WAMU: Criminal liability no está exenta de ser perseguida
I want all of you to think back to the settlements in this bankruptcy court and understand what they were.. All Settlements in a Bankruptcy court are of the "CIVIL" (Money) type and do not and can not include "CRIMINAL" (jail time and lose of personal wealth) releases. A bankruptcy judge does not have the legal right per statute to release any party from potential criminal liability for their actions.
1. We know the Hedge Funds (allegedly) participated in Insider Trading in the Equity and Notes of WMI securities during the bankruptcy. We are aware their intent was to circumvent the bankruptcy creditor process for their own greed.
2. We know by discovery that JPM executives (allegedly) used "covert tactics" to infiltrate the WMB organization as to gain "insider knowledge" of the books and processes as such and "May" have provided this information to the executives at JPM who pulled the trigger to meet with the FDIC and "get color" on what the FDIC wanted to take WMB from WMI. We also know the Sheila Bair had Jamie Dimon's personal cell phone # and was calling him in early Sept. We also know the JPM signed a "confidentiality agreement" with WMI on WMB with express consent needed by the BOD of WMI to buy WMB from WMI. However, the CA did not apply to JPM getting a "gift" from FDIC via Sheila.
3. What else do we know.. Project West..Billions in "naked shorts on WMI stock when a "no short order" was signed by Paulson. Maybe it was necessary to take WMB down (WMI would file for BK) because all those "shorts" that were outstanding before Paulson added WMI to the list of do not short banks, needed to cover their positions. Best way to do this, take down the stock and cover at the bottom. In their case, they got a windfall, because WMI went into bankruptcy when it lost it "prized possession.. Billions in Deposit withdrawals after the "Banker has it" article from American Banker. TARP needed and a takedown necessary to get it?
We can go on and on.. Think about all the Bankers and Investment Bankers who have committed suicide in the last 2 years.
DOJ IS THE ONLY GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT CAN RELEASE A PERSON FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND I APPLAUD ERIC HOLDER AND THE DOJ FOR PUSHING FORWARD WITH THESE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS!
We shareholders know what "may have allegedly" happened, so hopefully in time, we will see this materialize.
Keep in mind, all the claims the WMILT have "not pursued yet or withdrew from the court" have been do so under the "without prejudice" statute.
Without Prejudice
Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.
When a lawsuit is dismissed, the court may enter a judgment against the plaintiff with or without prejudice. When a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, it signifies that none of the rights or privileges of the individual involved are considered to be lost or waived. The same holds true when an admission is made or when a motion is denied without prejudice.
The inclusion of the term without prejudice in a judgment of dismissal ordinarily indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action, as though the dismissed action had not been started. Therefore, a dismissal without prejudice makes it unnecessary for the court in which the subsequent action is brought to determine whether that action is based on the same cause as the original action, or whether the identical parties are involved in the two actions.
The purpose and effect of the words without prejudice in a judgment, order, or decree dismissing a suit are to prohibit the defendant from using the doctrine of Res Judicata in any later action by the same plaintiff on the subject matter. The doctrine of res judicata (from the Latin, "a thing decided") is based on the importance of finality in the law. If a court decides a case, the subject of that case is firmly and finally decided between the persons involved in the suit, so no new lawsuit on the same subject may be brought by the persons involved. Therefore, the words without prejudice protect the plaintiff from a defendant's res judicata defense.
A court may also enter judgment with prejudice, however. This signifies that the court has made an adjudication on the merits of the case and a final disposition, barring the plaintiff from bringing a new lawsuit based on the same subject. If a new lawsuit is brought, a defendant can properly invoke res judicata as a defense, because a court will not relitigate a matter that has been fully heard before. Often a court will enter a judgment with prejudice if the plaintiff has shown bad faith, misled the court, or persisted in filing frivolous lawsuits.