Boy, you are going to have to explain that article to me, unless it is intended as a pro-walter hatchet piece.
Fisrt, the interview this law professor, who cites NO law as to what theory the court would have to set aside the verdict. In fact he criticises the ONLY theory that I know of that has been offered, that of the illegal voting trust. Ie a binding contract to sell your vote. He seems to say, well we should ignore that theory. Based on I guess his tacit admission that THERE IS NO WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH THAT WALTER IS GOING TO PROVE THAT ISSUE.
As I count the votes, even if all 17MM of duetchebanks votes were not counted, or were counted contrary to the way they were voted, on which I guarantee there is no case, walter still LOSES by 7MM votes.
And, there is another thing, where is the smoking gun voice mail? and if this was done with walter's knowledge, is he guilty of conspiracy to steal corporate property.
And the fact that they "knew" they were going to fire 25,000 rather than 15,000?? Hell, even I knew that, this is not the kind of thing that securities fraud or even more remote, grounds to set aside a vote.
But I'm just noodling here, I haven't read Delaware voting law or the briefs.
But, even with that, I agree with the Judge in this case. It is not subject to summary judgment because there is a chance in a million that they can prove something, but I just don't know what.
Albeit, only ONE chance in a million. |
