Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The MSX BOD and Mr. Johnson should be ashamed of how they've left investors in the dark.
No explanation or outlook on the CTO.
No update from Chile - what gives? The PR touted a 14 day deadline for response and then...
No update in Arizona. The last statement on the matter told us that management expected oral arguments in October.
No Monthly Progress Report on CNSX. Has Mr. Johnson given up on disclosure altogether?
According to the last set of financials, there was a lot of debt due or overdue by Oct 31. No idea what management intends to do with this while trading is ceased - what's the plan to meet MSX's financial obligations?
I don't think anyone is fooled by the idea that "silence is good news". When it comes to keeping investors informed, silence means that Mr. Johnson isn't doing the job he's been paid for.
It's funny what a difference perspective can make. As we discuss Mr. Davis and his intentions of redirecting MSX towards Kanco and his wacky conspiracy lawsuits...
he sees: wow. everyone is looking at me. this confirms all of my imaginings.
I see: wow. investors deserve better than this guy.
The world sees: wow. a penny stock under a cease trade order, with no way to meet its current liabilities, and with no one at the helm.
Mr. Davis, his wing-nut lawsuits, and his proposed alliance between MSX and Kanco used to be just a side-show. Now, thanks to Mr. Johnson freezing out the shareholders, he's the only show in town. If Mr. Johnson thinks that leaving Mr. Davis as the default and only voice of the company is a good idea, he's less competent than even I give him credit for.
So Mr. Davis is traveling up here to sniff around those involved with MSX, hmmm? And meeting with Mrs. Jackholm, he says. Sorry, Steve - Brent Johnson has already bled that one dry. No money left for you.
Interesting that he says Mr. Johnson has stood in and settled Mr. Lopehandia's debts with Davis and co. Was he actually able to divert any shareholder money your direction, Steve, or did he just pay in promises?
It's truly sad that the investors are left grasping at straws for information on Mountainstar. It's just one more way that I can clearly say that Mr. Johnson is a failure. How much does he bill the company for "Investor Relations"? And how is he doing?
No legit web site. PRs are usually amateurish, sometimes irrelevant, and occasionally retracted for inaccuracy, but are currently non-existent on the central issue - the viability of MSX as a publicly traded company.
I don't blame you for looking for information from random pseudonyms on the message board - at least some are offering their point of view, as opposed to Mr. Johnson, who seems intent on leaving everyone in the dark.
It seems to me that at some point mid last month, Mr. Johnson was trying to have the CSO lifted. He brought his delinquent filings up to date, then... what? Ran out of gas?
Look at the monthly progress reports. If Mr. Johnson was serious about having this company trade again, wouldn't he keep up with these filings? He was supposed to have it filed and posted this morning. Anyone want to bet on how late his assignment will be... and what his excuse is this time... dog ate my homework? My e-mails were hacked?
Or does he just procrastinate in silence, leaving investors in the dark about any progress in the month of October? We were expecting news in Chile and Arizona.
Come on Mr. Johnson. Have some respect for the investors. You've taken their money. Now do your job or get out of the way.
I'd like to be really clear in my criticism of Mr. Johnson. I don't think he's fit to lead, and the reasons fall into two main categories: 1) that he has poor strategic abilities, and 2) that he is incompetent or lacks integrity.
All of the poorly thought out and executed lawsuits in my previous message highlighted point 1. He doesn't seem to have any strategy that ends in a good financial outcome.
You asked about the Jackholm lawsuit, and the reason I didn't include it in the last message was because it goes to point 2: his competence or integrity.
He either knew about what was happening with this 1.3 million or he didn't. One way, he's incompetent (how can you allow a subordinate with a conflict of interest negotiate a deal of this size and importance without knowing the terms?) and the other, he's a sleazebag. There's no middle ground that I can think of.
His lack of competence shows in many other ways (PRs, regulatory failings, overdue debt) but this one is really clear cut. If he were my employee, I'd have tossed him long ago, and I think anyone who honestly looks at his record would come to the same conclusion.
Choose a lawsuit, and tell me how it leads to money:
Ignoring the CTO on MSX and the financial problems of the company for a minute, can anyone help me to understand how MSXs current lawsuits can ever lead to a financial return?
1) Chile. Barrick has shelved Pascua Lama. It's not resuming in the near future anyway. So how do our current efforts to delay them have any upside potential? All of the other efforts in Chile seem to have evaporated. The highly touted "criminal" charges have disappeared. The challenge to the protocol is MIA. If we have clean title to the claims and nothing prevents MSX from mining those claims, how do any of these lawsuits lead to any money?
2) Arizona. Every indication from both Arizona and Washington is that MSX is being dealt defeat after defeat. The continuation of this suit has been a financial drain on the company, and MSX has pretty much stopped updating investors on the ongoing losses. It doesn't sound like there's much potential for money in this one.
3) Mr. Davis' wild ride. He claims that MSX has pledged to cooperate on his latest insane conspiracy lawsuit. May I remind everyone that Mr. Davis/Kanco has a pretty dismal record in the courts? His allegations widen and evolve as he "remembers" more evidence and "connects" more people/law firms to his conspiracies. Will he reveal the secret identities of the Fab 5? Will they in fact be aliens? What possible financial upside would there be for MSX to participate?
4) The e-mail suit. Four unnamed defendants. Need I say more? There's no money in this.
Did I miss anything? Is there any lawsuit that MSX is supporting that has any way of leading to much-needed cash? Is it maybe time to consider a different direction... like, oh, say... MINING! If we have the titles, why on earth are we wasting time and money on nothing lawsuits?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't characterize my feelings as "mad at Brent" - not over this, anyway ... more "tired of more lawsuit announcements".
If someone has eavesdropped on Brent's communications, they should be held accountable, no doubt. However, as Tibby alluded to, most times when there's a breach in e-mail, it turns out to reveal either poor security practices on the victim's part, or a betrayal by an insider. Or both.
The fact that this is being handled as a civil case against 4 unnamed defendants makes me think that Brent has no way of figuring out who has his data, and is putting it out there with the media to "shake something loose" - either spook the infiltrator(s) - or at least raise the specter of corporate espionage as an excuse for his own mismanagement.
Will it go anywhere? I don't know. Probably not. Most MSX/JL lawsuits seem to eventually disappear without a trace, so I'm not holding my breath for a resolution on this one.
I was just thinking about how much it would improve things if there were just another lawsuit.
Seriously... (sigh)
Speaking of which, weren't we expecting some results by now?
There was word of possible oral arguments in Arizona by the end of October. How about Chile? Did we successfully stop Barrick from developing the mine that we allege they don't want to develop?
Seems that MSX/JL are good at announcing new litigation. As for follow-through on the results... not so much.
It's definitely relevant to the company's financial position, but how would I know where to put it on the statements?
Mrs. Jackholm claims it was a loan, but I doubt it's included as a liability.
Mr. Johnson claims it was an option agreement of some sort, but I doubt she accepted a settlement of shares.
Has he neglected to put over a million dollars on the books anywhere? I don't know. So the safest thing to say about my previous post is this: the truth could be worse by about a million bucks, but I'm not sure it changes the math. The company has no apparent way to meet its current liabilities in either case.
I don't know if Mr. Johnson will be able to get the CTO lifted or not, but it looks like he's aiming that direction. Otherwise, why would he bother bringing the filings up to date?
His challenge is an epic one. Some on this board have painted this as a good vs. evil, David vs. Goliath kind of drama.
I think it's a black vs. red play. As in black INK and red INK - or, as some have characterized it, as in the black and red on a roulette wheel.
While it may be true that mining start-up companies often run deeply into long-term debt, my concern now is that MSX has been poorly managed to the point that it can't meet its current financial obligations.
From the MSX interim statements (July 31):
"The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to generate and maintain future profitable operations and/or to obtain the necessary financing to meet its obligations and repay its liabilities arising from normal business operations when they come due."
I added the emphasis on "when they come due." My reason is as follows: The July statement reports that current liabilities exceed assets by nearly $900,000. Of these current liabilities, it was reported that roughly $640,000 would be due within 3 months (so, by Oct 31) and another $300,000 or so due upon demand.
As of the end of this month MSX owes $900,000 that it cannot afford to pay.
With that amount of current liability on the books, how on earth did Mr. Johnson allow his regulatory filings to be delinquent, thus substantially curtailing his ability to raise much need capital?
Ineptitude!
And poor ol' Steve Davis (Kanco Energy), sitting in the corner waiting for his turn on the gravy train, and threatening to sue and expose his enemies (The Fab 5, he calls them... Am I one, I wonder?)... when all the time, his real problem is that Mr. Johnson can't balance his books. For all the grand conspiracies in the air, the reasons that seem likely to topple MSX are much more mundane, and are spelled out in black and white (and red) in the financial statements that Mr. Johnson finally saw fit to file.
I wonder if he ever closed on that $150,000 private placement. I wonder if it would comfort the investor to know that the money will barely make a dent in current liabilities, and will most likely just be signed over to cover Mr. Johnson's personal fees for the last few months.
The July interim report shows another $600,000 down the tubes.
Please everyone read the whole report. The devil's in the details. I've been making the point that the current BOD lacks the skills to manage the business.
Look at the details on Juneau. The money we've loaned into it is basically being written off because the potential JV partner has no way to pay it back. (Didn't someone raise the same concern about JL?)
Look at Elkhorn - written down to $1 after putting in $50,000.
Look at the Fitzgerald suit - the company is writing off its deposits on the lawsuit because - well, really, what chance do we have?
So there's the strategic ability of management. Loss. Loss. Loss.
But at least Brent is pretty good at the administrative end of it, right? No. Not really. The CTO proves his lack of technical skills. His position on the Jackholm suit proves his lack of attention to detail.
Keep looking at those details folks. You'll find that Brent and his directors charged $450,000 (give or take) for "Administration Fees", "Professional fees" and "Investor Relations".
How about that! It seems he charges a pretty penny for his inept management. C'mon... with this kind of performance, how long can he keep riding the gravy train?
I'd be curious to know how you can justify this belief.
Because MSX management has chosen to keep investors in the dark about the CTO, the only information I've seen is from the regulatory bodies. They state that MSX failed to meet continuous disclosure requirements.
Do you know something different?
I don't even know how one could imagine this court hearing in Chile could be considered material to MSX. If additional environmental protections are imposed on Barrick, it wouldn't constitute anything of financial significance to MSX. Not directly, anyhow. So how would the regulators view this as a reason to keep MSX halted?
I don't get your theory.
This is great news, or terrible news, depending on what your goals are.
For instance, if you're an anti-Barrick activist, like the one who brought JL and BJ together in the first place, you couldn't ask for much better an outcome. Substantially all of the money raised by MSX has been spent in efforts to slow down or stop Barrick from mining in Chile. The lawyers got their money. The activists got their kicks. The indigenous people got some legal support. The company directors got to pad their pockets a while longer. And when it all falls apart, JL can point to the fact that it was MSX that defaulted, and walk away without consequence.
If you're an investor, however, the fact that all the money went to anti-Barrick activities without regard to profit might be a little harder to swallow, now that everyone's preparing to walk away. MSX is out of money, and has no way to raise more. They're in a default position on the joint venture with JL. They've well and truly lost all their lawsuits against Fitzgerald, and now are dodging regulators on continuous disclosure.
Yep... this one's got legs!
Five reasons this PR is particularly lame:
1) It's not news. Previous PRs have already announced these motions, and even according to the PR, this is not a substantive ruling. Previously, we knew that the court was going to hear this motion. Now we know nothing substantially more.
2) Even if it were news, it's not necessarily good news. MSX and JL have announced all sorts of lawsuits and charges and motions in the past, but none have resulted in a positive outcome. How about announcing the results of all those highly touted "CRIMINAL" charges? You know - the ones where JL assured us that acceptance of the charges meant everyone was automatically guilty. Where did those ones go?
3) Even if the motion was successful, it doesn't help MSX. It delays ABX from developing a mine site that JL says is miles away from his claims, and has no proven gold. Tell me this: if MSX is trying so hard to stop ABX from beginning production, doesn't it point rather to the conclusion that the ABX site does have gold, and MSX is afraid to let it be proven? This doesn't make sense.
4) There's no mention of the CTO, despite the fact that investors would much rather know about the cease trade order than some nothing motion that stops ABX from working on the staff lunchroom.
5) Nowhere in this PR does it announce the resignation of Brent Johnson, or a change in the company's money-losing direction. Now that would be good news.
Agreed. JL's participation is not only unprofessional, but he exposes his own biased thinking. He couldn't address the specifics of my post because he can't get past restating his only argument (if you can call it that):
ABX loses, MSX wins.
If you tear apart his postings, and disregard the fluff and bluster, that's all he's repeated in every post since he appeared here.
It's flawed thinking, and it shows in his legal strategy, which seems to be about attacking ABX more than bringing about a positive result for MSX.
Let me put it this way:
A) It may indeed be true that if MSX is able to prove that it holds title to a viable mine, that ABX loses in the process.
B) It may actually be false that in stopping ABX from mining their claim, MSX wins in the process.
So why does MSX spend 100% of its resources on strategy B rather than strategy A? It betrays a bias in MSX and JLs thinking. He's using investors' money to further his grudge match against ABX without regard for a positive outcome for investors.
As you pointed out, it's been three years with zero results. JL may argue: "Ah... but in that time, we've achieved clean title". That doesn't work. Why? Because you claimed to have clean title from the beginning. So where's the progress? Lots of money spent on nothing lawsuits - not a single positive judgement to point towards.
I have seen a fair amount of anti-Barrick bias on this board. So much so, that I have a fair suspicion that this post will be instantly greeted with suspicion that I am a Barrick supporter.
I am not. Excluding my bank-administered RRSPs, I can say that I've never had a financial interest in any mining company outside of MSX, period. (And, of course, it's debatable as to whether MSX is even a mining company)
Wherever there is a bias, there is an opportunity to exploit that bias. In this case, I suspect that Jorge, Brent, and Steve Davis are all attempting to use anti-Barrick sentiment to raise money. So far, at least, Brent and Jorge have been successful... and Steve has some behind-the-scenes verbal agreements that he thinks will allow him to cash-in as well.
Take this connection, as revealed by Steve Davis: Brent Johnson was introduced to Jorge Lopehandia by anti-Barrick activist Sakura Saunders.
Just as many have researched Steve Davis' rantings, and have found him to be an undesirable business partner, now go look up Sakura Saunders... and ask yourself if this career protestor has any interest in making mining investors money.
As Tibby so keenly observed, this isn't FOR money... it's AGAINST Barrick.
Try to clear the bias for a minute and follow JL's flawed logic and recent legal approach vs. ABX:
Claim 1: ABX is working on an unrelated site far away from the site where their tests found gold.
Claim 2: As he repeated in his very last message, JL claims that ABX has invented the environmental problems in order to bail out of the project. In effect they want to be stopped.
Claim 3: ABX has continued to work on other infrastructure on the site - staff quarters, etc., violating the injunction. (Huh? Why? Remember... they want to be stopped.)
Claim 4: Working on MSX's behalf, Barbara Salinas is trying to force ABX to stop.
If ABX is building a mine that they actually intend to use - where they believe the gold is at - then forcing them to stop is definitely working against them. But that's not MSX's and JL's position: they claim that ABX wants to be stopped on this site, and therefore MSX's lawyer is working against MSX's own interests.
... which doesn't make sense, unless you're blinded by bias. Neither does spending 100% of your resources on lawsuits against Barrick, when JL claims to have clean title to the actual proven ore body.
It makes sense if you're trying to stop Barrick, but not if you're trying to make money for the investors of MSX.
I'm not pro-Barrick. I'm not anti-Barrick. I'm hoping for the best outcome for MSX investors, plain and simple. The actions of JL and BJ are not consistent with this outcome. Their actions are consistent with a couple of guys who think they can continue to raise money on anti-Barrick sentiment - and all of their PRs prove my point perfectly.
Your rhetorical question actually cuts both directions:
Do I think Jorge would go to all this effort if he didn't know the results were on his side?
Hmmm... probably not.
Do I think ABX, with drilling data in hand, would spend billions of dollars developing a mine on an alternate site if they didn't know the results were on their side?
Hmmm... probably not.
In either case, tho, the answer may change if it involves raising money... and in both cases it does. ABX, as Jorge is fond of pointing out, has used the development of the mine to raise capital. On the other side, MSX has used the promise of gold to raise millions for Jorge.
Do I know where the gold is? No, and that's my point. JL is so busy trying to stop ABX from developing a site that he says they never wanted to mine, that he hasn't bothered to prove the viability of his own claims.
I guess you've schooled me with a basic lesson on reality. My humble thanks to you sir.
I don't claim to be a geologist, but even I know that there can be gold in more than one place. When I referred to "The gold" it was a simplification to mean the gold that Barrick claims to have already drilled for and found to be worth digging out.
On that matter, I think my logic is still sound: the gold deposit(s) ABX describes from their initial exploration are either on the site they're developing, or as JL says, on a different site that he claims title to.
So even if we settle the matter that JL has title to something (which I actually think he does), the more important question is whether his property has economically recoverable gold... and he hasn't lifted a finger to provide an answer.
Quer, no disrespect, but you're playing into a distraction.
Let's say you're able to dig up some title documents with Mr. Lopehandia's name on them. That shouldn't be a surprise. The technical report supplied by Mr. Lopehandia's expert clearly indicates that there are such documents.
What he also indicates is that even with those documents in hand, he can't determine where the gold is at. That is, he reports that ABX has since decided that a different area, outside of the superimposed claims, is the place where they'll find gold. They've backed up this decision by beginning to build a mine on that site.
This is 100% consistent with what JL has said: there are two different sites in question.
This is why I roll my eyes every time I read another screeching "they don't have title... I DO!" rant. It might make some sense if both were talking about the same physical site, but they aren't.
Imagine the following argument at a grocery store parking lot:
Pete: "I own the red Toyota, and I'll tell you a secret. There's a half-million dollars in the trunk."
George: "No YOU DON'T. You've never owned TITLE. ONLY I HAVE CLEAN TITLE to the Toyota!"
Some dubious looking character in a trench coat: "Uh... guys, you know there are two red Toyotas parked here. Which one do each of you guys say you own?"
Pete and George (in unison): "The one with the money in the trunk!"
In this somewhat unlikely scenario, you can imagine a two-stage solution.
1) Determine by the license plates and registration paperwork who owns which vehicle.
2) Open the trunks to see which car has the money.
But poor old George can't get past step one, and wants to keep screaming that Pete's trunk is empty, without ever looking in his own trunk. It makes George look like a bit of a flake.
Our real life scenario is much more complicated - in at least so much as the trunk is much more difficult and expensive to open - but you can see how little sense it makes to pretend that there's only one site.
There's Barrick's mining project, and there's Jorge's. Each claims that they have the gold. Barrick is doing a really bad job of trying to dig up the alleged gold on their site. Jorge is busy claiming that the Barrick site is a sham.
So, go ahead and dig up a title with JL's name on it if you'd like. But please tell me how this settles the issue of where the gold is...
And tell me how any of this makes a financial case to potential investors.
I get that you believe... and I know that you're not going into it blindly. As hard as he makes it, I'm keeping an open mind to the idea that JL has integrity.
That doesn't make him right.
That doesn't mean that Mr. Johnson shares in his integrity.
That doesn't mean that either one of them is competent to bring this to a successful conclusion.
I think Mr. Johnson (on cue, it seems, to my post last night) is making my point right now. At every turn, I'm astounded by how poorly he manages this business.
If this were high school, he'd be the kid coming in late, and making excuses about his homework. So even if you took the leap of faith on his integrity, do you really think he's the guy with the professional skills to get the job done?
Trading halted?
It was on the company's profile at CNSX this morning.
All good measures, but I'd go further.
Mr. Johnson has shown his abilities. On almost every measure, he's shown himself to not be equal to the task. Past performance that I find illustrative of my point:
- his lack of success in any litigation, despite the fact that it's pretty much all he's done.
- his press releases. Poorly written. Poorly planned. Sometimes retracted because of securities rules violations. On at least one occasion, written by Steve Davis (wow! that lapse in judgement should give everyone a shudder)
- his poor record of meeting securities requirements, which led to the company's withdrawal from a more widely traded exchange.
- his poor financial record. How many millions has he lost for investors?
- his poor supervision of important business matters - if we believe him about the Jackholm matter. If we don't believe him, then his lack of moral character.
- his lack of due diligence before beginning to give money to Mr. Lopehandia. There's no excuse for this kind of carelessness with company assets.
- his poor presentation of the company as noted by Boston!. How many millions spent, and not a few dollars to make sure you don't look like an amateur to potential investors?
The question was asked... how would one propose to force Brent out, with him holding so many of the cards?
The answer is that we (I mean existing shareholders) are almost powerless in the matter. I see it happening one of two ways:
1) Mr. Johnson himself. Assuming he really believes that MSX has potential to succeed, he could look at his own track record and decide that he's better off, as a major shareholder, to let someone else lead to success. If he sees, as I do, that his own leadership will lead the company to zero, he may make this decision for his own financial interest.
(If, on the other hand, he's just milking it for what it's worth on the way down...)
2) Someone could turn off the tap. Nothing in this company goes any further without new money, and it seems he's having to offer increasing enticements to attract more money. Even with the new announcement of $150,000 - how long can it really last, with the company bleeding from lawsuits in all directions? When it runs out, he'll be looking for more. The people who are putting in the new money could demand a change in leadership - and get it. Backed into a corner, he would probably prefer to only lose his salary over losing his salary and his equity.
He did reply, and to Mr. Davis's credit, he stayed in this decade mostly.
"MSX came to Kanco Stockholders on Feb 8, 2013" he begins, and then...
...still no details what what was said, what was offered, and why. No idea why Mr. Davis is operating in secrecy instead of being open with shareholders. If it's true that Mr. Johnson simply reasserted that he would provide "evidence" at some point, then Mr. Davis' silence is more cheaply bought than I would have imagined.
He asks and honest question though: "Why not MSX/Kanco work together, now while I meeting with US Congressmen who know about the Moab Uranium clean-up?"
For my part, the answer would be simple. I think there's no chance at all that MSX would make money from a partnership with Kanco to "reveal conspiracies". We already have way too many lawsuits on the books, and too many behind-the-scenes dealings of our own to contend with.
Anyone interesting in mining?
An open letter to Mr. Davis:
It will come as no surprise to you that I have long been opposed to your involvement in MSX. I think that any deal with you or your company, Kanco, would be a bad risk, and would take MSX only into more dubious legal entanglements.
Today I appeal to you to reveal what promises Mr. Johnson has made to you for your support.
It's no secret that you were involved in some meetings with the previous board, and that one of these meetings produced a PR where MSX promised unspecified support to Kanco. Although I don't know the details, it also is no secret that the deal fell through. For a time, you were frank in your criticisms of MSX management and Mr. Lopehandia. Then, sometime around the last shareholder's meeting, you had discussions with Mr. Johnson again, and gave him your support in return for some assurances that you have not revealed.
What did he promise you, Steve?
As you can well imagine, MSX shareholders would have an interest in knowing about any behind-the-scenes deals. You have long fashioned yourself as a champion of truth - someone who aims to reveal conspiracies, and deal in an honest fashion with your own shareholders, and through your broadcasts with the public at large.
It's hard for me to reconcile this with a Steve Davis who is open in his criticisms and opinions regarding MSX management for a time, and then, after a secret meeting, is fully supportive of Mr. Johnson.
In return for what? Wouldn't you agree that the individual shareholders should know what private assurances you've been given - whether we agree with your involvement or not?
I would propose now, without intent to inflame you, that you have allowed your natural sense of fairness and justice to be bought with cheap promises. Take, as a for instance, the dealings with Mrs. Jackholm. If this were Kanco, Mr. Davis, you would know the details of any transaction that brought in that kind of money.
What are the terms, you would ask. Can we fulfill the repayment obligations?
You know with absolute certainty that Mr. Johnson should have known the terms of the deal with Mrs. Jackholm before the money was ever accepted. Yet, you're willing to accept his excuse that this can all be pinned on one former director, and that he didn't know what was happening.
If you heard this kind of bafflegab from Barrick, or from the Church of LDS, you would be blunt in your criticism. Yet, here you're willing to accept less than full disclosure.
For what, Mr. Davis? Is it worth your integrity?
I don't want a bankruptcy. I want a change in direction. What I've said about the private placements is this:
If it's money raised with no questions asked - money that goes to pay the salaries and legal fees and keep going the same worthless direction - then it's a bad deal for everyone (except for those collecting the salaries and legal fees).
I don't want a flat "no" from new investors, but in my preferred scenario, this new money would only come with tough questions and demands for a change in direction.
Not a straight "no", but a conditional "yes". No, don't hand my money over to a Chilean lawyer to file more "criminal" complaints, but yes, do conduct geological testing on the lands Mr. Lopehandia has title to. No, don't throw it away on more appeals against the Fitzgeral verdict(s), but yes, go ahead and put some money into Juneau if it makes financial sense. No, don't continue to be losing litigants, but yes, go ahead and try to be successful miners.
Ideally, these investors would also be looking for a change in leadership, but that's just my opinion.
My opinion really doesn't matter. I've gone all long-winded for some time now about the need to do something other than file lawsuits. It's made no difference.
The only people who can influence Mr. Johnson are those who are ready to pay his salary with new private placements. He's just announced that he's working on a new one for $150,000 - and his desperation is showing: this time he's selling them at or below market value, with a two year warrant attached.
If the transaction is completed, Mr. Johnson gets to pay himself, the lawyers, and JL for a while longer - and doubtlessly initiate another lawsuit to extend the story.
There will only be a change in company direction if those who are coming in with new money demand it. The rest of us are just spectators.
Mr. Jopehandia has already answered me twice on this issue without answering my logic at all. There's a big difference between being allowed to answer and being able to answer.
Bafflegab! You can declare your "rightness" and you can declare their "wrongness" a thousand times... and I think you already have, but that's nothing new to readers of this forum. You've been doing it for years without any results to show for it.
Disregarding the bluster on both sides, investors need to call on their own common sense to figure out the truth. Most of the time, you can rely on this: if it doesn't make sense, it's not true.
Your assertion is that Barrick is working on a completely different site than your project. You claim that they know that there's no viable mine on their site, and that they don't have the rights to mine your site, where the real gold is at. You claim that they've purposely run afoul of environmental laws in order to hide the fact that there's no gold on the site of their project.
If this is their strategy, as you claim it is, then why would they choose to continue work on the site after the regulators ordered a halt? If it was ABX's strategy to be halted, then their plan worked, and they would be all too pleased to walk away.
It doesn't make sense. It's not true.
To add to the irony, it's your very own lawyer who is now pressing an action against ABX, pointing out that they haven't stopped mining related activities on their project.
Hmmm... MSX paying a lawyer to "force" Barrick to stop an activity that you claim they wanted to be forced to stop.
It doesn't make sense. It's not true.
While we're at it, you claim that you've always been in possession of clean title to the site where the real gold is. You say that you need no further permissions... just money. You've accepted millions of dollars from the investors of MSX, but you haven't used that money or moved a single shovel of dirt to prove the gold is on your site.
Instead, you've spend every penny initiating charges against Barrick, which hasn't brought you a single step closer to proving the potential of your mine.
It doesn't make sense and it's not true.
This is the explanation that begins to make sense, as distasteful as it is: like the lawyers involved, and Brent Johnson as well, your income depends only on the ability of MSX to raise money based on ongoing lawsuits. When the lawsuits are over, the gravy train stops.
That's the only explanation I can see that fits MSX's and your history of filing lawsuits, but never being able to announce the results. They're either all ongoing, or being appealed, or being considered, or being quietly dropped, or dismissed. Who knows?
They're announced with great bluster. They go away without a whisper.
And you keep collecting as long as Brent can keep selling it.
Filing another lawsuit is a truly bad idea.
I don't know how JL and MSX maintain any credibility with their announcements of new lawsuits and "charges". It seems this is their regular tactic for drumming up interest, but with all of the "new, better, shinier..." lawsuits rhetoric, can anyone point me the way...
...to a single, solitary winning judgement with either MSX or Mr. Lopehandia's name on it?
An alleged miner, working with an alleged mining company to file lawsuits is a bit wonky, but I could live with it if they ever had a favorable outcome. Is there one out there?
This company has paid you over 3 million dollars - how could anyone argue that your opinions aren't a fair topic for discussion?
These statements are logically inconsistent:
1) Barrick purposely ran afoul of Chilean regulators in order to be shut down.
2) Barrick continues to spend money to perform unauthorized work on the mine.
3) It's in MSX's best interest to spend money on lawyers to stop Barrick from continuing work on the mine.
It appears from the filing that MS. Salinas believes (2) is true, but if (1) is true, as you have argued, then (3) is false.
This does once again raise more questions than it resolves, but perhaps that's by design. The longer it goes on, after all, the more time Brent and the lawyers have to collect their fees.
But here's an interesting train of thought:
Mr. Lopehandia has specifically and repeatedly claimed that Barrick has purposely caused the environmental problems in order to bail out of the project.
Why, then, would it be necessary for Barbara Salinas to file a suit to force them to discontinue their activities after the initial order? Once ordered to halt, wouldn't they unceremoniously flee the scene, if this was in fact their very plan. By playing enforcer to the SMA to stop mining activities, is she not doing exactly what JL claims Barrick wanted?
Is she, like Mike Fitzgerald before her, secretly helping Barrick by filing a lawsuit against them? Is she, in fact, MRS. Barrick?
In fairness, I have no idea of her marital status. It might more appropriately be MS. Barrick.
You're a backup plan.
Brent Johnson was (and still is) running a company that he buried in financial losses, but he was still getting paid pretty well for it, and wanted to continue. If the Fitzgerald suits ever concluded - estate paid out - no money to go sniffing after - the company would fold. No more gravy for Mr. Johnson.
You represented a unique opportunity to distract worried investors with a shiny object. So Mr. Johnson broke all sorts of securities rules without any due diligence in place to rush into an option agreement with you.
Win-win.
Your old story got new life, and Mr. Johnson bought an insurance policy in case litigation ever <gasp> concluded on Fitzgerald.
And just so you don't feel so special, it seems that he already has a verbal side deal in place with Mr. Davis as his Plan C.
Now his tactic is simple. Keep all of these lawsuits in play. Keep selling more private placements. Keep cashing his paycheck. If any lawsuit looks like it may end, find a new shiny object.
Jeopardy clue: Brent Johnson, Jorge Lopehandia, and Steve Davis.
Cliff Clavin answer: Who are three people who have never made me any money?
A good example of Mr. Johnson's willingness to sacrifice principles for the sake of keeping litigation ongoing is in the Fitzgerald matter. Some of his positions over time:
1 - Fitzgerald staked some lucrative claims in Nevada. He had the right to do so, but should have shared his royalties with MWR, as he was an officer.
Outcome: in every Canadian court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, Fitzgerald prevailed. The court ruled that he had no duty to share his claims with MWR.
2 - Remember those claims... we were wrong. He had no right to claim them. Even if we had prevailed in the Canadian courts, we would have been wrong to claim royalties. The claims should have gone to Kerr-McGee (Tronox) - and we're happy to fund a lawsuit on their behalf.
Outcome: Tronox flaked.
3 - Wait, wait, wait... don't settle the estate. I'm sure we can find something in Montana or somewhere. Something will come up...
Outcome: MSX filed but then abandoned the suit.
4 - Ah hah! It looks like Mr. Davis has an agreement with Fitzgerald dated before everything. When SD was a teenager, Fitgerald signed over all of his future earnings to young Mr. Davis. We reverse our positions again: Mr. Fitzgerald did have the right to make the claims, but should have given the royalties to Mr. Davis.
Outcome: The court in Washington threw out Mr. Davis' application.
5 - Arizona. We can file in Arizona. Mr. Davis did, so we can too! Our theory... um, well, what haven't we tried before? Money laundering? Fraud? Tax evasion? I don't know, what do you think will stick?
Outcome: Loss, appeal, loss, appeal... a case so weak that all court costs for both sides are being charged to MSX.
Ah... and you see, that's where Mr. Johnson and I part company. I don't see it as a valid goal to "keep the litigation ongoing".
It seems that ongoing litigation is to be Mr. Johnson's only legacy. He can spend a whole worthless lifetime on fruitless lawsuits. Just when one suit seems to be wrapping up, he anxious to initiate another. And when lawsuits of his own making aren't enough to keep the lawyers busy, he's seen fit to ally himself with other litigious entities (Tronox, JL, SD) in order to always keep a few suits going.
What's it for? Lots of billable hours...
...and the trick is this: Mr. Johnson profits when the lawyers do, billing his hours as salary. When the lawsuits are gone, so is his livelihood. So no wonder ongoing litigation is the outcome. He has no interest in mining.
Mr. Lopehandia has claimed for months, even for years, that he needs no other rights to mine his claim. His land is miles away from where ABX has been developing their mine, he claims. He could pick up a spade and begin work today. So if BJ had any interest at all in mining, why throw all of the money at lawsuits and none of it towards developing an actual mining operation?
Because MSX is a vehicle for raising money for ongoing litigation, and the longer it goes, the better! After all, win or lose, he's collecting his billable hours.
Rest assured that Mr. Johnson is actively seeking new money to keep his salary paid.
The problem is that so far, he's had the answer "yes" too easily and too often. It's not until someone threatens to stop pouring the gravy that Mr. Johnson any incentive to do anything but launch meaningless lawsuits and tell stories about far away mines - geographically and chronologically both.
When ABX won its Canadian defamation case against JL, he claimed not to have the money to pay the judgement. Maybe he was concealing assets on principal. I don't know.
But this puzzles me: he's been in Canada for many years now, and claims to have some experience as a miner. Canada has a mining industry. Wouldn't it have helped with his finances, as well as his credibility here, if he had taken a job in a Canadian mine somewhere? If he could name a Canadian mine and a professional designation, I'd definitely give it more weight than some vague boasts about his family's mining interests.
I wonder on what grounds Mr. Lopehandia calls himself a miner. Can he name any professional association with an actual mine?
Mr. Davis was active for a time on this forum, and if you go back far enough, you'll find a wealth of information about his legal activities. Warning: if you begin looking through his messages, be prepared to wade through a lot of incoherence.
Try a Google search for Steven Davis and case # 02-4110 to get a flavor for his kind of lawsuits. Also, try any search with Steven Davis, the Mormon Church, Sharon Cook, money laundering, mind control, a wacky scheme called "Cities of Commerce". There was another case where Davis was charged with property title fraud - the deeper you dig, the worse it looks.
His claim to be connected to MSX is on the Fitzgerald suit, which has yielded loss after loss. His outlandish claim is that several decades after the fact, he suddenly "remembered" that he has a document in which Michael Fitzgerald signed over his future earnings to Davis (who was in his late teens at the time, and who's only alleged connection to Fitzgerald was that he drove him around to meet with Davis' father and associates). It's a bizarre story - but that shouldn't be a surprise when it comes to Mr. Davis.
Steve Davis = the death of money. Also, perhaps the only person on earth with a more impressive record for filing failed lawsuits than Mountainstar Gold.
Yes, by all means... this is the guy to save the company.
But sarcasm aside, I think it likely that Mr. Johnson will try to find a "new story" to bring in investors, and keep lining his pockets. The Fitzgerald suit has been definitively lost. Mina Pascua is held up indefinitely. If he can't sell a new story, Brent Johnson may have to find a <gasp> real job, where he may be expected to <gasp> produce something of value rather than just sponge off of other people.
In a word: yes. Brent Johnson's resignation would be the way to clear the smoke and move forward. His leadership has been successful for only two parties: himself and Jorge Lopehandia.
Ain't gonna happen, though. In addition to collecting his salary (I've read in other postings that it's $16,000 to $18,000 per month, but I haven't looked for the backup on this) he's taken compensation in the form of shares. This has resulting in him owning a significant enough chunk of the company that there's almost no chance he could be voted out.
How's that for a deal? He's spent years losing other people's money, yielding nothing, building nothing, growing nothing, mining nothing, and he comes out with a fat salary and owning a big chunk of the company that other people have paid for.
But the fact is that as a shareholder, you have no leverage at all. Your money is in, and if you don't like it, then sell.
The only people who have any leverage are creditors and new private placement investors.
Creditors are in a weak position, admittedly. They've put their money in, and if MSX closed its doors tomorrow, they would get exactly zero cents on the dollar. So I think they may be holding their noses and accepting promises instead of repayment, because the alternative (lawsuit) is messy and unprofitable.
So that leaves only the new investors with any say at all. It's through these private placements that Mr. Johnsons floats all the immediate financial draws. Because MSX doesn't pay its debts, the main expenses are administrative (so that Brent and friends can play at writing bad PRs and write cheques to themselves) and legal - funding the mounting court costs in Washington, Arizona and Chile (and maybe other places... I've lost track).
If these investors ever say no, it's the end of MSX. With the state of the financials, no institution would lend MSX money. So Mr. Johnson goes back to these private placement investors and tells them what he needs to tell them so that they'll keep on buying... and delivering their friends and coworkers and relatives and neighbors - in return for finder's fees.
These new investors are the only ones with any leverage, because if they balk, it hits Mr. Johnson directly in the pocketbook. Let's just hope that they pay less attention to what he says, and more to what he does. That is, lose.