Bush Library

AusTxPony · Post by **AusTxPony** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:31 pm

I thought I heard that the announcement of its location would be in June...is that right? Has anyone heard anything about it?

CalallenStang · Post by **CalallenStang** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:32 pm

AusTxPony wrote:I thought I heard that the announcement of its location would be in June...is that right? Has anyone heard anything about it?

Was on campus last weekend (6/17-6/19) - a tour guide said he heard from someone claiming to have an inside source that SMU has an 80% chance of landing it - of course that's how rumors get started.

smu diamond m · Post by **smu diamond m** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:14 pm

CalallenStang wrote:
AusTxPony wrote:I thought I heard that the announcement of its location would be in June...is that right? Has anyone heard anything about it?
Was on campus last weekend (6/17-6/19) - a tour guide said he heard from someone claiming to have an inside source that SMU has an 80% chance of landing it - of course that's how rumors get started.

Did you know 76.31415926535% of statistics are made up on the spot?

CalallenStang · Post by **CalallenStang** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:17 pm

smu diamond m wrote:
CalallenStang wrote:
AusTxPony wrote:I thought I heard that the announcement of its location would be in June...is that right? Has anyone heard anything about it?
Was on campus last weekend (6/17-6/19) - a tour guide said he heard from someone claiming to have an inside source that SMU has an 80% chance of landing it - of course that's how rumors get started.
Did you know 76.31415926535% of statistics are made up on the spot?

Including that one

Yes, I've actually used that saying many times before.

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:27 pm

My favorite was from the Simpsons:

"Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 40 % of all people know that."

Bergermeister · Post by **Bergermeister** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:00 am

Maybe W will announce the SMU location on his 60th next week. It's gonna be here, but the "official" announcement may be on hold until Gary Vodicka "disappears". (Not like Vince Foster or Ron Brown... just disappear)

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:16 am

Bergermeister wrote:Maybe W will announce the SMU location on his 60th next week. It's gonna be here, but the "official" announcement may be on hold until Gary Vodicka "disappears". (Not like Vince Foster or Ron Brown... just disappear)

That could be a while, considering one of the parties just went into bankruptcy and the case has been stayed.

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:55 am

The Bankruptcy case will be irrelevant by mid-July and it has little relevance now as it doesn't stay the suit between Vodicka and SMU, just the claims against the Tenant, which will not be stayed after a hearing on 7/17. The bankruptcy was filed for the sole purpose of delaying the Motion to Dismiss in the state court as evidenced by Gary Vodicka's "gift" of a 1/10 ownership interest in one of the apartment units.

Here's a taste of the Motin in BK court:

37. Perkins was another of Plaintiff’s alleged tenants. Perkins’ sworn declaration states that approximately six weeks ago Plaintiff proposed to make a ten percent (10%) "gift" to Perkins of the condominium unit leased by her from Plaintiff. Perkins was told by Plaintiff that the gift was to be made to Perkins in exchange for Perkins’ agreement to file bankruptcy when and as directed by Plaintiff for the purpose of delaying the State Suit. Perkins was told that a bankruptcy attorney would be provided for her.

38. Perkins was told by Plaintiff that he planned to have other of his tenants also serially file a succession of bankruptcies to further delay the State Court litigation. Perkins was told by Plaintiff that Debtor was to file first under Plaintiff’s direction. Perkins was to be the second to file. Perkins was informed by Plaintiff that he would be the third to file because Plaintiff’s bankruptcy would "buy the most time" and take the longest, because of Plaintiff’s assets.

39. Perkins refused to participate in Plaintiff’s proposal to file bankruptcy. Perkins was then told by Plaintiff that he would force her out of her unit by June 19, 2006. On June 20, 2006, Plaintiff entered Perkins’ unit and removed her belongings.

The bankruptcy case is in Chief Judge Hauser's court and she will not suffer these fools. Hauser will castrate these people.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:01 am

SMU Football Blog wrote:The Bankruptcy case will be irrelevant by mid-July and it has little relevance now as it doesn't stay the suit between Vodicka and SMU, just the claims against the Tenant, which will not be stayed after a hearing on 7/17.

I thought that the entire state court proceeding was stayed every time a party went bankrupt, absent a severance or something. I'm not a bankruptcy law expert though.

That's an interesting excerpt from the bankruptcy motion. I wonder if they have the evidence to support it.

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:31 am

There is a handwritten affidavit attached to the Motion. She handwrote and signed it; I assume she would testify to it.

There is a lot of confusion about what is and what isn't stayed, especially by state courts. If the Debtor is the plaintiff, it isn't stayed. If the Debtor is the Defendant, only those claims against the Debtor are stayed, but that line is blurred because if the same claims are asserted against multiple defendants. I believe the only original claim against the Debtor in this case is for eviction, which is stayed, but now that Vodicka transferred an interest to the tenant, the rest is stayed as well.

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:02 pm

Conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud. Ya think the Justice Department isn't licking their chops on that?

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:39 pm

EastStang wrote:Conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud. Ya think the Justice Department isn't licking their chops on that?

This is a lot of things, but it is not bankruptcy fraud. And bankruptcy fraud is rarely prosecuted anyway.

friarwolf · Post by **friarwolf** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:43 pm

"The bankruptcy case is in Chief Judge Hauser's court and she will not suffer these fools. Hauser will castrate these people."

I hope the esteemed Judge uses a dull, rusty blade - blindfolded with her left hand.................

CalallenStang · Post by **CalallenStang** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:52 pm

friarwolf wrote:"The bankruptcy case is in Chief Judge Hauser's court and she will not suffer these fools. Hauser will castrate these people."

I hope the esteemed Judge uses a dull, rusty blade - blindfolded with her left hand.................

I made the mistake of taking a drink before reading that

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:17 pm

Yeah it is bankruptcy fraud:

├é┬º 157. Bankruptcy fraud

A person who, having devised or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud and for the purpose of executing or concealing such a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so--
(1) files a petition under title 11, including a fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petition under section 303 of such title;
(2) files a document in a proceeding under title 11; or
(3) makes a false or fraudulent representation, claim, or promise concerning or in relation to a proceeding under title 11, at any time before or after the filing of the petition, or in relation to a proceeding falsely asserted to be pending under such title,

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Bush Library

Bush Library

Re: Bush Library

Re: Bush Library

Re: Bush Library