Replies to post #9439 on Mountainstar Gold Inc (fka MSX)

[goldpanner1]

So Eclipse in your expert opinion of Chilean Law, do you read that the individuals must attend or just their attorneys on their behalf …

So Eclipse in your expert opinion of Chilean Law, do you see this as a “One Day” audience, that's if the two parties do not come to some agreement.

This in your opinion would allow Barrick as they are the ones under Napoleonic Law to first proceed and then Torres and Company proceed to file their evidence, proof, documents, witnesses, and experts amongst others....in One Day

I DD'd "Chilean Law Expert" and your name Eclipse didn't come up ...

Maybe you should DD the SEC, the OSC, the BCSC and IMET and ask them why they haven't come to the same conclusion as you and halted Barrick on the floor of the Toronto and NY and British Stock exchanges ...maybe just maybe its the same problem that some those folks you call "Naysayers" understand as being the problem ...PR's don't cut it....BREX was the biggest Gold scam ...everyone believed the Non-Naysayers ...just trust us we have the mine and got the shaft ...IHUB proclamations don't cut it ...it doesn't matter how many times Jorge Lopehandia states he has the Title the Commissions don't believe him or the so call proof sent to them isn't proof enough ...I don't have to see the Title or Titles, Eclipse , but I will not put another penny into this penny stock without it and neither will any other wise investor ...We as posters here are not mocking anyone ...I like others have an ownership of this company and I have stated it before, this is not, I state not, Brent Johnson's company, it is publicly traded and it is my right to ask questions of my Company and state my thoughts ...I feel it is my duty as a shareholder, thank you Sir …

DD all you want everyone ...the story is unfolding but to only a few and our share price is a testament to that !!

Now you can copy and paste this to the Company's President and CEO as you say he doesn't read these posts….don't bother, I think he'll get my message

goldpanner

ps: Remember ....Poster or Moderator

[ADubiousCharacter]

A couple questions on your due diligence, Eclipse:

Not being too familiar with Chile's criminal code, I looked for a really good summary of the system written by someone who does understand it. The PDF of the document can be found on Google if you search for the title; "Chile's Revamped Criminal Justice System".

Two things about the document struck me:

1) It describes a series of hearings - at least six phases in all, described in the third paragraph of the document. I don't see how this supports with your very loudly stated (or typed) "THAT DAY ALONE" opinion. Do you have a reference?

2) Same document outlines the principles of the new system, and the one that sticks out is the "Presumption of innocence" (it's fourth on the list, right after "Due process", "Right to defense", and "Equality before the law"). How does this jive with the JL's lawyer claiming a presumption of guilt? Did this come up in your DD?

I found the experts credentials pretty convincing (they're outlined at the bottom of the first page), but then, I'm no expert. Maybe your DD references are more convincing? Care to share?