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/Energy : Minera IRL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karl_M who wrote (1029)11/26/2021 1:35:56 PM
From: Kiwi Pom5 Recommendations

Recommended By

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to 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.

To: Karl_M who wrote (1029)11/26/2021 2:29:05 PM
From: andrewlong1 Recommendation

Recommended By

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to 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 ' '


To: Karl_M who wrote (1029)11/26/2021 3:58:13 PM
From: mark_ikn3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Kiwi Pom

  Respond to 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

To: Karl_M who wrote (1029)12/1/2021 9:27:26 AM
From: Breft2 Recommendations

Recommended By

  Respond to of 1341
There is a simple answer for Mr Mount. Pick the phone up, and answer the questions coming from the other end like a professional.