PAW - Pacific Wildcat Resources Corp 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 : PAW - Pacific Wildcat Resources Corp

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Rocket Red who wrote (3373)	3/23/2019 3:36:40 AM
From: sense	of 3412

Hmmm. It's not clear to me how any dispute that was "dismissed for lack of jurisdiction" even requires an annulment ... much less what benefit an annulment of a finding of a lack of jurisdiction would enable ? If the issue is that there is a lack of jurisdiction... that just means that you're not in the right venue... so there has to be another venue where the jurisdiction would exist ? Where is that ? The company website gives direct access to all of the earlier proceedings... except there is no link provided to access the decision. The company announcement shows "The full decision may be found at: " and then never gives the link. It might be instructive to find out why the jurisdiction was found to be incompetent, and if the reason for that has something to do with the nature of the ownership interest being claimed, with a lack of standing or some such issue in result that undermines PAW's claim to have an interest... the lack of which might be what makes the venue an issue. Does the finding mean that you have to win a proof of ownership in Kenya, first, and only then have the standing to contest the way that interest has been abused in takings by the officialdom ? That would seem a pretty perverse Catch 22... enabling frauds to succeed by taking away the interest... and claiming that the lack of the wrongly taken interest prevents you from having the wrongful taking properly adjudicated... because you can't prove you have the interest that was wrongly taken from you ? Otherwise, the lack of jurisdiction in an Arbitration... means something came up that prevents the Arbitration proceeding because of some other legal issue that requires a resolution before any Arbitration can proceed ? Hard to parse what's going on, here... given the lack of information.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next