Hello all and welcome back to Comstock’s CEO Blog! We really look forward to answering any and all of your questions and please feel free to continue posting those questions to our website at https://comstockmining.com/contact. This week we were asked about a recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling, in part, because of some confusing misinformation that was recently published by the Nevada Appeal. In this case, it’s easier for me to just republish a letter sent to their editor by Justin Townsend, our counsel with the law firm Allison MacKenzie, Ltd. As of today, we have not seen it posted in the Appeal, but hopefully, it’s just working its way through their editorial staff. Please also feel free to ask any questions regarding our Company, northern Nevada, precious metals, or anything that relates to our businesses. We will prioritize the most relevant and try and respond to all. Kindest regards, Corrado De Gasperis Executive Chairman and CEO.
Yesterday’s ruling concerned only a public records request issued to Lyon County for communications concerning the County’s consideration of CMI’s application for a zone change and whether communications allegedly held on private cell phones or in private emails are public records. Yesterday’s ruling requires on its face that the Third Judicial District Court “determine whether the requested records concern the provision of public service.” (internal quotations omitted). There is simply nothing in yesterday’s ruling that requires Lyon County to review its decision to approve CMI’s application for a zone change.
The second paragraph of your article states “The commission first rejected the rezoning application but, at a second meeting, approved it.” This is not an accurate statement, either, however, it appears that this information may have been summarized from inaccurate statements contained in yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. In the ruling, the Supreme Court states erroneously that “The Board received reports from the county’s planning staff and held public hearings, after which they voted to recommend denying the proposed zoning change” and “at a subsequent meeting of the county commissioners, the issue was reintroduced and the zoning change approved.” A similar erroneous statement of fact is contained in the December 2, 2016 Supreme Court ruling as well. The reality is that CMI filed one application for zone change in 2013 and the Lyon County Board of Commissioners held exactly one meeting to consider that application. On January 2, 2014 the Lyon County Board of Commissioners heard for the first and only time CMI’s application and approved it then. Never at any time did the Board of Commissioners deny CMI’s application for a zone change. A review of the Lyon County Board of Commissioners meeting minutes and agendas easily shows this to be true.
The Supreme Court’s misstatements of fact in this regard are based on misleading statements presented by the Comstock Residents Association in pleadings before the Lyon County District Court and are not germane to any of the issues before that Court or the Supreme Court.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Statements contained in this blog, which are not historical facts, including statements about plans, goals and expectations regarding businesses and opportunities, new or existing business strategies, capital resources and future financial results are "forward looking" as contemplated by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, changes in government regulation, generally accepted accounting principles, taxation, competition, general economic conditions and geopolitical conditions. Accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those projected or implied in the forward-looking statements.