Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (66245)	3/21/2002 2:59:08 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Respond to of 74651

I wasn't there, either. And I don't have any special insight into why they are or are not calling particular witnesses. Perhaps limits on the number of witnesses made some compromises necessary. Perhaps the particular people involved could be harmful in other ways. Perhaps bringing them in from out of town is more costly than their testimony is worth. Perhaps the attorneys never expected to get the evidence in, but decided the attempt would at least make the judge aware of it. JMHO. Charles Tutt (SM)

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (66245)	3/21/2002 8:04:09 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Duke: This puts Jackson's acceptance of all the hearsay eMails in stark contrast to what this judge will properly allow and won't allow as evidence. I am and was surprised that Jackson's conduct was not dealt with more harshly by the Appeals Court in that his "findings of fact" were based on the same kind of flimsy evidence. His bias in accepting so much of it unchallenged was disgusting and reflected an enormous spiteful bias. Often he refused to listen to MSFT's objections dismissing them with ridicule. Other than that I guess Jackson is a swell jurist. JFD