InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Bizreader

06/04/09 11:10 PM

#75321 RE: Docsavag #75320

See what I mean? It's like how exactly is a deposit made by WMI a deposit of WMB?

The fact there JPM decides to dispute something doesn't mean it is, in fact disputable on any logical grounds.

It would seem to me that there is a huge gap in due process in our legal system.

If I come over to your house and take your car and keep it. Does that mean the ownership is now disputable?

LOL

icon url

Bizreader

06/04/09 11:17 PM

#75322 RE: Docsavag #75320

.... Dimon: "'Is' meant 'is' back in September, back then, but that was then and this is now and the money is in our bank so that 'is' may have been true then, but that's what we are hear to dispute, your honor. Clearly the money is in our possession and we have constituents who really want us to keep it. Since WMI doesn't have their banks any more anyway and they have been a big pain in the ass anyway, why not just let us keep the money? They don't have anything cool as us to do with it anyway. So, let's just say that 'is' is now a 'was' and based on this simple reasoning we can all agree that it was theirs. We are not disputing that. But, by the definition of the word 'was' the money is clearly no longer theirs. Who can disagree with this?"