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: Mama Bear who wrote (7567)	3/30/1998 10:02:00 AM
From: Islander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

To anyone more interested in the 4th Ruling than Ascensio idolatry and the All-Knowing trading skills of short players, I offer this post from 'Teddie' on Stockhouse: As the timing of the announcement of the 4th Ruling rapidly approaches, I find it necessary to present a brief historical glimpse of the July 15th decision making process of Substantiation Judge Acuna and to attempt to define the term "admittance" as is applicable to the 4th Ruling. 1. Substantiation Judge Acuna ADMITTED 8 motions and REJECTED 3 motions in her July 15th Ruling. The 3 motions were rejected because she determined that the Statute of Limitations was applicable to them and that Inversora Mael violated the Statute of Limitations. Judge Acuna had initially decided that ALL 11 motions should be admitted. But just hours before the publication of the Ruling, she received what could best be described as a blitz from the other company's Alan Brewer Carias. The blitz created doubt with the Judge regarding the applicability of the violation of the Statute of Limitations and she rewrote her brief rejecting the 3 motions. The Chief Justice, Cecilia Gomez, subsequently became aware of the blitz and personally required that Cecilia Gomez review the documentation personally. It was after the review of the documentation that Chief Justice Cecilia Gomez advised Substantiation Judge Acuna that she should include the rejected 3 motions to be admitted for review by the CSJ PAC by what is called, a post-ruling decision. This post-ruling decision, legally speaking, leaves Substantiation Judge Acuna's original decision to REJECT (not to admit) the 3 motions WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT!!! The post-ruling decision occured on August 1, 1997. ALL 11 MOTIONS HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE CSJ PAC AS A RESULT OF THE JULY 15Tth AND AUGUST 1st DECISIONS. The 3 REJECTED motions have NOT been ADMITTED, but they were admitted for review by the CSJ PAC. Remember in my post #88000 there were 3 potential outcomes regarding the 4th Ruling. They are: 1. KRY loses all motions. 2. CSJ admits 8 motions immediately and rules that the 3 Statute of Limitations motions are dependant on the determination of the first 8 motions. 3. All 11 motions admitted immediately. Basic real estate law and prior case law require the elimination of #1 as a possibility. The determination of the 4th Ruling is either #2 or #3. The 4th Ruling is an ADMITTANCE to further procedure of either #2 (8 motions and a subsequent determination of the 3 motions) or #3 (all 11 motions). Legally speaking, it realistically makes no difference if either #2 or #3 is the scenario, as the outcome is the same, that is the WORST CASE SCENARIO IS THAT KRY HAS WON!!!!! The determination of the 11 motions at this stage of the proceeding is determined more by a shuffling of papers than any terminology that can be construed as a trial. The other side will call it a trial, but the trial has already occured in Rulings 1, 2 and 3. The law will be applied to the facts as papered by both sides and determined by the CSJ PAC. You have already seen the results of the applicability of the law to the facts in Rulings 1, 2 and 3. Teddie