On 5 Dec 2003 19:22:22 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

In article , Ron Wanttaja says...
The third advertiser has been around for a while, though the company name
is misspelled in Zoom's court documents. It's an accessory manufacturer,
not an airplane company.

Bet that was on purpose.He probably promised free ads if they went along with
the scam.

Oh, I doubt that. I have a fairly positive take on human nature; I don't
think there are that many people who would commit perjury just for free
ads.

In any case, witnesses for either side don't get to tell their story and go
away. The opposition *does* cross-examine them, and I think any "fluffed
up" accounts will be whittled down pretty quick. You look at Tony's
cross-examination of Zoom in the bankruptcy case and Conn in the RAH-15
case and you'll see what I mean. Conn admitted that the judgement he got
in the '80s probably didn't apply to Chuck or his current company (make
sure your current attorney has the transcript, Chuck). Zoom's answers led
to the Bankruptcy Trustee's perjury lawsuit.

Tony was always real positive about SnF's attorney (Wendell), and from
reading the transcripts of the first SnF case, I think he'll do pretty good
during cross-examination on this case.

Ron Wanttaja