Valentine
In a previous post, you said:
"Please show me in print the suspension that "admitted" the three non-admitted motions"
I do not claim that Judge Acuna admitted the three motions through her "suspension of legal effect" nor do I claim that a hearing is impossible however from in reading your posts, it suggests to me that you have misunderstood the nature of the current procedure the PAC is undergoing. Sometimes it takes more than just a quick phone call to the clerk's office to understand the underlying machinations of the court.
Furthermore, when you say:
"We have asked Acuna. She knows nothing of this."
You are either a liar or your question was badly phrased. If you asked whether she admitted the motions, I can understand why she knows nothing of this. The suspension of legal effect has been documented in several arenas, not just VHeadline news. VHeadline news, BTW, is open to ALL who have access to the Internet, INCLUDING MANY readers in Venezuela who would be readily able to dispute any false claims that might have been published. BTW, Crystallex HAS documented the suspension of legal effect as you will see.
I will again reiterate that I have no personal knowledge as to whether this case will go to a hearing or not, but I suggest you read the following and consider the question to follow. I look forward to your interpretation:
*************
Subsequent Developments in Court Proceeding: There have been two significant subsequent
developments. First, Mael has appealed the part of Judge Acuna's decision that prevents Mael's
motions attacking the 1989 resolutions from being considered by the Political Administrative
Chamber. This appeal is being taken on the ground that there was no constitutional authority for
the Ministry to make its resolutions with the result that the resolution has always been legally
invalid. If the legal invalidity of the resolution is accepted on appeal, the finding of the Admission
Court that the motion attacking the 1989 resolutions was brought too late would be irrelevant
because the resolution would never have been legally operative.
The second development is that on July 31, 1997, Judge Acuna formally suspended any legal
effect of her previous decision not to admit the three motions based on the 1989 resolution. The
result is that the Chamber will have full authority to entertain the motions concerning the 1989
resolutions as though Judge Acuna had not made her preliminary ruling. Accordingly, Mael's
entitlement to be treated as the owner of the Concessions has not been disturbed by the latest
court decision.
********************
Now, pay attention to the reasoning and wording of the appeal itself.
If the PAC were to admit the 3 gold motions on the basis that "there was no constitutional authority for
the Ministry to make its resolutions with the result that the resolution has always been legally
invalid,"
What more is there to argue about at a hearing?
How do you , or anyone here for that matter, interpret this? |
