Some people who seem to be experts have suggested that it could be a sort of trap. Not just because the judge will be really mad if he goes back on his word th

Some people who seem to be experts have suggested that it could be a sort of trap. Not just because the judge will be really mad if he goes back on his word this time. But because there is a legal doctrine that prevents going back on his word, once he's agreed in court on the record to complete the deal. Until the judge agreed to a stay, that doctrine didn't come into play, because there is a strict boundary between court and things "everybody knows" in general, like that Musk is untrustworthy. Even requesting the stay didn't bind him to his claims. But in theory, litigants can be prevented from contradicting themselves once someone has relied on their representation in court. I think it's some kind of "estoppel". Which is an archaic French term for a stopper or bung. It sounds like the judge might have agreed because if he then goes back on his word, virtually all of the possible things he might argue can legally be ignored insofar as they contradict what he's saying now, and it saves a lot of work for the trial. What I was reading suggested it might be a very shrewd move from the perspective of the judge avoiding spending any more resources than necessary on this nonsense.