Comments

  1. Keep speaking truth to power, Teri. You have lots of fans out here. Don’t let JPM hide in the dark.

  2. Mr. 85 Broad Street says:

    Crotty is a federal judge. No love lost for JPM – they fired his son from their muni bond department as part of the Bear takeover.

  3. Teri – I commend your work – I just hope we see justice & these Bear traders get their wealth given back to others & locked up

  4. The real justice here would be Jamie Dimon behind bars—AND NOT A CUPCAKE PRISON EITHER—for a very long time.

  5. I want to know when the frauds of the bond insurers are going to be examined.

  6. Crotty of SDNY threatened me in open court as a whistleblower against corruption in the Grievance Committees trying to erase attorneys who represent individuals. His family was from Buffalo and got Cuomo Sr. into power. Interesting story there.

  7. “… netnet this is lawyering 101 and JP Morgan knows this. ..”
    Yeah, except that the judge did, indeed, compel them to hand over the docs.

    • Yea that move by the Federal Judge Crotty surprised me so why wouldn’t the whistleblowers testimoney at the depo now be made publicly available? Sounds fair to me but then the legal gamesmanship in these cases is moving in all shades of grey and agressive tactics. To me that means JP Morgan is really worried about the billions they could have to pay out for RMBS fraud or putbacks.

  8. Think you miss the point. If the plaitiffs lawyers violting confidentiality agreements is wrong. They have every right to depose these people and confidentiality agreements should not stop them from doing that. But for a plaitiffs law firm to knowingly violate a confidentiality agreement and then manipulate a witnesses testimony appears to be over the line. If the witnesses have something valuble to say let them say it at a deposiiton under oath. That said witness intimidation is wrong and courts should not allow it.

  9. Confidentiality agreements cannot be used to cover up a crime.

    All confidentiality agreements have provisions in them that allow disclosure in response to court orders and subpoenas provided safeguards are put in place to protect trade secret and proprietay information, which may be intertwined with facts evidencing crimes.

    While the defendants in this case have a right to protect their trade secret and proprietary information, they do not have the right to pevent testimony in response to a subpoena (hence the reason for Ambac’s attorneys subpoenaing third party witnesses, I.e., “their witnesses”, for deposition).

    If the depos are allowed into the public domain, expect heavy redacting and a long fight over what should and should not be redacted.

  10. Teri – any update on all this ?

Share Your Voice