There is a California Law Firm for Appeals hired by the WTS, right? No doubt this case is out of the experience of the WTS Legal, but why didn't the California Law Firm inform the WTS. of the CA law that Patterson could not be used as colateral (or whatever) since Patterson is out of state?
I wonder if they (WT) are prolonging all this, to get the Court to make a mistake or find a way to prove that the Court has 'prejudice.' They must be desparate for a "loophole."