Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
That's what I call circular logic. It's equally valid to say that complaining about monitoring shows that the monitoring is excessive. The issue isn't that stopping his work is in the public interest, the issue is whither or not his work exceeds his mandate or Judge Cote's legal authority. While I'm sure she believes that there is no limit on her legal authority (as do many judges), there is indeed a limit. As I've said before, it will be interesting to see what the response of the appellate court is to this situation.
|
If you remember posting this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Well, for one thing, I would like to see the case evolve beyond one judge's opinion sans jury.
There is a lot more to this story than some are willing to admit. Here is a story from CNN
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co.../?iid=HP_River
Apparently appointing a monitor at all in a case like this is a very unusual act, as is appointing a monitor who has the close personal ties that this person seems to have with Judge Cote. It sure seems a lot like Bromwich is trying to rack up as many hours as he can before the appeal hearings come to pass. |
And to quote the article:
Quote:
|
Should a monitor have ever been appointed here at all -- an unusual step in a case like this one, in which the defendant has no long history of either egregious wrongdoing or recalcitrant behavior.
|
As you see, recalcitrant behavior is a reason for appointing a monitor, so the more Apple displays this behavior, the more obvious it becomes that this measure was absolutely necessary.