The Mining Play

Medinah Minerals (MDMN) - 2016 Q3 - General Discussion (recovered)


Hi TSXVTrader,

Unfortunately, I’m not at liberty to share.


I hope Les got a few of the Vancouver chapter of the Hells Angel’s mc to invest.


For those who wish to know.


John…remember the Letts have a true dislike for JJ and I see Auryn going after him aggressively to recover what they can in shares or money.


I remember seeing a few of the Vancouver chapter Hells Angels board the ferry over 50 yearrs ago as a kid. Wonder if they’re as scary now as I remember them.


What you have to remember RE the other BOD members past and present, any BOD member cannot use continued and repeated ignorance (lack of knowledge) of events occurring under your watch as an excuse or defense to a breach of fiduciary claim. Sure a BOD member may be able to use lack of knowledge if an accountant forges one check, for example. But the issuance of over 1.5 billion shares over a 3+ year period of time , while at the same time insider deals occurring, at the same time a know disreputable character from your past who has caused you and your corp issues continues to negotiate on your behalf for other insider private placement deals. Really? Ignorance? Oh, I didn’t know?

One of the duties all BOD members have is duty of care. This duty requires the BOD member to make themselves educated before any decision made (or not made) and requires a BOD to know about your on corp. A BOD member cannot just stick their head in the sand, let others run wild with the corp, then surface afterward and say I’m innocent, I didn’t know. BOD’s have a duty to know what occurs in their corp. And, if in the exercise of their duty of care they come across certain info, then the duty to disclose kicks in and/or the duty of loyalty kicks in. They must disclose it, stop it, or correct it. Otherwise, one could never hold a BOD member liable for the actions of the corp. You would have to have direct proof of direct knowledge and a BOD member could avoid any liability through a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” lack of knowledge style of management.

IMO, Goodin (and formerly Chapin and Letts) were BOD members during the time of the share issuance issues, the alleged Les negotiated private placement deal Nevada lawsuit, as well as having regular, direct contact, and knowledge of Les past misdeeds and shenanigans. Of course Goodin going to issue a release saying they had no knowledge of the share issuance discrepancies. They are just trying to cover their own backsides. And, for arguments sake, let’s say they didn’t know. Shouldn’t they do the right thing and admit they should have known but didn’t, it happened on their watch, and then resign the BOD member to have someone else step up to conduct an independent review of their actions and MDMN’s behavior. Seems to be what the duty of loyalty to MDMN requires. They have a direct conflict because the share issuance discrepancies occurred on their watch when they should have known by an insider with know past bad behavior, who got you involved in a lawsuit over share issuance; and, now they are going to be the ones heading the investigation? I’ll give you one guess what the investigation will show RE the BOD’s behavior. Letts and Chapin already resigned, IMO Goodin needs to resign too. We have two new BOD members and all of a sudden we have a disclosure about discrepancies in stock issuance after Chapin and Letts resign? Coincidence? Get Goodin out, then we have three, new, independent BOD members with no desire to shield past BOD’s bad acts and with the sole goal of getting MDMN’s share discrepancies sorted and hopefully recovered, and putting MDMN in the best position going forward to maximize shareholder value.


I agree, we need people on the BOD who are interested in one thing - moving MDMN forward and returning value to longsuffering shareholders. At this point, I’m open to suggestion on who that should be. Clearly outsiders (e.g. Kirkland) were not interested under the old regime. Once he got a whiff of what the BOD was cooking, he bailed very quickly. I postulate that maybe an outsider would be interested now that things are out in the open. What we need is a turnaround expert or someone with previous experience in company reorganization. Maybe this idea can be brought up at the informational meeting. I’m also of the opinion that we as shareholders should make our voices heard. The worst they can do is say no and we’re no worse off if they do.


If Mr. Kirkland got a whiff of anything related to this potential issue, maybe he had a duty of disclosure to the shareholders as well. Discovery could flush all this out. Let’s not assume ANYTHING at this point.

I think at the Meeting in early October, one of the issues should be appointment of counsel to represent shareholders. I assume Auryn has voting control and so MDMN shareholders would at least initially be subject to their decision on the issue. If Auryn decides NOT want to hire counsel for MDMN shareholders, then a minority of shareholders can do so themselves.


There have been some good suggestions on what the company/BOD should do, but remember, this company has no revenues and is probably running on fumes. How can they afford to switch counsel in the Nevada case or hire new counsel to investigate and pursue litigation.

Money has to come from somewhere, but where? How much money could be raised by issuing the remaining unissued shares? maybe $100k.

I have heard that there may be a few shareholders that would lend the company money.But money is what is needed.


I think we are PROJECTING that the company will have revenue coming up soon, right?

As an aligned party, wouldn’t Auryn also have an interest in having independent counsel? And, wouldn’t they want it to appear that they are being even-handed about it? So, maybe they would help out by advancing some of the legal fees? I’m not one to volunteer “other people’s money”, but if I were in their shoes that might be a goodwill gesture I would consider in order to earn some mileage with shareholders (I know I would find some IMMEDIATE confidence in them if they did - I don’t know the Auryn folks and have not done independent due diligence on them). Of course, the shareholders’ portion of legal fees could be reimbursed to them out of future income - maybe a deal could be reached? Personally, I don’t see a case as such running over $250,000.00’ish. I’m also very sure Auryn respects the fact that any ONE shareholder of MDMN can commence proceedings and really throw a wrench into the entire deal - which would not be pleasant.


Moving slightly off this…when are we expecting news on the production start-up at Caren??


Keep in mind the SHM is being held by Auryn about Auryn business, i.e. Mining. I would set your expectations accordingly so you aren’t miffed by a lack of discussion on MDMN-specific items that are on shareholder’s minds.


Very shortly after Auryn actually starts production.

From a statement on their Facebook Page:

“We have submitted the required documents with the Chilean government in order to initiate activity at the #CarenMine. Weather permitting, we expect to start production by the end of August.”

Since there has been no weather issues lately, this suggests an announcement maybe imminent.



The morning session is for Medinah, afternoon for Auryn per schedule


It only makes sense, Rick.
I would rather see the company officially reveal facts and announce the
process being pursued to recover what is recoverable than the recent
discussions dominating the posts. The emotional vitriol being released by a few
without knowing what is being uncovered by those responsible for doing a
thorough investigation are understandable, however, misplaced. IMO
For those attending the Informational Meeting … ASK QUESTIONS!

“The Board is continuing its investigation and will not stop
until satisfied that all important facts are known.”

The emotionally charged speculation and voicing who is to
blame and when it occurred is not the future for this company. Meeting,
exceeding, and expanding production on the high content gold of Caren Mine and permitting of an open pit on the Fortuna should be the focus of investors holding common shares. After the Chile Mining Conference and Informational Meeting any new investors will be primarily interested in new target discoveries and plans leading to substantial production.

If claw backs are possible, the current BOD,
MASGLAS and AURYN will make it happen, not wild shareholder speculation.
Since the option agreement was inked July 31, 2014, total trade
volume shown on Yahoo is 946,412,100, far from the 1.4 B discrepancy recently
revealed as being held by CEDE & CO. Venting on this blog, or iHub will
accomplish little, IMO, other than detract from the potential future success of MDMN,
AURYN and MASGLAS. Do those calling for blood, blame, and retribution
believe that the current BOD of MDMN, with the backing of MASGLAS/AURYN, is not
doing everything possible to claw back any unjust and ill-gotten gains from
those responsible for the current share count and decline in PPS?


Are we already extending full confidence to the entirety of the present BOD?

[quote=“easymillion, post:1235, topic:1377”]any new investors will be primarily interested in new target discoveries and plans leading to substantial production

IMHO, “new investors” would be idiots not to pay at least equal attention to the history of this stock and only pay attention to [quote=“easymillion, post:1235, topic:1377”]
new target discoveries and plans leading to substantial production.[/quote]

It’s time for transparent accountability. Any attempt to brush this under the rug and begin the rhetoric of only looking forward is plain wrong.


Thanks for clarifying. I hadn’t looked at the agenda.


I am not pointing a finger at anyone. We don’t have enough information yet to point fingers. WE CAN"T let one lawyer to represent Les, JJ, and MDMN. That is insane! We need to hire the best securities lawyer we can find. Maybe Auryn can help with the money,perhaps a loan that we can pay back when the money starts to flow? If we don’t get our own lawyer, then I think we will be done. We can rip up our shares.


Not even that. Most of us don’t have certs. :grin:


Awaiting official disclosure of their investigation.

Shareholder Update June 16, 2016
In order to minimize dilution, the two new directors will
currently serve without any compensation from Medinah Minerals, Inc.

Below is a brief biography for each of the newly appointed
Board members:

Italo Volante Gomez

Italo Volante Gomez is an
accomplished attorney based in Santiago, Chile specializing in Environmental,
Corporate Safety, and Mining law. He has held several positions in
governmental entities such as the Chilean Health and Environmental Agency. Additionally,
he has served as Latin American Legal Director for French Carbon Credit
Company, with responsibility for the expansion and development of environmental
projects over most of Latin America. Mr. Volante is the President of AURYN
Mining Chile S.p.A and CEO of SIGAL Chile, a subsidiary of SIGAL Peru that
provides software and management services to mining, oil, and gas companies.

… and

MEDINAH Discovers 15c211 Discrepancies
Aug 23, 2016
OTC Disclosure & News Service

We will work tirelessly to redact, rescind and return to the
Company all shares inappropriately issued. Further, we will use all means at
> our disposal to seek redress from responsible parties and will cooperate with
> law enforcement agencies as needed.

This situation does not impact AURYN Mining Chile SpA’s
ownership and development of the Altos de Lipangue project. Nor does it
change MEDINAH’s 25,000,000 shares owned in AURYN.

> management and the Board of Directors wishes to acknowledge the critical role
> played in this investigation by our partners AURYN Mining Chile SpA and its
> parent Company MASGLAS Limited. We are indebted to the leadership they
provide as MEDINAH progresses toward financial sustainability.

I’d rather not make some of the wild accusations pointing fingers at individuals before all facts are uncovered such as (wonder who could have said…?):

Three predictions: First, there’s only one bad apple. Second; that Les
was getting his BS from Chapin. Lastly; the generous picture of Chapin the last
few years has been a smoke-screen and that financial support has come from him
selling the market what stolen shares he could without tanking it and that
cloud has might have many looking the wrong direction right now.

Right or wrong, I’d rather deal with the hard proof as it is revealed and official facts rather than some of the unsubstantiated emotional speculation that has appeared here recently.