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 (7585)	3/31/1998 3:08:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10836

The SC record on this CASE: Crystallex was allowed the sole title, the transfer from Lemon to Torres/Mael was ratified, the 11 motions to have their mining rights enforced by the courts was allowed to be heard by the Court. After 2,000 pages of motions to suppress by Dome the court announces two weeks ago they will accept no more motions and "have reached a decision and will announce that soon". Geez, it sounds grim. What do you think will happen? Usually when the court is mulling something over they ask for clarification on an issue and will call the plaintiff or defendant back. Here Dome was acting as if IT were the plaintiff, not Crystallex. Clearly Dome is the more worried, and has the most defend. In this case the mere admittance of the motions, all 11 of them is practically a decision for the plaintiff, Crystallex. Remember that Crystallex is suing to have an already titular issue ENFORCED. They are saying "this is my land, here are the title documents the court granted me, now GET YOUR BULLDOZER OFF MY LAND." Looks like Dome will have to go. echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter

To: Valentine who wrote (7585)	3/31/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: Islander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Valentine/ ALL: you wrote: >Check the SC record of this case on the aforementioned August, 1 date. You may be unpleasantly surprised.< Why on earth would I be surprised unpleasantly? Please point this out so that I may be enlightened? BTW, the chronology of the summer's events goes like this. I draw YOUR attention to what happened on August 2.: July 15, 1997 SCJ Acuna has ruled admission of 8 motions in favor of KRY/MAEL and a non admission of 3 motions. July 28, 1997 KRY/Mael file appeal as is their right under law, against the 3 non-admission motions. July 31, 1997 SCJ Acuna suspends non-admittance rulings. The entire application concerning its title to Las Cristinas 4&6 is now before the full Political Administrative Chamber of the SC of Ven. August 2, 1997 CVG/MINCA HAS BEEN DENIED REGISTRATION OF THE CONCESSIONS AS LAND_TITLES TO LC 4&6 by Bolivar State Roscio Registrar under official decision No. 6835-68. So in case, you are still unclear, Valentine: The Supreme Court has RULED three times that Mael has VALID ownership to the LC4&6 gold concessions since 1986. This means that the MEM DID NOT have title on behalf of the STATE; therefore, they had no right to give these same to CVG, who then awarded WORK CONTRACTS (not the concessions)to PDG. PDG is out of it! CVG will shortly be as well. This is what the 4th Ruling is all about. Finally, take a look at the gentlemen on the KRY board, their achievements, and their stature. Would these men perpetuate a fraud? Now look at your hero Ascensio. Has he ever been found guilty of fraud and deceit? Who is trying to perpetuate a fraud here? Is it you?