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: alan miller who wrote (6686)	3/10/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: John BOYCE	Respond to of 10836

Strong Buy Recommendation. James L. Ebersohl & Co. has issued a STRONG BUY RECOMMENDATION for the Vancouver based Crystallex International. Mr. Ebersohl became aware of Crystallex International at the Las Vegas Gold Show in August, 1997. The Company is involved in litigation, through a corporation called Invesora Mael, that is presently in the Supreme Court of Venezuela against the Ministry of Mining and Energy, et. al. The case is significant because Place Dome is the recipient of the prize if it wins and Crystallex International is the recipient of the prize if it wins. Placer Dome is indirectly involved in the case because it was going to share the prize with Minca, a private Venezuelan 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 that 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 Invesora Mael has title to the property retroactive to 1986. MEM had previously told Invesora Mael that it did not in fact 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. Invesora 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 2nd Ruling and the 3rd Ruling were issued in 1996 and 1997 respectively. ALL RULINGS AWARDED TITLE TO INVESORA MAEL and made the awarding of title RETROACTIVE TO 1986!!!! In the United States the effective way to show the world that you own title is through recordation in the local county recorders office. In Venezuela the effective way to show the world that you own title is through 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 withing the prescribed time. The 3rd Ruling also awarded title to Invesora Mael retroctive to 1986 and the Gazetting of Title was recorded IN LONGHAND to ensure that there would be NO CHANGES ON THE DOCUMENT!!! The awarding of title to Invesora Mael retroactive to 1986 is SIGNIFICANT because MEM issued orders that were contrary to the interest of the REAL title holder in the years 1988 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 its 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 Invesora 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 Invesora Mael. That is, MEM propounded a Statute of Limitations argument regarding the gold concessions. The argument, in essence, said that Invesora 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 Invesora 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 Invesora Mael did not own the property. The awarding of RETROACTIVE TITLE gave INVESORA MAEL the RIGHT (legal standing) to CONTEST THE ACTS THAT WERE DONE SUBSEQUENT TO IT'S BEING AWARDED TITLE IN 1986 by the 1991, 1996 and 1997 Rulings. The Statute of Limitations will be tolled until the ACTUAL GAZETTING OF TITLE. INVESORA 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 Invesora 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 OCCURRED IN 1997, INVESORA MAEL COULD AND DID FILE AN APPEAL TO ADJUDICATE THE QUESTION. The filing of the appeal was within the applicable statute of limitation time period because Invesora was awarded title and only an insignificant time period passed before Invesora filed it's appeal. THE COURT WILL VOID THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND AWARD THE GOLD CONCESSIONS TO INVESORA MAEL. This is very significant to investors as the World believes that either Placer Dome or Placer Dome's side has won, when nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that Placer was going to build a $600 million mine on the property 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. This is an opportunity of a lifetime to come into a play at the end of the questions and to know that the play has at least 11.8 million ounces of gold and to know that the Placer Dome wanted to build a $600 million 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 Invesora Mael on 3 separate occasions and it ruled UNANIMOUSLY