Hello Moot;
I must give you credit for the knowledge and discipline with your wordings regarding this case. I am just a laymen you see, I do not have such a fine capacity to speak in the arts of legalese, but I do know plenty who do, and it is their judgement that I have grown to respect and value.
Long ago, as you have said, I have established my position, but also I did say that any and all can profit from this situation, maybe you can recall??....that being long or short, it has been the best game now for a year running, this you cannot possibly argue.
Now getting back to your, "again I will compliment you", on your fine deliberations, but there is one fundamental point you seem to want to disregard, and this I do not quite understand as to why you would.All of the arguments you have presented, have all passed through the CSJ, they are done, you are nine months too late with those arguments, they all happened before, with the three previous rulings that gave title to Inversora Mael, it was also the CSJ that took the unusual step of gazetting the rights when the MEM refused. So now we are left with taking back what the MEM had no right to give away in the first place.
As Andy has said, and I as well, there are only the "11 motions" now before the PAC, nothing less and nothing more, Inversora Mael, has already gone by those arguments that you have painstakenly presented.
It is a pleasure though to read through your posts, you have shown a very good knowledge of what has occurred, more refreshing than what many have had to put up with here and on SH.
With regards,Frank
P.S.You should check out "Hoet Linares", you may find his history very intriguing and impressive I may add?? |
