I'll defer to Karen as to the law since the only law I know is the "Law of Gravity."
However, I DO know that REALLY BIG MONEY can make their own laws (so to speak), and hire enough attorneys to enforce their vision. Therefore, if John Fenton was told not to speak about the circumstances under which he is no longer at the UCD, I would think that a "gag order" would be correct, whether or not a judge ordered it remains to be seen. Still, if John Fenton violated this agreement, I feel there would CERTAINLY be swift and sure consequences. That remains to be seen, except for the billions of dollars as opposed to a single employee who exposed the organization to negative and abject scrutiny. On 6/14/07 6:55 PM, "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A "gag order" implies a judge or some other orderer, doesn't it? Wouldn't we > be talking more about a "confidentiality agreement" here, Karen? > > By its nature, an agreement is a two-way contract. And although I'm no > lawyer, I'd imagine either side would be prevented from publishing outright > falsehoods about the case at hand, as people are implying UCD is doing. > > -- Tony West > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "KAREN ALLEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:27 AM > Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check > > >> I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's not >> in a position to refute anything. > > > ---- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see > <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
