Agreed. Not saying the questions are not valid because I do not know and I do not understand the legal jargon. some support would be good and you are usually good on that Mr. Mike. It is a strong coincidence that the moment you come back here the pandemonium starts. Another poster warned us of this.
thanks boxster x. finally someone with a few grey cells. the line of obfuscation sounds exactly like the fall debates. the unsuiting was to stop pxd claims of who is in charge.
the quick sell is a way of once again assert that the trustee has the authority which was shot down before.
otherwise, i see nothing new. just another challenge. the request for monetary relief is her hold point and the judge wants some proof before doling out fines.
This is one of the reasons I took a break from posting here. Many people expect you to spoon feed everything to them. I recommend you read every new document on the courts website. I practically quoted many of the letters from PXD, JPM and others that are available the courts website
Please read the following in its entirety. And please don’t ask for anymore spoon feeding. Then read my post #18088...
Document 41061749, by court 334 (86 pages) - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 2/16/2009 Document 41042499, by court 334 (70 pages) - PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 2/16/2009
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
