Exactly. It was the District court who decided the 88.5M award appealed from $475M in the CA Bankruptcy court. It was never an "offer". She lost in the Texas probate court entirely.
That (the 88.5M) was then appealed to the 9th Circuit court who saw Smith as trying to litigate the same issue twice and dropped it back down to ZERO.
Then Smith entered the highest court of the land, the US Supreme Court, who has remanded it back to the 9th Circuit for basically, jurisdictional issues on the appeals.
Smith went from a losing a probate contest, to intermingling a bankruptcy case, then adding a tortious interference claim. The experts claim she is trying to circumvent the sovereignty of a probate court which Congress has clearly never interferred with since the forefather's writing of the Constitution.
This is an extremely law-involved case. The "offer" expired long before any of the events above took place. It was very early on as I recall. I could dig up the amount, but at this point, it's irrelevant. There's an interesting video of Marshall's lawyer however, that I may still have. I'll look if anyone's interested.
I won’t be able to view it on this puter, but I’d like to know what it was. Is it Hardin or Brunstad? Like on Larry King Live or doing some other news interviews?
The “offer” myth just doesn’t seem to go away. I can’t believe there ever was one. No matter what, it would entail selling some Koch stock and that’s not only anathema to anyone in the Marshall family, it’s really pretty close to impossible.
Rusty and Brunstad both have said in recent weeks they will keep up the fight to the end.
And am I correct in saying that about half of that $88 mil “awarded” by that court was at least partially for punitive damages concerning Pierce Marshall’s interferences/shady deals?