kranium wrote:"He could just have been bragging."hgm wrote:That is called 'hear-say', and a court would not consider it proof. He could just have been bragging. Even if it were true it would not proof corruption, because that would also require you to prove that these gifts were the reason for 'professional misconduct'. Furthermore, even if George was found to be corrupt it would be illegal to brand the organization for which he works as corrupt. That would requireyou toprove he controls that organization.
You cannot accuse people of crimes just because someone else tells you they are criminals. A lawyer would really tear you to threads...
now there's some real hear-say!
i beleive there are many forms of being 'corrupt'...
i.e. it does not necessarily mean some 'crime' has been committed.
in this thread i specifically mean: dishonest, lacking integrity, not being fairly inclusive, receiving undue compensation, etc.
perhaps (maybe) collusion (especially if any testers at CCRL were in communication with and blindly cooperating with Vas. R.'s false statement that
Ippolit was clone of Rybka3)
Norman, why did my name have to be brought into this train wreck?
Best,
george