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 
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

To: andrewlong who wrote (1031)11/26/2021 4:37:39 PM
From: mark_ikn
   of 1341
For the record, I'm 1.89m, that's six feet two inches in old money. Do I "look like a foreigner"? In Peru, yes I suppose I do. And as for looking "not so old", I'm 54 years old and I thank you.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: mark_ikn11/26/2021 5:32:46 PM
   of 1341
Dear Karl_ M,

I have written a private post to you. You can pick it up on "mail" link, above. You will see that there's nothing "unhinged" about it.

Respectfully yours, Mark

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: wrkoutmn5011/27/2021 12:05:42 PM
   of 1341
Time to take the gloves off! Diego told me we personally we would start building is Sept.You know the rest of the story.No money and no one in position to do anything but rape us.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: mark_ikn11/27/2021 12:12:50 PM
1 Recommendation   of 1341
As many shareholders already know, the MIRL board of directors has today sent a mail in an attempt to exonerate itself from fiduciary wrongdoings. I have posted the mail on the blog, with a comment.

Here, my message is for Martin Mount and is similar to one part of the mail I sent him during the week. If he, as a nominated director, eventually joins the board of directors the information that MIRL deems confidential in the report is no longer confidential to him. He will be assumed to know and understand the contents of all the report as from December 15th 2021. He will also be assumed to understand the scope, or lack of scope, of the report and/or the questions originally given to the third party investigator. He should reflect carefully on those facts.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LouisCyr11/27/2021 1:43:09 PM
4 Recommendations   of 1341
And here is my reply to Gerardo today…
First a 10 year chart of the mirl stock price from Big Charts….then
Here’s the evidence that things have not been going well at mirl for many years. We have heard all the excuses. You are telling us all is OK! You are asking us to remain patient for how many more years?
Concerned Shareholder

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: mark_ikn11/27/2021 4:53:16 PM
5 Recommendations   of 1341
"The findings of the forensic investigations of whistle blower accusations by Baker Tilly (Peru) ... disclosed there was no credible evidence of wrong doing or criminal misconduct by Mr. Diego Benavides or other members of the management team. Accordingly his authority to manage the affairs of the Company in Peru has been fully reinstated."

That statement is from this NR...

...and carries formal official weight. The name "Baker Tilly" carries international standing, as well. It's only when one notices that the NR is dated 7 June 2016 that one begins to wonder just why, out of all the third parties in all the world, Minera IRL is so keen on choosing them every time Minera IRL CEO Diego Benavides comes under formal investigation. Surely it should have chosen another third party in order to maintain as transparent profile as possible. Perhaps the board would care to comment on its selection process for the third party independent audit firm and while doing so, disclose any personal relationship that any of the board may have with any member of Baker Tilly (Peru), be they family or friend level.

In other news, I have received multiple mails from fellow shareholders today, many of them pointing out glaring holes in the mailer sent out to shareholders of Minera IRL today. However one of those mails, from somebody who has no reason at all to help me, has caught my eye. He replied to Chair Perez and his mail and in only one of several points related to fiduciary duty of officers and board, asked for details about the hiring process that saw the arrival of Steven Ngatai as Vice President of Projects, Susan Gabbie as Chief Communications Officer, and Pedro Valdez as Vice President Investor Relations. He writes:

" many candidates did the company consider for the positions eventually filled by Gabbie, Ngatai and Valdez? Were the positions advertised? Was a headhunter engaged? I simply don't find it credible that the best possible candidates happened to be people who were already friends with Mr. Diego Benavides."

That is a very good question and now that the board considers the case closed, the board, the MIRL C-suite and its IR and communications departments have no lien on answering shareholder inquiries.

Yours sincerely, "a blogger"

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10