Washington Mutual demanda a la FDIC por 17 billones US$ + daños

Al final os van a dar 8 $ por vuestras WAMUQ,je,je.
A ver si teneis suerte y os rechazan el POR pronto.
Saludos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QtCTb_l87Y

Hay gente con mucho talento :) que arte más grande hay entre la parroquia de WAMU.

1. La Juez tiene conocimiento sobre los documentos confidenciales.

2. La Juez esperará hasta el 17 Dic para dictaminar la moción de Hoffman.

3. La Juez aprobará que se desclasifiquen los documentos.

4. La Juez rechazará el POR. (sino es el 17 Dic entonces será en enero 2011 + $5 Billones + para el estado :)

El 17 Dic es un día muy importante. El asunto WMB también será tratado y otros 335 Millones adicionales volveran a nosotros..

Maximunae: Creo que ayer decias que estas dispositivas no valen nada legalmente porque no han sido aceptadas por la Juez como evidencia.

THJMW *DOES* have a copy of this presentation. It just isn't admitted as evidence. So the 'transcript' is of course, evidence, and the individual filings mentioned are on the docket, and she has an "informal" copy, but it is not evidence.

That doesn't worry me. She has (a) The presentation, and (b) all the transcripts, and (c) all the materials that are referenced in the presentation.

Honestamente no creo que la Juez se este tomando a la ligera la cantidad de alegaciones que surgen de este documento.

------------------------------------------
on page 147 of the official transcript you can read that Nelson gives the Judge a copy of the powerpoint:

http://www.ghostofwamu.com/documents/HearingTranscripts/08-12229-20101207.PDF

21 MR. NELSON: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Justin
22 Nelson, may it please the Court, from Susman Godfrey on behalf
23 of the equity committee. I have two copies of slide
24 presentation. May I approach to give a copy to the Court?
25 THE COURT: You may. Thank you.

So I guess that means she does have a copy, its just not part of the evidenciary record.

Just to address the "what's in evidence" question: "Evidence" in this case consists of the live testimony of witnesses in court at the confirmation hearing, written declarations of witnesses formerly admitted into evidence in lieu of testimony (by stipulation of the parties), business documents and/or depositions formerly admitted by the court based on a stipulation of the parties or after authentication by witnesses, demonstrative evidence (like charts, summaries, tables of data, etc.) that have been authenticated by witnesses, and any other facts to which the parties have stipulated. "Argument" is what the attorneys say during their final arguments. Arguments are not evidence, but the attorneys obviously are allowed to comment on the evidence formally before the court, and to use demonstrative aids (like Justin's slide show) to illustrate what they believe the evidence has shown. Those slides aren't "evidence", but they are part of the record, they summarize/interpret the evidence that was in the record, and the judge has seen and considered them.

By the way, as I listened to Justin's argument, I thought he was doing a good job. I realized that he was using these slides, and that his audience (the judge) was paying attention to them. It sounded awkward to us listening in, but in real time in the flesh it was very effective, as we can now see.

Por cierto, quien decía que el 1 de diciembre terminaba todo? Esto ya es una agonia infinita.

¿Agonía? sería en todo caso para los que estan dentro, los que estan fuera solo pueden tocar las palmas y hacer de palmeros.

Los que están (estamos) fuera, podemos entrar en el momento que nos de la gana, no lo olvides....