Spoliation cites

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:34, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> James Donald (VI2) can't seem to keep his people, arguments or
> facts straight.  He wrote:
> > I understood black unicorn, and Sandy, to be claiming it
> > [routine document destruction in the ordinary course of
> > business] was inappropriate, and quite dangerous.

Sandy Sandfort
> Time to take that remedial reading course you've been putting
> off, Jim.
>
> (a) You will find zero posts from me regarding this subject.
>
> (b) You will find zero posts from Black Unicorn taking the
> extreme position you ascribe to him (and me).

I just responded to a post by him where he took that extreme position -- you probably read that response just before this response.

You, and Black Unicorn, have taken that extreme position.  You were full of shit.

You are now backing away from it, denying that you said what you so plainly said, demonstrating that you now realize you were full of shit, demonstrating you do not know shit from beans in that area of the law.

Here is a fragment from the post that I just responded to:
: :	Harmon Seaver
: :	> As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or
: :	> throw away all your reciepts, there's not jack they
: :	> can do about it.
: :
: : 	At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote:
: :	Uh, no.  And if you had been reading the many, many
: :	posts on this point you'd see that about every one of
: :	the 10-15 cases cited here say exactly the opposite of
: :	what you claim above.

So Harmon Seaver says routine document destruction in the ordinary course of business is quite safe.  Black Unicorn confidently, and quite untruthfully, claims the material he cited shows it to be unsafe.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     HvNOpCMeOLv0jpkCAbSlewClypASXflgllLCvOJF
     4+tWcB5EBxQn+5gFKcz/qQgLnLReYcZknJGec2oqs