I just listened to the complete recording of the hearing on Wednesday, May 20th.
The judge had more questions and more dialogue with WMI representatives. By doing so she is hearing them out and she is not disagreeing with them.
The decision she must make about the request for discovery is not so hard to make in my mind now.
Discovery for tortuous claims related to a calculated take down leading up to the FDIC seizure is at hand now in this action, in this court, in this case to further resolve this case.
If she has a choice between now and later I don't see why she would choose later unless there is some law or precedent that says the discovery can't or must not take place here and now. That is my take on this matter. If discovery had already been granted and was underway in a similar case by the same parties that would be one thing, but it isn't!
Of course there are questions about whether discovery should, could, and whether it will later occur, but for the matter at hand, it is either now or more likely never given the contentious nature of JPM's stance. They shouldn't be trusted.
I look forward to hearing her explanation of her eventual ruling regarding discovery.
I wouldn't trust JPM if I were her. On that alone I would rule in favor of WMI. After all, JPM attorneys have admitted that they will fight to keep the 4 billion, solely on the grounds that if they get to keep it, it will go to their "constituents" as though that is a good reason to fight for something that isn't theirs.
The obtuse nature, or hair splitting nature, and legalese of the JPM attorney's characterization of her client's disposition on the case is enough to want to get out a 2x4 and knock the bats out of her belfry.
The fine art of sounding like one is saying something of substance when, in fact, it is not of substance and maybe not even related is, well a fine art.
We need young people to study and learn ways to exercise law without room for bald faced b.s.
.
