Going to focus now on providing you the key testimony and uploading the transcripts. I have about 10 documents and after that we will summarize where we are.
At the end of the day, this just seems like another spin, another version of white collar crime. I’ve called it the “lawyer tax”, the “State Bar Employment Fee”,…there are many names. All of this is designed to tag some company ( that has some money) to pay for the legal fees incurred by both sides. M was not going to be liable to us for reimbursement regardless. We were targeted because we could pay for everyone.
It was beside the point that we were not guilty. It was beside the point that M lied about almost everything. This was pretend litigation. It was just all a scam.
Key testimony later. Protect yourself. Don’t arbitrate.
Ok back to it. You all know my testimony by now since I’m writing this blog. But we can supplement my essential testimony with a few things. One of those things is the testimony of an attorney working with us on this M matter. His name is John Weil. He practices downtown.
I’ll pull out some testimony from John in a few but in essence after M filed his complaint with the ODJ, John called Max’s attorney, down in Albany Oregon, to chat about the complaint. Weil conveyed to Egan that M had already been terminated and that he was in possession of a termination letter from us, Max’s employer. James Egan, Max’s attorney claimed that the complaint was tactical, meaning it was designed solely to save M’s job & further that he believed our termination of M had been rescinded. But of course it was not.
Testimony of John Weil:
11 Q. Okay. And then that’s where you go on
12 after that: “I understand that from your statements
13 to me, as well as statements your client made to NW,
14 that the motivation for reporting the billing
15 concern,” in quotes, “to the Oregon DOJ was to
16 prevent NW from terminating your client’s
18 A. Yes.
Q. Did you — did Mr. Egan ever refute the
5 statement that Mr. M– well, did you ever get
6 a letter back or any communication from Mr. Egan
7 refuting your representation that there had been a
8 notice of termination provided to Mr. Max?
9 A. I did not.
The bottom line. Max’s attorney admitted that the complaint was filed to try to force us to retract Max’s termination & he had an opportunity to refute that M received the letter of termination before the complaint. He did not refute our position. Case closed.
During the course of the arbitration M testified that it was wrong to write-off time. Here is Max’s testimony:
2 Q. You don’t understand that? Have you seen
3 examples of customers or businesses writing off,
4 taking discounts to expand their market share?
5 A. It’s not my understanding in the telemarketing
6 industry as opposed to write-off hours. I did
7 talk about that before and there would be a
8 specific advantage to doing that over other
9 vendors and it’s not something that’s proper.
Thank you Max. It’s not proper to write-off time in your opinion? Crazy.
And Mr. Crow got that. He asked M a question.
23 Q. Is it your testimony that a telemarketing
24 service must bill for every hour that it works
25 and that it may not write-off hours that it
1 considers unproductive? Is that your testimony?
2 A. I would say yes.
But this only becomes relevant if Mr. Crow rightly concludes that M was not terminated before he filed the complaint, and he was most certainly terminated before the complaint, then all of this testimony is unnecessary. We win the case well before this. But as of this time, during this day and during this testimony, Crow’s recollection was that we had testified that we had fired M for filing the complaint. His statement follows:
8 ARBITRATOR CROW: I’m going to permit you to
9 go ahead with this, Mr. Rote, but I’m concerned
10 that it has little to do with the decisions I’m
11 called on to make. He did make a complaint to
12 the department of justice and your testimony is
13 that as a result of that complaint and perhaps
14 for other reasons you terminated him. I’m not
15 sure whether the report to the department of
16 justice being in bad faith or reasonable is
17 important to the issues I’m faced with. But go
18 ahead. You can pursue this line of questioning
19 MR. ROTE: We did not terminate him based on
20 his complaint. The termination came three weeks
21 prior to his complaint, four weeks prior.
By this time we had presented the email evidence, the letter evidence, and 3 people had testified on our behalf that M had been terminated three weeks before he filed the complaint and yet we go into this testimony having not yet solidified this critical fact. And remember we had the computer showing the email was sent. M had destroyed his computers.
By this time, my company NDT was needing to preserve as much capital as possible and so I handled this portion of the arbitration without counsel. That saved us $100,000 or more.