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.
4/27/16 was actually around .016. Lost over 60% since then (and growing).
You said it, JetPilot.
If we can't make the cash call, we are yet further diluted. Those believing a 4th quarter AURYN IPO will be our salvation are going to be disappointed. Auryn can't provide MDMN stockholders shares of AURYN until our capital structure is repaired, and when or if that happens is very much in question.
These days are dark, portending worse news in the future.
Recently visited OTCMarkets. Take a look at this:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/MDMN/quote
Glad I didn't rely on the poster of 74341 who called bottom when were were around a penny. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=122217677
We've lost half our value since then, and things are only going to get worse. Tax loss selling season seems eternally extended. We'll test new lows shortly.
Good post made elsewhere by Baldy:
Anybody trying to shine a positive light on Chapin should be laughed out of the room. There's a reason why he quickly gave back all of his ownership in MDMN. I'm still waiting for him to return his CDCH holdings. He knows better than anyone he has massive liability exposure if someone motivates towards a civil suit. Goodin falls under the same umbrella.
I'm not saying this is or should be the direction things go but all of the directors over the past 10+ years, along with many of the "friends of insiders/ chief cheerleaders" are susceptible to considerable financial loss if shareholders coordinate a class action. Personally, I don't have the time or motivation but the defense: "I had no idea that Les, with his checkered past, was misleading the company and issued 1.5 BILLION shares, under my watch" would/will lead to a swift decision by any judge.
Piano man, Teaney, JJ, Hackney, the Days, Les' message boys, etc, etc" would all be wiped out. We're talking about well over $100M in damages.
I'm not trying to be harsh or use scare tactics but this is the basic reality of our current situation. If you believe there is even a remote chance that you participated in an illegitimate private placement, run, don't walk to Kevin to resolve your "conundrum." If people like Ian Dow and the long list of perpetual lenders to MDMN we've read about in the financials haven't lawyered up and proactively reached out to the company. They're nuts.
*** Mr. Chacma Update ***
Yup, I see Les headed to jail. That won't make the scam work, but at least he'll be finally taking many for the team.
Chasing expensive and time consuming legal battles... and making smart... forward moving... business decisions...
I'm betting on karma.
Les and JJ go down, along with a bunch of "John Does".
Baboon, for the third time, please explain and/or defend your earlier post that "Les is misunderstood".
Those of us victimized the the lying, forging, fraudster deserve nothing less, pun intended.
I'm at the edge of my seat.
What's done... is done... it's time to take the next best step forward...
Who wants to wallow in the past...??? Very little will ever be recovered... no one is going to be put in jail... or made to pay... it's unfortunate... but that is how it looks... maybe if there has been some tax fraud... the government may go after them... but other then that... even if a civil suit is won... nothing will be gained... only more loses...
I say... cut the loses... and move forward... with the next best step...
Well mrbubba, it's taken nearly a decade, but we've finally reached a remarkable milestone- I couldn't agree more with your post.
I'm most anxious to read Baboon's answer to my simple inquiry as to Price being "misunderstood". Minions must be regrouping to receive new marching orders?
Poor Les... He is just misunderstood... the courts and/or independent council... will surely see that..
Mrs. Huff and Mrs. Donnelly were each granted solicitor-and-client costs at trial by the trial judge against Leslie Price. Leslie Price's conduct was scandalous. So solicitor-and-client costs were appropriate. We would not interfere with those awards.
Former Vancouver chartered accountant Leslie Price, who was indicted for wire and securities fraud in a recent FBI and RCMP sting operation, has a long history of stock fraud in B.C.
Price and a Pennsylvania stock broker, Joseph Huard Jr., who was also named in the indictment, were arrested in the United States last week and each charged with 11 counts of wire fraud and three counts of securities fraud. Price was also charged with one count of money laundering.
Price is well known to local authorities. In 1984, B.C. securities regulators prohibited Price from acting as a director or officer of a Vancouver Stock Exchange company for one year as a result of share price manipulation of Starburst Energy Corp.
In 1988, a B.C. Supreme Court judge found he "systematically defrauded" two West Vancouver women in connection with his promotion of Cumo Resources Ltd., a Vancouver Stock Exchange-listed mining stock in which he had a significant undisclosed interest.
The judge issued an award estimated in the $2-million to $3-million range, including punitive damages.
Within days, the Chartered Accountants Institute of B.C. suspended Price on grounds that there was "reasonable likelihood of imminent danger to the public" if Price were permitted to continue working as a chartered accountant.
You are indeed a good and loyal friend to Mr. Chacma. Do you plan on visiting him if he is incarcerated from his particular involvement in this scam? Orange IS the new black, you know.
Medinah files to seek removal of attorney Ori Kowarsky from representing Les Price due to conflict of interest...
Beth, are you now a bull on mdmn?
I agree on all your points. I have no idea what Okanadian is thinking by pursuing the case. They have to be in bed with Price and are probably just trying to do a Hail Mary to see what they can get out of Medinah.
Time for an reality injection, Baboon.
Copied and pasted from our "sister" site, penned by none other than HR, emphasis mine:
(in context of a thread discussing Fidelity Investments refusal to trade MDMN on customer accounts due to reporting deficiencies, and historically pathetic PPS)-
You can thank Les Price for that. In the meantime, and also thanks to Les Price et al, the company is in survival mode. They have no money except for that which has been loaned to them. Shareholders need to understand this. Revenues from ADL is not a given. Nor is clawing back the shares. Nor is the outcome of the lawsuit. Until these items are straightened out, the future of the company is in limbo. Do not expect the company to be concerned with share price or attracting new shareholders at this point. Those are afterthoughts of a publicly traded company that is on solid footing. Right now Medinah is just trying to pay its bills and recoup damages while it digs out of the hole.
It is evident the market is as apathetic, and trading in this pig, is as artificial as ever.
Average daily volume in January has totalled less than $10,000 per day. As usual, NO ONE CARES, and price movements based in clearly immaterial volume is less than meaningless to real investors, but I suspect the "John Does" out there will do their best to pretend it is relevant.
Once STUCKholders finally give up and the selling is finally driven by the retail side instead of the "free shares" side, Katie, bar the door, this pig will plummet to even lower lows.
If I was worried about personal jeopardy, I'd babble about how great it is when the stock goes up or goes down. Hard to lose credibility when none exists.
No I'm insinuating that you didn't know given the context of your posts. MDMN is a minority stakeholder in Auryn and wields no power. MDMN is a shell, a scam, a useless company that will be jettisoned when the time is right.
I'll bet Les is trying to make himself judgement proof.
He probably will be good at it or at least lead them on a long chase.
I think Mr. Chacma may be named and could be the reason they have John Doe as a defendant. I also fully expect some posters from the cult board to be named as well. I would not be surprised if Dr. Decosta's name is eventually linked to this. He isn't now but it wouldn't surprise me in the least given his complete lack of impartiality and continual defense of the old MDMN BOD.
While I believe him to be a poor financial advisor (who I have fired), an imbecile, and the village idiot, he is entitled to his opinion. I just can't have him managing my money anymore. I also think his judgment was severely impacted by the fall the fall through the glass coffee table.
Actually, the Rev Rul in your post was the ransom case. Here's the total Rev Rul:
Rev. Rul. 72-112, 1972-1 CB 60 -- IRC Sec. 165
Reference(s): Code Sec. 165; Reg § 1.165-8
Ransom payments qualify as a theft loss deduction if the taking of the money was illegal under the law of the State where it occurred and the taking was done with criminal intent.
Full Text:
Advice has been requested whether extortion payments, under the circumstances described below, qualify as a theft loss for purposes of section 165(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
A taxpayer's child was kidnapped. Under threats of injury to the child, the kidnappers extorted ransom payments in the amount of 25x dollars from the taxpayer. The kidnapping, ransom demand, and ransom payments all occurred in the same state.
Section 165(c)(3) of the Code allows individuals to deduct losses not connected with a trade or business to the extent that each loss exceeds 100 dollars “if such losses arise from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or from theft.”
Section 1.165-8(d) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that for the purposes of section 165 of the Code the term theft shall be deemed to include, but shall not necessarily be limited to larceny, embezzlement, and robbery.
The laws of the state where the kidnapping occurred distinguish the crimes of extortion and theft. The crime of extortion is defined, in pertinent part, as the obtaining of property from another, with his consent by a wrongful use of force or fear, the fear being such as may be induced by a threat to do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person.
The state law regarding theft states that every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead or drive away the personal property of another is guilty of theft.
The primary question in the instant case is whether the taxpayer has sustained a theft loss for the purposes of section 165(c)(3) of the Code even though the taking of the taxpayer's property does not amount to the technical statutory crime of “theft” under local law. <Page 61>
The court in W. Sam Edwards v. Arthur C. Bromberg, 232 F. 2d 107 (1956), defined theft as “a word of general and broad connotaton, intended to cover and covering any criminal appropriation of another's property to the use of the taker, particularly including theft by swindling, false pretenses, and any other form of guile.” The court also stated that whether a loss from theft occurs depends upon the law of the jurisdiction where it was sustained and the exact nature of the crime, whether larceny or embezzlement, of obtaining money under false pretenses, swindling or other wrongful deprivations of the property of another, is of little importance so long as it amounts to theft.
Considering the broad general meaning of theft, it must be presumed that Congress used the term “theft” so as to cover any theft, or felonious taking of money or property by which a taxpayer sustains a loss, whether defined and punishable under the penal codes of the states as larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, extortion, kidnapping for ransom, threats, or blackmail.
Thus, to qualify as a “theft” loss within the meaning of section 165(c)(3) of the Code, the taxpayer needs only to prove that his loss resulted from a taking of property that is illegal under the law of the state where it occurred and that the taking was done with criminal intent. See Louisa B. Gunther Farcasanu v. Commissioner, 436 F. 2d 146 (1970), affirming per curiam, 50 T.C. 881 (1968); Nona R. Johnson v. United States, 291 F. 2d 908 (1961); and William J. Powers v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 1191 (1961).
In this case, even though the taking of the taxpayer's money did not amount to the statutory crime of “theft” under local law, the taking of the taxpayer's money was illegal under the law of the State where it occurred and the taking was done with criminal intent.
Accordingly, it is held, in the instant case, that the taxpayer is entitled to a theft loss deduction under section 165(c)(3) of the Code.
Beth, I read the IRS advisory and extracted the following:
"Whether a loss constitutes a theft loss is determined by examining the law of the state where the alleged theft occurred. Edwards v. Bromberg, 232 F.2d 107, 111 (5th Cir. 1956); Viehweg v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1248, 1253 (1988). Thus, to claim a theft loss, the taxpayer must prove that the “loss resulted from a taking of property that is illegal under the law of the state where it occurred and that the taking was done with criminal intent.” Rev. Rul. 72-112, 1972-1 C.B. 60."
It looks like you may be able to claim a theft loss if that is how the law in the state where you are a legal resident treats it.
Is that your understanding?.
I hear you, Veblen and completely understand. Things change all of the time. I merely posted that to discourage any other iHub folks from adopting that tax strategy.
There is so much repetitive, baseless garbage posted here I feel compelled to occasionally actually present a factually supported statement.
throwing good money after bad...
unfortunately MDMN is not quite yet capable of making... the wise and constructive business decision...
Probably less than 1 in 3 billion...
and...I...think...you...have...a....defective.....keyboard....
Don't you understand that if MDMN won the suit and got shares or equivalent back the their share price would double
Second, I believe I could make a case for a casualty loss and I would try but I have gains against which to apply my losses here so I have no need for such a claim. I might not win but I wouldn't try to hide the facts on my return and I doubt there would be anything but an interest charge since I would make a full disclosure on the return and I really believe I was robbed by Les. I wish the Les issue was resolved and if it were shown he criminally gained those shares then I think the case for a casualty loss would be strengthened.
This fellow needs more help than is humanly possible.
The danger is that a naive investor might give credibility to this nitwit.
Gee, that is terrible news, Jetpilot. I hope he is alright, and I agree, Chacma is the one to lead us through this jungle. I recall his mentioning that Dr. Zaius has done wonders in the past, we will pray for a speedy recovery in any case. Not good to hear he's drinking again, hope it isn't a repeat of the banana daiquiris - those will kill you.
I certainly understand how MDMN got tripped up by the term "bi-monthly". We should leave such complicated, ambiguous, and technical terms in the hands of capable linguists, I sure would hate to take on the awesome responsibility of drafting such complex messages.
I recently did some quick analytics/TA on MDMN. It is interesting how, in the past five years, volume is nearly always higher on down days than on up days. There are a few exceptions, but not many. This clearly demonstrates people are divesting, not accumulating. Congratulations to Medinah for making "tax-loss selling" a year-round, perpetual practice!
Here's a funny one. Granted, not as funny as what we've been enjoying in here as of late, but worthy of consideration for sure.
From our crackerjack team at Medinah-
"Updates from the CEO
Beginning shortly the CEO will begin providing bi-monthly to monthly updates in this space regarding MEDINAH’s ongoing activities."
Does anyone have a good, non-generic email address for any of our board members? I'm going to suggest we engage Mr. Chacma as a consultant, or even to supervise IR. He'd put a stop to this monkey business.
From your mouth the God's ears. Thank you for confirming what all of us on this board already knew.
I wonder what his credentials... and track record is... with pinksheet stocks...???
I'll make an exception to not spending any more time on this subject as you make a good point- "ridiculous" was perhaps harsh, and I apologize if it came across as offensive. With that said, let's continue:
One mans opinion but the word ridiculous is a little harsh. It worked once for a client of mine who was examined (audited) and it didn't work for another as I previously stated.
Also, consider the the probability of an audit (that increases with the deduction of large casualty loses) that is not assured given the manpower shortage at the IRS.
Don't you feel that money was STOLEN FROM YOU BY LES?
but I'll still stick to my theory that there is no deductible theft loss here.
I had A SIMILAR SITUATION in the early 1960's with two related taxpayers.The broker stole their shares.
United States taxpayers who lost more than $3000.00 on MDMN and do not have gains to offset the loss against rather and than be limited to the tax code limit of $3000.00 could try to deduct 50% of the loss as a casualty loss on the theory that it was stolen by Les.
You might be able to claim this 50% loss even if you don't sell your shares.
What would you have to lose?
The IRS might not approve but if you are open about the reason the loss is claimed what have you done wrong?
Discuss this with your tax advisor. Do not take this post as tax advice.
Medinah management has already made two basic errors in their courtroom strategy with Mr. Price. More to come? This is what happens when you have inexperienced management dealing with an experienced con man. I doubt that Mr. Cooper, if he's the lawyer that's handling the case, has ever run across somebody like Les Price during his time at McCarthy Tétrault.
Slimeball, forger and thief Leslie Price sues MDMN for DEFAMATION?!?
That is the FUNNIEST thing I've ever read in this forum.
Let's see, the guy was stripped of his chartered accountancy license because he was a danger to the public, was sanctioned and prohibited to serve as an officer/director of Canadian public companies for at least two stock price schemes, barely beat a bribery charge in the US, stole/forged money/documents from two widows, and is the most-likely culprit behind our "missing" 1.5 billion shares.
How can one defame a lying, cheating, forging, defrocked, scumbag alcoholic with horrific taste in attire?
This is great.
its unclear whether the mdmn attorney in vancouver is in any way related to the big firm that we hired to go after Les...
I disagree. Management is best at reviewing the company records and culling the meat for the lawyers to do their thing. If management if not capable of doing this, they're part of the problem not the solution.
Experienced junior company corporate people have offered to help Medinah and they have been blown off. Why?