The latest audited report still shows "is in the p
Post# of 9903
Posted On: 04/05/2016 7:31:32 AM
The latest audited report still shows "is in the process of protecting its interests in Cinco Minas/Gran Cabrera". Now here's where we stand right now. I am also going to include some information from the unofficial buholegal site as BGL keeps referring to this site when they say they have a legal case (9th year already). What we know is this: BGL lost the supreme court case (amparo) in 2011 (August 7th 2011). According to the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Mexico we see what happens when you lose an amparo case:
"The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on lower courts.."
Now we go to the unofficial buholegal site to the latest link which still says "amparo" in the column Juicio/Delito. This is on March 17th 2014.
http://www.buholegal.com/listaacuerdos/jalisc...F03%2F2014
After this date we don't see amparo anymore, because BGL lost this case and any new appeals to lower courts can not overrule the amparo case ruling anymore. They can file appeals as many times as they want, but they can not
overturn a supreme court amparo decision. This is what you see happening: they keep filing. This Amparo ruling was for the mines and BGL can't get the mines.
So we have this on the unofficial buholegal site, which BGL cites:
mercantil ord 00673/2008 10-04-2014 until now
amparo 00673/2008 17-03-2014 -Amparo-Demandado: N/A
amparo 00673/2008 28-02-2014 -Amparo-Demandado: COMPAÑIA MINERA CINCO MINAS, S.A.DE C.V., MINERA SAN JORGE, S.A DE C.V.
On June 17th 2014 BGL put out a press release saying that Stephen Roehrig the CEO had resigned. Why? Well, because they lost the amparo case already in 2011 and on March 17th 2014 it was the latest date that BGL still had "amparo" in the column Juicio/Delito on buholegal. After March 17th 2014 BGL had been demoted to appealing to lower courts. So what you're seeing BGL doing, is that they keep appealing to lower courts. The only thing BGL can hope for, is getting money and this is what these lower court appeals are for, not for mines, but for money. BGL also doesn't make it clear in their audited reports that they can't get these mines. They pretend that they can by writing "in the process of protecting the interests in Cino Minas/Gran Cabrera" while their only hope is getting money.
I also want to mention the new link that BGL posted about an appeal on March 14th 2016.
http://www.buholegal.com/listaacuerdos/federa...ton=Buscar
This new appeal/hearing must have something to do with putting out a final effort to achieve something.
Instead of focusing on BGL appealing to lower courts for money, the focus here should be on MSJ and MSJ working to get senior miners interested in their mines. MSJ owns these concession titles to Cinco Minas/Gran Cabrera as per the latest changes in concession titles as written in my post 7415. How long can BGL write "in the process of protecting its interests in Cinco Minas/Gran Cabrera"? As long as the auditors allow it or as long as the mines of MSJ have not been sold. It's a waiting game and it's up to MSJ or senior miners interested in MSJ's mines to make their move.
"The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on lower courts.."
Now we go to the unofficial buholegal site to the latest link which still says "amparo" in the column Juicio/Delito. This is on March 17th 2014.
http://www.buholegal.com/listaacuerdos/jalisc...F03%2F2014
After this date we don't see amparo anymore, because BGL lost this case and any new appeals to lower courts can not overrule the amparo case ruling anymore. They can file appeals as many times as they want, but they can not
overturn a supreme court amparo decision. This is what you see happening: they keep filing. This Amparo ruling was for the mines and BGL can't get the mines.
So we have this on the unofficial buholegal site, which BGL cites:
mercantil ord 00673/2008 10-04-2014 until now
amparo 00673/2008 17-03-2014 -Amparo-Demandado: N/A
amparo 00673/2008 28-02-2014 -Amparo-Demandado: COMPAÑIA MINERA CINCO MINAS, S.A.DE C.V., MINERA SAN JORGE, S.A DE C.V.
On June 17th 2014 BGL put out a press release saying that Stephen Roehrig the CEO had resigned. Why? Well, because they lost the amparo case already in 2011 and on March 17th 2014 it was the latest date that BGL still had "amparo" in the column Juicio/Delito on buholegal. After March 17th 2014 BGL had been demoted to appealing to lower courts. So what you're seeing BGL doing, is that they keep appealing to lower courts. The only thing BGL can hope for, is getting money and this is what these lower court appeals are for, not for mines, but for money. BGL also doesn't make it clear in their audited reports that they can't get these mines. They pretend that they can by writing "in the process of protecting the interests in Cino Minas/Gran Cabrera" while their only hope is getting money.
I also want to mention the new link that BGL posted about an appeal on March 14th 2016.
http://www.buholegal.com/listaacuerdos/federa...ton=Buscar
This new appeal/hearing must have something to do with putting out a final effort to achieve something.
Instead of focusing on BGL appealing to lower courts for money, the focus here should be on MSJ and MSJ working to get senior miners interested in their mines. MSJ owns these concession titles to Cinco Minas/Gran Cabrera as per the latest changes in concession titles as written in my post 7415. How long can BGL write "in the process of protecting its interests in Cinco Minas/Gran Cabrera"? As long as the auditors allow it or as long as the mines of MSJ have not been sold. It's a waiting game and it's up to MSJ or senior miners interested in MSJ's mines to make their move.
(3)
(0)