Re[2]: [Am-info] Add witness tampering to the list

[Gene Gaines]

Mr. Guilbert,

I agree with you completely, I mean, heck, we gotta follow the law
here.

That nasty fellow Urbaniak implied that Microsoft tampered with a
witness just because:

   (1) Gates called Sanders,
   (2) Sanders asked Gates to treat his company, AMD, preferentially
       in return for his testimony, and in court Sanders stated
       "Mr. Gates said he would talk to his people about that," and
   (3) Sanders agreed to testify for Microsoft and did against the
       states' proposed sanctions without even taking the time to
       read them.

I mean, gee, criticizing Gates would be akin to criticizing a mass
murder sitting in a tower picking off his enemies with a rifle,
because, gee, he hasn't been convicted yet, and we all know, gee,
his past convictions for doing essentially the same thing have no
bearing on his current actions, I mean, gee, legally, that is.

I recommend closer reading of the Reuters story cited, at:

http://news.findlaw.com/business/s/20020416/microsoftdc.html

OK, OK, I know, I know, the news story proves that Reuters is Anti-
Microsoft.

I feel like writing about this issue is like beating a dead horse.
and he is one of the ugliest horses I have ever seen, and I don't
like even being near the animal.  Trouble is, the horse ain't dead
yet.


Gene
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com

On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 8:58:50 AM, T wrote:

> In a message dated 2002 April 17 (Wednesday), timestamp 08:32 AM, 
>    on the topic [Am-info] Add witness tampering to the list,
>    "John J. Urbaniak" <jjurban@attglobal.net> wrote:

> "|   http://news.findlaw.com/business/s/20020416/microsoftdc.html

> "|Microsoft Witness Sought a Favor From Gates


> "|HOW MANY CRIMES CAN GATES GET AWAY WITH!!!

> "|He gave evasive and misleading testimony under oath.  They
> "|manufactured evidence and submitted it.  Now they're tampering with
> "|witnesses.

> "|I shout WHY AREN'T THESE CRIMINALS IN JAIL???

> 1. The request for a favor was initiated by the witness, not offered
> by Microsoft. 

> 2. There is no evidence that Microsoft agreed to do the favor the
> witness requested. 

> On that basis, I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that
> Microsoft was tampering with this witness. 



--