International Precious Metals (IPMCF) Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ron who wrote (23936)	10/31/1997 10:20:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) of 35569

ha ha ha... all cases are circumstantial. Rarely in civil case is there any "proof" that is why you will often hear the court say in judgement " on the balance of the probablities we conclude" and then the billion dollars is awarded. Those words and that award was how the world famous Hemlo case ended with Holland (never overturned) presiding. There was no paper, no signatures, perfectly conflicting stories and the old bugbear of "no fiduciary trust established" alleged.( By the defense.) Not so, said the court. Must have been established. (that was the court's "parole evidence" or trade practice assumption) Plaintiff won. No paper. 1 billion dollars. It matters only who the judge believes and he has to make a decision. Burden of proof? A good believable likely story. Actually IPM has to prove its assays to deny a reasonable doubt can be maintained. Claim salting. Well If ten experts can find no trace of Pt in the rock then I am afraid it looks very very bad for the defense. And trust me that day will come in court. Lumbert can allege it then ask that it be proven. He does not have to carry his proof to court. Its called discovery. Expert forensic discovery in this matter does not have to exceed 500,000 dollars. The states interest is served so they should do it pro bono. It's delicate but the notoriety of the case should trigger this. There has been a few cases of claim salting and wash trading on it. Very famous ones. Losses in the market can be claimed. Audits such as by BD are not certified always as they are not forensic necessarily or ven very rigorous and controlled as we have seen in the Kilborn Bre-x case. Major errors were made by Kilborn staff in the assaying checks that constitute negligence and their failure to check further to certify the results is by their responsibility to the exchange and the engineer's society as engineers unprofessional and reproachable. echarter@vianet.on.ca EC<:-}

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next