At most the judge will copy the Adrianza and Sisca letters to the relevant parties and include them in the court file. This is usually what happens with ex parte communication. Judges don't read them.

paau simply not true but consistant with your position. We know Justice Newbold read the letters he got. I believe this judge read both Sisca and Adianza letters. I have written judges and I know they read them. In fact some judges even write back. I have gotten responses so I dount I'm the only one. Whose to say the judge didn't respond in our case to two well written letters.

On the flip side (just for completeness), Crystallex's lawyers and/or Tenor's could respond (particularly regarding factual errors) but I don't see any reason for them to do so until and unless there is a motion before the court. If the errors are felt to be egregious (by e.g. the monitor?) then some (negative) action could come about but I also think this unlikely, neither letter appear to me to fall into the "solemn affirmation" requirement for perjury nor are likely to cause harm through any perceived defamation. The Adrianza letter seems more to be frustration with the system rather than a claim of illegal activity. The Sisca letter does make a fraud accusation but it appears to be based on a poor understanding of the law rather than malicious.

Here you go again. Giving the impreesion shareholders shouldn't do anything because of legal action. Please point out the errors with the proof to support your claim.