InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 1
Posts 904
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/30/2011

Re: JRLopehandia post# 23116

Wednesday, 04/26/2017 1:25:45 PM

Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:25:45 PM

Post# of 29969
Hey, does everybody remember this post from a few weeks ago?

"This story has always revolved around Jorge's claims that he "owned" the Tesoros concessions because he was involved with the C1912-2001 injunction. So now that the injunction has been lifted, it opens the door for the registered owner on title, Hector Unda Llanos, to transfer ownership of the concesssions to Barrick. Whenever a suggestion was made that this could be a possibility, JRL cried foul, and made all kinds of assertions and accusations of fraud and crooked shenanigans.

And so now that it's happened, I think there's only one way for him to spin it... corruption.

Take the "movie at 11:00" approach... blame it on corrupt judges, corrupt politicians, corrupt BCSC, corrupt stock exchanges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt mining ministry, corrupt Barrick Gold Corporation, corrupt banks, corrupt countries, corrupt media, corrupt fab 10, corrupt everything and everybody."


We all know that the translation of the court's explanations is accurate and it doesn't need any guessing as to what it means. IMO, you might get away with blaming the courts for making a mistake or for making a bad decision once... maybe twice. And that's what the appeal process is for.

But you can't continue to have applications tossed out and lose case after case, and realistically blame each and every loss on corruption, dishonesty, bribery, or crooked whatever. If it were indeed true that those things always occurred (and it ISN'T true in this case), then hypothetically after this many losses over so many years even a stupid person would have come to the realization that it was pointless to continue fighting a system where you couldn't possibly win.

So if it's true that not EVERYTHING in Chile and Canada is corrupt or crooked, then why do the judgements always prove to be losses? The simple answer in reality is that... drum roll.... Jorge Lopehandia (and subsequently the former MSX) doesn't have the goods. And ultimately the courts have the final say even if the main protagonist wants to come on a chat board and constantly rant irrationally to the contrary.


Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.