A $13B Complaint

#1

Post by granfalloon » Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 12:50 AM UTC

A $13B Complaint
novackmedialaw.com

Re: A $13B Complaint

#2

Post by TaylorAlexander » Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 2:45 AM UTC

Headline doesn't need the dollar sign and the word "dollar".

Re: A $13B Complaint

#3

Post by bognition » Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 2:46 AM UTC

This reads like a law firm trying to trigger the Streisand effect, not sure why I should care

Re: A $13B Complaint

#4

Post by jlardinois » Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 7:30 AM UTC

> 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.

Re: A $13B Complaint

#5

Post by turingbombe » Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

jlardinois wrote: post #4

> 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.

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.