Not so much. I have to find out what I can and can\'t say here, but I have 19 (literally-- NINETEEN) things listed that are wrong with that ruling, most in terms of recitation of the testified-to facts by the judge, some by omission.
LIKE-- he has a throw-away reference to Brauer reading an email FROM ME in his testimony. In fact, he read an email he wrote TO ME, saying among other things that Lauffer had tried mutiple times to cut me out of the deal, which the judge does not mention. The email was written just 3 weeks after the events, well before there was even a lawsuit.
LIKE-- the judge completely leaves out our cross examination of their expert witness, Headley Bell, in his acount-- he has direct AND cross for all other witnesses. Yes, under direct he was a good witness for them. When we crossed, not so much.
LIKE-- the judge saying I testified I \"did not have any information that Mr. Kirk told the fees to the Plaintiff\". That would be true if he had added \"except for the email that went into evidence from Kirk to Brown saying \'I have told them of your commissions and other rates\'\".
Much, much more, but I have to be careful.