Important, after reading thru the posts on opinions
and critique of the results of the hearing on the 26th, there is a couple of things which need to be said
regardless of popular acceptance.
Jeff's deposition was not necessarily lacking, and remember has not been seen in it's amended form, so any criticism of it is as unfair as the premature publishing of it was in the first place.
One has to bear in mind the judge was only familiar with the overall picture and not familiar with the depth of the details. Next time around he will be far more involved with actual circumstance.
Jeff and his Atts., did exactly as they should have done. Jeff was low key and not unrealistically demanding.
Team Jeff knew knew the other side were over confident and also knew the judge was liable to be confused
as to why all the fuss over so little, AND Team Jeff also knew they couldn't possibly enlighten him in the time available. Pure logic! SO what's best? Status Quo for a decision which will be made after enlightenment June 7!
The preferred are the main crux of the whole exercise with regard to this hearing and this, it would seem is
something that will make or break the whole thing. Team Jeff are 90% ahead on that score, in the judges eyes I am sure.
I have heard the suggestion of bringing up of an amicus curiae, which it seems all know the meaning of by now.
I would strongly suggest that those advocating this to drop it. Besides any other reason, there is nobody on this or the other blogs that have enough verifiable information to issue a "Friend of the court" letter to the Judge.
First, Team Jeff are fully capable of the undertaking they are in the process with. Second, without first hand knowledge, it could backfire and be perceived in many different lights by the judge and be interference with what Team Jeff are planning. If they need the assistance they can easily ask for it and we all know there will be plenty
of "enlightened" takers.
The last thing I would like to say: There is a lot more to legal proceedings of this nature than meets the eye. bandying around criticism and solutions using legal vernacular, require very solid verified information to be of value. Reading the nuances of what is known and of what can be expected, requires first hand knowledge and a lot of experience.
B.
