Reply-To: "Lee Kent"
From: "Lee Kent"
To:
Subject: more
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 21:52:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_5460_01C3422F.512940A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Disposition-Notification-To: "Lee Kent"
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_5460_01C3422F.512940A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

1: don't fall for 'man of his word' only a liar would be required to =
point that out!

2: a tape recording made undercover IS admissable in court!!! it happens =
all
the time in sting operations... just because you did it yourself means =
nothing...
it could have been a video tape and it still would be admissable... only =
a wire
tape is not admissable unless there is a court order...

3: the paperwork they sent him may have said he was not permitted to =
contact
the plaintiff... if so sanders will say so... if it did not say that =
there probably is
a federal law against what he did... rules of evidence and interrogation =
and pre-
trial discovery...

4: watch for the concoctions to really start... his reaction to why I =
was fired was
typical rejection of charges and a non specific spin because he has to =
get with
charlie and his attorney ( who won't be able to represent him in the =
case BTW!)
and come up with something real good... but they have no documentation =
and
no reality to base it on... so it is nothing but a spin to get away from =
the charges../
do you think he would agree that was why?

5: according to federal law... unless the employee was served a document =
that
is contained in the personnel file (and I was served no documents AT =
ALL) then
it is not admissable in court or the investigation... I asked for them =
to provide to
me a copy of all contents of my personnel file and anything in the =
public file
that pertains to me and he ignored the email request. charlie would not =
put=20
anything in writing...





------=_NextPart_000_5460_01C3422F.512940A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



charset=3Diso-8859-1">




1: don't fall for 'man of his word' only a liar =
would be=20
required to point that out!

 

2: a tape recording made undercover IS =
admissable in=20
court!!! it happens all

the time in sting operations... just because you =
did it=20
yourself means nothing...

it could have been a video tape and it still =
would be=20
admissable... only a wire

tape is not admissable unless there is a court=20
order...

 

3: the paperwork they sent him may have said he =
was not=20
permitted to contact

the plaintiff... if so sanders will say so... if =
it did=20
not say that there probably is

a federal law against what he did... rules of =
evidence and=20
interrogation and pre-

trial discovery...

 

4: watch for the concoctions to really start... =
his=20
reaction to why I was fired was

typical rejection of charges and a non specific =
spin=20
because he has to get with

charlie and his attorney ( who won't be able to =
represent=20
him in the case BTW!)
and come up with something real good... but =
they have=20
no documentation and

no reality to base it on... so it is nothing but =
a spin to=20
get away from the charges../

do you think he would agree that was =
why?

 

5: according to federal law... unless the =
employee was=20
served a document that

is contained in the personnel file (and I was =
served no=20
documents AT ALL) then

it is not admissable in court or the =
investigation... I=20
asked for them to provide to

me a copy of all contents of my personnel file =
and=20
anything in the public file

that pertains to me and he ignored the email =
request.=20
charlie would not put

anything in writing...

 

 

 

 


------=_NextPart_000_5460_01C3422F.512940A0--