We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Gold/Mining/EnergyMinera IRL

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: mark_ikn11/25/2021 2:58:59 PM
2 Recommendations   of 1341
I'd like to remind the CS group that we presume innocence of Mr Martin Mount. In fact, the only poster making wild accusations on this board is GermanyBoy (aka Benavides and his pinche Valdez) and his "felony" claptrap. Hardly the first time his desperation has shown, GermanyBoy is the same handle that claimed to be an ace investigator, then took private information from mails sent into Minera IRL by Walter Zaverucha, posted it on this public board and accused him of being a land-trafficker at the same time (without a shred of evidence), all while confusing him with a different poster, "andrewlong". And GermanyBoy still hasn't explained how he got Mr. Z's name and private information. Nice person! Great DD!

Worth pointing out that I also have ample proof that Pedro Valdez illegally spied on my personal WhatsApp activity. Valdez still refuses to say a word about that, but has managed to keep his job at Minera IRL.

So we continue to allow Martin Mount the assumption of innocence, until such time as he enters into conversation and hears the CS side of the story. He is over 18 years old and at that point, he can make his own decisions but if I were Mount, I'd at least want to hear the other side of the story before continuing with this nomination for director. I will, therefore, continue to reach out to him.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Kiwi Pom who wrote (987)11/26/2021 9:55:53 AM
From: mark_ikn
6 Recommendations   of 1341
Without going into details (in this case, no free info for the liar Benavides), correspondence with shareholders this week has confirmed Rio Tinto (RTZ) is taking our whistleblower submissions seriously. I'd therefore encourage other CS members to use the channels provided by Kiwi Pom in his post (#987 below, this post being a reply to his), this really is a case of the more the merrier. Also, a couple of shareholders have taken up the cause with the company auditors, the UK-based Davidson, including one shareholder with control of many millions of shares (thanks, you know who you are). While feedback is less likely from Davidson, it's to our advantage they know how many eyeballs are watching them (and UK accountancy laws are not something that firm will want to knowingly infringe).

We're now in the period when action is most likely to produce results. Though we're all tired of this company and its entrenched board I'd encourage all shareholders, large or small, to help with the efforts and make their own denouncement of Minera IRL. A shareholder of one share has the same rights as a shareholder of 10m shares and all voices matter.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: mark_ikn who wrote (1027)11/26/2021 12:21:24 PM
From: Sredna5
2 Recommendations   of 1341
Thank you Mark for all your effort! I have used the Rio Tinto whistleblower function.

It is very telling that the board cannot deny the claims we CS have put forward. Not even after three months of investigation. As I wrote above, they must be agonizing over how to handle the truth. Also, they cannot produce a timeline for the development of Ollachea. Any other mining company out there which cannot provide a timeline on its own webpage for the development of its flagship asset?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: Karl_M11/26/2021 1:06:57 PM
1 Recommendation   of 1341
Martin Mount is an old friend of mine and I have something to say about the harassment of him and his family.

Mark Turner announced a few days ago that he approached Martin Mount, and then continued to call and text Martin while also threatening to start proceedings with the UK embassy.

Any stalking, harassment or threats are considered a criminal offence worldwide, and are completely unacceptable irrespective of the purpose of this collective. This seems to be evidence of someone who is unhinged, and who is now targeting people outside the corporate issues discussed in this forum. This needs to stop. I had to make this public before it escalates, and to prevent further harm being caused to third parties that have nothing to do with the accusations or low share values.

Please see below the message from Martin Mount’s wife, who was a victim to Mark’s attacks just recently. Mark stated yesterday that he visited Martin’s place, but he failed to mention that he stood in front of Martin’s house screaming his name and terrorizing the entire neighbourhood. Mark has also publicly shared Martin’s phone number in an attempt to convince the users of this forum to contact him and extend the harassment. To what end?

Here's the message I am referring. I have erased the sections that point to the personal information of the parties involved:

Here’s the translation:

What worries me is that this guy whose name is Mark T has gone to the neighbourhood today and managed to break in when Ivan was at the other end. He was screaming and calling you by your name and didn’t want to leave and was also taking photos of the house. Our neighbour told him that she was going to call the Police, but he seemed not to care. Breaking in is an offense and to take photos puts us in danger. I have the camera videos. I’ve been told he is not so old and very tall, like 1.90 and a foreigner. Is there someone you can talk in the mine to make them aware and see what we can do? Because he has your address and telephone number. I don’t know how he got them. Do you have his name or his address so we can file a report? I think he will come back many times; he thinks you're hiding inside.

Mark has also posted images of some of the more civil messages he sent to Martin, but he did not mention that he started screaming over the phone to Martin’s wife while she was trying to explain that Martin is out of the country.

This situation is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. To anyone who is close to Mark Turner PLEASE request that this aggressive behaviour stops, his family should be kept away from this mess.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4)

To: Karl_M who wrote (1029)11/26/2021 1:35:56 PM
From: Kiwi Pom
5 Recommendations   of 1341
Oh dear - we really are being taken as being fools by the joke of a mining company.

Karl_m - if you really are an old friend of Mr Mount, I pose the following

1. Why did Mr Mount not make these accusations personally?

2. If Mr Mount wants the support of this group, why is he refusing to answer valid concerns posed by members of this group?

3. You are making serious accusations whilst hiding behind the cloak of anonimity - clear this mess up and get Mr Mount to COMMUNICATE with the members of the concerned shareholder group.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Karl_M who wrote (1029)11/26/2021 2:29:05 PM
From: andrewlong
1 Recommendation   of 1341
Following along the lines of comments by poster Kiwi Pom.

Why did you not contact Martin Mount (or did your so called 'friend' contact you to sign up to Silicon Investor and put out some verbiage).

Reference is made to approximate height of Mark T of 1.9 meters which equates to approximately 6.23 feet. I have seen pictures of Mark T and by stature he is not a 'giant' in height, I would say more around 5.6 feet (1.706 m), in my view he is 'short' in stature.

Did his wife contact you?

As a friend of Martin, I would suggest you consider giving him sound advice.

Apparently, when the meeting agenda (annual meeting) was made public Mark contacted Martin Mount, they had a brief conversation as the potential issues that Martin may face if elected as Director. Mark tried to contact Martin a second time, Martin it appears refused to speak to Mark a second time. A normal individual would have spoken to Mark the second time and then could conclude with "Mark, do not contact me anymore until the voting is completed". But in my view I think that someone from the Company (after the first contact) told (or scolded him) for talking to Mark and was advised (told) not to speak to Mark in the future.

If the above paragraph is partially correct then I am asking myself: 'is the proposed nominee of Martin Mount for Director truly 'independent ' '


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Kiwi Pom who wrote (1030)11/26/2021 3:01:45 PM
From: Sredna5
3 Recommendations   of 1341
This is very symptomatic. These people always attack the person Mark and his character but they never ever provide any answers to his or our questions to the company. It is very easy to see that this is their strategy. Silence on factual matters and smearing of the person Mark.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Sredna5 who wrote (1032)11/26/2021 3:38:06 PM
From: LoneClone
4 Recommendations   of 1341
Yes, these posts meet the definition of ad hominem, which always indicated the attacker is on shaky ground.

These types use ad hominem attacks designed to divert your attention -- beware the boogeyman over there! -- while they use the other hand to pick your pocket.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Sredna5 who wrote (1028)11/26/2021 3:49:05 PM
From: waznot
3 Recommendations   of 1341
The Rio Tinto whistleblower site is one of the best for ease of supplying info and concerns. You get an email after their each step of there process in review. And it is designed to add new information etc just by logging into your account and go to the bottom (that is slick and convenient), i.e. such as adding why are we asked to vote when Benavides is under investigation.

I have not received at least an acknowledgment email from MIRL Canadian legal counsel, Ethan Minsky to date.

Up until now Benavides and the Board knew of our every move as we suggested them on this board. As Mark has noted/implied it is time to share anything of major importance on quiet side for the moment while we use the ‘private reply’ button. It would be interesting (to image the reactions of the CEO and the Board) if we all went silent for a week, just on the lighter side thought.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Karl_M who wrote (1029)11/26/2021 3:58:13 PM
From: mark_ikn
3 Recommendations   of 1341
I am happy Martin Mount knows of my existence. I can also confirm I was treated with extreme aggression by "Ivan" (he wouldn't give his name) and pointed out a few home truths to the man. However, "Karl_M" and his report twists several facts and seems to be deliberately exaggerating the events.

1) I arrived and the business address of Martin Mount, which turned out to be one of several houses in a cul-de-sac, behind a iron gate.
2) I entered the gate (it was unlocked) and was approached by Ivan. I asked him if this was the business address of Martin Mount (as for how I got the address, that is simple: in point of fact Martin Mount's business address is publically available information)
3) Ivan denied Martin Mount was there and immediately threatened to call the police. And by that, I mean, in the next breath.
4) I bit my tongue and continued asking Ivan if this was Mr. Mount's address, by showing him Martin Mount's name and address as found in a public available website. In point of fact, his business address and his home address turned out to be the same place. I had discovered that on arrival (and the little garden with a small lawn made it evident).
5) He then admitted it was Martin Mount's address (i.e. he lied to me and then only admitted the truth when I had the information available to contradict him)
6) I then walked some 20m and stood outside Martin Mount's house. Ivan is now right behind me, repeating his threat to call the police
7) I then told him that I would be happy for him to call the police, as I would like to speak to them as well (regarding Ivan's false statements and aggressive behaviour)
8) At all times i stayed on the tarmac road. This is a key point, as people who live in "gated communities" in Lima are under the false impression that just because they put a gate up, the road is theirs. It isn't and I invite them to read their own Constitution.
9) With no way of entering the house to ring the bell (my rights of presence end at the road and I do not invite trouble), I then called out to then house, asking for Mr. Mount and stating that it was in his best interest to talk to either me or a member of the Concerned Shareholder group. If they want to exaggerate that by depicting it as "Screaming and Terrorizing" they can do so. It wasn't. Also, the word "unhinged" is offensive and simply untrue, but suits the way CEO Benavides would like to depict his corporate battle as something personal. It isn't, this has always been and will continue to be issue of serious corporate wrongdoing.
10) A neighbour appeared, also aggressive and immediately taking Ivan at his word while disbelieving anything I said. I remonstrated with the neighbour regarding Ivan's extreme behaviour toward me. It was a pointless distraction from the reasons I was there.
11) The neighbour left, saying something about getting the police. At that point seeing that nothing else would happen, I also left. the whole visit was approximatelyt 10 minutes (as noted yesterday)
12) I did state that to Ivan i would return the next day. In fact I have not and will not, as on reflection it is clearly not a good idea. I can assure one and all that I will not grace their door again unless invited (and even then I'd much prefer to meet in a neutral location). I know when I'm not welcome, folks.

In sum, as part of the continued efforts to reach out to Martin Mount I was lied to and treated aggressively by someone who took it upon himself to act in wholly unnecessary way from the moment I showed at the address. At no point was I aware there was anyone inside Martin Mount's house, there was no reply and no movement as far as I could see from the road. However, even today I still presume his innocence in this matter, despite the way I was treated, and will continue to do so until Mr. Mount makes his position clear. (underlined and bold-typed so that nobody can misunderstand). I'm quite sure that others would be prejudiced against Mr. Mount by now but that is not my position, as stated clearly in written correspondence to Mr. Mount before and after my visit to his business address. You have seen the screenshot of the WhatsApp message, if required you will see the long mail I wrote to him last night, as well. Also, as noted in the Whatsapp message and two short texts I sent to Martin Mount earlier in the week, as well as the long mail I sent to him last night, I made it 100% clear that my only motive was to provide him with information he needs to make an informed decision about joining the MIRL board of directors. Let me be clear: I refute any accusation or even inference that I mean harm to him, his family, his people or even the horrible Ivan. Instead, the purpose was and still is to provide him with the information he needs to make an informed decision (in short, I'm trying to save a fellow Brit from a lot of trouble). If he hears me out, and there was plenty in the overview mail I sent him last night, but then decides to go ahead with his nomination that's his call as an adult. However, he needs to make an informed decision and for that, he needs at least to sound out the CS side of the story.

If I do not receive a reply from Mr. Mount before Monday, if only to acknowledge the mail sent to him last night, I will re-publish the mail as an open letter on the IKN blog (and here). Then others can judge motive, instead of believing the one-sided version placed here today by Karl_M based on a message he received by someone with their own one-sided view of events

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10