a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> You keep repeating that what you say is absolutely true despite the errors > I pointed out in Exhibit 5. > There are no errors in Exhibit 5. If there were, Rossi and Penon would have pointed them out. They were contractually obligated to point out such errors and if they had done so to everyone's satisfaction they would have been paid $89 million. > Contrary to what you write, it would be to Rossi's advantage for IH to > summit errors of fact. It would not be in Penon's interest to correct them > with a court case pending, without legal guidance. > This letter was mailed before Rossi filed suit. These same questions were being asked long before that. Asked, but not answered. Many other concerns were raised, but not answered. > Short of reading the contract, you don't know if Penon was obligated to > talk to an outside consultant. > I repeat: Murray was *not* an outside consultant. Furthermore, people within I.H. asked these same questions. Rossi and Penon refused to answer. You need to stop making up stuff like this. > Murray has never claimed he was employed directly by IH. > How the hell would you know that? - Jed
