Have you ever heard of selling something for nothing 0 zilch, nadda? Oh wait,
it is easy to do what ever you want when you play both sides (the buyer and
the seller). The property in question was discovered when they were grading
the road and they were kicking up gold. So they backed up the date of
discovery, made the deal to themselves and then pretended they got lucky.
1 Like
Letâs try to only throw only those that deserve to be thrown under bus shall we?
Steve was a 10% owner of Nuoco. He had a passive role that mostly involved writing checks to keep the LDM open/funded. Juan/Les/Greg set up the original agreement. He poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars into it; much of it was wasted or otherwise fraudulently ended up in Lesâs pocket. He has bought millions of shares of Medinah in the open market and has yet to sell any of his position. For sure, he is the top ten individuals that have been the most harmed by MedinahâŚLes & Juan. I believe your hints of his impropriety have no basis in fact.
3 Likes
I am well aware there is fiduciary duty. We just do not yet know which individuals have culpability. Do you understand the conversation is about PROOF of liability?
2 Likes
Give me a break. In the last four years, the price of the stock was in the 10 - 15 cent range. The ffin BOD couldnât issue shares to cover costs? Instead , we have
Chapin, Kleen, Les, and Juan, and 2 others (who were they? you?) that was
paying fân bills, or as you say Kleen poured hundreds of thousands. The BOD
could have issued 100 million shares at an average of .08 (8 million dollars) during that time andwe wouldnât have had to put up the likes of Kleen, Chapin, Less, and Juan telling how they had to save our ass.
6 Likes
Tell me how, when we (MDMN) had so many shares to issue, we never made any
money from issuing millions of shares to pay bills. Instead we had pond scum saying they had to pay expenses. Explain the insider deal that Kleen and others from the BOD were able to cook up with the nuco deal? Why wasnât the expense of the NUCO claim expensed by the shareholders (in the form of shares issued)? How did it get pulled out of the MDMN claim for the select few? JUST ASKING!
Deleted by me
Maybe Kleen can respond how he was able to get an insider deal that didnât include the rest of the shareholders. It would be one thing if the claim they
pursued was outside what MDMN already had, BUT IT WASNâT. Kleen isnât so clean.
1 Like
When Nuoco was originally being formed, the share price was around 3 cent in the beginning of 2011 so any private placements would have been in 1 to 2 cent range and Medinah was having difficulty getting anybody to give any money to Medinah at all. Certainly not in the quantities they needed to start the Company. They also needed to form a separate Company so they could get a stand alone mining license from the Chilean government for the LDM. The stand alone Company needed to raise its own money. Ian Dow was one that you didnât list. I had nothing to do with the LDM. Recall that Medinah only had originally a 50% interest in LDM to begin with and working out something that Juan would agree to wasnât easy and like most everything, his demands were followed.
Instead of joining together and holding hands at this point in crisis, I see lines being drawn and the defenses and attacks getting louder by both sides. Lose the egos folks, weâve all been equally swindled, whose * is longer means squat, he who thinks he knows more has ended up being technically useless.
Geez, has nothing been learned? Donât all here have a common (yet to be identified) enemy and we can bond together and become stronger around that fact?
[quote=âBaldy, post:1193, topic:1377, full:trueâ]It seems inconsistent to blame Les while trying to accuse others of jumping the gun on Chapin, Vittal, etc. (you did the same thing a week before the 3B was revealed). There is no âproofâ that Les or JJ were directly involved either. [/quote]Iâm not following your point here. My commentary follows what has been stated in the PR - Les has been implicated and the BOD (past and present) had no knowledge of it. So Iâm not sure what youâre finding inconsistent there. My post you refer to from a couple weeks back echoed the same sentiment of sticking with the facts (in that case related to share holding disclosures) we know rather than running full steam ahead with false accusations.
[quote=âBaldy, post:1193, topic:1377, full:trueâ]The main point is that many of these gentlemen were involved, either knowingly or not, while they held positions of oversight and accountability. Thatâs a fact Jack. [/quote]And to this I agree and I stated so in my post; however, Iâll stop at the word âinvolvedâ. If someone is negligent that doesnât mean theyâre involved. âInvolvedâ carries the connotation of being an active and intentional part of the scheme. An arsonist lights a building on fire. Because the owner neglected to have a fire alarm installed does not make him involved in the crime. It wonât put him behind bars. It does make him negligent and potentially culpable to a certain degree of the consequences, but certainly not involved.
1 Like
Letâs hope so. Nothing new to add.
The weather forecast remains excellent.
Iâm going fishing!!
4 Likes
If you want to consider an update coming from Medinah as factual, more power to you. Les claims heâs innocent so maybe the representative (not representatives) from MDMN Chile they are referring to is JJ yet you run full steam ahead with accusations without knowing the facts. Seems hypocritical.
Admittedly, Iâve taken the liberty to assume that doubling the share count couldnât possibly happen without the knowledge of other MDMN directors. I hardly call that jumping to a wild conclusion and this is supported by a loooong list of past, very shady dealings with other insiders.
You may be right in that Vittal accumulated 75 million shares and held those shares despite (on several occasions) this position exceeding $10M while he had no other business successes to speak of. Maybe he was just rolling the dice and maybe it was just coincidental that his ownership (filings) finally showed up right before 3B shares were disclosed. However, as is this case with most of these insiders, itâs useful to evaluate past behavior to predict our current situation and, similar to Chapin, there wasnât any evidence of a moral high ground when it came to MDMN related matters.
At the end of the day, it really doesnât matter if âpast or present directors of MEDINAH had no knowledgeâ of this incidence. To your point, the negligence has ramifications as does a clear violation of fiduciary responsibility. If the investigation doesnât get these guys a class action will. My only interest is a reduction in the share count in both MDMN and CDCH.
My apologies if Iâm not being reserved or polite enough for your standards but these insiders are either complicit or wildly incompetent. Neither of which deserve a tactful patience or toned down rhetoric when it (continues to ) negatively impact my investment. Iâm not delusional enough to dismiss this latest round of dilution as an âasterisk.â Thatâs literally insane.
15 Likes
[quote=âBaldy, post:1215, topic:1377, full:trueâ]If you want to consider an update coming from Medinah as factual, more power to you.[/quote]Admittedly, it is a historically losing proposition on my part. Iâm making the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that Aurynâs internal audit is cleaning house here. And under that assumption Iâm more apt to believe the words that are coming from them rather than what came from Medinah of old.
[quote=âBaldy, post:1215, topic:1377, full:trueâ]Les claims heâs innocent so maybe the representative (not representatives) from MDMN Chile they are referring to is JJ yet you run full steam ahead with accusations without knowing the facts. Seems hypocritical.[/quote]Youâre right John. Maybe it is hypocritical of me in failing to look past his innocent track record:
- Huff vs Price (CUMO Resources) guilty of stock fraud of the two elderly ladies who entrusted him with their accounts.
- Bermuda Shorts sting
- CDCH claims grab (you and I both know the lies there)
- CDCH over-billing
- Amarant Mining and Johan Ulander (though more JJ than LP)
- How many private e-mail lies and changed stories to shareholders of his have we read over the years?
- I also have private examples of blatant fraud on his part that Iâve come to know of.
- And now shares of MDMN being sold/distributed illegally to the tune of 1.5 billion by âthe representative to Medinah Minerals Chileâ.
I know youâre arguing the reductio ad absurdum fallacy for shits and giggles and I can do likewise, but I still have to laugh if you think itâs hypocritical of me or anyone to refrain from pointing the finger squarely at Les Price in all of this. Les may lie, but the facts donât.
2 Likes
Classic line.
Of course Les is a guilty as sin. Iâm just pointing out that they only mention âone representativeâ as being responsible and JJâs behavior has been equally reprehensible. Even though we donât know all the âfactsâ this overflows well beyond Les
2 Likes
HR, if you donât want to share, I understand but you statement âI also have private examples of blatant fraud on his part that Iâve come to know ofâ is troubling. At this point in time, given the limited facts, Iâd sure like to know what examples you speak of. I think it is relevant and pertinent at this time given what has just been perpetrated on honest shareholders of MDMN. I sure would like to know what additional fraud Les Price is guilty of. Again, if you donât want to share, that is your prerogative.
Ditto to your comment!
1 Like
Just speaking from experience, everytime I issued a quarterly financial statement, I had the T/A send me the control log which has the o/s, float, and shareholders of record/cert holders. So whomever/whoever prepared the fins covered up the o/s.
Further, I donât care how ignorant an officer of board member is, when the share price got hammered by selling day after day after day, the first thing you do is order the control log to see if shares were issued you didnât know about. It only takes about 30 minutes for most t/aâs to email it to you.
If the previous management was unaware of the share issuances, it is because they did not want to know.
10 Likes