bigplay,

I have a question. (from your post, you wrote)

My point is JW agreed to the stay knowing full well it was to wait for the PTO ruling. He agreed bc he was givin assurences the PTO would rule in a workable time frame to end this litigation with settlement before Christmas. IMO

The new pacer Monday for a stay(sealed) is signed only by the defendants. I think thats telling us TPL is starting to play hardball and I agree JW will probably say no. I think this bc TPL has most likely givin JW and the J's a copy of the response to the PTO. TPL has no reason to keep it confidential. The J's read it but still want the official PTO ruling. IMO

____________________________________...

Why would JW agree to only a 30 day stay and not just give a 60 day stay when knowing 'full well it was to wait for the PTO ruling and givin(your words not mine) assurences the PTO would rule in a workable time frame.

You think: 'I agree JW will probably say no'

My question: Why would JW say "NO" in granting another stay, when he had assurances prior to granting the 1st 30 day stay that the PTO would be complete in a workable timeframe....by Christmas???

If I'm JW, and I knew(had assurances) that the PTO decision would be final in a workable timeframe and settlement to be complete by Christmas, I would NOT say "no" to another stay.

Maybe I'm dense but your logic makes absolutely no sense to me.

Regards,

PxP