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 : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: manalagi who wrote (788)	8/14/2007 11:38:28 AM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

<Statistics compiled by Lam's office corroborate the assertion that total prosecutions in border crossing cases have declined over Lam's tenure [20]. >On December 7, 2006, Michael A. Battle, director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, called Lam and notified her she must resign effective January 31, 2007. Battle instructed Lam to explain that she had decided to pursue other opportunities. Following that phone call, Lam called Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty to find out why she was being asked to resign. McNulty said he wanted to take some time to respond since he didn't want to give an answer "that would lead" Lam down the wrong path. McNulty added that he knew Lam had been through a long trial (presumably the Alvarado Hospital case) and had great respect for her. [18] In a follow-up call with Battle, Lam requested additional time to ensure an orderly transition from office. On January 5, 2007, Battle said her request was "not being received positively" and that Lam "should stop thinking in terms of the cases in the office." Battle insisted that Lam had to depart in weeks, not months, and these orders were "coming from the very highest levels of government." Lam submitted her resignation January 16, 2007, effective February 15th.[19] Many prominent Democrats, including Senators Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein, allege that Lam's firing was part of a broader vengeful move against prosecutors that have pursued political corruption that damaged Republicans or that were not loyal enough to the Administration.[1]Republican Congressman Darrell Issa has stated that he takes "maybe one-twentieth" of the responsibility for Lam's firing. Statistics compiled by Lam's office corroborate the assertion that total prosecutions in border crossing cases have declined over Lam's tenure [20]. However, the Justice Department itself defended Lam in an August 23, 2006 letter to Senator Feinstein. They asserted: "The immigration philosophy of the Southern District focuses on deterrence by directing its resources and efforts against the worst immigration offenders and by bringing felony cases against such defendants that will result in longer sentences. For example, although the number of defendants who received prison sentences between 1-12 months fell from 896 in 2004 to 338 in 2005, the number of immigration defendants who received sentences longer than 60 months rose from 21 to 77. Prosecutions for alien smuggling in the Southern District under U.S.C. sec. 1324 are rising sharply in Fiscal Year 2006."[21] In her own defense, Lam echoed the Justice Department's August letter, emphasizing quality prosecutions over sheer quantity. "When you take on more difficult investigations, the number of prosecutions might not be as high, but you have a larger impact on crime in the community."[22]. During her tenure as US Attorney, Lam received both the Director's Award for Superior Performance and the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service.[2] United States Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, stated on his April 1, 2007 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press broadcast: Carol Lam, it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they’re trying to say that this administration appoints people politically? Of course they do.[23] Senator Hatch's description of Lam, however, was inaccurate; Lam was never a campaign manager for any candidate, nor a law professor, and she is an experienced prosecutor [2]. After a week of controversy, Hatch wrote a letter to Tim Russert claiming that he "mispoke" in naming Lam several times, intending instead to name Alan Bersin, Lam's predecessor; however, Bersin likewise had never been a law professor and was an experienced trial lawyer[24]. [edit] Later career When she left the US Attorney's position in February 2007, she accepted the position of senior vice president and legal counsel for Qualcomm.[2]

To: manalagi who wrote (788)	8/14/2007 2:03:08 PM
From: queuecom	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9132

Paul: I have read the Brewster opinion. It seems to me that the first half simply affirms the jury finding of " valid but unenforceable" The second half launches into the lying by Qualcomm employees and the behaviour of Qualcomm's counsel. He was VERY forceful of his condemnation of this misbehaviour. He then wrapped up with "hearsay" opinions of Lou Lupin by quoting Balint in the SD paper. Will Carol Lamm help? Maybe. She will probably appear before Brewster on Aug 29th and may be able to cool him down and refocus on the real issue of the trial, i.e., Q sued and lost - regardless of the late arriving emails. My opinion is that the 14 lawyers who have been asked to appear will testify under oath. Brewster wants to get to the truth of what happened. I'll take a crack at estimating the damages that Mq took. First, Brewster has NO evidence regarding his conclusion that Q wanted to rule the world with these 2 patents. This is his OPINION. No penalty for this - but it give a clue to his dishing out a penalty for the lying. Unless the 14 lawyers can convince Brewster that Q's people were at fault the they are going to get hammered. Big time. Disbarment? Yes. Lupin? Lamm will claim that the SD Union misquoted. Lupin was foolish - not illegal. So Brewster's mad. get over it! My opinion - minor sanction to Lupin - unless he gets pinned with purposely withholding the emails. Then disbarment. Q's witnesses/employees? Clear perjury. They'll get criminal sanctions. Dollar sanctions against Q. None. Queuecom Disclaimer. I am NOT an attorney and it probably shows.