[–] bognition 9y ago ↗ This reads like a law firm trying to trigger the Streisand effect, not sure why I should care
[–] jlardinois 9y ago ↗ > 1) We didn't say we are suing JPMorgan. [Huh?]Why the huh? The author's own point 1 implied the suit was against JP Morgan.> 1) JPMorgan already has the document, so there is no element of surprise on the government's side. [–] turingbombe 9y ago ↗ Yes the author is asking for the document and believes it should be a non-issue because:> 1) JPMorgan already has the document, so there is no element of surprise on the government's side.To which the DOJ responds:> 1) We didn't say we are suing JPMorgan.Which is a bit of a confusing response.
[–] turingbombe 9y ago ↗ Yes the author is asking for the document and believes it should be a non-issue because:> 1) JPMorgan already has the document, so there is no element of surprise on the government's side.To which the DOJ responds:> 1) We didn't say we are suing JPMorgan.Which is a bit of a confusing response.
4 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 20.8 ms ] threadWhy the huh? The author's own point 1 implied the suit was against JP Morgan.
> 1) JPMorgan already has the document, so there is no element of surprise on the government's side.
> 1) JPMorgan already has the document, so there is no element of surprise on the government's side.
To which the DOJ responds:
> 1) We didn't say we are suing JPMorgan.
Which is a bit of a confusing response.