Lots of interest from readers in this story from the Daily Journal with hints as to what may be going on with Steve Patterson. Here’s a copy of the documents the story mentions as being filed today — Defendants’ Reply to the government’s response to the defendants’ earlier motion to compel discovery, and the accompanying Exhibit A.
The point of the story is that Patterson is not listed as among the defendants making the reply, whereas he was listed as being behind the actual motion made late last month. True enough. Lots of rumors about what is going on, some of it you take with a grain of salt, some of it you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Incidentally, someone also pointed out to me that, although Tony Farese continues to be Zach Scruggs’ attorney, Farese’s signature is not on the new pleading. What that might mean, I don’t know, maybe nothing.