downsideup, you astutely state, "I think, IF they had made a valid effort in marketing the properties, that it is possible that the price they would be able to get at auction MIGHT be sufficient to meet the requirement for "fairness".
Could Pioneer's/Raindl's affidavit falsely minimizing the W. Delta 61 production history, filed at the 7/23 hearing, and immediately jumped on at the opening bell by Harvey, actually be confirming some of the Weigand group filings that tried to alert the Court to the possibility that there is likely going to be a surrogate(s) prowling at the auction to win the bid for a song?
Why else would they want to lowball the ongoing production from those four wells by choosing production months where only three wells were producing? And when the newest and best C-1 well was the well that was apparently turned off for mechanical repair reasons?
Harvey even teased the Judge on page 44, line 18 when he said, "I would fully expect that somebody's going to be interested in A-39 and the royalties I have shown you; to be honest, Judge, Mr. Abrams could bid on it; you could bid on it." Could his client pxd have a surrogate(s) in the woodwork? Is that why every settlement attempt insisted on auctioning our properties? Why would pxd care since all future claims are extinguished when the Court signs off on the the final settlement "with prejudice" (all claims gone forever)?
Based on past failed settlements and the last auction attempt with no bidders, all of the settling parties' lawyers knew that the Judge would approve a final settlement that kept our trust alive. Why would they even risk a denial, or a partial denial on the life of the trust issue?...........UNLESS ONE OR MORE OF THE SETTLING PARTIES WANTS TO ALSO END UP WITH THE TRUST PROPERTIES VIA SURROGATES???
And the fact that Kim chimed in at the 7/23 hearing beginning on page 57, line 9, with, "You have $25,000 a month coming in, and it costs $150,000 to $200,000 per quarter in trust expenses- so you are running a negative to the Unitholders".
Why would he support the Raindl lowball affidavit when his client mosh holding, lp owns 10.2% of the total trust units, knowing that his client'a final maximum distribution amount from that proposed auction depended on a marketing strategy that encouraged higher bids. Could his client have a surrogate(s) in the woodwork also?
The Judge has to be on to the fact that at least one or more of the players are in fact trying to pull off a grand theft at the expense of 12,000 passive Unitholders. She didn't forget what Weigand laid out in some of his past filings, and after what Gordon has recently revealed showing that our trust should never have met the termination threshold in the first place. That 7/23 transcript shows her suspicions surrounding the present settlement and what the motives might really be.
WHEN STAMPER, ET AL PRESS THE REAL ISSUES IN THIS LAWSUIT, THAT 9/11 HEARING DATE THAT HE FIRST SET, IS GOING TO BE A 201 CAROLINE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTHOUSE BURNER FOR SURE. A FITTING CONCLUSION ON THE 8TH ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
