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: Moot who wrote (6832)	3/14/1998 8:14:00 PM
From: Pete Schueler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Moot, Welcome to SI and KRY. That is an impressive first post. Clearly you have spent some time with this matter and you offer a well researched professional analysis. Perhaps you can shed some light for us on what lies behind your interest in the case and its outcome. Regards, Pete

To: Moot who wrote (6832)	3/15/1998 8:56:00 AM
From: alan miller	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

Moot: This link and subsequent links may help dispel some of that queeziness in your weather report. forums.stockhouse.com regards, am

To: Moot who wrote (6832)	3/15/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: Deep Throat	Respond to of 10836

Perception is not reality and not all claims can be substantiated! For a qualified legal opinion read this members.aol.com Sometimes, better than trusting the weather forecast, it's more useful to read the obvious signs! If there are dark clouds on the horizon and birds flying close to the ground, I'll guess a storm is approaching! P.S. Severe storm advisory in effect!

To: Moot who wrote (6832)	3/15/1998 10:31:00 AM
From: tanoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

Hello Moot; Without trying to be disrespectful, you are attempting to argue what is now fundamentally a "moot point". You cannot argue what the CSJ has already declared, so may I suggest that you don't go back so far in time, and only look at what is before the CSJ now, for that is all that matters now. What happened in the past is not now before the CSJ, only 11 motions, so let's try to keep what is very complicated in some circles back to the basics. If all 11 motions are accepted by the CSJ, Invesora Mael will have their title perfected, this is really how simple this case is at this point. I really cannot understand why some people are continuing to muddy all of this with past issues that are now fully entered into this equation and have been dealt with.If those arguments were valid at this point we would not even be at this stage of the game with the CSJ, arguing all of those points back to 1986 is like saying that the CSJ did not exist for the three decisions they have already rendered?? The CSJ of Venezuela is the highest court in the land, they have ruled three times in favour of KRY, and also took the extraordinary step of having those rights Gazetted. So what is the point of arguing over what their court has already decided on, we cannot change or undo what they have decided on, we only can now wait for this fourth ruling. And if you really need it, there are some legal opinions that are posted on the net, if you were to look back through out this forum, I'm sure you would find the links, if you cannot I will provide them. If you have doubts as to what I have said, remember one thing, last week at the PDAC show I was able to communicate with many direct players in all of this, from Marc Oppenheimer, Ruiz, and the MEM people, so believe it or not!!, I think that if all three of these say the same thing that there must be some validity to what I just posted. With regards,Frank

To: Moot who wrote (6832)	4/7/1998 2:29:00 AM
From: Graystone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Moot or Moot Ring Hi Moot, you sure have a nice supply of words, always appreciated. I took some time to read your posts and thought you might like to comment. I have included the link to the full post so readers can go and read them. ...the CSJ ruled and ordered that the transfer was valid and should be gazetted....Accepting the foregoing and based solely on the points of law considered by the CSJ, I think one would be hard-pressed to mount a credible argument to the effect that Mael/Crystallex had no claim to LC 4&6 at this point. #reply-3712173 Asensio says. Specifically, Crystallex claims it has the rights to "Las Cristinas 4 & 6 gold concessions" and that "the Supreme Court of Venezuela is currently considering its application seeking to enforce its ownership rights over" these gold concessions. Both of these statements are false and untrue. Those who knowingly circulate or abet falsehoods are, in my opinion, scum. #reply-3819013 Asensio is fraudulent as we all know, that does mean he can't be trusted. Why would anyone be "surprised" to see Asensio questioned about anything ? I was surprised to see someone recently ask on Stockhouse if Asensio's claims regarding the latest exercise of options was true. #reply-3792003