Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : coastal caribbean (cco@) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bobby1418 who wrote (1139)	11/22/1999 12:35:00 AM
From: Edwin S. Fujinaka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4686

CCO responded to the State with the Appeals Court on November 8th as I understand it. They were geared to respond quickly and they beat the time deadline (even as short as the time was). The Case may have to be heard by the entire Court (I think 15 Judges) and that could delay things a little. I think that one of the issues must be whether the Appeals Court has the authority (or the intent) to rule the State's actions as a condemnation. I have said before that I think the Appeals Court Ruling fell short of actually declaring the State's actions to be a "taking". All the Court said was that the State's actions would only be unconstitutional if they did not pay just compensation. This wording may have left room for the State to litigate for more time. It would be interesting to know if there was any consulting between the State Officials and the Judges to create the "right" wording that would delay the case. Can a State Government Entity be charged under the Rico (Racketeering) Laws? Maybe we need Larry Klayman to help with this litigation. (Ken Starr is too much of a wimp.) <G>. Anyway, I'd really like to see some State Officials testifying under oath for the record. Perhaps we can send someone to jail eventually. It would be interesting to depose these guys and look at all the memos and notes of meetings.