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: Valentine who wrote (7585)	3/31/1998 3:08:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (3) of 10836

The SC record on this CASE: Crystallex was allowed the sole title, the transfer from Lemon to Torres/Mael was ratified, the 11 motions to have their mining rights enforced by the courts was allowed to be heard by the Court. After 2,000 pages of motions to suppress by Dome the court announces two weeks ago they will accept no more motions and "have reached a decision and will announce that soon". Geez, it sounds grim. What do you think will happen? Usually when the court is mulling something over they ask for clarification on an issue and will call the plaintiff or defendant back. Here Dome was acting as if IT were the plaintiff, not Crystallex. Clearly Dome is the more worried, and has the most defend. In this case the mere admittance of the motions, all 11 of them is practically a decision for the plaintiff, Crystallex. Remember that Crystallex is suing to have an already titular issue ENFORCED. They are saying "this is my land, here are the title documents the court granted me, now GET YOUR BULLDOZER OFF MY LAND." Looks like Dome will have to go. echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next