Re: Potent new evidence completing the Windows CEfraud picture

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Fri Aug 04 2006 - 11:25:14 CDT

Alan Dechert wrote:

>>.... they treated CE as COTS and that it was
>>Diebold's fault they did so.
>Doesn't exactly clear the ITAs of this idiocy.
>Alan D.

You know, a lawyer I spoke to last night had an interesting point to make.

Despite having the Diebold memo from Talbot Iredale on the one hand and
Wyle's testimony on the other that Diebold withheld the code, and no
mention of CE in the Wyle cert docs, there still exists a miniscule
possibility that Diebold DID turn over everything to Wyle and Wyle just
ignored it all.

So...on a hyper-technical level we don't have "proof of fraud" on
Diebold's part.

But really...what are the odds?

OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Thu Aug 31 23:17:03 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 31 2006 - 23:17:10 CDT