In CWRN's answer in Tex CWRN denied all of Geos allegations generally and specifically.
CWRN,Bob and Shirley (her Mar 2013 answer) all claim Ca is proper Jurisdiction and say Texas does not have Jurisdiction, so I'm mystified why there hasnt been a hearing on the juris venue issue-having overdosed on reading in law school etc many judges in my experience dont even read the pleadings- they want a short 5 minute hearing w sound bites
and technically an issue can only be heard at hearing if its specifically noted as an issue for hearing-otherwise any mention of such is dictum-- and I havent seen CWRN et al note the venue as an issue for hearing-
as to the equipment Geo keeps saying CWRN has sold or plans on selling- whatever, CWRN has said it doesnt even know what Geo is talking about-that Geo hasnt specified what equip (shirleys mar 2013 answer) that CWRN HASNT SOLD ANY EQUIPMENT- and that all the equipment in CWRN's possession is owned by CWRN-
maybe CWRN already returned any equip loaned by Geo-there was only 3 or 4 pieces which have since then been superseded by much superior equipment purchases-e.g. the cat 365 and 375 excavators make the ex's loaned by Geo superflous etc
according to the court Ca files,apparently Geo wont even appear to defend in Ca- something I've never even seen in a business context before-which shouts to me that they cant or wont produce records because they know they are guilty-
and Ca judgement against Geo could be ca 7.5 mil regular damages asked for in CWRN's complaint plus scores of millions of punitive damages- due to full faith and credit clause of constitution Texas has to honor/enforce any Ca judgment against Geo
so maybe Geo brought Tex case and is working hard to poison the Tex court via these what CWRN claims are ridiculous or ignorant assertions in order to have some dollar amount Texas judgment to offset against the presumed Ca judgment against Geo-which could come at June 7 Ca hearing as the enrty of default-not the same as actual default judgment--was already filed in Ca against Geo Dec 1 ,2012
From my brief perusal again the only mention of Texas in complaint or exhibits is that Geo is registered to do business there
TEXAS IS NEVER ONCE MENTIONED AS A JURISDICTIONAL VENUE IN ANY OF THE SIGNED JVA ITERATIONS
Geo signed JVA in San Diego so that gives Ca Jurisdiction even if the JVA never said Ca was Jurisdiction
If Geo objects to Jurisdiction the proper course is to appear and argue the question as CWRN has done in the Texas court (though not in a hearing specifically noted)
EVERY iteration of the JVA says Calif is the proper venue- TEXAS IS NOT MENTIONED AS VENUE ANYWHERE IN ANY ITERATION
and as I've mentioned I wonder whether Geo is relying on an alternative NAFTA provision mentioned but I dont know where Juris would be for NAFTA purposes-did some preliminary research and couldnt find such
as I POSTED before
EXHIBITS following the body of the complaint
I will highlight a few things here-- all bracketed material is my explanation and bold highlighting and underlining is mine-the crossed out lines are not crossed out in the original- that was the PC's own continuous mysterious contribution after posting each time
adumbrated to show the jurisdictional provisions- repeatedly says Ca is jurisdiction except for the alternative NAFTA provision which does not state a locality and CWRN implies it wasnt even aware of this alternative-and CWRN stated in Texas that Calif was the proper Jurisdiction- and last summer when I contacted Bob about the Texas case he was surprised and wasnt even aware of it- hadnt been served yet- he said Calif was the proper venue-which is what CWRN et al argues in Tex ct
EXHIBIT A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
1.
INTRODUCTION
PAN AMERICAN MINERALS VENTURES S.A. DE C.V. ENSENADA BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
HEREINAFTER PAN AM} AND GEOTECH J.S. GROUP (HEREAFTER KNOWN AS U.S. INVESTORS)
.ere by mutually agree to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding as that contains the following recitals and
lutual covenants to effectuate interim capital contribution by the latter in exchange for the construction, operation
id extraction of Iron Ore at or near the City of Ensenada, State of Baja California, Mexico:
II.
PREFATORY RECITALS
PAN AM and U.S. INVESTORS understand that this document is a precursor to a formal Joint Venture Agreemen t
PAM AM and U.S. INVESTORS understand that this document does, however, represent an "investment" under
article 1139 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO "NAFTA") insofar
as the capital contribution is being provided in exchange for extraction of IRON ORE in Baja California, Mexico.
which qualifies as a good, product or "other property, tangible or intangible, acquired in expectation or used for the
.irpose of economic benefit or other business purposes or International commerce. Therefore, PAN AM and
.S. INVESTORS stipulate-voluntarily, without coercion, duress, or other legally cognizable disability to the
jurisdictional tribunal procedures under NAFTA via the gateway of Article 1101 in the event of any disputes arising
om this Memorandum of Understanding dated May 7, 20 10 after exploring alternative dispute resolution via mediation
y a mutually agreed upon mediator.
US INVESTORS at all times promise that it will maintain all financial/accounting records for
all related concession projects in Baja California, Mexico.
Pan Am & Geotech JS MOU
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party's representative having the authority to bind its principal in contract hereby
Duly Affix their signatures this May 06, 2010 in the City of San Diego, State of California, USA.
[which gives Calif personal jurisdiction over the signatories ]
EXHIBIT B
FARM-IN SECURITY AGREEMENT
THIS FARM-IN SECURITY AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made and entered into this 21ST day of September, 2010
(the "Execution Date") by and between the signatories herein under, (the parties hereto):
PANAMERICAN MINERALS VENTURES S.A. de C.V., Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico (herein after referred to as
"PanAm") and GEOTECH J.S. GROUP, Inc. a Texas Corporation, U.S.A. (herein after referred to as "Geotech")
This agreement is pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding executed on May 6`" 2010 , by and between the
parties signatory herein under and shall be by extension referred to as amendment no. I, of said MOU.
Jurisdiction: This agreement shall by MUTUAL [MY HIGHLIGHT] consent be legally bound by any United States Federal District Court.
EXHIBIT D
JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT
in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The rights
and obligations of the Parties will be as stated in the applicable legislation of the
State of California (the "Act") except as otherwise provided herein. [NOT CROSSED OUT IN ORIGINAL-PC 'S OWN INVENTION=pcs are my nemesis]
18. PanAm is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cotton & Western Mining, Inc. U.S.A.,
through a Corporate Consent Resolution; the Company is a "Trustee Company"
held in trust by the officers and directors of Cotton & Western Mining, Inc.
Signatory Consent of this Agreement shall be acknowledged by the Chief
Executive Officer of Cotton & Western Mining, Inc.
19. This Joint Venture Agreement shall supersede any other prior agreements
Jurisdiction
54. The Parties hereto submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of California
for the enforcement of this Agreement or any arbitration award or decision arising
from this Agreement [my emphasis]
Mediation and Arbitration
55. In the event a dispute arises out of or in connection with this Agreement the
parties will attempt to resolve the dispute through friendly channel of dispute
resolution.
56. If the dispute is not resolved within a reasonable period of time; then any or all
outstanding issues may be submitted to mediation in accordance with any
statutory rules of mediation. If mediation is not successful in resolving the entire
dispute or is unavailable, any outstanding issues will be submitted to final and
binding arbitration in accordance with the laws of the State of California . The
arbitrator's award will be final, and judgment may be entered upon it by any court
having jurisdiction within the State of California .
In the alternative , the parties may submit the dispute to the Jurisdictional tribunal procedures under NAFTA
[implies by mutual agreement?-i.e if BOTH parties agreed to this alternative Jurisdiction-and it does not specify where that would be so unless its clear from other materials where that would be it would have to be in Ca-I have NOT dd arcane Juris in NAFTA-but it has to be understood by both parties to be enforceable contractual provision meeting of the minds ]
via the gateway of Article 1101 for resolution since Article 1139 of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) insofar as the capital contribution is
being provided by Geotech, (A U.S. Corporation) in exchange for extraction of
iron ore in Baja California, Mexico from PanAm which qualifies as good, product
or "other property, tangible or intangible, acquired in expectation or used for the
purpose of economic benefit or other business purposes or international
commerce.
58. For the purpose of this Agreement, the following terms are defined as follows:
a. "Capital Contributions" The capital contribution to the Joint Venture actually
made by the parties, including property, cash and any additional capital
contributions made.
59. This Joint Venture Agreement is termed a contractual joint venture and will not
constitute a Partnership. Parties will provide services to one another on an arms'.
length basis while remaining independent business entities. There will be no
pooling of profits and losses. Each Party signatory hereto shall be responsible
only for its own actions and will not be jointly or severally liable for the actions of
the other Party.
PANAMERICAN MINERALS VENTURES, S.A. de C.V.
ENSENADA, BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
Sharon X-caret Vazquez Monroy
President
Fiduciary Parent Company of Panamerican Minerals Ventures, S.A. de C.V.
Agreement for Signatory Consent by Cotton & Western Mining. Inc.
