Re: FDIC-CORPORATES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UWBK is one step ahead of them as you read in the filing yesterday....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83991357/UWBK-3-5-2012-PLAINTIFFS-RESPONSE-TO-DEFENDANTS-RESPONSETO-THE-COURTS-FEBRUARY-24-2012-ORDER
Moreover, the Court need not parse whether the Acting
Director relied upon a particular document. This is so because the full record encompasses “all
materials before the agency at the time the decision was made, as well as all materials that might
have influenced the agency’s decision, and not merely those on which the agency relied in its
final decision.” Sara Lee Corp. v. Am. Bakers ****’n Ret. Plan, 512 F. Supp. 2d 32, 38-39
(D.D.C. 2007) (internal marks omitted). Even if the Acting Director ultimately chose not to rely
on particular documents in making the Seizure Decision, he would still have considered them to
the extent necessary to decide to disregard them. Thus, the Acting Director cannot exclude
documents from the record merely by claiming that he ignored them. See Nat’l ****’n of Chain
Drug Stores v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 631 F. Supp. 2d 23, 27 (D.D.C. 2009). As
the Court has already explained, the Acting Director must “give [the Court] everything he looked
at.” 8/11/2011 Tr. at 38.
Share This Post:
   
@deadmau5_trades
 Reply to compisnada - Msg #2245352 - 03/06/2012 16:41
Re: FDIC-CORPORATES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
That is why they brought in that new attorney, he knows how to handle these. My biggest concern is that, becouse its the FDIC they will be able to get away with this right or wrong.
Its the all mighty Goverment...United western needs to get some PR people on there side to push this into the limelight and only then will you see the FDIC back off. UWBK needs some sort of PR strategy if they are gonna pull this off and it should have been done last year. |
| |
|
56.38
0.40
