Barbara Payne and other Asensio followers. I am astounded how you people can follow Asensio's advice on KRY! He either does not know important details in this complicated legal case or he is deliberately omitting them to paint a very tainted picture of the facts. For example, As. claims Mael obtained rights to LC 4&6 fraudulently from Torres because Dot de Lemon revoked her power of attorney. In fact, because she owed $290,000 bolivars to Schmidt for legal services which Torres and subsequently Mael paid on her behalf. Before her death, she acknowledged the transfer of title to Torres in respect of her debt EVEN THOUGH she had revoked her POA; she did NOT file an appeal of the transfer as is required by Ven. law within 5 court days which proves she acknowledged it! LC 4&6 therefore did not pass intestate and the Govt. had no right to confiscate the property and auction it to PDG. That is why the PAC upheld Maels title to the PROPERTY and force the Mem to gazette it formally in 1997 No 5,146 on May 15. Through a private co. KRY has the option to own all of the shares in Mael through an agreement with Mael over two years (see Maymac dispute for details). So KRY owns the property but the present litigation (As. denies there is any!) is over a work contract granted by the CVG on a property that it did not have the right to grant anything; the mining rights go with the property! As. does not get this, or is blatantly distorting the facts. The problem is simply not a winner take all. If the PAC simply gave the mining rights to KRY, PDG can sue the govt. of Ven.- not a conducive environment for majors to spend $ in the country.But if KRY does not win substantially, the Supreme Court is proven to be corrupt by negating the property rights to KRY which it has previously awarded on 3 different occasions. And PDG must be reimbursed substantially in order to prevent a law suit against the govt. Hence, a game theory analysis suggests a compromise something like: KRY 45% PDG or another major reimbursing it 45%, govt. 10% through royalties or participation. A new mining law is being drafted which MAY require (cannot substantiate this at this time) all mining ventures govt. participation of say 10%. In this way, the 30% loss of the govt. of LC 4&6 is more than accounted for in future participation of the govt. in every venture. There is a factual point in all of As's claims that is NOT properly stated. The facts are available for all to discover if you take the time to understand this complicated case. The ONLY way KRY can lose is if the PAC undoes that which it has already done. If the highest court in the land is to maintain its very important credibility, KRY will come out of this situation with at least 5 million proven oz. of gold and the potential for a double of that if the reserves as stated by PDG are proven up. As. has not done his DD or is purposely misleading the FACTS for his own gain.
Gary. |
