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: E. Charters who wrote (8070)	4/11/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 10836

I just reread last week's Northern Miner article and saw when biased reporting really qualifies as a "hatchet job". The Miner is famous for taking sides and occasionally getting it right. They are like a Vulture waiting until they are sure they smell a dead animal and then going in and tearing it apart. In this case they may have smelt their own feet. They quote Acosta at length and say that two Venezuelan congressman MuttAcosta and another unamed Jeff reiterated all of Crystallex's alarming misadventures in Venezuela. They included giving Acomixur's (a local co-operative) peasant miners "illegal bonuses" in encouragement to sell their interest in the Carabobo. Imagine that. Giving fair compensation and payment to a prospector for his claims. I would like to know that Acosta approves of CVG stealing the same and claiming it was for the greater good. Some of the bonuses they forgot to offer were to Acosta's esteemed relatives. The Miner goes on to state Acosta's rather quaint take on the CSJ case that has occupied the Dome lawyers to the tune of a million or two. He says it is a case to get a right to sue. Curious. You go to the Supreme Court to get the right to sue supposedly taken away from you by the "Supreme Court". Well if it really were taken away, supposedly by the CSJ then how do you appeal it to the same court? You cannot of course, as there is no appeal of CSJ decisions. The truth is as Acosta would no doubt like to know is that a superior (provincial) court rendered that opinion a few years ago in the course of denying Mael its right to register the claims. That court cited the transfer from de Lemon to Torres as invalid and upheld the Venezuelan Ministry of Mines' denial of title. Since then the actual Supreme Court of Venezuela has looked at the issue and declare the transfers valid and gazetted the title in Mael's name. This issue escaped Acosta and the Miner it seems. AND, in looking into the court case before the CSJ at present we can find no mention of the right to sue. The 11 motions all of which were admitted for the Supreme Courts perusal, (again the Miner is not up to speed on this), make no mention of the part where the Mael was supposed to have ceded the right to try to retain the claims upon acceptance of some other property as compensation. What the motions do talk about is the rights to own and mine the copper and gold upon these claims which are titularly Mael's. (The words copper and gold appear many times) All this case is about is getting a quasi- -governmental agency, CVG, and its deal with Dome mines declared NULL. If in fact Dome brings up the deal between Mael and the MEM for other claims in order to suppress any of these motions then it would be dealt with as not perfected, I would imagine. (the deal for compensation was never fully consummated) An interesting point is, it is a fait accompli. If Mael had surrendered their right to sue then what are they doing in court with 11 motions to have mining rights "reaffirmed"? The necessity of this case is in part because of the intransigence of the Venezuelan civil service. When ordered by the Supreme court to gazette the claims they did not. Now they have to be told to leave the ground quietly to its rightful owners. It has been done before so we have hope of it being done again. Contrary to what the Miner said, CVG has lost much ground to lower courts and the Supreme Court turning it back to its original owners. (52 cases we know of) The history of kilometre 88 was that the garimpeiro was unceremoniously kicked off his land and CVG walked in as new owners with sweet deals for foreign companies. (Here Acosta, a man of the people, pretends he is outraged by the company "taking advantage" of these same garimpeiros who have been CVG'd so effectively so many times in his riding without his notice) In at least one case a company could not get the property off the ground as guerillas who had been its owners in the past would not let them. There is at least one Canadian body in the bush on this score. It appears that a company willing to work with the actual landholders (Acomixur) gets criticism for being honest. One hardly knows what is right anymore. echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter

To: E. Charters who wrote (8070)	4/11/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: Moot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

E. Charters Eric: Well put. You make some very good points. I think you have a great deal to offer this thread--especially when you take the time to compose a post such as that one. I can understand that it may seem like an unnecessary expense of time when the most noticeable audience cares less for a reasoned post than an affirmation of what they want to hear, no matter how shallow. Nonetheless, there are some thoughtful posters here and many more people read this thread than post to it. Apart from your opening paragraph, there is little I would take issue with--at least, with respect to Crystallex. You are right in stating that what spooked investors most was the media attention given to Acosta at the Miami Gold Show. However, the fact that this impacted the price to the extent that it did suggests to me that there exists considerable doubt as to the outcome of this matter. We seem to agree that the net effect may have been to move the stock into stronger hands; but it remains to be seen whether the decision guiding those hands was well-founded. In any event, there is still an enormous short position and the price hasn't shown much of an upward trend since its partial recovery from the short attack. It seems to me that your account of the events during and subsequent to the Miami Gold Show is a bit facile. Whether it was intentionally so, I don't care to speculate. As I understand it, Acosta's credentials correctly identified him and his position with respect to the sub-committee. I wasn't at the Miami event, so I don't know that he called himself the president of the mining commission. If you were and are claiming that he did, I think I might lean toward accepting your claim. As for Herrara, the accounts seem ambiguous at best. I don't really think he quickly called a press conference to set matters straight. (That's highly implausible given his first order of business would undoubtedly have been to grant an exclusive interview to Roy 'Pulitzer' Carson, describing how Acosta was going to be HAULED before an internal disciplinary committee. Has anyone one heard what punishment was meted out to Acosta, by the way?) As I recall, it was one of the much-maligned news services that actually made the effort to contact Herrera. And his claims were much more muted in a subsequent Stockwatch piece. As for Herrera's own official status, it isn't like he showed up at the office one day to discover that a snap election had been called to replace him. I believe he was properly notified in advance of the Gold Show that his time was up. I think there is little doubt that this was well-orchestrated. It may surprise some that my personal opinion of Asensio might not be far removed from those so eloquently served up on this thread. Asensio may well be a liar, a fraud, a sleaze-bag, or whatever epithet one chooses to direct at him. However, if he is, he is those things in addition to being a shorter--not by virtue of being a shorter. I prefer to be a little more circumspect in offering up such aspersions. (You seem to feel that people should be, too--at least when they are directed at you.) If I were of another persuasion, there is no shortage of candidates on this thread with whom I could senselessly occupy myself. Well, enough of all that. I'm glad to see you view those NDP like crusades with suspicion. There's no telling where they might lead. The first thing you know, they'll be demanding a decent minimum wage, universal health care to a WHO standard, public access to adequate education, and so on. That's all well and good for a civilized country like our own, but let's not get carried away. How do those peasants expect us to fund our present standard of living anyway? Oh well, it's just getting more and more difficult to convince some people that some sacrifices (by them, of course) are necessary. And there's no telling what lunacy those NDP like crusaders might advocate once they got some power--pay equity for women, protection of minorities, gay rights. I tell you, it's enough to make a reich-minded person go all clammy. Regards.