,000 hectares."

Of course, the indigenous can only reclaim the land if it can be used for farming, and nothing grows at the altitude of the mine so I think their case may prove difficult.

But the important thing to note here is that the article says that the Diaguitas have claim to the land titles. There is no mention that Jorge Lopehandia owns any titles. Besides, and more importantly, the UTM coordinates of Amarillo Sur concessions as published on MSXgold and the maps as published on sedar prove that the Tesoros and the Amarillo Sur/Norte concessions are not in the same location as the Pascua Lama mine. I invite you to check the coordinates for yourself. It is absolutely evident that JL has no claim on the concessions that cover Barrick's Pascua Lama mine.

As to the Protocol, it can be amended and will be if it is necessary. Or it can be rescinded and a new protocol instituted. It isn't a problem. Especially if Chile refuses to prosecute.