RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Cancel Xmas PartiesYou said it on this forum in your Dec 18 post that fraud occured: "...If you found out one of your employees committed FRAUD, would you keep him/her employed for another six months with full access to project documents? You may have had good experiences but it only takes one rotten apple to ruin a company."
If you're now saying it's not fraud, why bring that point up in the earlier post? That's defamation.
As for shoddy work, I am not accusing you of that as I wasn't there and don't have first hand knowledge; I am just restating what SOX wrote when they spoke of deficiencies that had to be reworked and redone in their statement of defense and why they said they had to pay another subcontractor to redo it by deducting future payments to your company.
Also, those thousands of documents have to be served on SOX's counsel of record before the court date for the judge to allow them to be used as evidence, which means the documents are now public record and can be accessed by anyone who attends the court house, so there's no advantage to hide it. Where's the sworn affidavits by expert witnesses? It's a rule of civil court procedure. You can't surprise the opposing party with new documentary evidence in court on the day of the hearing--the judge will just either throw it out or adjourn the court date to a new date several months in the future because SOX didn't get enough notice to prepare to defend against those documents. So, providing details doesn't give SOX any extra help as the rules of civil procedure requires you to have already provided all those details to SOX prior to the trial date. Maybe, adjournments is why it lasted 5 years now? I don't see how that benefits your company though as you've got to keep paying lawyers for new trial dates and if you're intentionally withholding documentary evidence to cause adjournments, I can't see why a judge would ever consider awarding you legal costs and may, in fact, award SOX their legal costs for the delays.
Based on everything I've read so far, the lawsuit sounds as frivilous as SOX claims in their SOD. Nothing you've shown me so far convinces me that your lawsuit has any merit and I can't see how you can win this lawsuit.
BTW-I don't have a problem with LeMay getting fired as he's dragged this SP so low, so he has no love from me if someone decided to become a shareholder activist and wanted my proxy to do that. Usually, if a CEO is fired for cause, their golden parachute payout becomes void so he'll get what he deserves if he doesn't turn this place around.
Doggedness wrote: Perhaps you should read my claim again, no where in my claim have I alleged fraud! You claim nothing has been proven in court, and yet you've accused me of shotty work and deficiencies without seeing the thousands of documents. Be careful.
I didn't come to this public forum to provide details of my case, I simply want Lemay to go...I am not just a stakeholder, but I am also a shareholder. I think this company will have good potential under new management.
you don't know the whole story as to why other contractors were brought on site, so I suggest you stop assuming. You weren't there. In your own words, nothing has been proven in court, so I think it's hypocritical for you to automatically blame me based on their accusations.
You can keep trolling, rest assured I won't be providing any details of the case other than what's in the filed documents as you have stated you will be helping SOX out with frivolous lawsuits.
Over