CMFMikenpdx: Taken altogether, i get the sense that he was playing good soldier so as to stay out of the line of fire and that ultimately there was enough going on that he decided it best to move on. if it was truly an amicable separation, i just don’t get why it was so abrupt.

Well, clearly his declaration was written or edited by legal counsel. And the separation certainly was not an amicable one… Ball stated he was resigning because of his “continuous long hours” and imminent “time-intensive work tasks facing my department, which I understood would mean no relief from such long hours in the foreseeable future.”

Also, Ball left the same day he resigned, often the sign of ill will between parties.

And please clarify your suspicion that “there was enough going on that he decided it best to move on”.

CMFMikenpdx: I didn’t see explicit refutes; perhaps different interpretations on a few items.

I provided one clear example. Here is another:

In response to the alleged issue concerning BofI’s alleged refusal “To Let Employees Communicate Via Outlook (Email)” Ball states that although “BofI installed Jabber on my computer, I never stopped using Outlook during my employment at BofI. I had access to Outlook until my departure on March 5, 2015.”

And another:

In response to the alleged issue concerning BofI’s alleged “Material Omissions in Flood Disaster Protection Act Audit” Ball states that after discussing preliminary findings "we deleted many of the findings from the initial draft list of preliminary findings because they had been properly remediated or were inaccurate. The final Flood Audit report did contain findings and a plan for remedial action, and to my knowledge no material information was purposely withheld.

There are other examples but perhaps the most important one is Erhart’s allegation that Ball resigned “After Refusing to Break the Law” for BofI.

Jonathan Ball: "I did not resign ‘after refusing to break the law.’ No one at BofI, including Greg Garrabrants, Eshel Bar-Adon, John Tolla, Tom Constantine, Andrew Micheletti, or any member of the Audit Committee ever instructed me to break the law. In addition, I was never instructed to hide any uncovered violations in audits."

Are you suggesting that that is a “different interpretation” and not an explicit refutation?

Look, I agree with you that these responses are carefully phrased, which is exactly what you’d expect from a legal declaration drawn by counsel. However, bear in mind that Ball was long rumored to be the ace in the hole who would provide strong and vigorous support for Erhart’s allegations. There’s still a long way to go and Erhart will not be deposed until January 4 but I don’t think anyone would call Ball’s declaration a validation of Erhart’s allegations.

If you disagree, please provide a specific example. I’m eager to read where you feel that Ball agrees with Erhart’s allegations. I don’t see it but perhaps I will with your help. Thanks.