RESPONSE TO SHAREHOLDERS
Q&A WEBSITE
March 7, 2008
We continue this week with answering the most commonly asked questions, in no particular order.
Q) “Why isn't the official Medinah website updated on a timely basis?. There is information that is inaccurate. What does it cost Medinah to update the website per chnage and how much does the company spend annually on the website?”
A) There is an annual fee and an hourly time charge. When Russell Godwin was the
Webmaster, the charges were:
2003 - $6,756
2004 - $7,057
Since then, the charges are:
2005 - $1,200
2006 - $542
2007 - $468
Q) “Please inform the shareholders of the company's official position regarding the lawsuit that has been filed by Mr. Godwin. What can we expect from this suit? What affect does the company believe the suit will have on current negotiaions involving the Alto de Lipangue property? Will it, in the company's opinion prevent the JV from being signed?”
A) A week ago, February 24, 2008, we published the Company’s position on our website under the heading Legal Developments. Subsequent to that, senior legal counsel has filed the necessary notices and we are preparing the defence and counterclaims. This does not affect any of the potential Joint Venture participants.
Q) “hello, just wondering a rough timeline for the next little while. I am looking to up my "position" in this company and I am wondering if you could tell me whether or not it will be weeks or months before I see a signifigant change in price. I realize you do not know for sure but any estimate would be appreciated. thanks.”
A) Medinah is, and always has been, a completely free market. As news develops, the price will fluctuate, however, we will engage the services of a public relations firm to better disseminate developments to the shareholders.
Q) “Perhaps I make too many assumptions and it's easy to armchair quarterback from where I sit. I may be way off base here in saying this and if so you may correct me. I would have assumed that knowing what a big event this was that you would have had your webmaster poised to submit an updated announcement of some kind at the conclusion of the meeting. I wouldn't have thought this would have been a difficult task. You knew going into the AGM what the announcement was going to be and could easily (I would think) have had the information already written out and ready for the webmaster to submit the changes.
I'm not even upset by the status of what did or didn't take place. Certainly slightly disappointed, yes, as I'm sure many are. I know in time things will progress to everyone's satisfaction. I certainly don't intend to write scathing letters/questions like so many have done in the past. This doesn't serve any positve purpose but I was genuinely surprised at the lack of website update. That's all I'll say on this matter. No sense in "beating a dead horse" as the saying goes.
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I know you folks are busy with the conclusion of the AGM and lots of other emails. Good luck with everything and please keep us posted.”
A) We apologize, and didn’t realize, that the dissemination of the events at the Shareholders Meeting was not fully available to all Shareholders as the Meeting progressed. The Meeting concluded late Sunday; we had Directors Meeting Sunday night and Monday, returning to the office on Tuesday. Pressing Corporate matters (Godwin et al) were very important and, as well, the notes from the Meeting had to be transcribed into summary form. I will ensure this is addressed for forthcoming meetings.
Q) “Prior to the AGM there were a number of reports from shareholders who claimed you had stated that the signing date for the JV agreement was already set.
Of course as the AGM came and went without the signing, most have assumed that you either mislead the shareholders or were unable to anticipate some unexpected change in plans due to late coming offers that made the date null and void.
But I was wondering if we simply misunderstood your original prognosis. Would we be safe to assume that the signing date WAS and STILL IS set, but it just was never set for a date PRIOR to the AGM, but rather, was always set for a date AFTER?”
A) The date was adjusted to accommodate several interested parties and to allow time to analyze and compare the substance of potential Joint Ventures.
Q) “Godwin says he was not re-elected because of a dissagreement? How arrogant, how stupid, how incredibly self centered!
The May 17, 2004 meeting was called specifically to get rid of those two. A group of shareholders in May, 2003 began to pressure Godwin and House to call a shareholders meeting for a Board vote and were refused out of hand. Many of us were concerned about the lack of communication with shareholders, the lack of disclosure, the failure to respond, the failure to deal with creditors and the refusal to call a shareholders meeting so we could all find out where things stood in the company. Godwin and House knew well prior to May 17, 2004 that if they called a meeting they would be turfed out on their butts. A group eventually representing almost 40% of the outstanding shares (only 10% is required) informed Godwin and House that they were calling for an extra-ordinary meeting for a vote. This is what it took to finally get them to agree to call the May 17, 2004 meeting. Godwin knew he was gone before he even called it. With 40% of the shares against you to start, what chance would you think you had? Also this had NOTHING to do with Price or Quijano. Some of you may not know this, but Godwin spent the May 16th glad handing and canvassing shreholders arriving the day before the meeting, in order to garner support. It must have been very clear how little support he had because at 6 am when Price went to the meeting room to begin preparations, he found a note taped to the door by Godwin, saying the meeting was cancelled! Price checked with securities lawyers and was told that this was not sufficient notice and the meeting could not be cancelled. Yeah, sure he wasn't re-elected because of a mis-understanding during the meeting!
The shareholders had been very concerned because we all knew that the land taxes had not been paid on the properties. In Chile you lose the properties because of this. Several of us asked Godwin what he was going to do about that and he just refused to deal with it. He ignored the maintainance and contractual obligations of the company to the only asset our money was invested in. Godwin and House even ignored the contract obligations to Quijano. Quijano eventually had to pay the taxes himself.
In one conversation Godwin said, we bought and paid for these properties with shares so legally they belong to us and there is nothing he (Quijano) can do about it. It was obvious this man had never even read the contract. This was long before May 17, 2004. He also had not even spoken with Quijano. He said this before all of the shareholders present on May 17, 2004. One might be led to assume that Godwin was trying to destroy Medinah and grab the property for his other problem company KIngsgate Gold which he was trying to resurrect. He was at the helm of Kingsgate when that company was delisted. He asked some of us for money to invest in Kingsgate and said he was putting in a Chilean property.
As far as doing a deal on the property after the May17, 2004 meeting goes, we had no property at the meeting. We were all told that the contract was in default because of Godwin and House and all of us were angry and stunned. After electing the new Board the shareholders instructed them to get with Quijano asap and try to negotiate something to salvage a position for the company and deal with the debt. Following shareholder instructions, this is exactly what the Board did so I guess Godwin is now saying that the Shareholders all committed a fraudulent act against themselves in doing a deal with Quijano to help themselves out of the mess created by Godwin and House. HOW DOES THAT WORK? Also he says that Medinah retained only 10% of the Alto de Lipange. This is further evidence of misleading statements by this guy. The Board negotiated a position which includes up to 50% of the many properties that make up the group known as the Alto de Lipange, and further, to assist the company, Quijano gave 100% of a block of claims that were never included in the Lipange group in the first place. These claims have turned out to contain very high grade molybdenum and silver. Wow, yeah we sure got frauded here.
This was not known by Godwin I guess because after all, this company "never issues news releases" and is after all a "Pink sheet company" . I guess he never read the Medinah website which contains every bit of material information on this subject. Does Godwin know about the website? Oh, wait yeah he was the webmaster until he was fired from that too.
How do I know all this stuff? I am not and insider, not a stock guru, not a Director or Officer. I was a shareholder trying to talk to Godin and House, I was one of the group calling for an EGM, I read the company website which contains all of this info, I asked Price if the property was in good standing, I asked Price if the contracts were in good standing and I was at the May 17, 2004 meeting to help remove these two. By the way,the meeting is on video.
It seems to me that this is a very bitter little man who is out to cause as much grief and upset as possible to us shareholders, to Price and Quijano. Well, he now has to answer in court and I am sure a lot of shareholders will be willing to stand up and say what the facts are about this.”
A) Medinah has been overwhelmed by the Shareholder outrage to this action and commentary in Stockwatch by Godwin. Shareholders who attended the May 17, 2004 Shareholders Meeting know that his facts are totally incorrect. They know that he refused to put his claims for debt to the shareholders because he would have to account. Also the shareholders are well familiar with the disgusting state of the property contracts because they were presented with all of the facts at the meeting. It is management's opinion that this lawsuit is without factual backup and the company is counter suing for damages.
