To: Ken Todd who wrote (7682 ) 5/18/1998 11:20:00 PM From: Harvey Kirby Respond to
Ken,,,tough questions for a layman such as myself. Not a professional person. I read James Millican's reply and what he says makes sense. As a layman I would think along these lines that if you make statements true or false on the internet via emails or Bulletin boards, yet when on the stand in a court room you make statements contrary to what you said on the internet I certainly would think an attorney would point out these differances and make your testimony pro or con questionable. Now, If I made the statement that I would like the persons envolved brought to justice because they cost me a small fortune in an investment fraud I would have an "ax" to grind with those people. But, in my case it still has to be proven that the people that have been mentioned can be proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt that they had their fingures in the pudding and were part of a plan to defraud the investor. Names have been mentioned, but so far the evidence and the ability to prove that any person purposely committed fraud thus far is in the hands (from what I understand) of the SEC, perhaps the FBI, and a handful of investors that were more on top of this scenario from the very begining. Perhaps the fact that you worked at Genisis you must know things and can prove them that the rest of us out here in cyberspace would have no way of knowing about. Some of the people involved in this could be cicumstantial, but that works the other way also. They could purposely have been committing fraud for months on end.
