Comments on: Madoff bankruptcy trustee increases his claim against Wilpon and friends: to one BILLION dollars

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:00:06 +0000

Actually, Craig made only a statement of contingency that is true. IF (yes, a big if) SNY is brought into the lawsuit and encumbered as a result, it would be a big deal.
.
How closely are you related to the Wilpons? Because there is just about no other explanation for someone so deeply wanting explain away all of the problem the Wilpons are having, all of which are their own fault…..if you build an empire on credit…it won’t last…they never do.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:12:52 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong, but when it first went to $1 billion, wasn’t the $700 million supposed to be punitive damages? Now this is claiming that the $700 million represents “fraudulent transfers.” Seems to me that it’s a lot easier to say “here, look, this $700 million was part of what was going on,” than it is to claim that the Wilpons are evil, dirty bastards and thus should pay $700 million in addition to their illicit gains.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:16:34 +0000

No one said it was a big deal

Actually, it was implied very strongly by Craig that it was.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:12:29 +0000

… or, apparently for some, a NY Post subscription : o

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:45:46 +0000

… or a NYT’s subscription : )

By: seeingwhatsticks

seeingwhatsticks — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:30:08 +0000

You don’t need any legal background when you have a Daily News subscription.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:26:19 +0000

Something needs to be a big deal to be posted in a blog that has dozens of entries/day?
.
No one said it was a big deal, but it is baseball related news. The amendment wasn’t for a new amount but was at a request to supporting information to justify the amount….and some of the issues in the amendment could certainly be viewed as noteworthy because they detail financial practices intended to misrepresent the nature of the transactions as well as to hide the true level of debt being accrued.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:44:03 +0000

Who said I was talking to a judge?

By: aaronmoreno

aaronmoreno — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:45:45 +0000

So what judge are you talking to?

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:35:05 +0000

Yes, I know. But jurors are asked to understand the law as outlined to them by the judge and then they are asked to apply the law to the facts as they find them. It’s not rocket science.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:01:36 +0000

Juries are for resolving factual issues. Not legal issues. Indeed, jurors never are asked to decide a matter of law.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:59:11 +0000

C’mon, anyone?

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:58:17 +0000

There is no minimum qualification for one to understand legal issues. They put cab drivers, cooks, and jocks on juries every day. You are entitled to your opinion. I just disagree.

By: aaronmoreno

aaronmoreno — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 06:21:40 +0000

Yeah, but you usually do need more than a college conlaw class to be able to make an informed assessment about the nature of legal arguments of a case pending before a judge.

One doesn’t need to be a lawyer to understand legal issues. One doesn’t need to be a doctor to understand medical treatment. However, there is a difference between small claims court and a billion dollar fraud case in federal court, just like there is a difference between a cold and brain surgery.

What I’m saying is, I think you lack the qualifications to render a sophisticated opinion on this issue. Don’t worry, so do I.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:10:16 +0000

One doesn’t need to be a lawyer to understand legal issues.

By: aaronmoreno

aaronmoreno — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:24:25 +0000

How can you explain it? You ain’t a lawyer.

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:11:57 +0000

I’m specifically referring to the amended material — ie, the supposedly new amount of 1 billion, which is actually the amount that has been reported for weeks already. IOW, how is any of the purported new material a big deal???

By: chrisny3

chrisny3 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:46:18 +0000

Yawn … Hi Craig! I find it funny that you jumped all over what is essentially a regurgitation of stuff that’s been reported for weeks. You must go into withdrawal if too much time passes without an opportunity to do a Wilpon-bashing piece.

It’s hardly worth a response, but I will explain how this amended suit isn’t a big deal if someone — anyone — would please first explain precisely in logical realistic terms (in a legal sense) how it is a big deal. Anyone?

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:19:44 +0000

“I received an email from the Wilpons’ and Katz’s P.R. people,”

What, chrisny3 has stopped posting and started emailing?

By: purnellmeagrejr

purnellmeagrejr — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:36:58 +0000

Wilpon should just pay the money and move on.That’s what I would do.

By: apbaguy

apbaguy — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 04:43:54 +0000

That was exactly what I thought when I read the headline. I totally had a mental image of Mike Myers’ Dr. Evil and his little smile…

By: apbaguy

apbaguy — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 04:42:10 +0000

If only Wolff had the cash…but that’s what big money partners are for. But I can’t see Lew leaving sunny California.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:18:54 +0000

Did he have his pinky in his mouth like Dr evil when he said “one billion dollars” ?

By: sdelmonte

sdelmonte — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:30:28 +0000

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Claiming that anyone owes that kind of money is extraordinary.

That said, the Wilpons should have settled. Love him or hate him, Picard is a pit bull.

By: jlhc5530

jlhc5530 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:17:46 +0000

See ya, Wilpons. So, which crony does Bud install in NY now? I’d say Lew Wolff, his old buddy who’s frustrated himself into an impossible corner of Northern California.

By: yankeesfanlen

yankeesfanlen — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:04:09 +0000

Does this mean that they won’t take a check for $67.18 worth of baseballs at WalMart anymore?

By: cur68

cur68 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:53:26 +0000

Oh gwaaaad…you know when you see a guy holding a bottle of gas with a sock stuck down the neck you know exactly what’s gonna happen? I got a premonition just like that right after reading this…
Anyhoo, onto my bias; this whole thing grows more Wilponian by the day. Can the Mets not catch a break in any way? Could this be a good thing and finally force the Wilpons to sell the team to Trump? Hell, he can’t be any worse and he wasn’t involved with Madoff. I can just hear him firing Ollie, too. Warms my shriveled, frost bitten, beaver loving soul, so it does.

By: Reflex

Reflex — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:47:24 +0000

chrisny’s paid counter-spin response in 3…2….1…..