Crystallex (KRY) 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 : Crystallex (KRY)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: viper who wrote (4840)	2/8/1998 10:42:00 PM
From: Fulvio Castelli	Read Replies (1) of 10836

I knew this was crap, so I was going to go back (yet again) and dig up the details when lo and behold, my good buddy Avalon had already done so. Here is what he wrote on StockHouse in response to your dribble (I'm sure Av won't mind my posting it here in an (albeit futile) attempt to educate you): Torres was NEVER Dot's Power of Attorney..Adrianza Morales was. The transaction between Morales ,on behalf of Dot, and Torres was reviewed and CONFIRMED by the first court of Mercantile Matters by an OFFICIAL court decision an April 4th, 1986. Dot had FIVE days to appeal this transaction if she had a concern over it...NO appeal was EVER filed. Dot had FIVE days to appeal The February "agreement" we all know about...maybe viper should read the Wall Street Journal article??? And then he wrote: Viper said "Ramon Torres who had power of attorney over Dot's affairs also had such power revoked formally notarized and prior to the illegal transfer to Mael and then to KRY. In fact, in 1991 on Feb 26 Torres..." CVG argued that the POA Dot had given Morales had been revoked two days prior to the transaction.... This is BS (yes Viper ... Beautiful Story [FC])....there was no revocation evidenced in the notary where the POA was granted OR in the First Court of Mercantile Matters... Finally, the Feb decision was made by the THIRD court of Mercantile Matters...this does not matter as there are SEVERAL reasons according to Venezuelan LAW as to WHY this court's decision is not valid...the EASIEST one : Mining LAW specifically states that ONLY the SC has jurisdiction to review and pass judgement on arguments dealing with mining rights AND ONLY the SC has jurisdiction to declare null and void any registered transactions. And then he summarizes his thoughts on your incredibly misinformed statement with the following: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!! (And if I know Av, this final comment was delivered in a chortle of maniacal glee.) If this is what you based your decision to short KRY on son, God help you.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next