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: Mr Metals who wrote (8229)	4/15/1998 2:18:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) of 10836

The foregoing, sir, while having some elements of fact within in it is a specious and slanted view of the matter. In fact it is journalistic horsepuckey. It is just plainly a one sided twisting of fact and fiction and is usually called Yellow Journalism, prevarication or just plain lying. The facts are that the entire case is being heard. They did not refuse to hear the matter of denying the MEM resolution on the gold rights. That was admitted by Gomez later after Acuna at first balked at it. Get your facts COMPLETE. The fact is that title in 1986 is title in 1998 too. That is what the court gazetted. It isn't trying to rewrite history books. The court does not care a wit if title then would have been different UNLESS IT CHANGES SOME THING TODAY. It does. It does indeed. Do you really fall for that "legal procedural" ditty Dome sings? What do you think the law is all about? Is it not correctness of legal procedure. If one of those "procedures" is the granting or transfer of title do you not think that is a little bitty important detail to pay close attention to? Now in addition although many of the facts you refer to were in evidence in other locales at different times it is also true that the concessions were a special class of automatically renewing 50 year concessions. The ministry just plain got it wrong. Article 43 does not apply. They did not even have to be renewed in fact. The registration of transfer to Mael is what the ministry denied, claiming the claims had lapsed. This ground has been covered by the Supreme Court and they DECLARED the claims are valid and THEN they gazetted them in MAEL's name. The matters of the Lemon POA have been looked at by lower courts and it is true that at first the matter looked dicey. BUT there is no proof that the Torres transfer is invalid. None at all. The POA was not relied on to make the transfer. This whole matter would be another case and a tough one for the gov't to prove. I could go on and on. But go ahead. It is amusing. Perhaps you might like to research matters a little more deeply. Oppenheimer may not be interested in talking to some goofballs. I cannot blame him. But he does really talk to legitimate press who he knows are taking an unbiased stance. EC<:-}

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next