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: Rob Skaff who wrote (1172)	12/7/1999 11:15:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Respond to of 4686

I didn't mean to imply that they are negotiating in friendly terms. I have no knowledge of that one way or the other. What I was trying to point out is what the possible risks are if we act on our own with co-ordinating with the company. Regarding filing a suit claiming a taking my uninformed non-lawyer guess would be that such action would have to wait until the current appeal has run its course and the state formally denies the permits under an acceptable bond. Until then they haven't formally taken anything since the permits are still under judicial review. Just a guess and I am not a lawyer.

To: Rob Skaff who wrote (1172)	12/7/1999 1:24:00 PM
From: Edwin S. Fujinaka	Respond to of 4686

Although I am not a lawyer, I have actually gone through a condemnation lawsuit to determine valuation. In my case, there was no question about whether the "taking" had actually taken place since the Government needed the land to build a big water tank and it would not have been appropriate to trespass on my property to do it.<G> I understand that CCO has requested that the court declare that the State of Florida had effectively taken their property rights when they obstructed drilling and development. The court told CCO that they had to pursue all avenues to drill before it could be considered a taking under condemnation law. Now, the appeals court has explicitly said that the State has the power to prevent drilling, but that it would only be unconstitutional if they did not pay "just compensation". Such wording does provide wiggle room to continue to delay. The State seems to be following an OJ Simpson-Bill Clinton defense mode (which actually worked for those two guys) but I think it is unseemly and immoral and in the end illegal for the State to follow such a course. BTW, the appeals court ruling could have been given on day one of this litigation and has always been obvious. The State has fraudulently pursued a course that attempts to kill off CCO via attrition to avoid paying just compensation. The State has enourmous power to do that to anyone over any issue that any bureaurocrat or politician cares to address. This is intolerable in a free society. I think any politician who advocates following the course that Florida has taken over the years could not be acceptable for National public office (or his brother either <G>). Seriously, the Appeals Court will probably send the case back to the lower court for resolution of an inverse condemnation determination. After the lower court determines that the State has indeed "taken" CCO's property rights, the lower court can structure a trial to determine "just compensation". This might be a jury trial. Of course, the State could delay further by appealing a lower court inverse condemnation judgement...