@pernickety, I plan to go back and read both the atty. P and state response again. So thanks for this reference to Jones as I simply couldn't stomach what was going on in that case to invest the time to follow it closely.
My quick read of the Atty. P word salad was that he was choosing to argue an issue that wasn't directly related on the surface to the facts of the current circumstances (Pattis was referencing murder charge but current circumstances are tampering/hindering). It was because of this surface 'disconnect' between the FD present legal reality in criminal court and what the appeal seemed to be dealing with so far as I understood it, that I classified this entire Atty. P appeal as a 'vanity project' to simply garner press attention. It then seemed totally logical to me that folks at the HC who are clearly in the Atty. P camp for a variety of reasons would jump on the bandwagon with their amicus brief.
On the 401K issue, for what its worth I thought it was simply a cynical ploy on the part of Pattis & Crew to be 'close' to the money. They no doubt knew the extent of the litigation and the house of cards situation at FORE/FD and didn't want to be last in line with an unsecured claim in any forced liquidation or bankruptcy. Pattis trying to involve the Judge in 'taking care of' the 401K was totally laughable too. IMO Pattisville is always all about the money all the time so that is why I am very curious about the "Greek Benefactor" discussion coming up in Civil Court as I believe we just might see Atty P. invoke the 5th! I do hope the State and Federal authorities are all over the "Greek Benefactor" issue as it sounds beyond shady that FD doesn't know how his 4-6 attys are being paid. Ridiculous and IMO most likely illegal too!
MOO
