News Focus
News Focus
icon url

bet0001970

02/07/11 11:35 AM

#275406 RE: Lebosco #275395

Lebosco,


We know that Rosen was working on a wrap that addressed the Note Holders' third party releases (as that was mentioned in an objection earlier). We know that Rosen has not announced that JP Morgan or the FDIC has opted to withdrawal from the GSA (although if either had, Rosen would almost certainly wait until tomorrow to file that with the court).

The problem remains on whether Rosen was able to fix the other issues. Which is simply not likely. His only option is to stall the court, yet again. Or to finally come clean. Or maybe he submits something. We are talking about a guy who is known to pull buffalo out of his bunghole.

At this point, I have no idea what the judge will do. I do have very serious doubts about her competency on this case. I think she may very well be out of her depth. I mean, she just issued a ruling and opinion that a first year law student could descimate.

So for any of us to even contemplate what will happen tomorrow...is kind of like hunting butterflies with a shotgun. I'm not too worried. Team Susman is all over this business and Ilene is there to personally remind Rosen that we are NEVER going away.

Beth :)
icon url

Large Green

02/07/11 2:15 PM

#275462 RE: Lebosco #275395

Lebosco, that is EXACTLY my point. I think it should be the Judge that makes this crystal clear but I have ABSOULUTELY no faith in somebody who wrote an opinion she wrote. She wrote this FULLY KNOWING better, basically saying there is no equity over 95 times in her 109 page report and then to say what had a little value called the NOLs was buried on pages 98-99 was nothing but PURE LIES on her part. Yes, unfortunately pure lies, trying to say something like the 110 year name and insignia has no value. If that is not a pure fabrication, then I do not know what I am talking about.