I agree... perhaps with the caveat that the law IS about justice, but only in the abstract, seeing justice as an intent in the function of the process of law, rather than as a specific outcome of that operation case by case. That the law is what the law is, while justice is blind to the advocates in arguments, but is not blind to the facts or the law, seems it is the point... but also when that means she is blind to efforts outside the function of the law that serve as fingers tipping the scales ?
I think the sale is a wholly separate issue from the trial of the facts being conducted here... which also doesn't mean that it shouldn't be managed as a wholly separate issue, considered in the time that it takes to consider if fully, and properly, before any ruling about it is issued ? What is the hurry, and how does a delay impose any harm ? I expect there may be value in ensuring the issue of the sale isn't allowed to control other issues... it might best be isolated from the trial, even to be heard in a separate court, to ensure that it doesn't become a source of contamination ???
I will agree that the timing of the sale appears to be offered as a distractor... would agree that it shouldn't be allowed to serve that function, or proceed without a full examination of the conditions that govern the effort, which it seems is what determines whether it is a proper effort or not, or only an effort to conduct a market based sleight of hand which might in fact be intended to perpetrate a fraud on the court... not just to disadvantage unit holders, or tip the scales to advantage PXD and PJPM... who appear to me to be asleep at the controls, again, with this effort.
It looks to me like even bringing up the issue of the sale has opened a whole new can of worms, that, with some effort by MOSH, might not have much potential to work to their advantage, and might be made a huge problem... for them ?
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
