Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Are you telling the truth? | 355 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Are you telling the truth?

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 06 2013 @ 09:42 AM EDT

In the full transcript you can read that Judge Wright has come to certain conclusions based on what evidence has been presented. He gives Prenda every opportunity to add additional information which might sway his understanding, asking and even demanding they do so. They exercise their rights under the Fifth Amendment not to respond despite knowing that the judge currently believes fraud has occurred and has made such accusations on the record.

Prenda's lawyers (or their lawyers) are unwilling to respond to the conclusions the judge has come to and voiced based on the information and evidence before him. It is dishonest to claim that Prenda's refusal to provide additional information -- effectively a nolo contendere -- is somehow ascribing guilt for their invocation of their Fifth Amendment rights. Prenda is the one refusing to provide any evidence to counter the logical conclusion Judge Wright has come to that criminal action has taken place.

M W Lees-Großmann

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )