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: tanoose who wrote (6896)	3/16/1998 3:29:00 PM
From: Gary Nash	Respond to of 10836

Frank and Tao: re: Valentine. Perhaps it is worthwhile to analyze what Valentine has been stating in some detail. In post 6878 he states "they must accept an appeal. That is what they do." This is obviously wrong; the PAC will ONLY accept an appeal on proper legal grounds. Mael's title was upheld and that is the only reason that the PAC would even look at an appeal. In post 6854 Valentine states" Assuming the three unadmited motions are admitted"; there is NO assumption as to whether or not the motions are admitted. Judge Acuna's role was to determine whether or not to admit the motions before her to the PAC. After July 31/97 she admitted ALL motions for the PAC to rule upon. I welcome "fresh" views on the KRY legal battle, but Valentine has a lot of holes to cover in his arguments with his "big head"! Gary.