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 (7987)	4/8/1998 11:23:00 AM
From: Islander	Respond to of 10836

Valentine: Moot is 100% confused; and I suggest that you both are hopelessly out of touch with the realities of this case. CVG/Minca is NOT entitled to any mining rights re LC4&6; and I refer you to these relevant arguments as expressed by Dr. Corredor (formerly a SC justice, which you are not, nor were)in light of the three previous SC Rulings in favor of Mael: 5. The legal consequence of the above-mentioned decisions is that the resolution denying the renewal of the Cristina 4 concession and extinguishing the Cristina 4 concession and the resolution extinguishing the Cristina 6 concession issued by the Ministry of Energy and Mines are open to be declared null and void by the above-mentioned Court decisions, for not recognizing mining property right acquired by Inversora Mael as of 1986. As a result, Mael is entitled to refute the resolutions extinguishing both concessions and to oppose, refute and question the legality of the granting of any rights over the same areas in favour of C.V.G., and Mael is also entitled to ignore the agreements that the CVG entered into with third parties with respect to such deposits on the grounds that the rights granted by the Ministry of Energy and Mines to the CVG are open to be declared null and void by the retroactive effects of the judicial decisions mentioned before. 6. The rights of Placer Dome de Venezuela C.A. over the areas where the Cristinas 4 & 6 are located are based in contracts with the CVG, the legality and legitimacy of which is questionable because they ignore rights acquired by Inversora Mael in 1986, which rights the Supreme Court of Justice declared must be recognized by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. As a consequence, the assignment of areas granted to CVG and the agreements assigned to MINCA over the same areas are an absolute nullity for violating the third party rights of Inversora Mael. 7. Inversora Mael is entitled to require that Republic, the CVG, Placer Dome and any third party recognize its mining rights since 1986 and is entitled to request a declaration of the nullity of the resolution rejecting the renewal of the Cristina 4 concession, th resolution extinguishing the Cristina 4 concession and the resolution extinguishing the Cristina 6 concession of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, since these decisions are absolutely null, due to the recognition made by the Supreme Court with respect to the mining rights acquired by Inversora Mael over these concessions. Likewise, Inversora Mael can request the nullity of the assignments granted to CVG over such deposits and the agreements assignment by CVG to MINCA because such mining rights are owned by Mael. 8. Furthermore, due to the absolute nullity of the resolutions denying the renewal of the Cristina 4 concession and extinguishing the Cristina 4 concession and the resolution extinguishing the Cristina 6 concession, and also the absolute nullity of the assignment to CVG, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, based on the capacity that the Public Adminstration has, can declare at any time the absolute nullity of the acts declared by it as set forth in article 83 of the Administrative Procedures Organic Law. Valentine, if you can logically refute Dr. Duque Corredor's arguments, particularly 6&7...Please post them. Otherwise, your blatantly transparant attempts to disinform will stand for what they are: BS and propaganda for a SHORT AGENDA.