*****Court document that shows clearly that B

*****Court document that shows clearly that Bandera Gold Ltd. has lost court case in Mexico!

No active case concerning bandera gold and cinco minas in federal court this has been verified and confirmed

MSJ Minera San Jorge SA. de CV. has acquired all the SRGE Southridge Mexico mines including Cinco Minas, Gran Cabrera and other Mining Properties of Southridge Enterprises Inc.
ZAPOPAN, Mexico, Feb. 11, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — Minera San Jorge S.A. de C.V. expresses it has acquired the Cinco Minas Mine property operations and other mining properties of Southridge Enterprises Inc. President of Minera San Jorge, Jaime Arturo Anaya Trejo, represented that acquisition was signatured on February 11, 2013, and that purchase details in planning for another writing of events.
Cinco Minas operations continue as before this event and expansions coming in time. Minera San Jorge discusses others participations in Cinco Minas with money commitments and mining historical experience. One partner should come to Cinco Minas from our meetings.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1112782...VKXHrLK.99



UNDER DIRECT IN REVIEW 2634/2010. Plaintive: **********.
APPELLANT: **********.


MINISTER SPEAKER: ARTURO DE LARREA ZALDÍVAR LELO.
SECRETARY: Ydalia PEREZ FERNANDEZ CEJA.


Vo. Bo.
Minister:



Mexico, Distrito Federal. Agreement of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, for the day August 17th, two thousand eleven.

V I S T O S; And
R E S U L T A N D O:

Matching:

FIRST -. By application lodged on 12 April, two thousand ten, agreements with the Secretary of the Ninth Division of the Supreme Court of the State of Jalisco, **********, through their representatives legal **********, agents of corporations, and the second as well ********** legal representative, asked the shelter and protection of the Federal Court against authorities and by the measure mentioned below:

Responsible Authorities:

A) Ninth Chamber of the Supreme Court in the State of Jalisco.
Fifth Mercantile Court of the First Judicial Party in the State of Jalisco.

Claimed Act:

The judgment of March 18, two thousand ten, delivered within touching appeal number **********.

SECOND. The Complainant violated constitutional provisions cited as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States; narrated the history of the case and expressed the concepts of rape deemed relevant; and noted as a third injured. **********

THIRD. The President of the Fifth Appellate Court in Civil Matters Third Circuit, who by turn corresponded hear the case, the agreement of June 24, two thousand ten, agreed to hear the application, registering it with the number ***** *****; and followed the trial in its legal proceedings, the Appellate Court delivered a judgment in session September 30, two thousand ten, which was determined to grant the defense and protection of the courts of the Union to the complaining party.

FOURTH. Dissatisfied with the above determination, by application lodged on 4 November, two thousand ten, before the Appellate Court of knowledge, **********, attorney for the injured third ********* *, has appealed.

By provided five of November, two thousand ten, the president of that college, took cognizance of the resource in question and ordered forward the original trial transcript relative to the original and copy of the written grievance displayed, this Supreme Court of Justice.

FIFTH -. Agreement on November 18, two thousand ten, the President of the High Court first took cognizance of the appeal made by the aggrieved assert third, called ********** , being registered under number 2634/2010 record; secondly, the Full Court considered that this Supreme Court of Justice is not legally competent to hear the present case; and third, ordered to forward to the First Chamber of the High Court's orders in direct amparo number **********, the review touches 2634/2010, and other records necessary to consequent legal purposes.

Provided by November 29 of two thousand ten, the President of the First Chamber of the High Court admitted the appeal filed; was to only authorized to receive notices and impose car people mentioned in the written expression of grievances; ordered that he be notified that question to the responsible authority and the Attorney General's Office that, if deemed appropriate, the respective motion and formulated; finally decided that the case-the Minister Arturo Zaldivar Lelo de Larrea for resolution is take turns.

C O N S I D E R A N D O:

FIRST. Competition. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear this petition for review, in terms of the provisions of Articles 107, Section IX of the Constitution of the United Mexican States; 83, and 84 fraction V, Section II of the Law of Amparo; 21, section III, paragraph a) of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation; and as provided in paragraph one of the General Agreement 5/1999; and the second and fourth point Whole Agreement 5/2001, under which stands against a judgment of a Circuit Court in direct amparo, which the interpretation of Articles 27 and claimed 104, Section I of the Constitution of the United Mexican States.

SECOND. Opportunity. The petition for review is timely in accordance with Article 86 of the Law of Amparo, since the judgment was notified on Monday 18 October, two thousand ten, and took effect on Tuesday, October 19 next, both within ten days to lodge an appeal passed on Wednesday October 20th to Thursday, November 4, two thousand ten, discounting day twenty three, twenty four, thirty-October 31 and one and two of November in course, in accordance with Article 23 of the Law of Amparo and 163 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation, as well as the Circular 23/2010 of the Council of the Federal Judiciary September 22, two thousand ten. In such conditions, if the appeal was filed on November 4, two thousand ten (as evidenced by the return foja ********** resource in question), it is timely.

THIRD. Background. To illustrate about the context of this case, there should be an overview of the relevant background arising from the evidence of the natural authority:

1. By application lodged on 26 February, two thousand eight, to the Joint Administrative Office of parts Judicial Council, State of Jalisco, **********, ***** representatives *****, ********** sued, all Variable Capital Corporations and against ********** and ********** in the ordinary way commercial, claiming the payment and performance of various deliverables in terms of Article 376 of the Commercial Code; demand was supported by the Fifth Mercantile Court of the First Judicial Party in the State of Jalisco, registering it with the file number. **********

Two. Once handled the trial, 7 July, two thousand nine, the trial judge, delivered a judgment in which it held that the plaintiff, credited the existence of the obligation under the option contract of November 15 two thousand five, held from ********** and **********, so it ruled:

• **********, acquired 60% of the full rights of participation in the designated "********** property.

• **********, acquired 9% of the participation rights in the mining property designated as **********.

• is ordered to **********, to perform the formal transmission of the mining concession titles ********** numbers registered in the Public Registry of Mining.

• is ordered to **********, the signing of the joint venture contract agreed between the parties, to govern the operation of mining properties; and will continue to govern the legal relationship in the future ********** joint venture company, and the exploitation and exploration of mineral properties both known as **********, as the terms of the option agreement and the standards of the mining industry.

• The nullity of the leases on mining claims, held on April 1, two thousand seven, among **********.

Three. The appeal filed, the knowledge corresponded to the Ninth Division of the Supreme Court in the State of Jalisco, determined to confirm the order issued in the first instance.

The final judgment clarified, must previously established is that the act in question at trial guarantee which emanates impugning this medium.

FOURTH. Issues necessary to resolve the issue. To elucidate the effect of the appeal, it is appropriate to address the concepts of rape, considerations of the judgment of the Appellate Court and the written expression of grievances:

1. **********, All Variable Capital Corporations and **********, ********** aka, plaintiffs in amparo ********** concepts identified as rape in the following summary:

1.1 In the first concept of rape was argued that the guarantees of legality and legal certainty under not comply with the formalities of the procedure, since it violates the provisions of Articles 86 and 87 of the civil procedure law was violated in the State of Jalisco, and 1325, 1326 and 1327 of the Commercial Code, as the Court for issuing its judgment stuff contested act does not address the study of all the arguments expressed, and assessed adequately the evidence offered .

1.2 The concept of rape, the plaintiffs point out that the discretion of the judge is wrong and lacking in foundation and motivation as they believe that at no time gave up the raised incompetence only did the action asserted against the car not admitted.

1.3 The second concept of rape, it is noted that the resolution sought violates the guarantees of legality and legal certainty of the complainants under the responsibility of the study does not address all the grievances of the appeal and does not perform an individual analysis each of them, let alone established through consistent arguments the reasons which lead to reject them, so defenseless left trying to guess what was the causal by me were ineffective.

1.4 The third concept of violation, the plaintiffs point out that the resolution violates them guarantees of legality and legal certainty that the charge did not enter the study of the third grievance was aimed at destroying the merits of the action and generally took be that the A-quo does not make a proper assessment of the evidence.

. 2 The Fifth Collegiate Court in Civil Matters of the Third Circuit, to solve the direct protection ********** said in summary that:

2.1 The concept of rape to be analyzed is funded to the extent that its deficiency is supplied in terms of section 76 bis, section IV of the Law of Amparo.

The authorities of first instance lack jurisdiction to resolve the litigation raised, which lies in mine, as is sought, first, property and mining concessions projects called ********* * "and **********, through the joint venture company named **********, and secondly the cancellation of the nomination of two covenants of mining lease, enrolled in the Public Registry of Mining.

2.2 The "competition" and "jurisdiction" are different institutions, because of the jurisdictional conflicts between judges and courts that belong to the same jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction; while the courts take place between bodies belonging to different jurisdictions or materials, which means that the jurisdiction can not be extended (except concurrent under Article 104, Section I, of the General Constitution of the Republic), or be matter of convention, or waived, because it is an attribute of sovereignty and is determined on the basis of constitutional, political, international and economic order relevant, so it can not be the product of the will of individuals precisely because flows directly from law, which is just a peculiarity of sovereignty and therefore the governed are not empowered to grant it to the judges or courts to make them aware of a dispute that falls within jurisdiction of different courts or subject.

2.3 The present case is a jurisdictional conflict, corroborates the above content articles 3, Section I and 6, Section I of the General Law of National Assets, which establishes which goods are national and they are subject to what regime of the public domain of the Federation.

2.4 Goods subject to mining concessions are included in the fourth paragraph of Article 27 of the Federal Constitution, on which the nation has direct ownership and such goods, in terms of Article 3, Section I, and 6 , Section I, of the General Law of National Assets, besides being nationals are subject to the rules governing public property of the federation.

2.5 Similarly, Articles 1, 2, 10 and 15 of the Mining Law, we see that this legislation is regulation of Article 27 of the Constitution and that mining concessions are granted to explore, exploit and benefit from the minerals or substances which in veins, ledges, masses or beds constitute deposits whose nature is different from the components of the land, as well as directly formed by the salt water from sea current, surface or underground, natural or artificial mode and salts and by-products thereof, within the limits and conditions established by the regulations. Finally, the provisions 3 and 4 of the Act, specify what is meant by exploration, exploitation and processing; and what are the minerals or substances in veins, ledges, masses or constitute deposits of various components of the land, that under Article 10 are are likely to be concessioned.

2.6 Thus, we conclude that the property to be mining concessions described in Article 10, in relation to the various 2 and 4 all of the Mining Act, are included in the fourth paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution of the United States, on which, as it turned out, the nation has direct dominion. Then those goods, in terms of Articles 3, Section I, and 6, Section I, of the General Law of National Assets, besides being nationals are subject to the rules governing public property of the federation.

2.7 In terms of Articles 9 and 10 of the General Law of National Assets, the powers of the union have exclusive jurisdiction over the above-mentioned goods, while the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any legal disputes concerning property subject that regime.

2.8 In the case of judges and trial courts by the common lack jurisdiction over cases involving goods subject to the system of the public domain of the Federation, precisely because the claims of the plaintiff company estribaron primarily in obtaining property and called concessions and mining projects ********** ********** at ********** through society, as well as the cancellation of inscriptions of two covenants of mining lease, registered in the Public Registry of Mining, and the invalidity of such contracts, both of which, as noted, fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

2.9 In this regard the thesis application is particularly supported by the then Third Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, under the heading: "COMPETENCE STATEMENT IN FAVOR OF A DISTRICT JUDGE OTHER THAN IN THE CONTROVERSY contending, REGARDING CASES WHERE THERE BY CONCURRENT JURISDICTION affected INTERESTS OF THE NATION. "

2.10 The room was not only responsible authority to address the topic of the jurisdiction in question, but was also required to do so even without the benefit grievance about, as illustrated by the thesis III.5o.C.55 C, based category of "LACK OF RESPONSIBLE. COURSE WHERE YOU CAN ENTER AT TRIAL UNDER DIRECT OR REVISION, THE NOVEL REVIEW. "

2.11 There is no concurrent jurisdiction because this required that only individual interests as provided in Article 104, Section I, of the Constitution of the United Mexican States is affecting.

2.12 The "concession" is a discretionary administrative act by which empowers the authority to use a particular property of the State, or to establish or explore public service, always within the limits and conditions provided by law, so it follows that there are two kinds of concessions granted by the State, the state providing public service and state grant of a public good, in the latter are mining concessions because, they are awarded for exploration, exploitation and benefit from minerals.

2.13 The resolution regarding mining concessions affecting interests of the Federation and not just individual, so that judges and ordinary courts lack jurisdiction to resolve this kind of conflict, as what is provided in article 53, paragraphs I and II of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation.

. 3 On their grievances, the appellant (third injured) expressed in short as follows:

3.1 In his first grievance, the complainant referred to the Appellate Court of knowledge, made a direct interpretation of Article 27 of the Constitution, this provision without appreciating the full extent, when the rule on jurisdiction is jurisdiction a private dispute over the ownership of the mining concession titles, which were the subject of an option contract of a commercial nature, which was launched in the generating cause of ordinary commercial litigation of origin, held between two individuals (corporations).

He noted that the Appellate Court did not distinguish in its interpretation to the fourth paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution, the term "direct dominion of the nation" and that while the original property of the nation on minerals is indisputable rights and obligations to individuals in their capacity as holders of a mining concession title, not part of the public domain of the nation, since the act relating to the granting of a concession of this nature, is a generating source of rights and obligations entering the legal rights of the individual in his capacity as the holder of a mining concession, and are certainly those rights and obligations generated by the mining concession susceptible marketing and transmission to third parties, in the manner and terms prescribed by Mining Law. Strengthens the above, theses, whose heading is "MINING CONCESSIONS, CHARACTER OF TITLES" and "MINING TITLE, ITS LEGAL VALUE."

It also stated that the Court of knowledge did not appreciate the difference between the legal nature of the goods direct control of the nation and the rights of use, enjoyment and exploitation that are private by mining concessions, which are not right real property on behalf of individuals, and thus are not the latter's direct dominion of the nation, therefore the Appellate Court unraveled no distinction between the legal nature of public property of the federation, and legal nature of the concession titles on the same individuals are granted.

3.2. In his grievance noted that the Fifth Appellate Court in Civil Matters Third Circuit made a direct interpretation of Article 104, Section I of the Federal Constitution, which determined that there is no "concurrent jurisdiction" in the company root cause for considering that is not a conflict of interest that affects only be about individual despite enforce a private contract between two corporations.

In the same section indicates that the content of Article 104, Section I, of the Federal Constitution, it is clear that the original, constituent established as a constitutional prerogative of individuals, the existence of the call CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, which translates into the prerogative or right of a procedural nature, and substantive, which is awarded to actor, to choice of law, either federal or common by the States, where the dispute to dispute in court, arises on compliance and enforcement only federal laws and individual interests are affected. Strengthens the above, the thesis "COMPETITION FOR REASON OF FEDERAL OR LOCAL JURISDICTION. Be extended IF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, being able PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO THE JURISDICTION TO BE BROUGHT THE PARTIES. "

Furthermore, the appellant refers to the Appellate Court, in interpreting Article 104, Section I, of the Federal Constitution established that the jurisdiction can not be extended, except "concurrent jurisdiction", which is a novel and contrary determination, text, spirit and correct insight Article 104, Section I of the Constitution, on the grounds that by ignoring the existence of the CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, stop to notice that this constitutional prerogative, procedural in nature, excludes the possibility of being in the presence of a conflict of jurisdiction by express provision of secondary legislation.

In the case of disputes commercial matters, local courts and federal courts have jurisdiction, so all I can conflictuarse your competition but not their jurisdiction, jurisdictional conflict that must be resolved in accordance with the rules established by the rules and general procedural principles, among which stands out for its importance, concerning the fact that the incompetence of a court can not be attacked by means of direct protection, but only to the lower resolution challenged on the competition itself.

The Appellate Court did not consider that the Option Agreement, is where the claim originates defendants, which constituted the transfer of rights from the mining concession titles in favor of the joint venture company called ***** *****, which is a legal act which in no way affects the interests of the Federation, and only affects the interests of individuals.

Additionally, states that the rights under a mining concession title, are not subject to the system of public property of the federation, established by the General Law of National Assets, but are subject to "special" trade regime, provided Articles 19 and 23 of the Mining Act, which provide that the securities or rights derived from them, are susceptible to transmission alienation, and even susceptible of seizure and judicial sale.

The complainant indicates that separate opinion cited, whose heading is "LACK OF CHARGE. COURSE WHERE YOU CAN ENTER AT TRIAL OR UNDER DIRECT REVIEW, REVIEW OF THE NOVEL "is irrelevant, since in the present, it is a dispute of a commercial nature in which there is concurrent jurisdiction. It also notes that there is another separate opinion issued by the Appellate Court of Knowledge: "CESE MUNICIPAL POLICE O LOW. IF THE PARTIES BE BROUGHT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS IN WORKING THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLLEGE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS UNDER DIRECT TO KNOW AGAINST THE AWARD WILL NOT BE RESOLVED THAT CHALLENGE COMPETITION AND THEREFORE ONLY LIMITED TO EXAMINE THE AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH THE LAWS BASED ON APPLIED (WHETHER OR NOT WORK) BUT ONLY WITH RELACIÓIN TRIAL OF ORIGIN.

Finally notes that in ordinary commercial trial of origin, there is CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in Article 104, Section I, of the Federal Constitution, so it is applicable thesis jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice, under SECTION "DIRECT AMPARO. NOT APPLY ENTER, IN THE JUDGMENT OR IN REVIEW, REVIEW OF INNOVATIVE LACK OF RESPONSIBLE ".

FIVE. Fixing the origin. First, the question is whether this case meets the requirements of importance and significance to the seventh paragraph refers; 107, Section IX, both the Constitution of the United Mexican States; 83, fraction V; 84, section II, both of the Amparo Law; and 10, section III; and 21, section III, paragraph a) of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation; and the Whole of the General Agreement 5/1999, the following is set:

a) In general, the judgments handed down by the Circuit Courts in direct amparo judgments no appeal. In principle, then, are unassailable.

b) As an exception, such judgments may be appealed under review, provided that decide or had omitted to decide constitutional issues properly, this includes: I. The unconstitutionality of a rule, and / or; II. The direct interpretation of provisions of the Federal Constitution.

c) If the situation described in the previous section are present, and for purposes of the recourse of revision live under, they must also be satisfied the requirements of importance and significance, as provided in section IX of Article 107 , determine the merits of the action mentioned.

d) The meaning of the importance and significance requirements are specified in the General Agreement Whole 5/1999, issued in exercise of express powers under Article 94, paragraph seven of the Federal Constitution. This agreement states that generally means that the requirements of importance and significance do not work when there is case law on the issue of constitutionality asserted in the demand for guarantees, and when it had not expressed grievances or, if , they are ineffective, inoperative, or inatendibles insufficient and had to supply the deficiency of the complaint, or in similar cases.

This is confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which shares this criterion First Chamber, whose heading is "LIVE UNDER REVIEW. REQUIREMENTS FOR ORIGIN. "

According to the above, the present action itself meets the requirements referred to above, under which a timely filed; and judgment by the injured third replenish the procedure determined from the interpretation of Articles 27 and 104, Section I, of the Federal Constitution.

Also, the replacement procedure because not only has the effect of returning to the start of the trial to settle procedural matters, but to delegate and exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal courts jurisdiction in the case of judgments relating to mining concessions, from a statement which holds that nature lies not in cases of concurrence under Article 104, Section I, of the Federal Constitution.

SIX. Study background. In the grievances expressed by the appellant essentially argues that the Appellate Court made an incorrect interpretation of Articles 27 and 104, Section I, of the Federal Constitution, because it determined that judgments concerning concessions in mining deal with goods public domain and therefore, do not fall under the concurrent jurisdiction.

In the first grievance claims that the Appellate Court essentially made an incorrect interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 27 of the Federal Constitution when it ruled that the term "direct dominion of the nation" extends to the rights and obligations of a title mining concession.

The appellant further argues that the award constitutes a source of rights and obligations that enter the legal rights of the individual in his capacity as the holder of a mining concession, according to the mining law are capable of marketing and broadcasting for third.

From the above, the First Chamber must interpret whether the original property of the nation extends over mineral rights and obligations which individuals acquire through the mining concession titles, so that once defined it, can be answer to the second grievance claiming that the event is concurrent jurisdiction laid down in Article 104, Section I (now fraction II) of the Federal Constitution, because it is a conflict that only affects individual interests.

Regard should address the content of Article 27 of the Political Constitution of the Mexican United States, in pertinent part:

" RENOVATED, D.O.F. 10 JANUARY 1934)
Article 27 -. Ownership of the lands and waters within the boundaries of the national territory is vested originally in the Nation, which has had and has the right to transmit title thereof to private persons, thereby constituting private property.
(...)
(REFURBISHED, D.O.F. 20 JANUARY 1960)
The Nation direct ownership of all natural resources of the continental shelf and the submarine shelf of the islands; of all minerals or substances which in veins, ledges, masses or beds constitute deposits whose nature is different from the components of the earth such as minerals from which metals and metalloids used in industry are taken; deposits of precious stones, rock salt and salt formed by sea water;
(...)


Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation Mexico

http://www2.scjn.gob.mx/ConsultaTematica/Pagi...oID=122590