Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.

[Jim Choate]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Petro wrote:
> >
> >> SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999. 
> >> STORE: "Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire on my 
> >> desk last night, and wouldn't you know, all those records are gone". 
> >> 
> >> You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they won't be 
> >> happy. 
> >
> >And there won't be a damn thing that they can do about it either unless
> >they can PROVE you were aware of THE (as opposed to a hypothetical one)
> >investigation.
> 
> Wow.  You're seriously in denial, you know that?  
> 
> Hint: The cites BU provided are *REAL*.  
>       This actually happens, routinely.

Yes, the cites are real. Yes, every(!) one of them requires 'intent' to be
linked to the article in question and the potential of a future legal
action. In every cite that BU provided you'll find additional material if
researched which provides proof of 'intent' with respect to the 'loss of
evidence'. In other words, it wasn't a matter of policy per se, but rather
an intentional use of policy with respect to a SPECIFIC piece of evidence.
BU's argument falls down when the policy applied to ALL 'evidence'. A
MAJOR distinction. No, it isn't routine by any definition. I'd be
surprised if it was in the double digits percentage wise.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

                Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
                God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.

                                          B.A. Behrend

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------