Hello Charred:
>>These court decisions are based on the right to sue not on the transfer of the claims. <<
That is just not true. I've reviewed KRY's filings with the U.S and Canadian securities legislators, and unless KRY directors, its auditors, and its lawyers are all conspiring in a fradulent story, here is the real story as contained in the AIR filing with the US regulators (this filing can be downloaded from sedar.com ):
"In March, 1997, the Company acquired rights to Las Cristinas 4 and 6 concessions located in Kilometre 88, Venezuela. The Cristinas 4 and 6 concessions have been under investigation and exploration for several years by Placer Dome, Inc. under a joint venture agreement with Corporacion Venezolana de Guayana ("CVG"). The Cristinas 4 concession is adjacent to Crystallex's Albino 1 concession, which is currently being mined by the Company. Crystallex holds its interest in Cristinas 4 and 6 through Inversora Mael, C.A. ("Mael"), a Venezuelan company. The Supreme Court of Venezuela has issued three rulings confirming the validity of the transfer of the concessions to Mael. In the most recent ruling, issued in April, 1997, the Court ordered publication in Venezuela's Official Gazette of the three rulings together with the notice of transfer of Cristinas 4 and 6 to Mael and the assignment agreement through which Mael acquired the concessions. On May 15, 1997, the Supreme Court published in the Official Gazette that there would be an extraordinary edition of the Official Gazette for the publication. Publication of the notice of transfer in the Official Gazette is the final legal formality required under Venezuelan mining law to effect the transfer for all purposes. Following the April 1997 ruling, Mael commenced a further action in the Supreme Court of Venezuela seeking a ruling requiring the MEM to recognize fully Mael's ownership of the Cristinas 4 and 6 concessions. The court action seeks, among other things, declarations as to the nullity of past actions taken by the MEM that failed to recognize Mael's rights as owner, including the denial by MEM of Mael's applications for the renewal through the year 2014 of the Cristinas 4 and 6 alluvial gold concessions and the MEM's statements that the concessions either have expired or were forfeited and the granting by MEM of vein and alluvial copper concessions over Cristinas 4 and 6 to CVG."
So, the status of KRY's claim to LC 4&6 is not new.. it has been around since April 1997 and contained in the public documents and KRY's filings to securities regulators. The only thing new is Arsensio's attempts last month to discredit KRY through fraudulent news releases.
I've checked out Arsensio's news releases against KRY's audited financial statements and other filings, and have seen how Arsensio has distorted real facts to manipulate the stock for his personal selfish gain as a short seller. In his news release, Arsensio attempted to create suspicion on KRY's directors holding of MAEL, as if, management were doing something wrong. In the notes of the Dec 31/96 audited statements, it is very clear that KRY bought all the shares of MAEL so as to pursue the LA 4&6 claim. In fact, this is a smart manouevre by KRY's management, and they should be complimented for making this move to the benefit of all KRY's stock holders.
So you see, Charred, I have done a lot of personal homework before investing in this stock. I've followed the thread when Arsensio's story came out, left the thread when the stock was volatile, and parachuted back in again couple of days ago. I found that the folks active now on this thread were not the same folks when Arsensio's news first came out, and that is why I asked those confirmation questions to check them out, and I believe what Charters said as being the real status on KRY as it now stands. In fact, I feel much more comfortable and fortunate now with Charters on this thread to bounce my thoughts with since he is in the business, and is very well versed with KRY's situation.
>> Read Canada Stockwatch<<
No thank you. Firstly, it's coverage on KRY is contrary to the information in the public documents filed with OSC. Secondly, I don't trust an organization that allows its employees disguised as investors to take part in its threads.
>>Everybody has a different story.<<
And there shouldn't be. Obviously, people who are telling a different story than what is contained in KRY's filings to the securities regulators are up to no good.
>>If KRY wins the next ruling this property will be held up in the courts for years.<<
This is a story of many years old of how management has quite shrewdly gone through various legal manoeuvrings to possess the gold-rich properties for the benefit of KRR's stock holders, and the story is coming to an end any time now. There is no more court cases... they have all been done at this stage of the story. If you can tell me truthfully what other cases are pending, it is to my interest to listen to you. Can you Charred?
>> Every time when someone posts a different point of view the longs attacks.<<
I've found this to be a set-back with SI threads... longs attacking people with different points of views. It is healthier if opposing views are not ridiculed at, since it is to the best interest of longs to weigh both sides of the equation. OTOH, what do you do with posters that consistently post fraudulent views?
>>The news from Carson and Charters is very bias. Watch out.<<
Well, that's your view. I take all information posted here with care and check them out with my own due diligence. So far, these two people's information checked out with my due diligence. Of course, some views are purely subjective since views are based on personal experience. By reading peoples posts, I can tell who has the real experience, and who does not.
>>The fact is most longs don't understand mining. Charters says the stock is worth $4.50CDN without LC. This is a complete joke. Bill Jackson says the same. Please tell me why? They can't do it.<<
I don't understand mining, and that is why this case is so much simpler to understand, and I see this investment as an opportunity that does not come around too often. The question is not whether there is gold or no gold on the property. The gold is alread found and is there! The case is one of legalities, and the probability tilts toward a favourable court ruling on behalf of KRY. That's not too hard to understand is it Charred?
The odds are great! If there is a favourable ruling, the stock is worth at least $10 more, and if not, it goes down $2. 5:1 odds, and with a very high probability of a win in the court ruling. Are you a betting person Charred?
>>I do respect Mr. Charters, however I disagree with him. I prefer to listen to Mr. Charters than the management of KRY because he has more at risk. The management owns no shares. This is a fact.<<
I don't understand you. You take the time to discredit Charters on each post, then you say you respect him. I suspect you've been personally attacked on the thread and are retaliating in this fashion. SI threads are a real benefit for stockholders to share information and views on the stock. Unfortunately, many a times, longs get defensive, shorts post fraudulent information, and people like you (I suspect) try and get even on thread quarrals by discrediting others.
If you have more factual information on KRY's case that is different from above, please feel free to post them, or if you like, post a private mail to me. As a shareholder, it is to my benefit to listen to all factual information and valid opposing views in monitoring my investment in this stock.
take care
d |
