That's some interesting info.
What do you make of that?
Ows cluless as to who they are, lawyers keeping tabs, in chaoots

The whole WaMu take down plan was pivotal on "equity getting cancelled" .
Taking new company public wasn't part of any Por v 1-6.xx.
The requirements for obtaining shares is/was rigged. It's in the por.

Save a copy, first one will be gone soon

I'm betting he screwed something up.
There's information that shouldn't be on it and kept off of it, or there's missing info.

Where to start on this one, the 30 million they are talkin.g about is for a litigation fund that was part of the "almost" agreement we had in may.

The 30 million "burn rate" is a per month figure rodent stated. That was also prior to judge Mary imposing the federal judgment rate or FJR. Since that , the burn rate of 30 million a month is no longer accurate. It was also done on a retroactive basis and that means the burn rate is not now nor ever was 30 million a month.

Naked short sales info and links. (general)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=7636


http://www.thestreet.mobi/story/10240003/1/naked-truth-dressed-to-baffle.html



http://works.bepress.com/richard_ramirez/doctype.html



http://www.dtcc.com/leadership/issues/nss/index.php
The dtcc can't or won't say how much it happens.

This needs some traction.

X 2 on jest's response ! ! To have ones head in the sand and ignore the " more than likely likelyhood" (undeniable or empirical at this point) of a massive naked short position in WaMu is folly.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/05/goldman-sachs-fined-censured-over-naked-short-sales-/1

It is no coincidence that :
"project west" has a key point of equities being cancelled,

That paulson didn't and then refused to put WaMu on the do not short list,

or that Sheila publicly stated that shareholders should bair (pun intended) the cancellation in a failure,

And by far the most telling fact of this, undeniable and empirical at this point is that Rodent's mission is for equity to be cancelled at any and all costs.
Logically, to use your terminology for the thought process, what could possibly be rodents motives to do so.

One is that WaMu is hopelessly insolvent and he is just doing his job. We know this to be false because the judge, fdic, and jpig have stated that WaMu at no time ever was insolvent. Rodents job does not include getting involved in a deal between SNH and equity. That was the final piece to show rodents main objectives, that deal ensured equity's survival and in no other way effected rodents POS POR. This has a 100% chance of not being his motive.

Another possible motive is that rodent has taken it as a personal issue and is determined to see equity cancelled. This equates to playground antics and has a 99.999% chance of not being his driving motive.

Rodents main motive to see equity cancelled is to eliminate the exposure to the naked short position holders. It is the key point in the WaMu take down plan from the beginning. Rodent has gone very very far out of his way to ensure this happens.

For a few moments, contemplate what would happen if the opposite of rodents agenda happened even on the smallest of scales. Plan confirmed and equity survives. The threat of litigation against fdic & jpig is there but those two can cause enough delay to perpetuity have it postponed so that's not an eminent concern. What would happen immediately is the holders of the Naked shorts would realize the loss. These holders are the ones with enough clout to either influence hank paulson or to be recruited by him.

If no facts are ignored, and all facts are included into the theory its impossible to reach any other conclusions.

The issue of the naked short position is the single most important part of equity being cancelled in the BK. However it has almost nothing to do with the BK process and difficult if not impossible to bring into the courtroom.

Tell me about the illegal naked shorts.
That 3 % are the legitimate shorts, ie borrowed to sell.

Billion dollar deal, a dishonest deal, and 285 million settlement. So where's the other 715 million? Still profitable and a cost of doing business as usual.
That's not a deterrent its encouragement.

Fdic corporate vs receivership
Take a look at these and read the foot notes

http://www.google.com/m/url?client=ms-android-verizon&devlocsession=off&ei=JROcTqD1DYbwM7J0&gl=us&hl=en&q=http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/managing/history1-08.pdf&source=android-browser-goto&ved=0CBgQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGBAyHl3yOMnBDrO1AV1LwJBaxCZQ

Look here to see how the DOJ and fdic understand things, again read the footnotes

http://www.google.com/m/url?client=ms-android-verizon&devlocsession=off&ei=JROcTqD1DYbwM7J0&gl=us&hl=en&q=http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/FDIC_Receiver_Restitution_MOU.pdf&source=android-browser-goto&ved=0CBwQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNGouRNkMEL9aDPBK4UwXfmrgwpxLg

It's at or around 50:30 in the audio clip were parker talks about the retrade

This is the most insane part of the whole case. To every single speck of gray matter I have this is completely backwards. I fully understand it, but its backwards.

"Only after everything in the Bankruptcy Case is done, it's confirmed, and the company exits -- will we go back to District Court and pick up where we left off there.

But only, if the GSA provisions that dismiss everything in District Court are gone. "

Those issues should be resolved, the results brought back to BK court since that litigation is a huge asset.

I believe the reality of that situation is another protection mechanism for jpig & fdic and revolves around that 54 billion.

The POR revolves around the GSA, the GSA was built around the 54 BILLION and the 54 billion is bogus.

I am quite certain that there is not one law ever written to deal with the situation of a government agency acting in unison with a large bank to steal another bank and hide from liabilities of their actions in BK court. I don't believe that this has ever happened and if there isn't some new laws they could easily do it again with a repeat performance of the wamu script.
New laws and regulations usually are signed on the chest of the dead but this needs to be stopped and not allowed to stand.

Makes one think that petitioning for BK protection on the very next day was part of the plan. M-Fers can't find one record of anything that resembles an asset after 3 years but seconds after seizure they knew they were bankrupt.

No kidding

Missed just the part where the fdic said "WaMu was never at anytime insolvent. " maybe the part were they said taking WaMu was a mistake.

Bring a negative view point if you want , its generaly good for discussion. But at least try, maybe just a little bit to prove them wrong about you being misinformed

You've found a lot of interesting info, thanks. I have always enjoy your posts. Was it you that had info about shorts at the end of 2008 that was around 500 million?

Here's an interesting read
Fdic original rough draft of purchace agreement

http://wmish.com/docs/gib/Washington_Mutual_Bank_Closing_Book.pdf

Have a look at this, it similarly covers only part of the problem.

http://www.thestreet.mobi/story/10240003/1/naked-truth-dressed-to-baffle.html

Phantom shares

The MM and banks or brokerage house with a MM are the only ones who can execute a naked short. The laws in place to day are different than they were a short time ago.
This stock was shorter with zero intent to ever cover. They're pretty cocky and arrogant so don't expect a cover now.

If that's the case covering phantom shares would do one of a few things to the holders-financially devastated, unable to execute a cover at all and face exposure of criminal charges, global collapse of the financial markets because the MM or bank or brokerage house with a MM executed the naked short.

Jest remember a while back when the discussion of tier one capital and how its used to determine a banks soundness - how the tier one capital was calculated b.y the stock price - how the stock price was driven down by shorting- how WaMu was left off the do not short list

Thanks and good luck to you.

Tell me about the NAKED SHORTS. Not the legal ones the illegal ones is where the problem lies.

I actually thought that one thru also. Rodent was very well respected here in the beginning, praises were sung for him loudly. He actually was doing a good job until he turned and stabbed us in the back. He earned every derogatory nick name he ever gets.

So your theory is not explanatory because he started cancelling equity before the pet names

The gsa gets them off the hook, jpigs position is that fdic is responsible and fdics ultimate position is they are backed by the us government. See meritor case.
These two can tie litigation up for ever, I really don't think that's the problem. The short exposure would be immediately deadly to who ever has one.

Hs went down because of FJR and subordination, then shares previously locked by voting were unlocked today.

I'm really not asking that but I wonder sometimes.
I edited my prior post.
Jpig is in so much bigger trouble than stealing WaMu and susman as great as he isnt going to get jpig cornered on the pre seizure stuff for a while. Those two items together make me think rodent isn't trying to save jpig from that, but from the short position exposure jpig has.

One must look at this insanity and realize that there must be is a purpose.

I have contemplated rodents actions as a whole and tried to see them all as a symptoms of his central problem. The longer this goes the easier it is to see. Rodent wants equity cancelled period. He will do anything he possibly can, and align with any possible avenue to do it. Including hiding assets & fabricating liabilities, never valuing wmi claims, never challenging let alone even casualy asking about 54 billion in fdic jpm claims, even all that which seems to be not enough at this point.

Why this is imperative to him isnt much of a mystery after the new info about the May agreement. The SNH gave EC the new co. And that would have ensured equity survived. But according to parker, the debtors AKA rodent -"retraded" the deal and that's why it fell apart. why would rodent step in and queer that deal between the insider trading snh, and EC if having equity cancelled wasn't so important.

Ok why is it his mission? One way to look for the answer is to see what happens, would happen or could happen if equity survives and is not cancelled.

How did this mess start? Hank paulson left WaMu off the no short list and refused a request from WaMu to put them on it. If equity survives the sihorts get murdered. These aren't little retail shorts, these are the biggest of the whales and brokerages out there.

Go back to the beginning and follow the bread crumbs .
The EC litigating the pre seizure stuff ain't ever going to have the impact that the shorts are going to get. It will take years if not decades for that to bear fruit for us or hardships upon the criminals. The shorts are going to feel it immediately and that would be a hard blow.

Rodent is protecting the largest of the short holders by ensuring equity is cancelled.

I wish I knew how to explain that better and who to push for a SEC release of that info or have the judge order a cuisp change, something anything...........

That trading phenomena of a short squeeze is a very real possibility, but FIRST equity must survive. The protection of the shorts via BK fraud is what I'm talking about.

Catz, any way to bring this 54 billion issue front and center and firmly establish or negate its validity.
This is like some phantom menace that causes directions to change but in reality it exists only because some entity spoke it.

I have no idea and Thats above my pay grade.
But I can guess that for whoever is going to pay, the naked shorts they held physically would be a wash; take money from one pocket and put in the other. The other phantom shares would need to be covered and that's gonna cost dearly no matter how you look at or no matter what's done. That is unless equity is cancelled.

I really don't think we are talking about two different things. In another post if yours you stated that the "short sales are not a core issue of bankruptcy". Generaly and casualy I agree with that, trading floor antics will not effect the courtroom antics however in some instances the inverse can be true.

In this particular BK, center most important issue, the ultimate goal of Rodent, is to see equity canceled. This can be attributed to only a few issues.
1, WMI is infact without doubt A<L, rodent is following the law and doing the best he can.
2, Rodent has a personal vendetta against equity and EC
3, if equity survives, the opposite of rodents empirical goal, the consequent outcome is detrimental.

let's look at # 1, so far to date WMI has not been valued, assets have not been disclosed, blackstone has not been able to generate an accurate MOR, A&M has been unable to locate anything, Jpig won't cooperatively help develop a list of things they have. Rodent hasn't pushed the issue since 09 and talks as if the 54 billion claims are legit without anything to back them up. Rodent has switched positions and that's clearly to be seen. So AT THIS TIME , # 1 can not be considered. Equity & EC is here because "WMI is not hopelessly insolvent" & some "exigent circumstances"

# 2, highly unlikely that rodents antics can be attributed to some childish need to prove himself at this point in his career. Some may argue that and, if the same logic was used could effectively argue that pencils are responsible for misspelled words. Highly unlikely.

#3 , for years its been said that a settlement with equity could have been had cheaply. If equity was thrown a bone - done, over, gone, except for one small detail. The phantom shares from naked short sales.

I'm not sure if you missed the point, are choosing to ignore it, are unaware of who the shorts are or just simply do not understand. Protecting the short holders by falsely adjusting liabilities and manipulating the assets most certainly does effect the asset distribution in a BK!

WaMu was left off of the do not short list. That wasn't a minor oversight , it was part of the plan. The entities who shorted WaMu into oblivion are an intricate part of this debacle. They are not some small time outfits, obviously have enough clout to influence paulson and crew or be used by them to help achieve the goal. Don't forget Goldman Sachs advised its clients to sell WaMu and sell it short and did so publicly. Not quietly for clients eyes only but publicly. That's just one, think the other big boys shortest too? Jpig and its market makers? How about some others?

If equity survives, these short holders will be devastated. Rodent is doing everything he possibly can to see equity cancelled because that ensures the short holders are shielded from the unlimited losses of naked shorting. A traders short squeeze is a by product of this and a trading floor phenomena and not part of the BK. Fraud in the BK process that's committed in an attempt to protect shorts by cancelling equity effects us all..... It's done in BK by ensuring the assets don't reach equity at any cost.

SEC has it or can dig it up, but they are protecting the info and refuse , and so far the judge hasn't made the sec produce it. No its not public and naked shorting is illegal.

The way you posed your question perhaps is only one point of view and there is no intelligently way answer your exact question. Shorting a stock will not change assets to be distributed.

However, if I may rephrase your question , but first try to see this from a short position holders point of view. Not just a retail short but a massive naked short in a BK proceeding.

BK is assets vs liabilities if assets are less equity gets cancelled, if assets are more equity survives in some form. Agreed?

Short a stock naked that eventualy gets canceled and there is no need to cover, pure profit and I believe that it is tax free. Agreed? (sans taxes)

Can equity being canceled be profitable to short holders and how does that effect the assets available for distribution? Would that be a fair rephrase of your question?

Hide assets, gift assets, allow fake claims in order to show assets less than liabilities, stop the waterfall at equities feet and plan them to be canceled. This has happened, agreed?

more assets slowly being uncovered has led to more extreme efforts to hide them, gift them loose them, eat them to ensure assets are lower than liabilities. This gas happened agreed?

So if the goal of the big boy naked shorters who BTW are the same type as the SNH here is to
have equity cancelled that's how it effects the distribution of assets.

One simple option years ago would have been to give equity a token bone to shut up and settle this. Why didn't that happen, because the naked shorts would have had immeasurable losses if equity gets anything. The danger of shorting is unlimited loss potential.

Yes its a theory, much like any other theory in the history of theorizing, ( a famous one would be that the earth is actually round) its based on empirical observations, stringing together of facts, deductive reasoning based on the process of elimination and some conservative speculation.
To ignore that it is possible is your choice. To say that it "in no way effects us in a BK proceeding" & especially this one can only be true if without doubt the theory is proven false by another explanation that disproved the prior.

Your missing the point about shorts. It's not the profit part, no one cares much - its the unlimited loss if equity survives .

Why do you think rodent hides $$$ gives it away, DOESNT challenge bogus claims and stops a waterfall just short of reaching equity.

It is because of the shorts that rodent is hellbent on seeing equity cancelled.

Why you may ask, because if equity is cancelled the short holders get a nice profit but if Equity survives, short holders have a loss of magnitudes so far unheard of.

Where is this : The holding company filed formal lists of assets and debt showing property with a total value of $4.49 billion against liabilities of $7.83 billion.

AND JUST FOR PERSPECTIVE
In the next few lines of that link
The madoff trustee has found more money than WAMU could.

Appeals Block Madoff Trustee from Distributing All $8.7 Billion

The trustee liquidating Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc. announced yesterday that he will make a first interim distribution of $313 million to customers, representing 4.6 percent of their claims for principal.

Although the trustee collected $8.7 billion, he can’t distribute the remainder mostly on account of pending appeals, the trustee said on his website. The $8.7 billion represents more than half of the $17.3 billion in customers’ approved claims for return of principal.

Great post radium!... but in reality, the primary problem here is Rosen's team who are dead set on canceling equity as quickly as possible in order to gift the estate to other parties.

Equity gets cancelled and the shorts ( both legal and the naked) don't have to cover and walk with handsome profit. That's a problem and the driving force behind rodent being hell bent to see equity cancelled.

Finding proof of the holders of the short positions and then finding the proof of ties to rodent and crew solves lots of mystery.

Some have speculated that the actual short is near 1 billion shares

I generally use my nephews multiplication table and a dart. However its only accurate after I spin around several times. I throw high and to the left.

Other than hearing a few quips from the judge, I haven't seen much action.

"the plan you "THINK IS GETTING CONFIRMED""
"What's your hurry"
"Feel free to sit down and say nothing"
and a few others towards rodent.

You can bet that money has brought in lots more than 416 million to its captors. It is profitable for them to hold it. I'm baffled as to why the captors have not claimed a hardship for holding such a liability and requested compensation for doing so.


.20% interest on that money is an insulting joke and everyone knows it. They don't have to ask to be compensated.

Nothing more dangerous than someone with nothing to loose.