That was said blanketly in Chapman's court.
In Abrams court the Plan Admin tried to play word games to get Wu's motion dismissed. The Plan Admin got the no respond part granted but, the dismissal that was orginally granted on Wu's motion later got reversed and Wu's motion got reinstated.
In Abrams court for Waske, the Plan Admin have to respond to Waske because Wu and Waske Motions are different and independent Motions. They can choose not to respond then, Abrams will just rule on Waske's merits. The Plan Admin could have tried to ask for a no response base on the BK court ruling as they did with Wu's motion but did not because imo Abrams will not allow LBHI to not respond to fraud charges twice. Imo, Abrams will not grant a second no response needed for fraud charges. Abrams need to also watch out for herself when she rules. Therefore, the current Plan Admin rather not respond.
What will he say? Wu posted all facts on merits. Each argument is backed by a docket.
That letter was written so confusing and it asked for a dismissal which was granted (if Wu did not Appeal) but later reversed when Abrams blamed the clerk for the error. Abrams Letter endorsement was equally as confusing. Lets just say we are not sure what happened but, it ended like a "clown show" between the Plan Admin and Abrams. Talk about being busted for collusion. The Weil flimsy letter endorsement cant be applied to the Waske Motion. Weil asked for a dismissal in Wu and was granted. That is a request that cannot be applied to another motion especially if its granted.
There is no response in Waske and No rebuttal on Wu. Lets Rock and Roll.
