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: Mr Metals who wrote (8229)	4/15/1998 2:18:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

The foregoing, sir, while having some elements of fact within in it is a specious and slanted view of the matter. In fact it is journalistic horsepuckey. It is just plainly a one sided twisting of fact and fiction and is usually called Yellow Journalism, prevarication or just plain lying. The facts are that the entire case is being heard. They did not refuse to hear the matter of denying the MEM resolution on the gold rights. That was admitted by Gomez later after Acuna at first balked at it. Get your facts COMPLETE. The fact is that title in 1986 is title in 1998 too. That is what the court gazetted. It isn't trying to rewrite history books. The court does not care a wit if title then would have been different UNLESS IT CHANGES SOME THING TODAY. It does. It does indeed. Do you really fall for that "legal procedural" ditty Dome sings? What do you think the law is all about? Is it not correctness of legal procedure. If one of those "procedures" is the granting or transfer of title do you not think that is a little bitty important detail to pay close attention to? Now in addition although many of the facts you refer to were in evidence in other locales at different times it is also true that the concessions were a special class of automatically renewing 50 year concessions. The ministry just plain got it wrong. Article 43 does not apply. They did not even have to be renewed in fact. The registration of transfer to Mael is what the ministry denied, claiming the claims had lapsed. This ground has been covered by the Supreme Court and they DECLARED the claims are valid and THEN they gazetted them in MAEL's name. The matters of the Lemon POA have been looked at by lower courts and it is true that at first the matter looked dicey. BUT there is no proof that the Torres transfer is invalid. None at all. The POA was not relied on to make the transfer. This whole matter would be another case and a tough one for the gov't to prove. I could go on and on. But go ahead. It is amusing. Perhaps you might like to research matters a little more deeply. Oppenheimer may not be interested in talking to some goofballs. I cannot blame him. But he does really talk to legitimate press who he knows are taking an unbiased stance. EC<:-}

To: Mr Metals who wrote (8229)	4/15/1998 10:54:00 PM
From: doby	Respond to of 10836

It isn't often but there comes a time when certain articles are worthy of being posted and some that are not. This happens to be one we could of skipped. My question also, is who actually wrote this crap. Because if one takes a close look at the following comment. Then I find it very hard to believe even the greenest of writers would dare even mention any connection. And if so, who are these Unkind Commentators? They would be speaking of such an evil mind to want tie a teenager down and drill holes in there head just to see how long they would live for. I personaly find this type of sensationalism sick. Needless to say it seriously called into question any further opinion the writer might have. What a waste of time. "Unkind commentators have likened Crystallex's challenges to the faint-hope appeals brought by activist prison lifers such as Clifford Olson, who provide lots of work for the courts but only the narrowest of margins the individuals launching them will get lucky with a judge". P.S. It's good to see zero debate on this so called article. back to cruise control