|
|
| Affidavit of Barbara Jackson (Yarro et al v Kreidel et al) - as text |
 |
|
Monday, February 14 2005 @ 03:13 PM EST
|
Here's something odd. In this affidavit [PDF], another one attached to the Yarro/Mott/Christensen complaint [PDF], Barbara Jackson, who was executive assistant to Ray Noorda and Ralph Yarro, tells us two new things about Rob Penrose. First, he wasn't seen crying after meeting with Mr. Mustard, although Ms. Jackson also says that Mr. Mustard was intimidating and hostile to all. After his meeting with Mr. Mustard and before the Christmas luncheon, where he is seen crying, Penrose, she tells us, goes off alone with Val Noorda Kreidel, Noorda's daughter. He takes her to get a badge for the office, and it's only after that that he is seen crying. One can't help but wonder what, if anything, was said by these two as he escorted her to get the badge. Another thing: according to Ms. Jackson, Penrose family members, who are not named with specificity, allegedly told her at the viewing that Rob Penrose felt threatened and asked for security guards to be placed around his home. Ms. Jackson doesn't tell us who he felt threatened by. I think she means us to understand that he felt threatened by Mr. Mustard. Threatened to do what or else? Or just threatened? What is she implying? That Penrose thought Mr. Mustard would bump him off? Break his knuckles? What? It sounds far-fetched. But here's the illogical part. This allegedly happened the same day he committed suicide. Does that make sense? I have trouble putting those two things together. Maybe someone can explain to me why a man would do both those things on the same exact day. If you are going to kill yourself anyway, why would you care about having security guards? I am remembering the movie "Casablanca", where Ingrid Bergman points a gun at Humphrey Bogart, and he says, "Go ahead and shoot. You'd be doing me a favor." Now, I am no expert on suicide -- and you can be positive, if you ever hear I killed myself, that it's not true (and don't accept at face value any stories about me falling into a volcano or the sky falling on my head and killing me or any other so-called accidents either, now that I think of it) -- but it seems to me illogical to ask for protection and then kill yourself immediately thereafter. Perhaps the answer is that suicide isn't logical. Like I say, I'm definitely no expert. But it sticks out as not fitting in seamlessly into this picture. It doesn't prove it didn't happen just that way, of course. But as a paralegal, those are two items that I'd flag for any attorney I was working for. I think I'd also mark paragraph 10. She tells us that when she saw there were security guards in the building who had taken Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen to a conference room, she was afraid all of the employees would be asked to leave the building without being allowed to take personal items with them, so she snuck out to her car with what she says were some Christmas presents for her husband. Update: Groklaw member Paul Shirley points out something I completely missed: "Its quite telling that Penrose was left in control of the computer systems after
the coup, at a time when so many staff claim to feel intimidated and
frightened. Whatever was discussed in that hour long meeting Penrose came out of it trusted."
Ms. Jackson tells the same story that the others told. This executive assistant informs us that in her opinion Mr. Yarro is a skilled businessman on the same level as Ray Noorda, that she heard Mr. Noorda speak glowingly of Mr. Mott, and that Mr. Noorda was generous to her and gave her a $6,000 bonus one year, when a portfolio company was sold. For context, the Mustard/Kreidel/Noorda complaint lists Yarro's largesse to Ms. Jackson like this: 35. In addition to wrongfully enriching himself and Mott, Yarro also executed stock option agreements purporting to grant options on Class A and B shares to various other Canopy employees at strike prices ranging from $5.00 to $19.00 per share, each of which were excessive and constituted waste of corporate assets. Moreover, the grant to Yarro, Mott and Canopy's other employees of options allowing them to acquire in excess of 10,000 Class A voting shares, as detailed below, enabled Yarro, Mott and Canopy's employees to acquire a majority of Canopy's Class A voting shares: . . . Barbara Jackson -
25 Class A -
$5.00 -
100%
Jackson - 24,975 - Class B -
$5.00 -
100% She also tells us, to me heartbreakingly, that she and the Noordas were more like friends, and they would share with her news about their children and grandchildren and she would share information about her family. If I ever had such a relationship established with anyone, I could never be disloyal, not for the rest of my life. That's the heartbreaking part to me, thinking of how the Noordas must be feeling now. Yet, despite drawing a picture of friendship, recently, when the Noordas apparently moved to an assisted living facility, Ms. Jackson only heard about it through someone who wasn't at Canopy. So, while she portrays herself as close to the Noordas, even after Mr. Noorda's daily presence at Canopy was over, clearly that closeness didn't extend to the present. And by the way, while I think she means to present the news of their going to an assisted living facility to buttress claims of incompetency, I know from researching such facilities for my dad prior to his death that you go to such a facility for many reasons, and many older persons choose to go there long before any age-related medical condition forces them to seek help. It's the new way to deal with the aging process. A friend's mom went to one and didn't die for about ten years. It's like a gamble, financially. The resident hopes to live a long time before needing assistance, but it's assurance that when the time comes, the help is there and ready. In fact, most such facilities won't even let you be a resident unless you are in reasonable health when you first arrive. I know because my dad didn't qualify at the time he asked me to investigate it as a possible solution for them. I think he wanted to do it so he could die peacefully, knowing that he'd cared for my mother to the end of her life, even if he wasn't alive to do it in person, and he worried about her living alone without him and getting older without assistance should health issues arise, and they wanted to be together to the end, so he liked the idea that if he needed to be in a hospital, she'd be right there, without having to travel to see him. There was a walkway between the apartments and the hospital, and she wouldn't even need to take an umbrella on a rainy day. Yes. A couple of lovebirds, facing old age together with as much ingenuity and courage as possible, wanting to stay close to each other until the final, forced parting. He had told me that he felt sure he couldn't last more than another year, at most, and he was right. They were a package deal, and while her health qualified her, his wasn't good enough, so he stayed home and my mom and I cared for him until his death less than one year later. So while Ms. Jackson -- very meanly, in my opinion -- repays her warm and generous boss by mentioning that she heard the Noordas had chosen to reside in such a facility, that piece of information proves nothing to me as to their capacity and health. Assisted living facilities are the new "in" thing with elderly folks. If you have discerned that I found this affidavit deeply disturbing, and offensive, you would be right.
*********************************
STANLEY J. PRESTON (4119)
MICHAEL R. CARLSTON (0577)
MARALYN M. REGER (8468)
SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
[address, phone]
IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
RALPH J. YARRO III, an individual,
DARCY G. MOTT, an individual, and
BRENT D. CHRISTENSEN, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
VAL NOORDA KREIDEL, an individual,
TERRY PETERSON, an individual,
WILLIAM MUSTARD, an individual, THE
NOORDA FAMILY TRUST, a Trust,
RAYMOND J. NOORDA, an individual
and a trustee of the Noorda Family Trust,
LEWENA NOORDA, an individual and a
trustee of the Noorda Family Trust, and
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
Defendants.
_____________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF BARBARA JACKSON
Civil No. 050400205
Honorable Anthony W. Schofield, Div. 8
__________________________
STATE OF UTAH )
: ss.
COUNTY OF UTAH )
BARBARA JACKSON, being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says:
1. I am over twenty-one years of age and have personal knowledge of the facts stated below.
1
2. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Brigham Young University.
3. In September 1995, I was hired as an Executive Assistant at NFT Ventures, Inc., now known as The Canopy Group ("Canopy"), for Raymond J. Noorda ("Mr. Noorda") and Ralph J. Yarro, III ("Mr. Yarro"). When I started, I worked closely with Mr. Noorda and Mr. Yarro. I enjoyed working with Mr. Noorda and visiting with him. I worked with Mr. Noorda close enough to gain an understanding of his exceptional business skills and to observe the manner in which he operated Canopy. Later, after Mr. Noorda stopped coming into the office regularly, I worked primarily with Mr. Yarro. My duties at Canopy included, among other things, setting up meetings, working on human resources issues for Canopy and Canopy portfolio companies, dealing with accounts receivables/payables and assisting Canopy portfolio companies as necessary. I handled phone calls to Mr. Noorda and/or Mr. Yarro and determined the urgency of the notifying Mr. Noorda or Mr. Yarro of the phone call.
4. Mr. Noorda was always generous with me. For example, when DKI, a Canopy portfolio company, was sold I heard that Canopy employees may receive a bonus. After Mr. Noorda, Mr. Yarro and another company officer met, I was handed a bonus check of approximately $6,000.00. My husband and I were thrilled, and we both went into Mr. Noorda's office to thank him. He told us he was happy to do it and that we should spend it wisely.
5. In 1999, Mr. Noorda received a letter from Darcy Mott ("Mr. Mott") inquiring about employment with Canopy. Mr. Noorda had known Mr. Mott from the time that they had worked at Novell together. Mr. Noorda hired Mr. Mott as Canopy's Chief Financial Officer. Shortly after Mr. Mott started working at Canopy, my husband and I were traveling with Mr. and Mrs. Noorda to Snowbird because Mr. Noorda was being inducted into the UITA's Hall of Fame.
2
On our way to Snowbird, Mr. Noorda expressed admiration for Mr. Mott and that he would be an asset to Canopy.
6. I always enjoyed working with Mr. Noorda. There was a friendly atmosphere at work and I was always treated as a trusted and valuable employee and friend. As a friend, I helped organize a surprise birthday party for Mr. Noorda's 75th birthday. Mr. and Mrs. Noorda would often share with me personal information about their children and grandchildren, and I would share information about my family. Mr. and Mrs. Noorda told me some of their financial plans, including their plan to make large charitable donations to their church.
7. I have spoken to both Mr. and Mrs. Noorda on numerous occasions through the years. I have never heard Mr. or Mrs. Noorda criticize Mr. Yarro, Mr. Mott nor Brent Christensen ("Mr. Christensen").
8. I recently learned from a person not associated with Canopy that Mr. and Mrs. Noorda had registered to live at a [redacted], an assisted living facility in Provo, Utah.
9. I have known and admired Mr. Noorda and Mr. Yarro the entire time I worked at Canopy. Mr. Noorda and Mr. Yarro treated me with respect as an employee of Canopy. I consider Mr. Yarro to be a skilled businessman, with skills similar to the skills shown by Mr. Noorda when he worked at Canopy.
10. I was aware that on December 17, 2004, at 10 a.m., that there was a meeting of the Board of Directors at ScenicView Center and that Mr. Yarro was attending. Mr. Yarro had not been given an agenda before the meeting, although it had been requested. Shortly after 10 a.m., Darla Newbold asked me why there were security guards in the lobby. A few minutes later, I
3
was told that attorneys from the Law Firm of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP ("Ballard Spahr") and some security guards had escorted Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen into a conference room. I was concerned that all of Canopy's employees would be asked to leave the building without being allowed to take their personal items, so I hurriedly gathered some Christmas presents I had for my husband, and took them to my car. When I returned, I saw Frankie Gibson sitting at my desk sobbing. Shortly after Ms. Gibson returned to her desk, I was told that the security guards had escorted Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen out of the building.
11. David Watkiss, an attorney from Ballard Spahr, came and asked me where he could find Robert Penrose, a Canopy employee. I told him and the men who were with him how to find Robert Penrose's office. A few minutes later, Mr. Watkiss asked me to tell all Canopy employees to meet in the front conference room. At that time, I noticed that there were security guards by both doors that lead out of Canopy's offices.
12. At the meeting on December 17, 2004, a man I had never seen before, William Mustard ("Mr. Mustard"), in a matter-of-fact manner, informed Canopy employees that as a result of an action of Canopy's Board of Directors, he was now the President and Chief Executive Officer of Canopy. He told us that Mr. Yarro, Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen were no longer employees of Canopy and that we should not talk to them. Mr. Watkiss was at the meeting. Val Noorda Kreidel ("Ms. Kreidel") entered the conference room after the meeting had started. At the meeting I was told that I should refer all callers asking to speak with Mr. Yarro to Mr. Mustard. Joyce Wiley told Mr. Mustard that the office was scheduled to close from noon on December 22, 2004 to January 3, 2005. Mr. Mustard confirmed that the Christmas break schedule would remain. During the meeting I informed Mr. Mustard that there was a letter that
4
one of the portfolio companies needed signed so it could continue talks with a company that wanted to acquire it.
13. I was shocked and upset by the information that we had been given in the meeting. After the meeting I wanted to talk to the other Canopy employees, but did not do so because it appeared to me that the employees were being watched very closely.
14. Later that day I met with Mr. Mustard and Ms. Kreidel. I gave Mr. Mustard the calendar, a list of Canopy portfolio companies, and the letter one of the portfolio companies needed signed. Mr. Mustard asked me whether the acquisition was "a done deal." Ms. Kreidel assured him that she was aware of the deal and that the deal had been in the works for several months. I then returned to my desk.
15. At Mr. Mustard's request, I then arranged for the presidents of many of the Canopy portfolio companies to meet with Mr. Mustard and Ms. Kreidel. It was difficult for me to explain why they needed to come to Canopy's office because Mr. Mustard had directed all Canopy employees that they were not allowed to tell anyone of the purported changes in management.
16. Later, on December 22, 2004, Mr. Mustard met with Rob Penrose for almost one hour. I did not heaer what was said during the meeting because the door to Mr. Mustard's office was closed.
17. On December 22, 2004, I was told that Mr. Mustard wanted to have a meeting with all Canopy employees before the office closed at noon. At that meeting, Mr. Mustard gave each Canopy employee a document. The document I was given was dated December 17, 2004. Mr. Mustard told the employees that we were to sign the document and return it to him.
5
When Dan Baker ("Mr. Baker"), a Canopy employee, stood up to get a pen to sign the document, Mr. Mustard told him in a raised voice to "SIT DOWN." Darla Newbold took a little longer to read the document than the other employees. Mr. Mustard, in an angry voice, asked Darla Newbold whether she had a problem with the document. I was intimidated by Mr. Mustard's attitude and felt coerced to sign the document. Mr. Mustard then became angry with Mr. Baker because Mr. Baker had crossed off the date of December 17, 2004 on the document. Mr. Baker tried to explain that the reason why he had crossed out that date was because Canopy employees were not told everything that was in the document on December 17, 2004. Mr. Mustard got very angry and would not listen to Mr. Baker's explanation. Mr. Mustard repeatedly asked Mr. Baker, in a raised and angry voice, whether Mr. Baker had spoken to others about what had occurred on December 17, 2004. When Mr. Baker tried to answer, Mr. Mustard interrupted him and repeatedly told him with a raised voice, that he wanted a "yes" or "no" answer. Mr. Baker finally replied "no." I was extremely upset and frightened by Mr. Mustard's conduct. Other employees were also visibly upset by Mr. Mustard's conduct. The employees did not say anything to Mr. Mustard after that heated exchange. Even though that would be the last time Mr. Mustard would see the employees before the Christmas break, Mr. Mustard did not extend any holiday greetings to the employees.
18. After the employee meeting, Mr. Mustard called me into his office and asked me whether I thought Mr. Baker had lied to him in the meeting. I told Mr. Mustard that I had known Mr. Baker for years and I knew that he was not lying. Mr. Mustard, in a mocking manner, said that I believed people because of my upbringing and religion but that he did not believe people until they had proven themselves to be believable.
6
19. Before I left for the Christmas luncheon, Rob Penrose told me to turn off my computer because he had been instructed to shut down the computer system during the Christmas break. I shut off my computer and cleaned off my desk, as Mr. Mustard had demanded of all employees. Ms. Kreidel then came in the office and we discussed her getting a badge so that she could enter Canopy without checking in at the front desk. Rob Penrose took her downstairs so she could get a badge. I then left for the Canopy Christmas luncheon.
20. Mr. Mustard did not attend the Canopy Christmas luncheon. When I arrived at the luncheon I was in tears. Rob Penrose was also crying at the luncheon. Throughout the luncheon, the employees discussed how upset they were with the recent events and what had occurred during the meeting. Rob Penrose was particularly distraught and kept repeating that he should not have signed the paper. We tried to reassure Rob Penrose and told him that we all felt threatened and that we had all signed the document under duress.
21. Two days after the Christmas luncheon, I was told that Rob Penrose had committed suicide. That news broke my heart.
22. Mr. Mustard called me a few times during the Christmas break and asked me what I had heard about Rob Penrose's suicide. During one phone call he told me that Rob Penrose's brother wanted to speak to him, but that I should tell him that Mr. Mustard will talk to him "at an appropriate time." At the viewing, Rob Penrose's family told me that Rob had committed suicide because the workplace at Canopy had become so hostile and had placed him under a tremendous amount of pressure. They told me that on the day Rob died, he had said that he felt threatened and has asked for security guards to watch his home.
23. I expected that Mr. Mustard would meet with the employees the first day
7
Canopy's offices were open after the Christmas break to express sympathies for us for the loss of our friend and colleague. However, Mr. Mustard did not do so.
24. The working conditions at Canopy had become intolerable after December 17, 2004. Prior to that date I had been treated as a trusted and loyal employee. Mr. Mustard treated me very differently. He was demeaning and threatening to me and other Canopy employees. He liked to make people wait for him, and was slow to respond to telephone messages or requests for meetings.
25. I resigned my employment with Canopy on January 7, 2005.
26. I have not obtained other employment. To my knowledge, Canopy has not hired someone to fill my position. If Mr. Yarro, Darcy Mott, and Brent Christensen are permitted to continue as officers of Canopy, I would like to resume my employment with Canopy.
27. I am concerned that my resignation from Canopy will adversely affect Canopy and Canopy portfolio companies. Through my years of experience with Canopy, I have developed a great deal of knowledge regarding Canopy and Canopy portfolio companies. That knowledge was an important resource in providing support to Canopy and Canopy's portfolio companies.
28. I also believe that Canopy and Canopy's portfolio companies have been seriously and adversely affected by the actions purportedly taken on December 17, 2004. I am aware of major transactions in the works that Mr. Yarro, Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen were very knowledgeable about. Mr. Mustard does not have the knowledge to step into their places. The portfolio companies will be required to spend considerable time and effort explaining the transactions to Mr. Mustard and attempting to gain his support for the transactions. Some of the transactions may be delayed or canceled. Several officers of Canopy portfolio companies have told me that they are concerned that they will not get the same level of support from Mr. Mustard as they had with Mr. Yarro, Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen.
29. I have exercised my options for Class A Voting stocks in Canopy, to the extent they have vested. To my knowledge there have been no Canopy shareholders meetings or shareholders consent resolutions since February 2004. I am not aware of any Canopy shareholders meetings set to be held in 2005.
___[signature]___
BARBARA JACKSON
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 26th day of January, 2005.
___[signature]___
Notary Public
Residing in Davis County, Utah
My Commission Expires:
18 February 2008
[Notary Public Seal]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:11 PM EST |
| Just a Thought [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roboteye on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:13 PM EST |
| See, I even logged in [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hey, PJ... - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:45 PM EST
- Hey, PJ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:16 PM EST
- SCO 10-K due today - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:46 PM EST
- The John Does - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:58 PM EST
- OT - OSI on Jeopardy - Authored by: billposer on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 07:28 PM EST
- Feedback loop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:43 PM EST
- Just a thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 10:54 PM EST
- And you thought this case was slow! - Authored by: ff5166 on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 04:32 AM EST
- Bill Gates tried to bully the danish prime minister - Authored by: UrsaMinor on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 04:35 AM EST
- Bill Gates twists arms in Denmark - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 04:53 AM EST
- Re Bert Young (SCO CFO) - Authored by: MadScientist on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 07:33 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:18 PM EST |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:19 PM EST |
> Perhaps the answer is that suicide isn't logical. Like I say, I'm
definitely no
expert.
I'm no expert either, but I have been there. The swings between fearing for
your safety due to bad circumstances, and wishing to kill yourself because of
them can happen quickly - not weeks or days, but in hours & minutes.
It really is quite illogical, and very much defective emotions in my case - they
don't rely on sense (common or not) or stability to have the effect they do.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: morven24 on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:27 PM EST |
So PJ can find them.
Found one second last para Mr. Jackson should be Ms.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stats_for_all on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:32 PM EST |
Dan Baker figures in all the Yarro suit affidavits for going toe-to-toe with
Mustard on at least two occasions.
Yet, Mr. Baker is not listed among the disappeared.
Several have asked who is this Dan Baker. From published reports, we know
there 2 remaining employees serving in the real estate portion of Canopy.
One of these can be identified as Boyd Worthington.
A Dan Baker was serving as assistant treasurer at Novell in Feb. 2000. He
specialized in an off-the-balance sheet transaction for real estate called
"Synthetic Leasing"
In Synthetic Leasing, the ownership is capitalized from outside, but secured
by the companies assests. For tax purposes the property is deductible for
both rent and depreciation, giving the best of both worlds. On balance sheets
the asset is not capitalized at all, and hence not considered a "non-
performing" asset, since some other group technically "owns" it.
This lease back arrangement describes the Canopy arrangement with the
EsNet real-estate partnerships run by SCOX directors Thompson and
Campbell.
Synthetic leases have a checkered accounting history.They were central to the
Enron fraud. In 2003, FASB moved to close the off-the-books loophole to
howls from the firms that had adopted this lease arrangement.
Source on Synthetic Lease mentioning Dan Baker:
www.cfo.com/article.cfm/2990756?f=archives
Concise history of pre and post-Enron synthetic leasing:
www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?ID=357&Article=1997
A Dan Baker of Orem shows up as programmer of an ancient text game:
Beast, and text editor "Word Place". I believe these may represent a
different
individual. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:33 PM EST |
This affidavit places Val Noorda in Canopy's headquarters, and apparently in
contact with the directors of Canopy portfolio companies.
This seems inconsistent with Mustard counter-affidavit, where Mustard
insists that Val Noorda Kriegel is not on Canopy's Board, not an executive, not
even a shareholder, and currenly is not supposed to inherit Canopy's capital.
_Arthur[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Val Noorda - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:06 PM EST
- Val Noorda - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:13 PM EST
- Val Noorda - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:24 PM EST
- Val Noorda - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 08:30 PM EST
- Val Noorda - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 12:16 AM EST
- Power of attorney for Dad perhaps? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:42 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:35 PM EST |
The depositions paint the scene that Canopy was a happy place until the big
shakeup. I know that's what Yarro, et. al. want to convey.
To me the depositions are somewhat effective. You can make the point that Yarro
was buying their affections by giving everyone stock options. Ok, so what? I
like bosses that pay me well too. If the happy-workplace scene is even remotely
true, I won't be surprised if they get every former employee to sign on with a
deposition. And why wouldn't they? One party wants to put them back on the
gravy train, and the other party probably will ask for money refunded.
I have a hard time buying the idea that all of these people were in a conspiracy
to rob the Noordas or the Trust. They may have been extra-generous... but if
there is documentation showing the board passed over control to Yarro either
specifically or by inattention, I don't see how they can say it's anyone's fault
but their own.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:36 PM EST |
and that Mr. Noorda was generous to her and gave her a $6,000 bonus one year,
when a portfolio company was sold. For context, the Mustard/Kreidel/Noorda
complaint lists Yarro's largesse to Ms. Jackson like this:
$125,000
Barbara Jackson - 25 Class A - $5.00 - 100%
Jackson - 24,975 - Class B - $5.00 - 100%
If she did not see this as Yarro buying her cooperation then she is very naive;
the contrast is quite stark to me.
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:48 PM EST |
Actually this is not as daft as it sounds.
From re reading this I think - and I do not know this as a fact - that this
might well have been evidence of an acute paranoid state.
There was something clearly concerning this man. Under severe stress the mind
play strange tricks. This affidavit is no where near enough material to begin to
from an opinion on what happened but if we assume that Penrose for reasons
unknown was under such severe stress that he was contempating taking his own
life it is entirely possible that he may have become genuinely paranoid.
People in a suicidal and/or paranoid frame of mind can be very dangerous to
approach - especially if armed. The courts quite reasonably regard these people
as legally insane and normally will not hold them responsinle for their actions.
This legal defense is abused but cases really do exist.
It is also possible that he may have been on medication or - even that someone
poisoned him - although this last seems highly unlikely. A history of
recreational drug use could be relvent here: LSD for example can cause
flashbacks even years later which can precipitate suicidal ideation or paranoia
in a vulnerable person. Please not that I am in *NO* way suggesting that this
was the case here. Given the background that we have to date background this
possibility again seems *highly* unlikely.
Please do *not* draw *any* conclusions from this post about anything concerning
this sad event. We simply do *not* have enough data. Please note also that the
affiant here does not appear to have been present at the time and heard this
story second or third hand so the "facts" that can be genuinely
attested to here are in fact very limted.
The *only* reason for this post is that it *is* quite possible for a man
considering suicide to suddenly want guards and to genuinely be afraid for his
life and that there are many reasons for this. The *actual* cause of death here
and the investigation into the events surrounding it are a matter for the
coroner's office who are equiped to investigate these matters.
--
MadScientist [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- On suicide - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:47 PM EST
- On suicide - Dr Kelly - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 07:41 PM EST
- On suicide - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 10:56 PM EST
- On suicide - Authored by: jlp on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 12:15 AM EST
- On suicide - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 08:24 PM EST
- On suicide - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:15 PM EST
- On suicide - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:29 AM EST
- On suicide - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 05:58 AM EST
- "On suicide" - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 03:28 AM EST
- "On suicide" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 06:13 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 05:53 PM EST |
"Mr. and Mrs. Noorda would often share with me personal information about
their children and grandchildren, and I would share information about my family.
Mr. and Mrs. Noorda told me some of their financial plans, including their plan
to make large charitable donations to their church."
This looks to be everyday 'water-cooler' type chat dressed up to sound
impressive.
Share information about my family = how are your parents?
Information about their children and grandchildren = how are the kids?
Financial plans = we're thinking of selling our house and moving in to serviced
accomodation?
Charitable donations = doesn't everyone like to say how they support less well
off folks?
Nothing of substance
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:05 PM EST |
19. Before I left for the Christmas luncheon, Rob Penrose told me to turn
off my computer because he had been instructed to shut down the computer system
during the Christmas break.
So poor dead Rob Penrose was in charge on
the computer systems.
16. Later, on December 22, 2004, Mr. Mustard
met with Rob Penrose for almost one hour.
We know that Rob Penrose
was a good man, he supported GPL stuff. He was now "system admin" for this
group, and would be in charge of archiving of data. For the mean Mr Mustard
to
take over, he would need to get root pass words and things; (Mr Mustard is quite
a computer expert). This would split Rob Penrose's loyalties between his old
bosses and the new; and he would realise that his current situation is in direct
constrast to his beliefs.
By handing over the records, he will have
felt that he had betrayed his collegues. But he must have also known that
exposing the truth would have shown him a traiter to his technical
skills.
As the the magic date of December 17, 2004; was this near
the
board meeting? There must have been a motion on that agenda; possibly one to
remove the Noordas; something so important that it most be denied, and the
granting of extra shares would enable this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Naich on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:14 PM EST |
"I have trouble putting those two things together. Maybe someone can
explain to me why a man would do both those things on the same exact day. If you
are going to kill yourself anyway, why would you care about having security
guards?"
A few years ago I was down the pub with a friend. Although he had recently
split up with his wife, he was in good spirits and we arranged to go to a gig
the next week. That same night, when he got home, he hung himself. You can't
tell what is going on inside someone else's head, especially if they actually
suicidal. He seemed perfectly rational just hours before.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fxbushman on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:41 PM EST |
| I know from researching such facilities for my dad prior to his death that
you go to such a facility for many reasons, and many older persons choose to go
there long before any age-related medical condition forces them to seek help.
It's the new way to deal with the aging process.
A couple of years after
my dad died, my mom went into an assisted living facility and lived there for
another 14 years. She was sharp as a tack until the end. It is unfair, unkind
and inaccurate to imply that being in such a facility means you have lost your
marbles, if that is what these affidavits are trying to say. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 06:43 PM EST |
Something alerted newcomers to Yarro, Mott, Christensen, AND Penrose. The
"pressure" didn't start on 22nd or 23rd, it was from the first day of
the kick-out, before "Mr. Meanie" status for Mustard.
This undermines other affidavits about his suicide it seems.
Was he feeling guilty about his role at Canopy? Did he know something about
where all the money was going? Is this why no Yarro aids will talk about the
"document"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jig on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 07:09 PM EST |
ahh. so here it is.
"i took presents for my husband to my car"
-> i moved hard copies of documents to my car.
"penrose told me to turn off my computer"
-> i needed an excuse to turn off my computer in hopes of clearing out any
evidence floating in resident mem. maybe i ran something that needed the
computer to be rebooted a couple times...
"penrose felt the company environment was hostile"
-> penrose was under the gun because he had tabs on all the backups and other
incriminating data. mustard told him to cough it up or lose everything. penrose
was the lynchpin that would have made mustard's job all that much easier and
quicker, but the pressure was too much when coupled with other outside
circumstance.
conjecture, all mine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 07:11 PM EST |
Ther's nothing much new here other than our learning that Robert Penrose had
to get Ray Noorda's daughter a security badge.
Oh, and that Robert Penrose
felt threatened to the point where he was looking at having security people
guard his home. (Note the similarity to Darl McBride's need for sharpshooters
watching over his personal appearances.) Apparently working for Canopy and its
affiliates (like SCO) induces a level of paranoia that I've thankfully been able
to avoid and I've worked for some real doozies (but, at least for me, that
pressure was deadline-induced). It's actually a little amazing to see the
efforts by Yarro, et al, to cast Mustard as `Satan Incarnate' and that he
eas able to push Penrose to suicide in only a couple of weeks. IMHO, it's quite
possible that these people had been getting away with so much questionable stuff
for so long that it was inevitable that someone would crack.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maco on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 07:51 PM EST |
I think it's generally all true
- Yarrow was a nice guy to work
for
- Canopy was great place to work
- Mustard acted in a
non-professional manner
- the company books could use some
explaining
the only question is:- was Yarrow entitled to his
exhorbatant compensation?
if it were an innocent mistake he would
have said, "if this is in error, I'd be happy to reimburse, so let's talk about
it and work it out," which could have been conveyed despite Mustard's
antognism.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 07:51 PM EST |
This is starting to get ridiculous. Cookie cutter affadavits.
Something stinks in Linden.
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 08:08 PM EST |
28. I also believe that Canopy and Canopy's portfolio companies have been
seriously and
adversely affected by the actions purportedly
taken on December 17, 2004. I am aware of
major
transactions in the works that Mr. Yarro, Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen were
very
knowledgeable about. Mr. Mustard does not have the
knowledge to step into their
places. The portfolio
companies will be required to spend considerable time and effort
explaining the transactions to Mr. Mustard and attempting to gain his
support for the
transactions. Some of the transactions may
be delayed or canceled. Several officers of
Canopy
portfolio companies have told me that they are concerned that they will not get
the same level of support from Mr. Mustard as they had with
Mr. Yarro, Mr. Mott and Mr.
Christensen.
Why
aren't these "Several officers" named?
Why aren't these "Several
officers" giving affidavits themselves?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Paragraph 28 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 08:55 PM EST
- Nice post - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:31 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: trs on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 08:17 PM EST |
The affidavit implies that Mr Penrose felt threatened by Mr Mustard, however,
this may not be the case.
It is clear that he felt threatened by something, but I cant think of any reason
Mr Mustard would threaten him with physical harm.
On the other hand his job as head of IT would mean that he would be responsible
for securing any computer evidence against others and this may have made him
believe his personal safety was at risk.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- protection - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:57 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: star-dot-h on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 08:19 PM EST |
All the affidavits supporting Yarro have tried to paint him as the natural
successor to Noorda, being so similar it was hard to tell the difference between
them. However, this umbilical relationship seems pretty dubious when one folows
the money.
As an example of Noorda's generosity Barbara says "Mr. Noorda was always
generous with me...I was handed a bonus check of approximately $6,000.00. My
husband and I were thrilled, and we both went into Mr. Noorda's office to thank
him. He told us he was happy to do it and that we should spend it wisely."
Surely nowhere near as thrilling as Yarro's $125k stock options. That must have
been orgasmic. These stock options are not mentioned as an example of Noorda's
generosity, so given the thrilling and memorable effect of a $6k bonus one has
to assume the $125k was Yarro's own initiative.
I wonder what sage advice Yarro had for Babs when she and her husband went to
thank him, would it be: "spent it wisely my children" or "keep
your mouths shut and there's more where that came from"?
---
Free software on every PC on every desk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:15 PM EST |
"7. I have spoken to both Mr. and Mrs. Noorda on numerous occasions through
the years. I have never heard Mr. or Mrs. Noorda criticize Mr. Yarro, Mr. Mott
nor Brent Christensen ("Mr. Christensen")."
My boss doesn't criticize people: he just tosses them out on their ears if they
don't work out. Likewise, I don't suffer fools gladly, including my employers -
One of my ex-employers woke one day in March 2000 to find that I had not only
handed in my resignation but synchronized it with my entire staff's to take
place on the same day (rest assured that we all lined up new jobs first).
Both my boss and I are creatures of New York City's Silicon Alley, thoroughly
capable but street-wise and unsentimental. Why telegraph the punch when the
target will find out soon enough, as soon as he lands on his butt? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rao on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:18 PM EST |
I have no idea if this means anything or not but we do
get a little more
information in this affidavit. In
the other ones I had gotten the impression
that the
document they were told to sign on Dec. 22, 2004 was a
surprise to
everybody. Apparently though they were
told something about it at the Dec. 17,
2004 meeting.
The following quote is from paragraph
17.
Mr. Baker tried to explain that the reason why he
had
crossed out that date was because Canopy employees were
not told everything
that was in the document on
December 17, 2004.
Again, I don't
know if this means anything or not but
it is different from what I was thinking
before reading
this affidavit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:33 PM EST |
All these affidavits that tell the same, concerted story remind me of the plot
of a book called "The Caine Mutiny" and a movie derived from it
starring Humphrey Bogart. And oh yes, the plot includes a court-martial.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Caine Mutiny - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:55 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:34 PM EST |
From having the opportunity to read what each of the involved parties are saying
in their statements to the court, I can put forward some thoughts/summaries on
what might be going on (but it is generally in tune with other's comments
here).
[SIDE NOTE: I have been through an acrimonious ousting of the management of a
company I once worked for and feel I can see into some aspects of this case,
right down to feeling threatened & fearing noises in the night :-) ].
Noorda has always made it clear he wanted to leave the assets from his business
to his church (from what I gather this is the COJCOLDS (or more simply, the Utah
Mormons (abrev: LDS))).
Noorda was aging and finding it harder to follow the intricacies of the
month-to-month business dealings. I believe that he did say as much to Yarro but
I suspect he and his wife were taken aback when Yarro offered to find a way to
buy them out.
Noorda seemed happy while he believed Yarro accepted his desire to pass his
assets on to LDS at the appropriate time. He was also happy to see Yarro earning
well as a reward for maintaining a healthy Canopy on this basis.
Yarro on the other hand would see that giving the assets of the Canopy Group
over to LDS as a waste of very good wealth (LDS have long been reputed to be the
wealthiest religion in US) and it appears (as others have guessed) that he set
about engineering a way of bilking money & control through stock
manipulation. He appears to have been trying to gain greater than 50% control of
Canopy. Once Yarro had over 50% he could do what he wanted with the Canopy
Group and I have little doubt that LDS would not see much of it.
I believe the Noordas woke up to Yarro when he offered to seek funding to buy
them out. This must have set off alarm bells for them as Yarro's desire to take
over Canopy was in total contrast with what Noorda had worked for and had
clearly spelled out to Yarro. I am sure that someone also twigged that Yarro was
probably going to fund a buyout by manipulating Canopy assets in his favour and
possibly by obtaining a less than fair valuation.
So, at some time, Noorda & family became abruptly aware that they were on
the verge of losing control of Canopy & that if they failed to act swiftly
and decisively, they would be too late to stop Yarro from taking control.
From what I have learned here, Yarro appears to have been manipulating stock
values of Canopy companies in such a way that he could sell his options at
grossly inflated prices (up to 400%+) and was also guilty of some yet to be
fully explained issuing of unauthorised stock in Canopy that was increasing his
control at the expense of the Noordas & paid for with funny money (Canopy's
own assets wealth).
[SIDE NOTE: A long time ago, a very wise old solicitor I knew told me two things
he had learned in business:
1) if you have 49% of a company and someone else has 51%, you could well find
yourself with 49% of nothing and not be able to do a thing about it.
2) Big companies never got rich by being kind to little companies or people.
On both counts I learned the wisdom of his words the hard way. ]
Yarro's stories about how close he was to the Noordas may have been partly true
but that love affair would mean zilch if the Noordas believed they were about to
lose control of Canopy to Yarro or that Yarro had been deceiving them.
What I see is, from the moment Yarro expressed his desire to raise capital to
buy them out, the Noordas moved to secure control of the company and oust Yarro
etc: asap, in a way that gave Yarro etc: no comeback. From the law suits it is
quite clear that the Noordas believed Yarro was rorting them big time.
Also, I can't imagine that Yarro wasn't fully behind the SCO episode & I
believe he thought he would be immune from any comeback because he was confident
that powerful Microsoft was willing to protect those who were acting in their
(MS's) interests (perhaps even their behest) re Linux and IBM. The money
Microsoft was willing to put into protecting its interests was and remains
massive.
It is possible that someone on the IBM side alerted the Noordas to rorting
taking place in Canopy. I doubt that Noorda at his age, was too bothered about
the SCO vs IBM lawsuit as much as he would be bothered by being misled &
deceived by his trusted management especially if the outcome was likely to be
losing control of his whole group.
I have no doubt that Yarro's payments to the Canopy staff, were to buy their
loyalty. They may not have been fully aware of the extent of any stock
manipulation but at the level in business, those types of antics can seem
perfectly normal.
Doug M
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks - Authored by: webster on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:17 AM EST
- Thanks - Authored by: odysseus on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 07:10 AM EST
- Also - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:07 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:40 PM EST |
It seems pretty clear that a month after the March 2004 buyout offer, the
Noordas had figured out that Yarro was up to something fishy. Why did it take
them all the way til December to fire him? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A puzzlement - Authored by: dmarker on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 10:00 PM EST
- Rope - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 10:45 PM EST
- A puzzlement - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:26 AM EST
- A puzzlement - Authored by: beserker on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 08:45 AM EST
- A puzzlement - Authored by: roadfrisbee on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 12:29 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:44 PM EST |
"10. ... When I returned, I saw Frankie Gibson sitting at my desk sobbing.
Shortly after Ms. Gibson returned to her desk, I was told that the security
guards had escorted Mr. Mott and Mr. Christensen out of the building."
This statement pretty much explains why Christensen was not around to explain
the ins and outs of the document the staff signed on December 22.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 09:44 PM EST |
"My duties at Canopy included, among other things, setting up meetings,
working on human resources issues for Canopy and Canopy portfolio companies,
dealing with accounts receivables/payables and assisting Canopy portfolio
companies as necessary."
IBM should pay attention. Corporate veil and all that.
"9. I have known and admired Mr. Noorda and Mr. Yarro the entire time I
worked at Canopy. Mr. Noorda and Mr. Yarro treated me with respect as an
employee of Canopy. I consider Mr. Yarro to be a skilled businessman, with
skills similar to the skills shown by Mr. Noorda when he worked at
Canopy."
Similar to Wiley 7 and Newbold 5, with the addition of "Mr. Noorda",
since she worked directly with him. Other similarities, furthering the
"template" theory.
Now, I know the lawyers and others have said that this is normal, but as a total
non-lawyer (and I don't play one on TV), this is the first thing that jumped out
at me. Were I a juror, this would be something I would wonder about. I would
wonder about the whole thing being "scripted" by parties on the Yarro
side. I realize the lawyers want everyone's story to agree, but wouldn't they
stop at actually suggesting the wording? Again, IANAL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 10:00 PM EST |
I have another possibile reason for the apparent dichotomy
between wanting protection and committing suicide that I
have not seen suggested yet.
If there were threats against his family, he may have
wanted the protection for his family rather than for
himself. Worrying about his family might have been the
issue that lead him to suicide.
John Macdonald [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 10:10 PM EST |
I am really impressed that everyone from Ralph Yarro down to the executive
assistant and the paralegal believes that they they are indispensable to Canopy.
I have been considered a key employee at almost every firm I worked for, and
this in no way made me immune to layoffs and firings. In my experience, some
outfits can survive incredibly stupid management decisions and just limp on. And
they often do relatively well simply because their direct competition is even
more incompetent and stupid.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 14 2005 @ 10:24 PM EST |
I am not sure that William Mustard's top priority is running Canopy - I believe
that his one and only priority at this point in time is to make certain that
Canopy is in the hands of the hands of the Noorda family, and stays in the hands
of the Noorda famility.
The key issue, as far as the Noorda family is concerned, is not whether Ralph
Yarro et al are more familiar with the day to day running of the company (they
probably are) but their loyalty to the Noorda family. And my impression is that
the Norda family seems to have accepted whatever losses in effectiveness and
efficiency are associated with their takeover.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:06 AM EST |
One of the running themes in these affidavits is how mean the new boss was. Now
maybe I've been watching too much Judge Judy, but unless there's going to be
issues of harassment and discrimination raised in this case, I don't see how
these have any relevance.
And surely the hearsay of "Penrose family members" will be struck from
this particular affidavit.
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hearsay - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 08:53 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: webster on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:19 AM EST |
Since possession is nine tenths of the law and Mr. Mustard now has Canopy, the
next order of business is getting Noorda et al out of the portfolio companies.
Noorda will try and maintain his nuisance value, but there is only so much he
can do since he will be cast as stealing from the Mormons.
Most interesting of all will be how this affects our dear SCO. They will try
and oust them and then rescind that fine change of control package issued to the
SCO execs. Then they might remove the SCO execs while they are at it. I also
suspect thay might figure the confrontation with IBM is all too risky. They
could offer a confessed judgment or a stipulated trial or PSJ on terms largely
dictated by IBM. They could then pay them a million to the IBM warchest for not
controlling their rogue execs and cooperate with IBM pursuing other corporate
culprits.
The long post of dmarker above suggests that IBM enlightened the Noordas of the
facts of life and their impending loss of Canopy at least to Yarro if not to the
fiaSCO. They may have already scripted an end game or are negotiating one.
Even monopoly millions can not shore up weak links. The SCO phase might soon be
over.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: odysseus on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 05:56 AM EST |
Hmm, these affidavits make a big play of how short, sharp
and loud Mustard is. What I think we have here is a
clash of cultures. The Canopy staff are all from
Utah, you think mid-west USA, you think of nice polite
folks (even if they are tough as old leather underneath).
Mustard is from New York, right? And what do you think of
when you think of a Noo Yoork businessman??? Short,
sharp, loud, right?
John. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 06:34 AM EST |
I know this is all very interesting, and that some of these people deserve
little respect but..........
If this site is about defending linux against FUD and Patants and such I wonder
if there is any value in speculating on this in any manner.
As well as perpetrators there will be people that just got caught up in events.
My view is it would be better if we consentrated on the main game and didn't
wallow in the resultant mess. You end up getting mud all over you if you wallow.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 06:54 AM EST |
I just don't understand the reaction of these staff to the mean sounding Mr
Mustard.
First of all if you are being asked to sign something no amount of shouting at
you is really going to stop you reading it first.
Secondly, I have been in quite a few 'bad news'/ 'things have changed' meetings
and people have never been intimidated by people shouting at them, they want to
know what's going on, what it means to them and I would imagine it's very rare
to get a group of people together and not have at least a few of them asking
questions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 10:38 AM EST |
My wife works at a nursing home, which shares a driveway with an assisted living
facility ('the village'). The village is really a group of about 10 typical
duplex units. The only thing atypical is that all of these units are designed
to be accessible to the elderly and those in wheelchairs. They pay about what I
do for my mortgage, and get free meals and other perks.
I've gotten to know the people who live there - they have a little community.
It's really a nice setup for them. They look out for one another. The nursing
home owns a bus/van, and they take this vehicle on day trips, or to go out to
eat as a group. They call themselves "the village people".
When children live out of state, and friends have all gone away, a group like
that forms a surrogate family. It's not a sign of incapacity (in a legal sense)
to live there. It's a decision to simplify life and to make the final stages of
it more pleasant.
The "assisted" part means that there is some function (such as
cooking, cleaning, bathing, finances, driving) that the person can't do for
themselves any more. It's an especially good thing for couples, since many of
the daily headaches of life are removed. If they can do most things
independently, then an assisted living facility is a good place for them.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 10:57 AM EST |
<i>So while Ms. Jackson -- very meanly, in my opinion -- repays her warm
and generous boss by mentioning that she heard the Noordas had chosen to
reside in such a facility, that piece of information proves nothing to me as to
their capacity and health.</i><br>
Actually, you're wrong. It proves that the staff of the facility has spoken with
the Noordas and believes they're competent ;-) Assisted living facilities do
not accept residents with dementia, and when residents develop dementia
they get booted to a nursing home.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:24 PM EST |
Am I the only one that keeps wanting to shout "no, get a CLUE, it's Colonel
Mustard, not Mr. Mustard!"
Sorry, I'll crawl back into my cave now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 10:38 PM EST |
This claim is actually hearsay, and of course it's possible that Penrose was
merely being paranoid.
But it's also possible that Penrose had documents in his house that he felt
others would want to secure (or destroy).
Specifically, just where did the company keep its offsite backups? It being a
small company, with an IT department of one, I wouldn't be surprised to hear
that the backups were in Penrose's basement.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 11:34 AM EST |
ok.. does anyone else out there think this is some really weird soap opera?
have to admit, makes me very happy i'm not one of the rich and bizarre.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
