Replies to post #11888 on Mesa Offshore Trust (fka MOSH)

[ronpopeil]

MOSH had to include Woodside in the lawsuit. It would not be prudent at all if MOSH just assumed Woodside wasn't really involved with any of this impropriety. If Woodside is truly innocent, they will have to put forth the argument proving it to the jury and they will get off relatively unscathed.

[volenspros]

the key is that they were involved. for example - the drug kingpin / financier can't proclaim his innocense just because he fronted the money. he was definitely involved and he was going to profit from the enterprise.

in this case, plenty of info was available. lawyers ad nauseum combed the details and gave it a thumbs up. hey - they took a calculated risk and it backfired.

and when it comes to discovery and the level of liability? well, maybe that's why i've been smiling so much lately and it ain't because of the enzyte i've been gobbling. lol.

these doofusses have been crying foul over handing us internal memos. huh? a large portion of the midway lease belonged to the trust. if so much as one word in ANY document mentions "midway" or brazos a-39, it's ours to peruse at leisure. period. where's the argument? and they're really claiming they aren't in violation of fiduciary duties? how laughable. these old boys backed themselves into a corner. it's time to pay up.