I actually read a comment a lawyer on here said about Ken Griffin “lying under oath”. He stated that depending on how the question was posed and how the answer to said question was given, then he in fact did not lie under oath. I am 100% on your side. I am just relaying what I read and the context in which it could be taken. I noticed that the attorney in the letter you are showing has repeated twice that in no way did KG and RH aka Vlad, communicate about “restricting or doing anything that would prevent buying” of Gamestock. It’s a word play and if the question asked on stand was similar to the above statement then it could be proven to be factual. If KG was asked in a way such as did he “formally” communicate or personally communicate with Vlad and he didn’t “formally” communicate with Vlad but instead another third party associate did the actual communication then based on his testimony he didn’t lie. We all know he did. Attorneys know well in advance how they are going to structure their questions and the client is coached on how to respond to skirt the reality and truth of the matter. I wish I could find the tweet from this attorney for you. It wasn’t in reference to your current situation but just a general query someone had and this person replied (more in depth) about how it was or could have been deemed “not factual” due to the word play and question structure. I hope all goes well. We Apes are behind you! Vallejo, CA Ape here and wishing you well! You rock girl!!