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 (6919)	3/17/1998 12:53:00 AM
From: tanoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Hello Moot; I must give you credit for the knowledge and discipline with your wordings regarding this case. I am just a laymen you see, I do not have such a fine capacity to speak in the arts of legalese, but I do know plenty who do, and it is their judgement that I have grown to respect and value. Long ago, as you have said, I have established my position, but also I did say that any and all can profit from this situation, maybe you can recall??....that being long or short, it has been the best game now for a year running, this you cannot possibly argue. Now getting back to your, "again I will compliment you", on your fine deliberations, but there is one fundamental point you seem to want to disregard, and this I do not quite understand as to why you would.All of the arguments you have presented, have all passed through the CSJ, they are done, you are nine months too late with those arguments, they all happened before, with the three previous rulings that gave title to Inversora Mael, it was also the CSJ that took the unusual step of gazetting the rights when the MEM refused. So now we are left with taking back what the MEM had no right to give away in the first place. As Andy has said, and I as well, there are only the "11 motions" now before the PAC, nothing less and nothing more, Inversora Mael, has already gone by those arguments that you have painstakenly presented. It is a pleasure though to read through your posts, you have shown a very good knowledge of what has occurred, more refreshing than what many have had to put up with here and on SH. With regards,Frank P.S.You should check out "Hoet Linares", you may find his history very intriguing and impressive I may add??

To: Moot who wrote (6919)	3/17/1998 1:28:00 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

"When I read this some time ago, I was puzzled by the use of the word 'pretend', as in they 'pretended to waive the ruling'." I believe that the opinion of Baumeister y Brewer is not translated well into English as it appears in post 2511 on this thread. Here are the paragraphs with 'pretend'; "1) On Aug 14, 1991, plaintiff pretended to abandon the action that originated the judicial review process and also pretended to abandon all the "effects" of the May 9, 1991 SCJ decision. Taking into account all the mentioned petitions, the SCJ issued a second decision on October 16, 1996, in which the Court decided, that having concluded the judicial review process against Resolution No. 29, April 14, 1988 of the MEM, the plaintiff, at that stage, could not pretend to "abandon" the original action for judicial review, and cannot pretend to "abandon" the effects of the judicial decision, which were produced since May 9, 1991." Looks like the Spanish original [does anyone have that?] used 'pretender' and 'pretendi¢', and because the verb can be used in Spanish in the way 'to pretend' is used in English, and it looked alike, someone used 'pretend'. Better to use 'claim' or 'plead', imho. There's a five-dollar lawyer word in english that's even better, that describes the action of a plaintiff petitioning the court, but I can't remember it. The most common word used in espa¤ol for 'plaintiff' is 'demandante', but I have heard 'pretendiente' used, and it would correspond to the ingl‚s 'claimant'. 'Pretendiente' is something like 'Pretender' the way it is used in Englisch to describe the 'Pretender to the Throne', ie the Claimant. To translate the E 'to pretend' into S to convey a sense of feigning or fakery it would be better to use 'fingir' or even 'simular' before you use 'pretender'. 'Pretendiente' can also mean 'suitor', it is one word used to describe a firm with desires to take over another firm. Likewise the verb; 'pretender' = to claim, to pretend to; to try for, to try to do; to be a suitor for; to insist I must confess that my Spanish is of the home and street and rancho, and not of the university, and that legal language in any language makes my brain go all mushy. The only questions I ever ask my lawyer are 'Can we win or not?' and 'OK, how much will you charge me then?' ........ just kidding Moot, you have an inquiring and cautious mind with a capacity for detail. Don't be discouraged by anybody, long or short, who would stifle that curiosity or attempt to present this case or any other as a simple cut-and-dried piece of cake. Myself I followed this story and this thread for a year now, and only on Friday (the 13th!) went long. I'm a little longer today, even after one small sale near the close. But it's just a stock, and stocks were made to be sold, and it's best to keep an open mind about just when to do that, imho. ........ cheers .................. marcos

To: Moot who wrote (6919)	4/9/1998 8:09:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

To your concerns. The Supreme Court has addressed these. They said in 1991, 1995 and 1997 that the transfers were valid. They were in the form of a power of Attorney of de Lemon. The MEM had other plans at the time for the property so there is NO REASON to doubt the document. (They did not find specific fault with the document, its validity was denied due to non-payment of taxes, a neat trick that the CSJ has denied the MEM) It has not been invalidated and is not likely to be unless in an entirely different detective story fraud is proved. No reason to presume, or doubt. Concerning the waiving of rights. The dependent negotiation that the waiving was tied to did not taken place. I think Corredor has a point. If the waiving is tied to that negotiation and it is naught then the waiving is nought. Again the CSJ has found that this waiving did not prevent the RETURN of TITLE to Mael. (Remember title?) Yes considerable research needs be done. The entire history must be considered. Taking it all from one side just won't do. So what will be decided in this ruling by the court? The validity of Crystallex's surface mining rights on Concessions 4,5,6, and 7. And the validity of their deep mining rights on those concessions. That is all. 9.68 billion dollars (CDN) worth of Gold and considerable exploration potential beyond that. The second largest gold mine in North America, the Hollinger contained scarcely more than that. This makes the deposit the largest in South America and the Kilometre 88 district perhaps third behind the Homestake and Timmins, Ontario in contained ounces in the Americas. A lot of people have asked me what this will do to the price of tiny Crystallex when they win the decision. It is hard to tell. I would think that the 20 to 25 dollar prices bandied about are rather conservative when all is taken into account. The profit on this gold is perhaps $50.00 per share if you double the number of shares that KRY has outstanding. EC<:-}