decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O'Gara: "I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way"
Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:01 PM EST

So. Now I know. Now we all know.

Blake Stowell, then the PR guy for SCO, sent an email to Maureen O'Gara, saying "I need you to send a jab PJ's way," and then right afterwards she wrote that invasive so-called expose, in which she revealed, or at least intended to reveal, things like who I called on my phone. A la the HP scandal. She got fired for doing it the way she did, and the then-publisher apologized to me publicly, but she says in the deposition she's not sorry a bit.

We learn this by reading excerpts from her deposition, previously under seal, attached to a letter [PDF] SCO's attorney sent to the court. SCO doesn't want the part of her deposition video played where she talks about me and Groklaw. It's beyond eye-opening, however, despite her pretense, as I see it, that there is no connection between the two events.

They also don't want the part about an email she sent to SCO, subject line, "I want war pay," played. It's allegedly humor. Just chatter. But you know, she is on the list of people SCO owes money to, now that I think of it, filed in connection with the bankruptcy. I wonder for what?

It isn't acceptable, in my eyes, that SCO's attorneys invariably smear Groklaw in every filing that mentions it. They don't just say "Groklaw," they say "the anti-SCO website, Groklaw." One can say quite a lot in legal filings, and get away with it, but there is a line where it becomes libel, when it is gratuitous, and that language is gratuitous. There isn't a media outlet that I can think of, other than Maureen O'Gara's newsletters, that hasn't criticized what SCO did. The Wall Street Journal was the first, actually, to suspect there was something rotten in Lindon, if you recall. Would it be acceptable to call it, in legal papers, the anti-SCO newspaper, the Wall St. Journal? I think not, and I suggest they are crossing a line.

I am an award-winning journalist, specifically for Groklaw. And they need to stop smearing my good name.

Here's the letter:

03/12/2010 - 791 - DOCUMENTS LODGED consisting of Letter from Brent O. Hatch. (asp) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
If anyone would please do the letter and her deposition in text for me, or in a perfect world, in HTML, I'd appreciate it. I want this on Groklaw so everyone can read it. Everyone. For as long as there is a Groklaw. Because it is now further proof, to me, that SCO was behind it, and it was just one more piece of its smear campaign against me, trying to get Groklaw to turn off the flashlight we had turned on SCO's litigation lottery.

As for her aspersions against Groklaw's reliability, I turn you to this article, which may enlighten you as to O'Gara's factual reliability. I believe this is the article that made her mad about Groklaw correcting her. Or maybe it's this one. I'm just guessing, as I can't read her mind. It's my happy lot that I don't understand her way of thinking or acting. But I suspect that is the article, one of them. She had made some factual mistakes, and I corrected them. Here's another factual error she made that I corrected. And another.

That's what the Society of Professional Journalists'Code of Ethics says journalists are supposed to do, correct other journalists' errors. And seek truth and report it. And here's an article I wrote, asking my readers to be polite to and about O'Gara. Why? Because that's who I am. Here is where I repeated my standing offer to let SCO speak on Groklaw, if they wanted to, speaking of fairness and lack of bias. They never accepted the invitation, but they continued to attack and demean and harass me.

Here's what really bothered SCO about Groklaw, in Maureen O'Gara's own words: "SCO Is Chafing Badly Under the Propaganda War It Is Losing to Groklaw". What we do at Groklaw is antiFUD, by the way, not propaganda, but that's how they saw it, because it's who *they* are. As I put it in another article correcting her work:

We are really the pebble in their shoe, I gather. Or a burr in their saddle, as Ms. O'Gara might put it. But all Groklaw does is look for facts and put them where people can easily find them. That leads to great embarrassment in courtrooms, when lawyers read long lists of what SCO has said to the media and then contrast it with what SCO says in courtrooms, but we can't help it. We love truth.
Here's a question for Blake Stowell and Maureen O'Gara: if she is so unbiased and totally independent of SCO as claimed, how did Stowell dare to send her an email asking her to jab me as a favor to him? And on what legal basis would a public company ask a journalist to jab anyone reporting on the company?

Yes. I'm angry. Wouldn't you be?

Update: And Novell responds:

03/12/2010 - 792 - DOCUMENTS LODGED consisting of Letter from Sterling A. Brennan. (asp) (Entered: 03/12/2010)

Novell most particularly would like the part about Groklaw played, because O'Gara's testimony about Chris Stone and what he allegedly told her in a phone call is uncorroborated by anyone else:
Accordingly, evidence of Ms. O'Gara's bias in favor of SCO -- and against Novell -- is critical for the jury to evaluate Ms. O'Gara's credibility compared to Mr. Stone's. The jurors should be allowed to assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of Ms. O'Gara's testimony....

The third set of designations at issue show that Ms. O'Gara's contact at SCO, Blake Stowell, sent a message to Ms. O'Gara requesting that she "send a jab" to the purported author of the Groklaw site, which SCO's letter of earlier today states is an "anti-SCO" website. Within just over one month, Ms. O'Gara ran as a lead story an article on the purported author by calling her a "harridan," a word meaning "a woman regarded as scolding and vicious." This section of Ms. O'Gara's testimony is highly relevant to demonstrate the extent of Ms. O'Gara's bias. The speed with which she drafted a lead story on the exact topic of Mr. Stowell's request and the insulting tone of the story suggest a willingness on Ms. O'Gara's part to step beyond her role as a disinterested journalist when it comes to matters involving SCO.

Incidentally, it's not Groklaw.com. It's Groklaw.net.

***************************

BRENT O. HATCH

March 11, 2010

Hand Delivered

Honorable Ted Stewart
U.S. District Court Judge
350 S. Main St.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Re: Maureen O'Gara deposition designations

Your Honor:

We object to the enumerated designations from Ms. O'Gara's testimony. on the grounds
that they are unnecessarily cumulative, they are significantly more prejudicial than probative, and
they create undue potential for outside sources and commentary to prejudice the jury.

As an initial matter, the designations are cumulative. Novell seeks to undermine the
credibility of Ms. O'Gara, a longstanding reporter in the technology field, by showing that she
communicated with Blake Stowell, who was SCO's director of press relations for a period of
time, The parties have agreed that Novell is permitted to designate testimony that clearly
demonstrates such communications. (See 29:13-19; 33:6-24; 37:8-38:25.) The designations at
issue here serve merely to make the same point, and thus are not necessary.

The designations are also significantly more prejudicial than probative. In the first
designation at issue (39:2-19). Ms. O'Gara is asked about the content of an e-mail that she
forwarded to Mr, Stowell, In the e-mail, one of Ms. O'Gara's readers claims that she "take[s]
SCO's side like Hillary took Bill Clinton's side when he was being accused of fooling around with
Monica." The reader's view is irrelevant and hearsay, and the reference to the Clintons has no
place in this trial. In addition, the testimony that precedes these references is coming in. The
disputed testimony adds nothing.

In the second designation at issue (47:3-48:25), Novell seeks to designate testimony
concerning an e-mail between Mr. Stowell and Ms. O'Gara in which Novell's counsel asks Ms.
O'Gara about the source of humor in e-mails between herself and Mr. Stowell. In seeking to
explain the humor in the exchange, Ms. O'Gara explains that Mr. Stowell is "a Mormon," which
she explains as referring to "those kinds of family values that we're all supposed to admire so
much." This humorous exchange has nothing to do with any substantive issue in this case, and
Ms. O'Gara's use of the word "Mormon" and the associated reference has the potential for
extreme prejudice in this jurisdiction -- one way or the other. The potential for undue prejudice
from this e-mail far outweighs any small, cumulative probative value to the fact of the exchange
between Mr. Stowell and Ms. O'Gara.

1

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
March 11. 2010
Page 2

In the lengthy. third set of designations at issue (64:10-65:3: 66:9-12, 66:17-67:13; 67:23- 69:24), Novell's counsel points to an e-mail exchange between Mr. Stowell and Ms. O'Gara concerning the anti-SCO website Groklaw.com and the fact that she wrote an article about the website concerning the individual who purportedly started and was maintaining the website. The testimony is cumulative on the issue of the fact of e-mail exchanges between Mr. Stowell and Ms. O'Gara and contains no discussion of any substantive issue in the case. To the contrary, the discussion about Groklaw has the potential for extreme prejudice. At the beginning of the trial,. counsel for SCO argued that "[w]e don't think we need to mention the name of Groklaw or something like that to make any arguments that relevant in this trial," and the Court stated: "I would agree. I do want there to be no temptation for these jurors to be doing research on their own.... I do not want to do anything that would make it any easier for a juror in a three-week trial becoming really interested and trying to find out something on their own." (February 25, 2010. Pretrial Conference Hearing Transcript at 57.) The Court then instructed both sides to tell their witnesses not to refer to such websites by name. (Id, at 58.)

The references in the designations both to Groklaw and to the question of who really operates the website creates undue temptation for jurors to pursue their own research on the issue. That would contaminate the proceedings and would decimate any prospect of impartiality in any such juror's mind.

SCO respectfully submits, for all of these reasons, that the Court should exclude the testimony at issue.

Sincerely yours,
Brent O. Hatch
encl.
c; Michael Jacobs (via email)

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

-------------------------------------------

THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs. 2:O4CVOOl39

NOVELL, INC., a Delaware Corporation.

Defendant.

-------------------------------------------

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MAUREEN O'GARA

Friday, March 23, 2007

11:00 a.m.

Reported by;

Joan Urzia, RPR

JOB NO. 192768

Esquire Deposition Services

26

2003, Exhibit 1080.

A Yes.

Q It looks to me that the way you reported it, to use the terminology you and I have started to adopt here--

A Yes.

Q -- you reported one and two, but not causality?

A Right.

Q Do you agree with that?

A Yes.

Q Why is that?

A I didn't know what to do with it, quite frankly, and the story wasn't about -- from my point of view the story wasn't about that.

Q And why is that?

A Because I'm not a lawyer.

Q You saw no news value in a statement to you by a Novell executive that conveyed to you that the reason Novell was releasing its statement on a particular date was because SCO was reporting its quarterly results that same date?

27

A I know that that seems in isolation like that should be really important, okay, but there were so many issues in this very complicated matter that that would make a great sidebar or a follow-up maybe, but we were talking about something else in this story and I thought -- I didn't know where it was all going to go, and I've known Chris a long time. Sometimes I get protective.

Q Did you subsequently convey to someone at SCO that you had heard from Chris Stone that the reason Novell had issued its statement that day was because SCO -- was to time it with the earnings announcement?

A As far as I remember, and according to the evidence in front of me here, we were breaking this news. Okay?

In the normal course of reporting, I went back to the other guy, being SCO, who as far as I know didn't know anything about this, for a statement. During the course of my asking

28

for that statement from its public relations people, as a lever to get that statement I repeated what Stone had said to me.

Q What exactly did you state when you repeated what Stone had said to you?

A Whatever his exact words were at the time. I'm sorry.

Q Were you reading from notes?

A I don't think you had to because it was just a sentence.

Q Your best recollection is you had no notes?

A No, I have notes, but you know, they're not understandable, they're not notes like full sentences, they're not verbatim everything. If I took shorthand, you'd be handy to have around.

Q Do you have those shorthand notes still?

A No, I don't do shorthand.

Q I used the word inadvisably. You're being more precise than I am.

A Yes, yes.

29

Q Do you have the notes of the short phrases still?

A No.

Q What is your practice of the short phrases, if you will, in terms of whether you keep them or not?

A I throw everything out.

Q When do you do that?

A If not when the story is written, then every week, and I've been doing that since 1972.

Q When you conferred with the public relations people at SCO, first of all, were you conferring with Blake Stowell?

A Conferring? I don't confer with the PR people. I called Blake Stowell, yes.

Q What did you mean, why did you object to the word confer?

A I find it difficult to use that verb, when I'm talking about a flak, no. You don't have conferences with PR people.

Q You called him up, you told

30

him --

A From the same phone I talked to Chris on.

Q You told him what Chris had said to you and you asked him whether he had any comment?

A No. I told, I said to them what I knew, which is the substance of this story, that the next day that they were going to issue this cease and desist letter, and in order to get a statement from SCO as a lever, I threw in what Chris had said. It wasn't as scandalous to me as a regular business reporter than it has become under these circumstances. Do you understand what I mean?

Q I'm trying to figure out which of the -- I think setting aside the chortling for a minute, we've talked about three components again, the fact of the date of the planned issuance of the Novell statement, the fact of the date of the SCO earnings release and the causal relationship between one and two.

31

A Uh-huh.

Q And I'm trying to figure out if you told SCO one, one and two, or one two and three.

A If I remember my one, two and three correctly, the answer is one, two and three.

Q So then I'll say that in more colloquial terms, you conveyed to Blake Stowell that Chris Stone had said to you

A Did I do something with your wire? Excuse me. Sorry. I moved.

Q You conveyed to Blake Stowell that Chris Stone had said to you that Novell was issuing its statement in order to time its release with SCO's report of its earnings?

A Among the many things - the substance of the statement seemed to take priority under these, in my world the substance of the statement was the prime fact. I was trying to get a reaction to that.

Then when I noticed hesitancy on

32

the part of Mr. Stowell to give me a reaction to that, I pushed further and used the expressions that Stone had said to me, and the substance of which is that the reason that they were doing it tomorrow was because you're going to have your earnings call.

Q And you're confident as you sit here today, it's 4 years later, that you didn't embellish on what Mr. Stone had said to you?

A No.

Q In order to elicit comment from Mr. Stowell?

A No, absolutely not.

Q You're not confident, or you're confident you did not?

A I am absolutely confident that I did not. That would be a lie.

Q Would you regard that as a breach of your ethics as a journalist?

A Absolutely.

Q It's sort of like cross-examining a witness when you don't

33

have a basis for the cross-examination?

A Yeah, you guys can do it, but I can't.

Q We can't either.

So with that in mind, how would you describe your relationship with Mr. Stowell?

A As normal.

Q What does normal mean to you?

A All press agents are wary of somebody like me. So it's like constantly, it's like cats, you know, or dogs sniffing each other out constantly. You might know that dog, but you know, you're not absolutely, you're never friends with that -- you know, you don't have friends, journalists don't have friends, but you have people that you deal with all the time.

Q Did you have the impression that Mr. Stowell regarded you as an ally in the SCO --

A Never no.

Q Did you convey to Mr. Stowell at

34

any time that you took -- let me start over again.

How did you view the SCO versus IBM SCO versus Novell dispute as it was brewing in the spring and summer of 2003?

A As a good story.

Q Did you believe that you were taking a particular side in that story?

A I have no side.

Q Did you understand that people thought you were taking sides during that period?

A I think that my stories stand for that. I think that -- I would refer you to my stories. I don't see any bias in any of my stories. It's just a completely objective recitation of the facts.

Q So my question, though, is do you think that there were, didn't you in fact -- and I promise you I won't ask you a question unless I have a basis for it-- didn't you, in fact, receive communications from people who thought you were taking SCO's side in the dispute?

35

A If I were to say that most people can't read, would you understand what I was talking about?

Q I'm not asking you to defend yourself at this point.

A I understand that.

Q I'm asking you whether, in fact, you received those communications.

A When? What's the timing?

Q Well, let me -- I was telling Mauricio, again, I have a rule against asking trick questions unless I tell you it's a trick question. So let me show you what I'm referring to.

MR. JACOBS: We have another deposition going on today with Mr. Levine, so what I propose to do is to skip to 90.

MR. GONZALEZ: Okay.

MR. JACOBS: And we'll mark this as 90.

MR. GONZALEZ: You mean 1090.

MR. JACOBS: No, 90. We have a different numbering. Let's mark it

36

190. (Whereupon, Exhibit 190 was marked for Identification.)

MR. JACOBS: 190 is an e-mail string with the date on the top of July 20, 2004. So it's after the period you and I were talking about before. It's produced by SCO at 1648756 to 759.

A Yeah. So?

Q So this is a string of messages that you forwarded to SCO, correct?

A I don't, I don't know.

Q Well, do you see the e-mail at the bottom of 756 from O'Gara to Blake Stowell?

A I see from Frank somebody or another to O'Gara.

Q And look at the bottom of the first page.

A Then I see -- the bottom of the first--

Q The string is in reverse order.

A Yeah, I see. I don't know what

37

the context is.

MS. FOLEY: Just actually listen to the question that he asked.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

MS. FOLEY: The question again was?

Q You forwarded an e-mail string that you received to Mr. Stowell at SCO, correct?

A No. MS. FOLEY: The question is does the document reflect that.

A I guess so.

Q Well, you don't have a recollection?

A I don't remember it, you know, I get lots of e-mails. So what?

Q Well, I guess my question is so what, why did you forward this string of e-mails from Frank Jalics, J-A-L-I-C-S, in which he accused you of being on, in a nutshell, on SCO's side--

A Yeah.

Q -- why did you forward that to

38

SCO under an e-mail "I want war pay"?

MR. GONZALEZ: Objection.

A I don't remember the context of the thing, but--

MS. FOLEY: Do you remember why you forwarded it?

THE WITNESS: No.

Q Does it strike you as peculiar that a journalist would forward to one of the sides in a dispute a string of e-mails she got from a reader?

A I don't know what the right answer to that question is because I don't know the context.

Q Well, what's the context here?

A I'm probably just complaining about getting this kind of crap all, you know, all the time. People who can't read and don't know what the heck is going on and got it wrong to begin with just, you know, saying that, you know, you think you've got it tough, Blake, you should see it from my side. That's no big deal.

39

Q So Jalics says to you in the July 19th e-mail--

A July 19, is that the beginning?

Q It's towards the beginning, yes. It's on the bottom half of 758.

A July 19th, wait a second. Yeah, About being Hillary to their Bill Clinton?

Q Yes. To be precise, he says, "You take SCO's side like Hillary took Bill Clinton's side when he was being accused of fooling around with Monica." Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q And then he goes on to explain why he thinks you are being taken in by SCO's story. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q And then you responded to him with a clarification of what you thought SCO was alleging in the dispute. Do you see that?

A I don't think what they're alleging -- all right. I see my reply,

40

yes.

Q And it reads, 'SCO needs AIX and DYNEX because it is charging IBM with copying AIX and DYNEX line for line into Linux. It is not charging IBM with copying UNIX line for line into Linux. It is charging IBM with copying derivative copy line for line into Linux. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So you were trying to clarify for him what you understood the dispute was about?

A Isn't that what the dispute was about at that time?

Q I'm not challenging that.

A Okay.

Q I'm just characterizing what you were doing.

A Right, okay.

Q And then he goes on and again sort of disputes your reporting on the case in his July 20th e-mail, do you see that? He says, "What makes you want to

41

believe SCO when every time they show up to a different court or to the same court on a different day their story keeps changing? When they filed the suits in the IBM case, did you know it was primarily a contract dispute and not really about contract copyright infringement? When they filed the suit against Auto Zone, did you realize that it was really about them thinking that Auto Zone might have ported some static libraries to Linux? SCO hired some competent lawyers that they are able to convincingly argue that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't mean that they have the evidence to back it up, Frank."

Do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to the scope.

Q And then you forward that string to Mr. Stowell and with what I took to be kind of a humorous remark, I want war pay.

A Right.

46

part of the deposition. This one I'm going to show you about is back to October 2004. So this will be 192. Do you have it?

A No, I don' t. (Whereupon, Exhibit 192 was marked for Identification.)

MR. JACOBS: Why don't you hold 192 and we'll mark another one as 193, (whereupon, Exhibit 193 was marked for identification,)

Q So 193 is an e-mail string that ends on August l1, 2003 produced by SCO under 143593 to 595.

A Yeah.

Q And 192 is an e-mail string ending October 22, 2004 ending under SCO 1648173 to 176. Let me ask you about 193 first.

MS. FOLEY: Have you had a chance to look at it, 193?

A I'm sorry, I'm looking here-- oh, I'm sorry, I' ll looking at 192.

Q That's all right. Take a look at 193 now.

47

A Yes.

Q So 193 is an e-mail string between you and Stowell about a couple of issues, but what I want to focus attention on is the most recent two e-mails in the string. It seems to me you're joking with him about the subscription costs to Linux Graham and you say I'll make you a special price.

Do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

Q And that's on August 11, 2003, do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

Q And then you again, I think in humor -- I'll accept it as in humor-- you say "you're so cute" and then you say "and your politics are sensible and should be rewarded." I didn't see the humor in that. I was wondering what you meant by it.

A He's a mormon.

Q And therefore?

A It has a tendency to have like, you know, those kindS of family values that

48

we're all supposed to admire so much.

Q And that's what you meant by politics?

A Isn't that what that is?

Q I don't know, I'm asking you. What did you mean by politics?

A That's what I would say.

Q Family values? Yeah.

Q And what do you mean by it should be rewarded?

A A lot of people are -- oh, come; on, you know, It's meaningless. There's nothing there. It's just chatter.

Q And then he reports back, "Ah, shucks, I'm blushing now." Do you see that?

A I guess that's because I said he was cute, I call most people lamb chop. Most guys think they're the only ones I say it to. I've got 2000 senior executives in the computer industry who think they' re the only ones I call lamb chop. Come on, honey.

49

Q I'm feeling left out.

A Let's deal with this. You know, I mean, it's a dog eat dog world out there.

Q Yeah, and I think I saw all of that except the focus on politics. That seemed like an odd word in this context.

A I don't know. We were talking about other kinds of things. You know, you have to talk about other subjects with people and he was probably telling me about his kids and, you know, local school election or whatever. It's--

Q So this was just chatter?

A This is just chatter. This is southern bell kind of chit chat, you know, just keep talking and maybe you'll get what you want, whatever it is.

Q So then on 192, Dean Zimmerman at SCO writes to Blake Stowell and writes, "Am I impressed you actually got Maureen O'Gara to say something that was, well, nice about SCO." Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

62

Ms. O'Gara that Sun Micro Systems had purchased a different type of license that IBM had and that SCO had concluded that Sun Micro Systems was not in breach of that license. I did not say that SCO was giving Sun Microsystems a hall pass on IP tampering. I never stated, I never said that I had not read the other licensing UNIX agreements." Do you see that in this declaration?

A I saw it.

Q And then in your article you went on to write, "At the time, and this was a week ago, he had spent more time talking to us than to IBM that there had been no contact. He figures IBM's strategy will be to go for a dismissal on the grounds that what he's charged IBM with so far are, is not a cause of action and are conclusions, not facts. He seems relatively unperturbed at the prospect. He also gave Sun a hall pass on IP tampering calling it's 'clean as a whistle' because it

63

paid all that money once upon a time for UNIX. As for everybody else, well he hadn't gotten around to reading their agreements yet." Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q And do you stand by your story?

A I stand by my story.

Q You were accurately reporting in your story what Mr. Heise said to you?

A Yes.

Q And to the extent that his declaration disclaims what you reported in your story, his declaration is incorrect?

MS. FOLEY: Object to the form of the question. I'm going to direct the witness not to answer that question.

Q Are you going to follow your counsel's instruction?

A That's why she's here.

Q Now let's look at what we'll mark as 196. (Whereupon, Exhibit 196 was

64

marked for identification.)

A Why does the print keep getting littler and littler?

MR. JACOBS: I seem to be shy a copy of this one.

MR. GONZALEZ: Maybe I can just look at it and give it back to you.

MR. JACOBS: Yes.

Q So this is an e-mail to you dated May 30, 2005, Exhibit 196; produced under SCO 1647696 to 697. Do you see that?

A I don't see a date on it,

Q Right at the top.

A Oh, there it is, okay.

Q And the subject is, "I need you to send a jab PJ's way."

A Okay.

Q Do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

Q Who is PJ?

A PJ is the purported author of the Groklaw site.

Q What is the Groklaw site'?

65

A It is a website that follows the SCO case -- I should say cases maybe but,

Q Did you have a view in March of 2005 about whether PJ or the Groklaw site was a reliable source of information on the SCO litigation?

A Yes.

Q What was your view?

A It was not reliable.

Q And what was the basis for that?

A It is a propaganda site.

Q Propaganda in what sense?

A It's unbalanced.

Q In contrast to what you believe you were doing?

A In contrast to what anybody is doing.

Q But more particularly your reporting?

A I suppose you could compare it to my reporting.

Q And in comparison you felt you were balanced or more balanced compared to her reporting?

66

A She's not reporting. That's not reporting. Reporting has to do with facts She is writing a piece. It's an editorial or editorializing.

Q And that was the view you held in March 2005?

A Yes,

Q And then you did, in fact, write a story about PJ or Pamela Jones, didn't you?

A Yes.

MR JACOBS: Let's take a look at that. We'll mark this as 197. (Whereupon, Exhibit 197 was marked for identification.)

Q So in 196, Stowell says in the subject line, "I need you to send a jab PJ's way," and that's March 30, 2005?

A Yes.

Q And 197 is your May 9 to 13, 2005 issue of Client Server News 2000 correct?

A Yeah.

Q And the lead story is "Who is

67

Pamela Jones," correct?

A Yeah.

Q Is there a causal relationship - between Blake Stowetl's e-mail to you and the appearance of the story in Client Server News 2000, May 9 to 13, 2005?

A No.

Q You did it independently, you did the story on PJ--

A I have reason to do a story on Pamela Jones that has nothing to do with SCO.

Q Nothing to do with SCO asking you to?

A It has nothing to do with SCO. It's a matter of my own personal integrity. She called it into question.

Q That's what prompted this article?

A That's what prompted my interest in finding out who she was, yes.

Q And in that article you said, "A few weeks ago, I went looking for the elusive herodin who supposedly writes the

68

Groklaw about the SCO v. IBM suit." Do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

Q What is a herodin?

A I suppose we could look it up in the dictionary.

Q Why did you use the word?

A Because it's accurate.

Q And in what way is it accurate?

A Have you read Groklaw?

Q I'm sorry, I get to ask the questions.

A If you read Groklaw, you would know that herodin is the right word. There is a difference between a good word and a right word.

Q See if you agree with this definition--

MR. GONZALEZ: Again, Objection to scope.

Q Herodin, noun, a woman regarded as scolding and vicious.

A Uh-huh.

Q Is that a definition that

69

applies to your use of the word herodin?

A I think it's accurate.

Q Scolding and vicious?

A Uh-huh.

Q As you sit here today, do you have any regrets over printing 197?

A No.

MR. GONZALEZ: Objection -

Q Do you have any regrets about finding the identity, reporting information, personal information about Pamela Jones?

A No.

Q And again, "Who is Pamela Jones" had nothing to do, the story on 197, your testimony is that it had to do with Blake Stowell's March 30, 2005 e-mail with the subject "I need you to send a jab PJ's way?

A I think he defines what the jab would be, which is something that we ignored, you know.

Q The answer is?

A No.

Q Now let me show you a document.

***************************

March 11, 2010

Hon. Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
United States District Court, District of Utah
[address]


Re: The SCO Group v.Novell, Inc.
Case No. 2:04CV00139


Dear Judge Stewart:


We are responding on Novell's behalf to the letter to the Court from SCO's counsel earlier today regarding Novell's counter-designations of the videotaped deposition of Maureen O'Gara, taken on March 23, 2007. SCO reports that it intends to present Ms. O'Gara's videotaped deposition testimony during trial tomorrow. SCO requests that the Court exclude the counter-designated testimony at 39:2-19 (first designation at issue, referencing the Clintons); 47:3-48:25 (second designation at issue, referencing Ms. O'Gara's us of the word “Mormon”); and 64:10-65:3, 66:9-12, 66:17-67:13, and 67:23-69:24 (third designation at issue, referencing actions taken by Ms. O'Gara against an allegedly anti-SCO website after a request from her contact at SCO).

In deposition testimony not at issue here and not objected to by either side, Ms. O'Gara will testify to the jury regarding Ms. O'Gara testified to statements that she alleges Novell's former vice chairman, Christopher Stone, made to her during a telephone call, which Mr. Stone denies having made. These alleged statements by Mr. Stone are the centerpiece of SCO's argument as to malice. There are no witnesses to corroborate Ms. O'Gara's version of her telephone conversation with Mr. Stone. Accordingly, evidence of Ms. O'Gara's bias in favor of SCO — and against Novell – is critical for the jury to evaluate Ms. O'Gara's credibility compared to Mr. Stone's. The jurors should be allowed to assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of Ms. O'Gara's testimony.

Novell will agree to excise the testimony in both the first and second designations at issue in the above-referenced letter. However, the third set of designations at issue (64:10-65:3, 66:9-12, 66:17-67:13, and 67:23-69:24) are highly probative, more probative than prejudicial, and should not be excluded from the jury.

The third set of designations at issue show that Ms. O'Gara's contact at SCO, Blake Stowell, sent a message to Ms. O'Gara requesting that she “send a jab” to the purported author of the Groklaw site, which SCO's letter of earlier today states is an "änti-SCO” website. Within just over one month, Ms. O'Gara ran as a lead story an article on the purported author of the Groklaw site. In this article, Ms. O'Gara insulted the purported author by calling her a “harridan”, a word meaning “a woman regarded as scolding and vicious.” This section of Ms. O'Gara's testimony is highly relevant to demonstrate the extent of Ms. O'Gara's bias. The speed with which she drafted a lead story on the exact topic of Mr. Stowell's request and the insulting tone of the story suggests a willingness on Ms. O'Gara's part to step beyond her role as a disinterested journalist when it comes to matters involving SCO.

The Court has held that it was unable to grant SCO's broad request for exclusion of litigation commentary and would rule on SCO's objections as they arose during trial. (“Memorandum Decision and Order Taking Under Advisement Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude References to Litigation Commentary” [Docket, 713] at 2.) The designations at issue here do not refer to “Groklaw.com”; instead, they refer simply to “Groklaw.” Jurors would have to actively search to confirm the address of the website at issue, much as they would and could to find articles that SCO itself has introduced into evidence, such as the Wall Street Journal, or any other topics that have been and will be discussed in the case. The Court has regularly instructed the jury not to do any investigation on anything that could relate to this trial, and could do so again here.

Novell respectfully submits that, while it agrees to excise the first and second designations at issue, the third designation at issue should be viewed by the jury.

Sincerely,

(Sterling A. Brennan)


  


Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O'Gara: "I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way" | 296 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:05 PM EST
:)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Off Topic thread
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:06 PM EST
:)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks discussion threads here
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:07 PM EST
:)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

news picks here
Authored by: sumzero on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:07 PM EST
please indicate the title of the news pick so we know what you
are speaking about =)

sum.zero

---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

alan j perlis

[ Reply to This | # ]

MOG still works at SYS-CON
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:13 PM EST
Maybe SYS-CON cut LinuxGram, but they re-hired MOG quite a while ago...

http://maureenogara.sys-con.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has she exposed herself to further liability?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:15 PM EST
I have no clue, but since the topic will undoubtedly come up,
hash it out here please?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Easy Peasy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:18 PM EST
Judge Stweart intsructs cousel that they may only refer to the blogger who
writes the blog covering the litigation.

That would leave counsel free to show that SCO is so full of malice that they
would conspire with a professional journalist to attack the reputation of a
free citizen who dares to talk about the litigation or question the motives of
the Plaintiff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Easy Peasy - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:12 PM EST
    • Easy Peasy - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:50 PM EST
And she gets to testify?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:23 PM EST
How, in light of this, does the court even admit her as a credible witness? How
is she allowed to testify?

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is the e-mail itself sealed?
Authored by: OmniGeek on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:25 PM EST
It seems to me that the substance of that e-mail could conceivably be a smoking
gun for civil or criminal charges against either or both parties. One hopes it
is preserved in discovery records somewhere in case of such an event.

---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nothing says "I got nuttin'" like going ad-hominem
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:26 PM EST
"Harridan," eh? (Surprised no one corrected *herodin* in that
transcript, but I was skimming; maybe it was.) Nothing says "I got
nuttin'" like going ad-hominem.

Funny how hired guns can often be nastier, crazier, and generally more over the
top in public real time than principals. But what was that line from Cyrano de
Bergerac?: "I am most eloquent when insincere."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mister bowtie says 'anti-SCO website', and I take offense
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:38 PM EST
... and I take that offense personally too.


bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

Unbelievable!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:39 PM EST
I hope Novell drills her good and totally discredits her in this trial. As she's
already discredited in the general public who have seen her in action.

-- Celtic_hackr

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please get some rest PJ
Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:40 PM EST
It will all get done. Even if things get posted a day or two late, it will all get done and be here for posterity. There were two big bombshells today so maybe you are too keyed up to rest now, but please rest when you can.

Coming from SCO, dirty tricks like this are the sincerest form of flattery. The truth hurt ... them. Well done PJ. Well done indeed.

---
You just can't win with DRM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Conversation with Maureen (from 2005)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:41 PM EST
Below are my notes from a telephone conversation I had in 2005 just after the "Stalking" incident. I have circulated (several years ago) this to various folks including PJ.

Remember this may not actually represent motivation, but does represent Maureen immediate post-incident attempt at justification.

Most importantly, The Blake Stowell emails establish the "rationale" Maureen claimed (a personal insult over the long-forgotten Daniel Wallace suit) is complete bunk. Maureen presented that justification to me, but we now know the PJ stalking was a "contract" job to SCO. And of course who knows whether the Daniel Wallace side-show was just more bunkum as well directed by O'Gara's paymasters.

So I am presenting this not as O'Gara's truth, but as an indication of her active spin.


I had an hour and half telephone conversation with Maureen.

She said the mystery of PJ was provocative: a secret person in a position of leadership of the open source movement. She wanted to know if there was a puppetmaster. "Its a provocative paradox."

Her proximate beef was a GL report last week on the Daniel Wallace GPL-FSF suit, where M'OG felt PJ had called her a NAZI. And a concerted effort had been made to tarnish M'OG reputation with inaccuracies. It was MOG's duty to discern the motives behind these personal affronts.

Felt publishing addresses was good journalistic practice, especially when the name was as common as Pamela Jones. "this is Standard operating procedure for last 100 years of journalism". "Look, I've gotten support emails from brand names, big names in the press. This is about NOT censoring the news".

PJ is the the face of open source. She hopes the "leadership" of opensource will go to PJ and tell her "she has gone too far, rein in the Groklaw mob. It is a first admendment issue, one that we've fought a war in Iraq to defend as a freedom."

Sys-con has been unable to publish for 3 days on account of an on-going DDOS attack. "those are illegal, would you know?" She kept talking about publishing in the present tense, as if she still had a continuing relationship with sys-con.

"They've threatened our advertisers. This is about freedom, sweetheart." "I thought the Brown Shirts were a thing of the past." (multiple mentions about complaints to advertisers over the course of the conversation)

She has been subjected to insults. "Would they really want their Mothers to know the things they've said?" "They're annonymous, and think they can act like animals".

She said this like a scene from "Who shot Liberty Valance", where the villain sends his boys to break up the press of the courageous reporter.

"I've watched enough John Wayne westerns to know you don't back down to the mob"

"The purpose of GrokLaw is to sedate the user community." They came after me when I sued to open up the documents because they're things IBM doesn't want the world to know."

Me: "Who's behind GL?"
MOG: "Well, sweetheart, ask yourself, Qui Bono?"

"We had a revolution to get rid of the Star Chamber. The courts should be open to the press."

Groklaw misrepresents the thruth. "The judge agrees with me, he promised sanctions unless documents are unsealed. GL doesn't want people to know that, so they thrashed my reputation" "They played it as a loss to me, nothing could be further from the truth, they twist everything."

"This rabid mob is an embarassment. It going to damage open source."

Neither Groklaw, or the mob understand this a court case, and that cases take time. "They're in patient, they think this should be over, their not even done with discovery." "I should become a lawyer with all the filings I had to read."

"IBM is delaying the trial. All big corporations do that, grind the little guy down."

Me: "Who's in the mob?
MOG: "well when the guy from Forbes tracked them down all he could find was some old lady in a trailer park with an Atari machine and nothing else to do." "All I could find was some ? property manager, who has nothing to do with computers."

"These people are going to damage open source, They've gone too far. what will the rest of country think, when they find out? What would Martains think, it just god-damn software"

"I think Groklaw is a lifestyle for some disaffected psychopaths, it really must be stopped." "They're hypnotised, they don't have anything else to do with their time. Bunch of fools. I don't think any of them have anything to do with computers."

Me: "Really, my impression is their are a lot of mid-level system admins with extra time."
MOG: "What you know?"


"I don't twist the facts. I don't spin. They do, they can't stand it, so they are trying to destroy me."

Me: "Why are people so worked up, there are patent cases that are more important?"
MOG: "This isn't a patent case, its a contract case." but "This is the most important case in the last five years, it could change how people use software." (conversation didn't explore this further)

Me: " Are you going to write a book?"
MOG: "I hadn't thought of that, you think I should, sweetheart?"


Me: "Well, what are you going to do now?"
MOG: "Get out the next issue.... There's always a deadline, you know."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Personal Liability
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:43 PM EST
I don't believe that their status as employees of Sys-Con and SCO can shield
Stowell or O'Gara from personal liability.

Nor should it.

PJ, if you choose to litigate, may I please suggest you go after them personally
as well.

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O'Gara: "I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:43 PM EST
I can't believe she denied that the reason she wrote about PJ was because of the
"I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way". She gets a request then writes
about PJ. Yet she claims that is not the reason she wrote about PJ. Very
confusing lady. At first I thought the Jab quote was just a summary, but it is
the actual wording in the email she received.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Truth is a 3 sided sword
Authored by: LaurenceTux on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:44 PM EST
as the vorlons state TRUTH has three sides

Thiers
Ours
THE ACTUAL TRUTH

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maureen "Lamb Chop" O'Gara:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:56 PM EST
MOG won't live this down in a hurry... The really curious can get hold of the
full text of her deposition with a bit of Googling.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O'Gara: "I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way"
Authored by: PolR on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:06 PM EST
Is it just me? Or we are seeing the whole house of card collapsing in ways that
even Singer's tap dancing virtuosity can't hide?

- A parade that "I wasn't there" who explain why the words of the
contract shouldn't say what they say.

- Thompson admitting having SCO stocks and being employed by SCO. Chatlos
admitting his wife owns stocks and is employed by SCO.

- The slander damages that are about to bring Kimball's rulings in front of the
jury.

- And now this?

How many more petards like this are waiting in the queue line? This is all
exposed for Stewart and the jury to see.

I think in a short while we won't need to fear a bamboozled jury anymore. All
anguish that the "fix may be in" will look ridiculous in retrospect.

If things keep up in the same trend the collapse will be so bad that Cahn won't
want to appeal. He will be happy to close shop in chapter 7 and move on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe SCO didn't want the truth out and per NOT wanting JURY to visit Groklaw, they still don't?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:13 PM EST
Maybe SCO didn't want the truth out and per NOT wanting JURY to visit Groklaw,
they still don't? Do you think? We don't know what they were thinking.

But, the truth about UNIX and oldSCO, where it is obvious that they don't OWN
copyrights (and the USL vs BSDI settlement pointed out how very few were
actually USL/AT&T code lines, etc).

The TRUTH, isn't that what lawyers are supposed to be after, and not some
gamesmanship where they use TRICKS to try to change FACTS?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Trial: Friday is now is recess
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:24 PM EST
1:30 MST ended with Hatch being denied his motion.


More to come as I get it written down.

Some more highlights:

Mattingly calls Brennan a cheater.

Hatch assumes the jury will disregard the judges instructions

Singer is not happy about a statement made by Ty regarding patents.

and much more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Googled for "the anti-SCO website"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:31 PM EST
Just one hit returned. Link
Could the SCOundrels claim to be quoting what has appeared in the press?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm afraid I'm going to take an unpopular stand . . .
Authored by: tyche on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:32 PM EST
The transcript references and email (Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O'Gara:
"I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way"). However, it does not supply the
text of the email. Just reading from the transcript of the deposition I would
not be able to say, conclusively, that the itemized email and Ms. O'Gara's
article were definitively linked. There MAY be some causality there, but,
according to Ms. O'Gara, the direction of the thrust was not that requested by
Mr. Stowell.

Now, before I get flamed completely, Please understand that I do NOT excuse what
Ms. O'Gara did. Nor do I excuse Mr. Stowell's attempt to get her to "send
a jab" towards PJ. It IS possible that the suggestion to "send a
jab" prompted Ms. O'Gara to write the piece (NOTE: Unsubstantiated opinion
of possibility), but it is equally possible that she already had the piece in
the works when he sent the email.

More "interesting" (in the Spock-ian sense) is her publicly calling PJ
a harridan (no matter how it was mis-spelled). As a journalist she should be
aware of the laws concerning libel and slander, and avoid such
characterizations.

More interesting was that she considered Groklaw to be editorializing and
opinion pieces rather than fact gathering (annotated with definitions). Can a
web site be slandered? Inquiring minds want to know.

Craig
Tyche

---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Yes. I'm angry. Wouldn't you be?"
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:35 PM EST
Yes. Yes I am. I was angry then and I still am now.

As someone who has also been libeled, stalked and harassed by SCO, I am
thoroughly disgusted by these craven, invertebrate wraiths and their accomplice
"journalists".

MOG is a real piece of work. Recall that she was also mentioned in the MS anti
trust trials in Iowa as a flack for them as well.

And she is a SCO creditor.

And she apparently serves as Darl McBride's personal publicist, publishing his
hilarious open letter to Cahn threatening a "shareholder revolt". etc

Is her boss DJ Turkish D-Lite part of it? I mean, how did that vicious anti
Stephen Norris rant end up being published 100s of times across Sys-Con sites
anyhow? Those ghouls' true colors were revealed during the Ulitzer fiasco a
while back.

Then there is the Skyline Cowboy site. You'll recall I found a (botched)
trademark application for "Skyline Cowboy, LLC" filed by none other
than Kevin McBride.

Then there are Kevin's minions "Kenneth R Saborio" and his alter ego
"anonymous-insider", whose sites Kevin links to and whose comments on
Yahoo Kevin links to. I'd go into their despicable campaign of libel, which
includes buying up a company's old domain, putting that company's old content
(taken from the Internet Archive) on their host in order to fool people into
thinking they were that company, and then posting libelous comments *as that
company*, all in a sick, full time campaign to libel and discredit critics of
SCO, but I can't reveal the complete details at the moment due out of respect
for a request to sit on it. Suffice to say that those affected know exactly what
I am referring to.

Wraiths, cowards, and liars all. They seek to intimidate, and in some cases they
have succeeded for the time being.

However, this is only a temporary respite for them.

Will they be surprised when the other shoe drops? Probably.

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, don't get sucked into the trap
Authored by: phaoUNTOtom on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:35 PM EST
PJ, don't allow this O'Gara revelation to cause you to loose your clearer focus
on your higher objective. Revenge/malice can canker you if you allow it. Your
time is better spent on Groklaw providing the world with the facts.

The O'Gara malice issue will take care of itself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'll mirror it
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:44 PM EST
PJ, as soon as I find a text/HTML version of those emails, I will mirror them on
my own site. That way, which ever of our sites goes to dust first, the other
will still have them for people to see.

And I suggest others do the same. Or, would this be appropriate for WikiLeaks as
well?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I'll mirror it - Authored by: PJ on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:55 PM EST
    • I'll mirror it - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 04:37 AM EDT
I guess the ancient wisdom is correct
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:10 PM EST
If you are truly one with the Tao, you need not strive against those who would
harm you. You need only sit on the riverbank, and the bodies of your enemies
will soon float by.

-Wang-Lo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell 792 Addresses "jab"
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:24 PM EST
<<The third set of designations at issue show that Ms. O'Gara's contact at
SCO, Blake Stowell, sent a message to Ms. O'Gara requesting that she "send
a jab" to the purported author of the Groklaw site, which SCO's letter of
earlier today states is an "anti-SCO" website. Within just over one
month, Ms. O'Gara ran as a lead story an article on the purported author of the
Groklaw site. In this article, Ms. O'Gara insulted the purported author by
calling her a "harridan", a word meaning "a woman regarded as
scolding and vicious." This section of Ms. O'Gara's testimony is highly
relevant to demonstrate of Ms. O'Gara's bias. The speed with which she drafted a
lead story on the ecaxt topic of Mr. Stowell's request and the insulting tone of
the story suggest a willingness on Ms. O'Gara's part to step beyond her role as
a disinterested journalist when it comes to matters involving SCO.>>

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here is the testimony from the letter as text
Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:28 PM EST
I will put it in a reply to this post because it is long. I will start on an HTML version.

---
You just can't win with DRM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

suggest a willingness on Ms. O'Gara's part to step beyond her role as a disinterested journalist
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:49 PM EST
professional understatement... always classy

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O'Gara: "I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way"
Authored by: mdchaney on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:50 PM EST
I thought I posted before. Anyway, I have someone retyping this as text, should

be done on Monday.

[ Reply to This | # ]

lambchop?
Authored by: sprag on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:56 PM EST
How do people like MOG live with themselves?

After reading her transcript I'm just nauseous. Is she really so cynical that
she believes that people are so stupid that they'll do anything if she puts on
her southern belle persona?

Truth is, I think she probably is that delusional, but its still hard to
fathom.

The way the transcript reads it sounds a lot like she's trying to be cutesy with
the questioner as well...which seems to be ignored at best.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Oops, we forgot to edit out the embarrassing parts before filing. Can we do it now instead?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:56 PM EST
The footgunnery reaches epic levels here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

letter from Sterling A. Brennan
Authored by: seanlynch on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:59 PM EST
I hope the letter from Sterling A. Brennan cheers you up. I know he is just
looking out for Novell's best interest, but it is nice to see a defense of
Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

O'Gara: hilarious and outrageous
Authored by: grouch on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:59 PM EST
An example, from Novell-791

O'Gara [page 34, PDF page 6]

Q  Did you believe that you were taking a particular side in that story?
A  I have no side.
Q  Did you understand that people thought you were taking sides during that period?
A  I think that my stories stand for that. I think that -- I would refer you to my stories. I don't see any bias in any of my stories. It's just a completely objective recitation of the facts.

Uh-huh. And I've never uttered an unkind word in my life.

---
-- grouch

GNU/Linux obeys you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dosen't this damage some of their experts?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:16 PM EST
They quote her in several reports. And if she is shown to be in SCO's employment
there will be some problems for them to explain.

bobm

[ Reply to This | # ]

All chickens come home to roost...
Authored by: jacks4u on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:34 PM EST
...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw is Anti-SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:38 PM EST
Come on, guys, let's be honest, we all know that we are anti-SCO here. Any
attempt to claim otherwise is disingenuous. I was talking to a colleague just
this week about Groklaw and the first words he said, were, "oh, that
anti-SCO site." Just the comments allowed here have branded it as such. I
have to admit that it's kind of fun, but there is an element of Kool-Aid here
that is kind of fun.

Let's just not try to hide the reality of what we've created.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Relief! In open court!
Authored by: SK8TRBOI on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:44 PM EST
Fantastic development(s)! PJ, you must be very relieved that the truth is
finally seeing the light of day. I am very happy for you. This has to taste
even better than chocolates! ;)

---
SK8TRBOI

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Jab" just a casaul business transaction?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:45 PM EST
I'd like to see Blake stowell casually call up the wall street journal and say,
"I'd like to put a jab on PJ please"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO mentioning groklaw
Authored by: kh on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:45 PM EST
I just don't understand: if they didn't want Groklaw mentioned in the court case
why bring it up? Isn't this just going to allow Novell to mention it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

MoFo tactics - ask for three withdraw 2
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:49 PM EST
Interesting...

So they put in three requests that go to credibility of witness.
  1. reference to Clinton Monica incident
  2. Mormons
  3. groklaw...
In motion: Oh sure, your honor, we'll take out the most inflammatory, but you need to give us one if we're being so reasonable... cuz you know the jury will react to their religion being stereotyped, or if they aren't and don't like Mormons, they'll react against SCO...and everyone has opinions about the Monica incident and that will be distracting...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did PJ just become SCO's latest creditor?...n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:51 PM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What goes around, comes around.
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:53 PM EST

My mother had a saying - What goes around, comes around. What she meant was that if you did something mean to someone, that your action would rebound and hurt you worse than your victim got hurt.

Look at Darl. He hurt the Free Software community (or tried). As a result he can pretty well write off any hope of getting another job at a tech company. If he can't make Me.Inc into a paying proposition, he's in big trouble.

How much money has Ralph wasted? He's been chasing the gold pot at the end of the rainbow, using tactics that most of us would regard as reprehensible. It's cost him a lot of money, and hasn't gained him anything, other than a damaged reputation.

MoG has shot herself in the foot. Her reputation is also badly damaged, and for what? TSCOG hasn't paid their bills. She'll never see the money she hoped to gain.

Mom had another saying - Cheaters never prosper.

---
Wayne

http://madhatter.ca/

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm angry. Wouldn't you be?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 07:11 PM EST
No. What else can you expect from people whose former exec
management tended to use the phrase "cut off their air supply" WRT
people they didn't like.

There are only 2 things fatal in most "conflicts" or initiatives:
1 to panic (but applies equally to getting angry) and 2, to do nothing.

They brits thought they might need to use the phrase "Keep clam
and carry on". Thankfully, they did have to. Notice how the SCO ppl
just carry on? Scammers tend to do that, so we need to also.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOCUMENTS LODGED
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 07:14 PM EST
I'd like to see certain documents lodged in certain places.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stowell to O'Gara: "Keep fighting the good fight"
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 07:16 PM EST
<<
(p. 42:7) Michael A. Jacobs Q. And then Stowell says back to you, "Keep
fighting the good fight."

(p. 42:9) Maureen O'Gara A. Right

(p. 42:10) Michael A. Jacobs Q. Now what did you understand him to be saying
with keep fighting the good fight?

(p. 42:13) Carolyn K. Foley MS. FOLEY: If you have a recollection of this
e-mail, having any understanding at the time.

(p. 42:16) Maureen O'Gara A. I would only be interpreting. I don't, you know --
I'm assuming that he was just saying, you know, continue doing the kind of
reporting you're used to doing, which is objective.
>>

*chortle*

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

After the Sco vs world event. Why not sue em to the stone age, and retire to Hawaii.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 08:37 PM EST
I would .

[ Reply to This | # ]

research as a decimation of impartiality
Authored by: Placid on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 09:39 PM EST
SCO: "The reference in the designations both to Groklaw and
to the question of who really operates the website creates
undue temptation for jurors to pursue their own research on
the issue. That would contaninate the proceedings and would
decimate any prospect of impartiality in any such juror's
mind."

Any research on the issue would decimate any prospect of
impartiality in any juror's mind. Wonderful admission!

[ Reply to This | # ]

People unclear on the concept
Authored by: swmcd on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 10:35 PM EST
Good grief.

O'Gara sounds snarky and annoyed throughout the deposition. Doesn't she understand that the lawyer doesn't care, and it just makes her look bad? O'Gara characterizes herself as a hard-boiled journalist, but she doesn't seem to have any idea how to conduct herself in an interview or play to an audience.

O'Gara complains that "most people can't read", by which I assume she means most people don't read carefully or thoughtfully. But she doesn't seem to listen carefully to the questions; her answers are sometimes off point or non-responsive. I don't think she's doing it to be evasive. Rather, she seems unable to comprehend the context of the question until the lawyer lays it out for her. Exchanges like

Q So you were trying to clarify for him what you understood the dispute was about?

A Isn't that what the dispute was about at that time?

Q I'm not challenging that.

A Okay.

Q 1'm just characterizing what you were doing.

A Right, okay.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Our Day In Front of the Jury
Authored by: Ric on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 11:28 PM EST
Although I rarely have time to post, I have been following this epic saga on
Groklaw since the early days.

Like most of us, I have screamed at the cosmos every time - despite all logic -
that newSCO has not been pilloried.

Time and again, despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence, the long chain of
fact and act, newSCO squeezes away again.

And their one underlying refrain has always been that they want their day in
front of the jury.

My angst is now somewhat soothed by the fact that, this time, it is not a judge
deciding the case in camera. newSCO is having their day in front of the jury,
exactly as they asked.

And the entire charade is being exposed. From MoG to "I really don't
recall" to "I wasn't involved in the details" to 'he had already
left the company by then', the jury is seeing the case..... just as newSCO
wanted, all along.

This time, they cannot plead procedural errors by the lone judge.

This time, that magical, impartial jury they so desired, will decide.

I think, this time, they'll get _exactly_ what they deserve.

And the rest of the litigation will crash around them, with the force of a
magnitude 9.0 earthquake.

But then, what do I know? IANAL, but I am ANAO - also not an optimist. I tend to
be called a realist. I also don't tend to be very superstitious.

But I'm still going to cross my fingers. :)

Sic semper tyrannis

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O'Gara: "I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 03:10 AM EST
I find it fascinating that she claims to discard interview notes immediately
after a story is published. Maybe journalism in the US is different, but in the
UK, we keep notes for YEARS. I've got drawers full of tapes and notepads. The
reason being, of course, that when you find yourself in front of a lawyer or a
judge, those notes are what prove you quoted someone accurately. Admittedly,
libel laws in the UK are a bit (ha!) scarier than the US, but surely any
competent journalist keeps their notes for at least a while, in case of
comebacks? Can a US journalist comment on whether this is normal practice?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whatever you do, don't mention the war.
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 05:21 AM EST
Court: I have a written question from the jury. 'Who is PJ?'

Ms. O'Gara: Exactly!

Court: Shut up!

Court: Call the lady in the red dress.

Court: Without using any words starting with 'G' tell the jury who you are and
why SCOG would want Ms. O'Gara to jab at you.

<continues after the nym>

---
Regards
Ian Al

PJ: 'Have you read my open letter?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe SCO now does want to mention Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 06:05 AM EST
... because they've realized their only chance now is getting
a re-trial because one of the jury members (maybe the one with
the same last name as the potential SCO witness?) admits to
reading Groklaw now it was mentioned...

__
magicmulder

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow read the full Q&A - Maureen O'Gara crashed and burned man! LOL
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 07:11 AM EST
karma

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

slashdot
Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 10:30 AM EST
Beware everyone -- it's on slashdot now. And me with mod points ;)

---
-inode_buddha

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Yes. I'm angry. Wouldn't you be?"
Authored by: Yossarian on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 01:58 PM EST
I am a strong believer in "don't get mad, get even".
And that leads me to ask two questions:

1) Can you sue the people, and not just SCO for libel?

2) If yes, how much would it cost?
(My guess is that plenty of us will be happy to donate.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

MOG sounds catty there is a funny side though
Authored by: globularity on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 10:09 PM EST
The deposition wasn't kind to MOG, I actually read the footer as esquire
demolition services and thought it appropriate due to what they did to MOG's
credibility.

The other funny thing was MOG's use of the word harridan while the English
meaning is unflattering, the word sounds fitting for a mythical creature often
seen with Nazgul picking holes in the SCO carcass oops I meant case. Remember PJ
these guys intended to hurt you by twisting their slander around for some
entertainment they can be denied that objective.

---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tip of the ice berg in an ongoing camaign of racketeering and harassment
Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 03:57 PM EDT
It's helpful that there is a court record of MOGs transgressions.

I would not be surprised to find thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
instances of harassment by others. Where there are a large Microsoft
deployments, there appears to always be a lot of irregularities in acquisition
and staffing. Some of that, in some instances, can be very severe harassment of
anyone demonstrating knowledge of computers instead of bending over for Bill.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question for Maureeen...
Authored by: Zarkov on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 03:49 AM EDT
In deposition testimony not at issue here and not objected to by either side, Ms. O'Gara will testify to the jury regarding Ms. O'Gara testified to statements that she alleges Novell's former vice chairman, Christopher Stone, made to her during a telephone call...

If Chris Stone told Maureen about Novell's plans during a telephone conversation, how did she see him smile as she reported on her blog?

If her reporting of the conversation is not entirely accurate - if portions of it are, (shall we say), extrapolated... how can the jury be sure they are hearing about the real stuff, and not the extrapolations?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )