|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
| Then it's a false dilemma. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
Then you refuse to answer and explain why to the Judge in a courtroom situation.
The problem is that the only "why" I can see here isn't entirely
satisfactory even if it is the case (which I suspect it isn't). Specifically
that why is "We did know about the lawsuit between Hogan and Seagate but we
didn't think he commited perjury or anything else that we were required to
report to the court".
The problem with this statement is that while IANAL it seems pretty clear to me
that he did commit perjury. Some research indicates that prospective Jurors are
sworn in to tell the whole truth (amongst other things), and as he didn't tell
the whole truth, he did, under my understanding of the law, commit perjury. The
only defence I could possibly see for Apple is something along the lines of they
thought he might have forgotten about the court case. Which would be a pretty
poor exuse in my opinion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Yes or No - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 08:48 PM EDT
- Yes or No - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 04:08 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
