is there a way to pin down fraser without testimony from garza in court? Not just discussions with the gawsuit lawyers in court. How can Garza testify with the SEC hanging over his head? How does anyone think this is a good plan.
He's the "star witness" so I don't see how this could go forward without his deposition and/or in-court testimony. Maybe Garza is hoping that throwing Fraser under the bus will drag him (Fraser) into the SEC case somehow. Whatever the reason behind this plan I'd like to think that plaintiffs' lawyers know what they're doing. They wouldn't be wasting their resources if this didn't have a reasonable chance of success.
I'm thinking they've already been paid handsomely up-front (in part) for taking on this long-shot case in the legal Wild Wild West of Altcoins.
(Lawyers: "Cryptocurrencies? wtf?")
Even if working soley on hopes of a big commission, they seem to know they are beating a a nearly-dead horse.
The desperate language & circular arguments in the Plea to survive the Motion to Dismiss are so forced, they're actually funny.
TLDR: "The Defendant (Fraser) is blatantly disregarding the fact that he has been named as a 50-50 Partner!!!!" ***
***(By us.)
