Replies to post #60890 on Medinah Minerals (MDMN)

[janice shell]

I'm inclined to agree. De Costa is tendentious. He may have read volumes about the mining biz, and may have talked to dozens of geologists and mining engineers, but he's still an armchair observer, and one with his own preconceived notions about MDMN's properties.

Given the amount he's read, not to mention written, about naked short selling, you'd think he was an "expert" on that as well.

But he's not. He's a clueless crusader.

[Hurricane_Rick]

-soooo now he's claiming that the partners "demanded" the coalescing all of those properties . There is no proof there is a partner, never mind that they "demanded" anything.

Wrong again...


Shareholder Update
Notarized Transfer of all Ownership Shares of
Medinah Mining Chile to Medinah Minerals, Inc.
October 18, 2013

Dear Medinah Minerals, Inc. Shareholders:

We are pleased to announce that as of October 17, 2013, Medinah Minerals, Inc. has now contractually secured 100% ownership rights of all the shares of Sociedad Contractual Minera Medinah Mining Chile. This was necessary in order to position the company for the Joint Venture agreement that included the stipulation that Medinah Mining Chile own 100% of the Altos de Lipangue mining properties. This significant achievement required formal notarization from the offices of the Conservator of Mines in Santiago, Chile.

In regards to the role of Baker and Mackenzie as noted in previous communiques from Medinah there were several meetings Medinah reps had in NYC with Uhlander's lawyers Baker and Mackenzie. I can only assume Uhlander paid his bill or they would have not represented him and Amarant but you're right I don't have PROOF. Your efforts at misrepresenting facts are becoming tiring for those using this site for meaningful due diligence purposes.