November 2015
John,
You don’t even want to get it. Your arguments are so weak yet convincing to those that don’t understand markets and mining that it’s scary. Let’s tell the whole truth in an unbiased fashion for a change. You say in a very convincing fashion:
“Great Jim. Who owns the Picasso? I can promise you that your stake has been reduced by more than 95%.”
When you say that my ownership interest got diluted by 95% the key to me who doesn’t have an “anger itch” needing a daily scratch, but obviously not you, is how much the VALUE of my overall stock position has gone up. By “value” I mean NPV not the share price the market assigns. I find the comment you made to be full of DECEPTION but I have witnessed and have accepted that this is something that you just have to do because that anger itch is much stronger than your desire to shoot straight with the investors that rely upon your comments as being unbiased. I know this just as I know that Les’s timing predictions are seldom accurate. BUT THAT’S OK BECAUSE I’M AN ADULT AND I KNOW THIS TO BE THE CASE. I find no need to regurgitate it on a daily basis. When I lock horns with somebody, I like to sit down and find out exactly where we disagree otherwise it has a tendency to consume me.
Recently you witnessed some selling. At first you said that’s Les Price selling. Then the story became that its not only Les Price but he’s actually ILLEGALLY selling RESTRICTED shares. Why was it illegal? You told us that he was not filing the forms that an insider needs to file if they are a 5% owner of shares. You told us that Les had been doing this ILLEGAL selling since September. Later the story became that Claro too was ILLEGALLY selling RESTRICTED shares without filing the appropriate forms. Then you told us that Medinah’s BOD has been doing this all along. Your certainty level was its usual 100%.
Let’s slow down a bit and review the TRUTH that somebody not needing to scratch an “anger itch” on a daily basis might say. First of all, there is no 5% ownership laws demanding the filing of any forms. There is a 10% law BUT IT ONLY APPLIES TO CORPORATIONS REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THE SEC UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTIONS 12 AND 15 OF THE '34 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT. These are SEC Forms 3 (initial),4 (any changes in beneficial ownership) and 5 (late reporting of a Form 4) that are supposed to be filed. Medinah is NOT one of these “SEC FILING” corporations. As an OTCMarkets Pink Sheet company “current” with the “alternative reporting requirements” Medinah disseminates public information by filing 211 (a)(5) reports accompanied by an “attorney’s letter”. There are 9,800 companies trading on the OTCMarkets. The reporting requirements of SEC registered issuers involving 10 Q’s and 10 K’s are vastly different than 211(a)(5). BUT WE KNEW THAT OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT BEFORE BUYING OUR FIRST SHARES.
Thus there are no 5% ownership “filing requirements” for Medinah affiliates/control persons nor are there any 10% requirements to file Forms 3,4 or 5. Further, as far as Les allegedly ILLEGALLY selling RESTRICTED shares there is no way you or anyone else can detect the sale of RESTRICTED securities in our markets. If your allegation is true, this would involve the COMPLICITY of Medinah’s Transfer Agent (for illegally removing restrictive legends)and their Corporate Counsel for falsifying the attorneys letter needed to remove a restrictive legend.
John, your pattern of DECEPTION in these matters is so clear that you must, as an investment professional subject to all kinds of codes of conduct, realize this. Recently you engaged in a campaign to solicit funds from Medinah shareholders in order to pay the legal expenses to audit the sale of shares of insiders that you already informed us in a declarative fashion have been going on. Did the cart accidentally get in front of the horse? To my knowledge and that of several of my colleagues, there is no legal theory available to compel compliance with such a demand. Who’s going to tell the donors?
You made the suggestion that the results of this campaign might even end up in Les Price being forced into the open market to buy REGISTERED securities and it might even result in Les going bankrupt. Notice the scratching of that “anger itch”. Shouldn’t you pay the legal expenses involved in seeing if your assertions of ILLEGAL behavior are true or not and shouldn’t the results of any such audit antecede your accusations. John, you just can’t engage in DECEPTION like this in conjunction with the purchase and sale of securities of issuers whether “registered” with the SEC or not. The same goes for soliciting the funds of others under false pretenses. That’s why 10b-5 is called the “omnibus anti-fraud” rule.
I think it’s time you came clean with the forum participants that have been making buy/sell decisions based on your allegations. I would include the legal issues involving your family and Medinah as a starter in order to provide some context to your behavior. Why do I request this? It’s because your actions have put me into an ethical “no man’s land”. My faith does not allow me to engage in the type of behavior you have undertaken. I brought your Dad into this deal. He has the exact same tempermant that you have. He made the exact same accusations you are now making and in a similar fashion. Medinah had no choice but to handle it in a legal fashion. In a derivative fashion, I am responsible for your behavior and your Dad’s which bothers me a lot. You brought this upon yourself, not me. What’s amazing to me is that even knowing that management is transitioning out you actually have accelerated your campaign. One question I have for you is don’t the clients that you put into this deal have recourse to recoup any investment funds lost when the party that suggested the investment has done everything in their power to crush the invested in company due to personal family issues?
BB I appreciate the apology even though I believe you sincerly don’t think you ever made any attacks. In this post, you dismissed my active attempts to audit the share count and expose Les Price as an “anger itch”. After these accusations were proven 100% accurate you never retracted any of your previous defenses of Les/MDMN management/Claro nor offsenses towards me. You even suggested that “clients” I brought into this investment should have recourse. I never brought “clients” in but I did bring in many collegues who sold as soon as I flagged highly suspicious insider trading activity. I would think that any financial recourse would fall on the lap of the guy who has vigorously promoted the investment regardless of what is actually occurring on the field vs. the guy who helped minimize losses by getting people off a sinking ship.
Even though I believe MDMN and CDCH shareholders got massively diluted with the AUMC merger, I’ll admit that Maurizio should not wear nor bare the stigma of previous management. He’s doing his best to create value. The only thing that gives me that “anger itch” is that you and others STILL cannot objectively admit to any negative development (even when management is admitting to the same). It just crushes credibility when every new development has to have a positive spin. Not a positive nor realistic dynamic when it comes to mining co’s.
, jmho
I ask because you seem to skim thru posts and only reply to the parts you cherry pick.