For a brief review, the referenced discussion occurred when another poster referred to TMBXF as “a mining company without a mine” among other false statements and disputed my posted verifiable information regarding TMBXF, it’s mining claims and drilling progress at the Stardust site and preliminary work with ZTEM on its Tombstone property which shows evidence of deep copper deposits and sits next to a major copper producer. Of course the goal of a mining company is to prove up a resource for actions that benefit the company and shareholders. It should also be a goal to communicate ongoing developments in a clear manner, which I did with verifiable information about TMBXF.
The problem came about when false information was promulgated by a party involved in a lawsuit regarding breach of contract with TMBXF in an attempt to discredit the company regarding its claims. That information was quickly shown to be false and the expected revenues of that other entity were shown to be based on suspect information. Other than information to address the above I made no mention of revenues, royalties, or mining other than to document the publicly available progress of TMBXF and its projects. I find the progress noteworthy and compelling as a shareholder. Below is an example of some previous information I gathered and posted regarding the company and in response to some false statements. As always feel free to review my other posts and to verify the source information:
Let's be clear about a few things:
1. I am a shareholder of the company TMBXF and have no position with the company.
2. The information I have posted is publicly available from company press releases for you or any other interested party to verify although I included the relevant press release in my post.
3. The Stardust property is a federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) claim (not State of Arizona land) that is being actively drilled and assay results are expected shortly based on the latest press release timeline where the completion of the most recent drilling program was announced.
4. The land positions in the tombstone mining district are, by contrast, state of Arizona administered. Although previous studies including ZTEM were completed on the 450 acre land position, state regulations specify that either the claim be worked, or an additional per acre fee be paid to continue the claim. The required fee is current on both the 450 acre land position as well as the additional 145 acres (a patented claim), for which fees and taxes have been paid.
5. Your statement that "you have to work those and they haven't" is incorrect per state guidelines.
6. The premature conclusion of "this is starting to look like a mining company without a mine" is therefore also false. That may have been avoided by conducting some more careful due diligence as I have being an informed shareholder.
7. The attempt at twisting my words from "significant" (for which I explained my rationale in detail using publicly available and verifiable information) to "substantial" is likewise without merit.
8. If you have any further concerns I'm happy to address them based on the DD I have performed with the publicly available information from the company. For the record, I'm quite optimistic at the company's recent progress and the prospects.
Jacob J. Rosenblum on what every lawyer knows.
“If the facts are against you, hammer the law. If the law is against you, hammer the facts. If the fact and the law are against you, hammer opposing counsel."
AI
