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 : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hurricane who wrote (4208)	12/24/1997 3:20:00 AM
From: Michael Bidder	Respond to of 10836

Hurrican, A most resonable post. Are you in a position to offer some answers or supositions to my questions. They are civel questions. I will uphold a high degree of politness. Maybe we can elivate the disscusion above what it has sunk to. -Sincirelly Michael

To: hurricane who wrote (4208)	12/24/1997 12:13:00 PM
From: tanoose	Respond to of 10836

Hello hurricane; Logical and and very addreeable to a degree??? Merry Christamas....hurricane........bottom line is a court decision with finality "if" and "when" it comes...it really is that simple. Short syndicate......it's a reality! With regards, Frank P.S. everything is in how you approach people, discussion or flaming there is a difference?......bottom line!

To: hurricane who wrote (4208)	12/27/1997 4:32:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

According to the VEEP of KRY, the one judge did get sick and also was off in Italy which may or may not have been due their illness. This is his opinion may have delayed the court decision. If you had any experience with courts a delay in a decision traditionally prefers the accused. (If it were deliberation.) In this case it prefers the plaintiff. Where complexity needs consideration, it favours the plea. In criminal that is the defense, in civil it may be the plaintiff. The burden of proof lends the plaintiff the argument weight. So the time being spent to weigh shows the plausibility of the argument, since the decision is being made whether or not to accept. In criminal cases the burden is on the people but the defense put forth arguments to the contrary for consideration to reject that thesis. So time spent is in consideration to reject. The more time the more cause to accept that the rejection is gathering weight (in criminal). In some cases the amount of time to put forth the arguments must be taken into account. In the case of the Simpson civil verdict the time spent was all in presentation, allowing the jury to reach a quick verdict. Here the weight is in the time spent in the two favourable cases already and bringing reasons to accept the KRY thesis on 11 issues admitted. Dome has relatively less to argue as as far as constitionality of the CVG tenure is concerned. So consideration time favours the lengthier thesis. The question is does the government have the right to cancel concessions and grant them to a privately sponsored entity on its behalf? The answer to the first is moot if the second is no and increasingly the second is seen to be no. CVG had no right to mine or own concessions let alone enter into agreements on them or grant them. The right of cancellation is very difficult but as in other points of law worldwide, courts do not have to accept government fiat without just cause a priori. The right to mine and expropriate has to flow from a right of excercise in the common good and from a clear lack of any competing right on the part of the expropriated. Cause of right should be paramount to avoid the spectre of mere government interference in the orderly business of its people. The use of reasons to expropriate that were cited by the MEM is not acceptable as due process was denied the claim holder. These actions by the Ministry are seen as shoddy excuses for perhaps "well meaning" but fundamentally wrong headed and immature actions. echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter