My initial thoughts were very similar.
And while I was "disappointed" that it wasn't a longer reply, this is strictly out of selfish reasons, as I thoroughly enjoyed the B-Slapping that they gave, and the F.U.'s that this reply sent, to WG&M. The biggest F.U., however, is in saying, "thanks for the extra page limit, but (unlike WG&M), we really don't need that many pages to get our essential points across." No need for hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo nonsense, no need to try to play with semantics, no need to create a "Pleadings By The Pound" type response. Maybe, WG&M figured that if they couldn't dazzle JMW with brilliance, they might as well try to baffle her with 80 pages full of . . . excrement.
Well, that, plus the fact that they really are charging the Estate for their Pleadings by the Pound. Why use only 26 pages when you can try to bore the judge to tears with 80 pages of . . . "work" while getting yet another Golden Opportunity to milk the Estate away. They wouldn't want it to go to waste.
Nope. Steinberg et al., basically said, "More than 30 pages? Why? We can tell the judge why we are right and they are WRONG, in 26 pages, and we do so while also letting the judge know how the Defendants have been playing loose with the facts as well as with the law."
And let's not forget our forget our favorite gal, "Cha-Cha."
Taking the Totality of the Circumstances, the Defendants kinda look . . . not so good. Kinda reminds me of "Open Mic" night (as some hack lawyer once pointed out).
AI
