I just returned from Wilmington. took some time to wash off the blood. For your information the judge read from a prepared speech.
Steinberg tried to cut off Bush's and my arguments before we got to express them. He was furious at me for supporting Bush's plan and was very antagonistic at first.
When I tried to continue Bush's argument about jpm ownership, the judge interrupted. There was no point to further discussion as she was really, really angry at me.
Based on suggestions from this board,I was under the impression that Steinberg left us high and dry. He did not. He actually filed an appeal in order to retain our rights to pursue further action. At a private conference with me after mfw issued final adoption of POR7, he explained his position.
No, he did not throw us to the wolves. He actually believed that he won the case (just as most of us). His investors had a vested interest in him winning this case. The judge had other ideas and that is why we got this insane ruling. He wants to assist in any appeal but is now prevented from participating (having tried the case and lost, it is hard to tell the appellate judge "give me another crack at this"). I am not angry at his confrontation to my arguments, but, I still don't understand why he posed these arguments. They were the Hail Mary shots. and he deflected them before the throw.
Bottom line the judge was already convinced before the hearing and my meager attempt at sanity was denied.
