Natalie says she wouldn't talk to Brooke, (and then does)

Brooke Adams has a new post up at her blog involving documents and the UEP trust, and people getting subpoenas in Texas.

It's essentially a teaser, advertising as many of her recent posts have, the possibility, or the near certainty that Brooke knows more than she's saying, now.

This little drama may play out before I have the chance to throw in my "swag" (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), but there was this interesting little tidbit:

The Plural Life - "(Natalie) Malonis told me on Thursday she had to check with Wisan to see what she was 'at liberty' to say. No answer yet."

My guess here is that if Wisan hasn't fired her yet, it's because it's the only way to keep her mouth shut, or hope to. It is more likely that whoever Texas Blues Man is, she has terminated that "attorney-client" relationship, unless of course Wisan is the Blues.

That's not a guess, that's rhetorical by the way, and somewhat amusing to speculate.

So much for Nat's claim that she wouldn't talk to Brooke.

So did Blues get a subpoena?

"(Patrick) Crimmins told me Friday no one in his department received a subpoena.

Earlier in the week, Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, gave me this statement when I asked about the dictations:

'Neither OAG nor law enforcement has made these documents available to the parties to the UEP Trust litigation.'

So who in Texas got the subpoenas?"

I wouldn't believe Patrick necessarily. He is a convincing liar, based on direct experience, and making the mistake of believing him. That's once Patrick.

But assuming it is true, as it is possible that no one got such a subpoena in Texas Government. Apparently from what Brooke is saying, someone did.

Jerry Strickland makes Patrick Crimmins more believable.

So is one of those someone's the Blues?

Sphere: Related Content