The Mining Play

Medinah Minerals (MDMN) - 2017 Q2 General Discussion


#419

The guy is WAY too straightforward and articulate (and better spelling) to be Les.


#420

Hey, what is our Lithiium deposits like? Sometimes a wacky site.

FYI,
Tom

http://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines/finance-news/the-worlds-hottest-commodity-just-got-hotter-heres-what-the-smart-money-is-doing/


#421

inside truth is LP or a mouthpiece of his. Why would anyone believe him? Even when he tells the truth it’s shaded or twisted for some manipulative end.


#422

Will see if he’s right June 23 is around the corner.

Kevin can put all this “speculation” to rest with an update regarding these matters. For now I’m all ears


#423

Don’t forget, Les is a master at manipulation, directly or indirectly. He can spell when he wants, and has a history of using others to his own end ( and their detriment after they figure out the lies).


#424

When I checked the court docket previously and found the docket entry showing the withdrawal of LP’s attorney, the docket did not mention anything about an order requiring MDMN to do or disclose anything. The docket entry only showed the discovery order in Feb, the filing of the motion to withdraw on 5/15, and the granting of the withdrawal of the attorney on 5/31. Generally, in the US, the court allow 21-28 days for a party to secure new counsel and the case stops temporarily while the time runs for the person to secure new counsel. Because the issue of the attorney’s withdrawal was pending before the court, IMO, the court would not have heard or ruled upon a request by LP’s attorney to do anything until the withdrawal issue resolved. If the court would have ruled upon a request by LP’s attorney and the attorney would have subsequently been removed due to a conflict of interest, it would have invalidated the previous ruling.

The court docket does not lie or in any way shade, bend, or manipulate the facts for nefarious reasons. The docket does not contain anything requiring MDMN to do or disclose anything. At this time, we are in the court authorized window to allow LP to secure new counsel and the case is on a temporary hold while this event occurs. Period.

IMO, insidetruth stating what LP believes and wants to have happen, but has not actually occurred. His statement the Court ordered MDMN to make a specific damage claim and MDMN hasn’t made a claim for damages is false. The docket doesn’t require it and a review of MDMN’s complaint shows they have made a general claim for damages and stating they could not put a specific dollar amount of the damages at this time due to the investigation. Further, the complaint requested injunctive relief, which does not have a dollar amount. Plaintiff’s commonly file a complaint without a specific dollar amount for damages when they do not have the ability to calculate the damages at the time of the filing of the complaint. As long as the plaintiff indicates the damages would be in excess of the jurisdictional limits, they complaint will stand. MDMN would not be required to set forth a specific dollar amount for damages until they specifically request relief from the court at a trial. Then they would have to previously disclose their damages and their support for the damage calculation through their discovery answers. We call it “proving up” your damages. Until such time as MDMN completes any outstanding discovery requests, they can move forward on their generic claim for damages; and, we are a long, long way away (ie: 12-18+ months) from a court forcing MDMN to complete discovery, IMO.

Insider truth is plain wrong, and it’s obvious he’s trying to manipulate the facts to fit his view. Sound familiar? I would suggest ignoring insidertruth completely, unless you like drinking the coolaid, and rely upon the known, proven facts.


#425

FYI I don’t drink kool aid. Great he’s plain wrong. I’m good with that


#427

Either Les needs funds or someone’s wife got ahold of their account


#428

Little bit of mixed volume today. Not sure if it is good or bad.


#429

What is mixed volume? What is good about it? Except that there is a terrific buying opportunity to pick up shares below .005. But because of the current cone of silence, nobody will even consider buying any more shares. I think we deserve any update about anything from Medinah…


#430

Just a mixture of buys and sells.


#431

Can there be one (buy or sell) without the other?


#432

Could be someone has a margin call on their overall portfolio


#433

Nope… :slight_smile:


#434

Don’t rule out several shareholders working the price down to establish the new norm


#435

1.7 million on the ASK @ .0044 and No News from Auryn or Medinah as to what has been happening on the Mountain or the lawsuits .


#436

The ask looks enticing I would go for it but here up North we have to pay an additional 36% so I will pass.


#437

I tried to fill a smaller bid at and then above the ASK for the 1.7M shares and no matter what I did it wouldn’t fill. I am not the most savvy or experienced trader, but I found that to be interesting since I figured it should have filled since I was above the ASK with a share count well below the 1.7M outstanding. Any insight if this is a normal occurrence would be greatly appreciated.


#438

Probably put in as an “all or nothing” sell order.


#439

Can someone please explain to me why there is currently no reason to be alarmed at our current situation? Today was not fun. I need a pep talk…Thank you…