The collateral litigation over the alleged foot-tapping lawyer has itself spawned collateral litigation, which of course no one could have ever predicted.
Wasn't this case at one time about Peter Halmos' yacht?
The latest sideshow involves Ms. Dennis' testimony at the evidentiary hearing, and whether defendant's in-house counsel possibly mischaracterized Magistrate Judge Brown's order and thus....oh I don't know you can read it yourself:
On October 22, 2010, John F. Roth, asked that this Court’s October 7, 2010 Order, which found that Mr. Roth violated this Court’s previous Order (D.E. 1020), be amended since it was “issued without affording him notice and an opportunity to be heard or present evidence . . . .” That motion should be denied not only for the reasons originally given by the Court, but also because in his response, not only does he not exculpate himself, but he has (1) exacerbated his improprieties, and (2) provided direct evidence that contradicts the “credible” Ms. Dennis. Furthermore, the Court should impose stricter sanctions against Mr. Roth as it is clear that he, a lawyer, in fact willfully violated this Court’s Order, sanction INA’s lawyers for leading this Court astray in regards to Ms. Dennis’s testimony. The Court should also find Ms. Dennis in contempt of Court for lying to it.BTW, the word "sanction" only appears five times in this brief!