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: Valentine who wrote (6875)	3/16/1998 8:01:00 AM
From: TAO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

Valentine In a previous post, you said: "Please show me in print the suspension that "admitted" the three non-admitted motions" I do not claim that Judge Acuna admitted the three motions through her "suspension of legal effect" nor do I claim that a hearing is impossible however from in reading your posts, it suggests to me that you have misunderstood the nature of the current procedure the PAC is undergoing. Sometimes it takes more than just a quick phone call to the clerk's office to understand the underlying machinations of the court. Furthermore, when you say: "We have asked Acuna. She knows nothing of this." You are either a liar or your question was badly phrased. If you asked whether she admitted the motions, I can understand why she knows nothing of this. The suspension of legal effect has been documented in several arenas, not just VHeadline news. VHeadline news, BTW, is open to ALL who have access to the Internet, INCLUDING MANY readers in Venezuela who would be readily able to dispute any false claims that might have been published. BTW, Crystallex HAS documented the suspension of legal effect as you will see. I will again reiterate that I have no personal knowledge as to whether this case will go to a hearing or not, but I suggest you read the following and consider the question to follow. I look forward to your interpretation: *********** Subsequent Developments in Court Proceeding: There have been two significant subsequent developments. First, Mael has appealed the part of Judge Acuna's decision that prevents Mael's motions attacking the 1989 resolutions from being considered by the Political Administrative Chamber. This appeal is being taken on the ground that there was no constitutional authority for the Ministry to make its resolutions with the result that the resolution has always been legally invalid. If the legal invalidity of the resolution is accepted on appeal, the finding of the Admission Court that the motion attacking the 1989 resolutions was brought too late would be irrelevant because the resolution would never have been legally operative. The second development is that on July 31, 1997, Judge Acuna formally suspended any legal effect of her previous decision not to admit the three motions based on the 1989 resolution. The result is that the Chamber will have full authority to entertain the motions concerning the 1989 resolutions as though Judge Acuna had not made her preliminary ruling. Accordingly, Mael's entitlement to be treated as the owner of the Concessions has not been disturbed by the latest court decision. ****************** Now, pay attention to the reasoning and wording of the appeal itself. If the PAC were to admit the 3 gold motions on the basis that "there was no constitutional authority for the Ministry to make its resolutions with the result that the resolution has always been legally invalid," What more is there to argue about at a hearing? How do you , or anyone here for that matter, interpret this?

To: Valentine who wrote (6875)	3/16/1998 10:25:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

A court action under Venezuelan law does not allow for partial admission of an action. If part of the action is not ruled on at the time it is immaterial if the CASE is admitted based on other points. So the CASE was admitted, is being heard and of COURSE the 3 points specifically pointed out were to be adjudicated for admission of hearing by a higher court, WILL be considered. It is like a trial court hearing whether evidence will be allowed to be heard by the Jury, it must be in the court, and not necessarily in the indictment. In this case it may be assumed, that due the delay in obtaining hearings and publishment of ownership, and the NECESSITY of this case in enforcing ownership because of abrogated rights and political delays, that the statute of limitations will not apply here. The important thing to remember here is that this case is FINAL. The Supreme Court cannot be appealed. It WILL deny PDG their right to mine. It is important to consider too that CVG is rapidly losing parallel cases of equal importance in court where it has been shown that they were improperly constitutionally formed, as it has been seen Dome was aware of all along. echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter