Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum MountainWest Resources Inc. C.MWR

CSE:MWR - Post Discussion

MountainWest Resources Inc. > Did Barrick Lie ?
View:
Post by ugluuak on Jun 30, 2024 7:11pm

Did Barrick Lie ?

Cybil V. when you told the world in a presser that the ongoing litigations in Chile on certain properties referred to in the PASCUA LAMA project had no effect on the Barrick project.

These properites or claims were only to get road access to the mother load under the glaciers.

WAS THIS A LIE ?
Comment by MTStack on Jun 30, 2024 8:08pm
No.  Los Amarillos and the Tesoro concessions were not within the designated PL pit area. Unless Chile approved that area for mining, which it hadn't and hasn't to date, then it would be illegal to mine there.  I don't know if they wanted to put a road through that area. 
Comment by ugluuak on Jul 01, 2024 2:02pm
Do you have any opinions on the cancelation or rather the nullification of the original $20.00 sale by Villar to CMN as it would or could pertain to any other legal actions against CMN and Barrick. It would follow that JRL would still hold on to something not sure what, but there it is.
Comment by MTStack on Jul 02, 2024 8:25am
How would you see that happening - the nullification of the original sale?  I don't see a road for that to happen.
Comment by ugluuak on Jul 02, 2024 9:38pm
As we all know there was one ruling already where the $20.00 sale was declared unconstitutional. CMN sued the Judge with a baked story, paid off some legal peeps and the sale got recognised....... There is a road to the "no sale no more" but it is covered in Barrick/CMN excrement where it is not so easily identifiable. A couple more big rains required.
Comment by MTStack on Jul 03, 2024 7:00am
The statute of limitation for the nullificaiton of the contract expired years ago. I think your "road" is imaginary. As to the criminal case you asked about, that case number was for an appeal to revive a criminal suit that has lain dormant for some time.  The case number for the criminal trial is 15723-2012.  I haven't looked into it yet, but it seems that JL has been ...more  
Comment by ugluuak on Jul 03, 2024 10:49am
I think the worms in that can are still alive,not overly wriggly but alive nonetheless. Even a worm looses wrigglyness after a long dormant period. Some days even I loose some of my wriggles. This judge Kokisch (hope that is close) might still be looking in to these proceedings if she is still with us. "SUE me will they". We are all much longer in the tooth today and loosing daylight !
The Market Update
{{currentVideo.title}} {{currentVideo.relativeTime}}
< Previous bulletin
Next bulletin >

At the Bell logo
A daily snapshot of everything
from market open to close.

{{currentVideo.companyName}}
{{currentVideo.intervieweeName}}{{currentVideo.intervieweeTitle}}
< Previous
Next >
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities