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: Mama Bear who wrote (6530)	3/8/1998 8:42:00 PM
From: Islander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

It has to do with truth. False statements for the purposes of deliberately misleading for financial gain is immoral as well as illegal. Is that too deep for you as well?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (6530)	3/8/1998 8:44:00 PM
From: Rob Twilt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10836

I am not "in bed" with anyone. Barb Sorry to hear that!! Barb...this is the latest legal analysis. I have read that this kind of stuff really doesn't interest you...but do yourself a favour and read this post. If nothing here changes your mind...continue to short the hell out of this play. Best regards, Rob The following is a legal analysis of this play by James L. Ebersohl, a licensed Attorney in the State of Illinois. Crystallex International is involved in litigation through a Corporation called Inversora Mael that is presently in the Supreme Court of Venezuela against the Ministry of Mining and Energy, et.al. The case is significant because Placer Dome is the recipient of the prize if MEM wins and Crystallex International is the recipient of the prize if Inversora Mael wins. Placer Dome is indirectly involved in the case because it was going to share the prize with Minca, a private Venezuela corporation. Placer was to receive 70% of the profit and Minca was to receive 30% of the profit. What is the PRIZE? It is a piece of property commonly known as LC 4&6 in Bolivar State in the Country of Venezuela. Publicly it has been announced by Placer Dome that there is 11 .8 million ounces of gold on the property after Placer has made extensive expenditures doing core sampling drilling and Mining Experts believe the amount of gold on the subject property is SUBSTANTIALLY MORE!!! What is the status of the Case? There have been 3 prior Rulings by the Supreme Court of Venezuela, the Rulings have all confirmed that Inversora Mael has title to the property retroactive to 1986. MEM had previously told Inversora Mael that it did not have title to the property and prevented it from proceeding with developing the property while vainly trying to allow Placer Dome to develop the property. Inversora Mael went to Court to have the Court determine whether it had title to the property. As you will note, the litigation has been before the Supreme Court for a long time as the first Ruling was issued in 1991. The second Ruling and the third Ruling were issued in 1996 and 1997 respectively. ALL RULINGS AWARDED TITLE TO INVERSORA MAEL and made the awarding of title RETROACTIVE TO 1986!!!! In the United States the effective way you show the world that you own title is through recordation the local county recorders office. In Venezuela, the effective way you show the world you own title is the gazetting of the documentation. The Supreme Court took the MOST UNUSUAL effort and GAZETTED the 3rd Ruling itself after the MEM did NOT gazette the 3rd Ruling within a prescribed time. The 3rd Ruling also awarded title to Inversora Mael retroactive to 1986 and the Gazetting of title was recorded in LONGHAND to insure that there would be NO CHANGES ON THE DOCUMENT!!!!!! The awarding of title to Inversora Mael retroactive to 1986 is SIGNIFICANT because MEM issued orders that were contrary to the interest of the real title holder in the years1988 and 1989. The Court is now determining that these orders will be VOID AB INITIO (void from the beginning) because the Court has advised the world that MEM did NOT HAVE VALID TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SINCE 1986 AND IT COULD NOT CONVEY THROUGH CERTAIN CORPORATIONS THAT WHICH IT DID NOT HAVE. THEREFORE, the contractual agreement that Placer Dome had with MINCA is VOID AS, CONTRACTUALLY SPEAKING YOU CAN ONLY GIVE WHAT YOU HAVE AND IF YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU CAN GIVE NOTHING!!!! Legally speaking, everything flows from title and the Court will issue it's Ruling to confirm that MEM had nothing to give MINCA who gave Placer Dome NOTHING! MEM exceeded it's mandate and the Court has previously confirmed this. It is interesting to note that the Case is presently before the SAME PANEL of Judges who have previously in Rulings 1, 2, and 3 have Ruled unanimously in favor of Inversora Mael. Why then are we having a 4th Ruling? We are having a 4th Ruling to perfect title to the title that has been previously awarded to Inversora Mael, that is, MEM propounded a Statute of Limitations argument regarding the gold concessions. The argument, in essence, said that Inversora Mael waited too long to contest the awarding of the gold concessions to MINCA, CVG and MEM. The folly of that argument is that MEM advised Inversora Mael that it no longer owned the title to the property, and therefore it could not contest any adverse acts that were contrary to it's interest subsequent to MEM's determination that Inversora Mael did not own the property. The awarding of RETROACTIVE TITLE gave INVERSORA MAEL the RIGHT (legal standing) to CONTEST THE ACTS THAT WERE DONE SUBSEQUENT TO IT'S BEING AWARDED TITLE RETROACTIVE TO 1986 BY THE 1991, 1996 and 1997 Rulings. The Statute of Limitations will be tolled until the ACTUAL GAZETTING OF TITLE. INVERSORA MAEL HAS APPEALED THIS ONlY UNFAVORABLE PART OF THE PRIOR RULINGS and IT IS THIS PERFECTION OF TITLE THAT IT ALREADY HAS THAT WE ARE WAITING FOR IN THE 4TH RULING. Judge Acuna (one of the Supreme Court Judges) HAD to deny the 3 motions because the only question that was before her was did Inversora Mael file within the applicable time period and she had to rule NO. BUT NOW THAT THE AWARDING OF TITLE RETROACTIVE TO 1986 HAS JUST OCCURED IN 1997 INVERSORA MAEL THROUGH GAZETTING, INVERSORA MAEL COULD AND DID FILE AN APPEAL ADJUDICATE THE QUESTION. The filing of the appeal was within the applicable Statute of Limitation time period because Inversora Mael was awarded title in 1997 by the gazetting of title and only an insignifcant time period past before Inversora Mael filed its appeal. THE COURT WILL VOID THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION AND AWARD THE GOLD CONCESSIONS TO INVERSORA MAEL. This is very significant to investors as the world believes that either Placer Dome or Placer Domes side has won, when nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that Placer was going to build a 600 million dollar mine to begin mining the gold that is on the property. What ever happened to that? I can tell you that Placer could not get FINANCING FOR THAT PROJECT BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY!!!!! Placer will probably give you another reason, but think about it, would you loan someone 600 million dollars to build a mine on property that it did NOT own????? >From the dates you will notice that the questions of title have been before the Court for a VERY LONG time. The 4th Ruling is due momentarily. Therefore, it is this attorney's opinion that this is an opportunity of a lifetime to be able to come into a play at the conclusion of the litigation and to know that the play has at least 11.8 million ounces of gold and to know that Placer Dome wanted to build a 600 million dollar mine on the property and to know that the litigation is before the SAME PANEL OF JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VENEZUELA that has already ruled in favor of Inversora Mael on three separate occasions, with NO NEW ADDITIONAL FACTS being rendered to the Court at any time and the Court having ruled unanimously. PDG SAY GOOD-BYE TO VENEZUELA!!!!!!! James L. Ebersohl