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 : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: knight who wrote (2635)	6/13/1998 1:09:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3744

Cross Lake was supposed to have gotten 1.5 million to continue exploration. On the other hand while SCJ court decisions are not appealable there is a cause for reversal in some cases. The dissenting justice may have let the cat in. What they did was hand the problem to the MEM, who of course do what they please anyway. We could still wait for Caldera to put it aside and let congress vote on it. Not much hope there. The sticking point, surprisingly was the waiving of the right to sue in a decision with the MEM in accepting other properties. This may be the only part of the SCJ's case that was not clearly in error. But usually compensation offered to make up for a nullifiable decision are not binding in most law. The previous nullity of the decision makes acceptance of compensation moot. If a party to a suit accepts some compensation it may be said that it could be in lieu of not getting any success in its seeking other rightful compensation later but not necessarily denying it of the right to apply otherwise. I believe the court erred in looking at the problem of the statute of limitations for complex reasons. If the transfer had been made in time the suit would not have been necessary. And while the MEM held up the application for validation of transfers it held out hope that the suit it was aware of that would be in the offing would not be necessary. In effect it let the clock run out on Mael's application. If the transfers were valid then it should turn the clock back on the suit to 1989 and stop the statute of limitations clock as well for the intervening period. The transfers to Ramon Torres from Lemon were validated by the court once and the questions raised about the power of attorney are invalid as the MEM had erroneously disallowed that transfer on the supposition that the POA was void. It was never made void according to law. The court did not rule on that aspect of the POA when it validated the transfers. What this series of court decisions does is underscore a fundamental weakness of the constitutions and legal process and intent of some countries. The courts seem though competent to examine detail in law to miss the intent of the people's equity in the courts. They should be looking to solve substantive issues and provide correction to situations and legal solutions not focus on technical things to the detriment of correction. In other words the courts intent should be to provide a solution to the situation of the litigants. There has to be a constructive solution. In essence by not addressing the validity of the Minca resolutions they leave the litigants bereft of a solution. To say that Mael was not able to sue is one thing but where does that leave Minca? It is not as clear as people may like to think. The courts in Venezuela have a collective schizophrenia and the SCJ in itself has no continuity. It has to look at the case in a gestalt manner. It cannot rule one time that transfers are valid and thus MEM resolutions are invalid and in the next sitting that the transfers are invalid or any suit about them is past the time of the validity having any real effect. Making moot decisions should not be the business of the court. But it may be past caring. In essence I believe Mael had the right so sue. In another sense anyone could without having any claim against the property someone should have been able to contest the validity of the Minca mining contracts or resolutions. This is not allowed under VZ law. Only a titleholder of a claim can sue another titleholder! It is a weird spectacle. If one loses title it is impossible to sue to get it back! Mael got suckered. The court did not even look at the validity of Minca or CVG's deal which it may be as illegal as barn dancing in main street during rush hour. But nobody gets to say so. Reason? The MEM can do everything wrong to keep a company from suing and offer deals with more hooks than a Nova Scotia dory and you cannot do a damn thing about it. Leggat said Bob Bishop was wrong about bribes. He said he "can continue to be wrong". Curious choice of words. Underneath it he may be really saying "he may be right but he can never get satisfaction". Who really believes Dome Mines with its billion dollar budget does not spread a bit of money around? EC<:-}