A newly found and examined public court document places into question the motives and integrity of the founder of the web forum Tragedy & Hope, Richard Andrew Grove. The following essay and research document shows a direct contradiction between what Mr. Grove claims and what actually happened, both in reality and in court. Here we will merely pose the question: Is Richard Andrew Grove truly the official, and therefore a fully, legally protected “whistleblower” he claims to be in public and in his apparently well-funded media entertainment productions? This collection of facts was sent to me by one who wishes to remain anonymous, and has been so altered and verified by myself so as to ensure that the litigious nature of Mr. Grove should not be invoked. I have nothing, so I can only be sued for nothing, and all are welcome to a share of my nothingness. It is presented here purely for the purposes of exposure and honest inquiry, with the intent merely to allow Mr. Richard Andrew Grove an open invitation and chance to disprove the following facts by providing contrary evidence to this damning expose based upon official court records. At this point I can only attempt to remain as neutral as possible on this subject, despite the evidence at hand, and only ask the reader to consider, verify, and demand an accounting and explanation for the following glaring discrepancies between the official court documents and the well laid propaganda in movie/interview form as presented below. –Clint

–=–
Audacity & Hopium
–=–

“Recognize that corporations are mandated to return profit to shareholders; thus it becomes profitable to suppress information, keeping the public ignorant… leading into wars contrived for profit. The cycle continues until we break it by recognizing that ALL WARS ARE CREATED FOR OUR CONSUMPTION, so stop consuming war, stop funding war profiteers, and stop supporting politicians who support the war. Educate yourself by consuming independent media, and avoid the corporate/militainment-produced sound-byte culture which lead us into the Iraq War.”

–Richard Andrew Grove, President, Tragedy and Hope, Inc., from his documentary “A film to end all wars” 2008) [EMPHASIS ADDED]

–=–

“When you consider that almost everything everyone around you consumes, it was produced by corporations for the explicit purpose of profit. Right? A Corporation’s only law of governance, its only motivation, its only mandate, is to return profit to the shareholders. It’s not to keep you safe. It’s not to inform you. It’s not to help you feel, and realize your life dreams. They are there to profit. And the Roman maxim is “let he who would be deceived, be deceived“. Right?”

–Richard Andrew Grove, President, Tragedy and Hope, Inc. (A CORPORATION!), quoted from “American Apathy,” 1:54 ff. [emphasis added]

–=–

Over recent years the online community has provided an over-abundance of alternative media sources to help fill in the gaps where the mainstream, or “corporate media,” has failed at performing their stated purpose as news agencies. One popular online media group, Tragedy & Hope, Inc. (www.tragedyandhope.com), infers itself to be organized for the purpose of filling in these purposeful gaps and exposing misinformation.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — After registering slightly higher trust last year, Americans’ confidence in the media’s ability to report “the news fully, accurately, and fairly” has returned to its previous all-time low of 40%. Americans’ trust in mass media has generally been edging downward from higher levels in the late 1990s and the early 2000s.

–Gallup poll, link–>http://www.gallup.com/poll/176042/trust-mass-media-returns-time-low.aspx

–=–

So who do we trust?

How much of this alternative media is just mainstream lite, utilizing the same part-truth model mixed with glaring yet unquestionably accepted, purposeful untruths?

With documentary film productions like “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” the public is led to believe that this particular “alternative” online media group and forum is somehow better, more honest, and more accurate than its mainstream counterparts – such as ABC’s “20/20” or PBS’s “Frontline.” In fact, Tragedy and Hope’s ironically corporate reputation seems to have built its foundation upon this particularly proposed truth.

But is this the reality?

Can that supposed honesty and accuracy be shown throughout this conglomerate website forum and through its own musings and media productions? Or will we see variances to this supposed integrity, just as is exposed in the mainstream media by Tragedy and Hope in justification and contemplation of its own existence and purpose in countering such “corporate” news agencies?

A recently found court document from the U.S. Department of Labor website (which everyone should read for themselves) reveals that Richard Andrew Grove, president of Tragedy & Hope, Inc. and a self-styled “whistle-blower,” may not fit into that heroic persona he proclaims himself to be, and that he may have been more of a conniving, litigious employee than the “whistle-blower” he pretends.

The stated action of this document was as a “DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT,” with instructions at the end as to the appeals process:

Link to case document entitled GROVE_RICHARD_ANDREW_v_EMC_CORPORATION–>http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/ALJ/SOX/2006/GROVE_RICHARD_ANDREW_v_EMC_CORPORATION_2006SOX00099_%28JUL_02_2007%29_111537_CADEC_SD.PDF

–=–

The documentary film created to present the “facts” of this case is located here:

Link To Tragedy & Hope’s production of “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline” (part 6 shows the most relevant parts): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hERzXq3xBxk

–=–

Please note that this is but one, stand-alone example, and that it is not the intention of this author to portray anything but the facts of this one example. Again, if the following information is disputable or incorrect in its official capacity as a public court document, then this information needs to be shown and a retraction of this article will be made upon such satisfaction. Other aspects of this Tragedy and Hope, Inc. corporation and its affiliates should be taken upon their own merit. In this expose, the reader should only expect an accurate analysis of the actual court case vs. what is stated about that court case: a comparison of the actual judge’s ruling in Grove’s case based upon and quoted from the official court records to the public claims made by the self-proclaimed “whistle-blower,” Richard Andrew Grove. In other words, the following is a comparative look at how, on behalf of the corporation (artificial person) called Tragedy & Hope, Inc., Mr. Grove re-presents the facts regarding his adventures in that court setting, as well as the facts leading up to that event.

In Hollywood, the depiction of court cases are portrayed as dramatic and intense, where “honest” and “empathetic” attorneys battle to defend and protect the innocent and punish the wicked. In reality, the administration of such things is a quite boring, officious ordeal. Is the “alternative media” documentary film-production portrayal of that court story lived by the founder of Tragedy & Hope, Inc. any less liberal and tragic in its representation of the official facts of that case?

It should be noted here that during the documentary, “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” (Part 1 – 3:59), the narrator Lisa Arbercheski states:

“After reading more than 1000 pages of court transcripts related to this case, Vancouver-based documentary film-maker Paul Verge flew to Connecticut to interview this whistle-blower, and shed some much needed light on these events.”

Link to film, part 1 –>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHOujO-Qnlw

–=–

So if there is fault with this documentary, it is certainly shared by Mr. Verge and Tragedy & Hope, Inc. equally. And, aside from narrating the interview of Mr. Grove, Mr. Verge is also a co-producer.

Now let’s see how an alternative media corporation conducts itself with a documentary on a court case regarding its own president.

From the video “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” quoting Mr. Grove:

(Part 6 – 3:52) “…the other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making… I had won in court by presenting the evidence and getting my story told… I was able to convince the judge…”

(Part 6 – 4:36) “Because the events I claimed did in fact take place.” “Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court, put in court, including… Project Constellation, (Respondent Exhibit #7)…”

(Part 6 – 5:02) “…what you said is true (referring to the judge referring to RAG), but it happened slightly outside of the statute of limitations… therefore, I have no power as the judge to do anything to this corporation.”

(Part 6 – 5:35) “…these events happened, they are true, they are factual…”

–=–

From the above quotes we are left with the impression that everything Mr. Grove brought forth in court was “proved to be true,” that the judge ignored the facts of the case, and that his whistle-blower status was not thus protected in consideration of his termination. But let’s examine what the presiding Judge Daniel F. Sutton stated on the official court record linked above:

“After careful review of the evidentiary record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, I conclude that Grove’s complaint is untimely with respect to his allegations of retaliation predating his termination on January 15, 2004. I further conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving that his termination was unlawfully motivated by any activity protected by Sarbanes-Oxley or that EMC engaged in any unlawful post-termination retaliation. Accordingly, his complaint is dismissed.” (pages 2,3) [emphasis added]

“I find that the evidence is insufficient to establish that EMC / Legato engaged in a series of pre-termination actions that rose to the level of creating a hostile work environment.” (page 19) [emphasis added]

“I find that Grove has failed to establish that his alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive enough so as to alter conditions of employment and thus create an abusive working environment. (page 19) [emphasis added]

“He also failed to produce evidence that the alleged harassment would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person and that it did detrimentally affect him.” (page 19,20) [emphasis added]

“Therefore, I conclude that even assuming that Grove’s hostile work environment claim is timely, the evidence falls well short of establishing that he was subjected to harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter his conditions of employment and that such harassment would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person.” (page 20) [emphasis added]

“As there is no evidence that Grove raised any GAAP irregularities or concerns of other securities law violations in relation to the Bank of Tokyo deal with Legato officials, I find that his communications with Legato officials about this deal were not protected.” (pages 24, 25) [emphasis added]

“Grove also argues he engaged in protected activity when he reported anomalies and “side-letter deals” in Legato’s Northrop Grumman account… it is clear from context that the complaints that Grove raised with Legato officials concerned his compensation rather than GAAP or any other perceived violations of securities laws. Consequently, these communications, like those in relation to the Bank of Tokyo transaction, were not protected by Sarbanes-Oxley.” (page 25) [emphasis added]

e. Legato Product Functionality

“Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed… There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue.” (page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Footnote 29 declares that:

“It is noted that Grove did testify that he reported “the GAAP violations” to the SEC,  conduct whichI have found to be protected by Sarbanes-Oxley. [emphasis added]

–=–

And so it should be noted that this judge separated Groves conduct while in employment and his conduct in reporting as a whistleblower GAAP violations, and concludes that his employment termination was based on his personal conduct and that this case was referential to his seeking of financial gain (compensation) while in employment, not his apparent whistle-blowing efforts. Personal gain is not a protected status. And the document is clear that Richard Andrew Grove blew no whistle in this regard.

f. The November 4, 2003 Email

4. Grove’s protected activity was not a contributing factor in his termination.“

“That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” (page 26) [emphasis added]

“I find no support for Grove’s interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley in the language of the statute, its legislative history or legal precedent developed under the Act.” (page 27) [emphasis added]

“When Grove’s post-November 4, 2003 conduct is balanced against EMC’s legitimate interest in investigating his reports of serious corporate misconduct and fraud and in having its employees engage in productive work, the scale tips decisively in EMC’s favor.” (page 28) [emphasis added]

“I find that Grove’s conduct after November 4, 2003 is indefensible and, therefore, not entitled to protection under Sarbanes-Oxley. Indeed, his unreasonable refusal to cooperate in EMC’s investigation of the issues that he raised is the antithesis of the type of employee conduct that the Congress sought to encourage and protect when it wrote section 806.” (page 29) [emphasis added]

“The evidence in this case shows that Grove’s protected activity served to save him from termination in November of 2003 and that his subsequent unprotected actions caused his termination on January 15, 2004. Therefore, I conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment at EMC.” (page 29) [emphasis added]

“Since Grove’s complaint is untimely with respect to his allegations of retaliation prior to his January 15, 2004 termination, and since he has failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to his allegation of unlawful termination and post-termination retaliation, his complaint under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is DISMISSED in its entirety.” (Page 30) [emphasis added]

 –=–

Reading from the above official case document in comparison to Grove’s interview story, the reasonable reader and fan of this supposed heroic whistle-blower might assume and possibly conclude that this particular case being read from must be different than the one described so vehemently about by Mr. Grove. It certainly seems that the statements made in the film are completely at odds with Judge Sutton’s opinion and ruling. To be clear and accurate, let us double-check the court case number of this publicly posted court document (2006-SOX-00099) as referential with the one quoted in the film. Sure enough, in the documentary film (part 1, 03:15), we see the front page of the court document used and referenced to, which lists the case number as (2006-SOX-00099).

Also to be clear, in order for there to be a whistle-blower under that legal status and the protections it provides, someone would necessarily be required to actually blow a whistle. The film is presented as a sort of “Hagiography” for Richard Andrew Grove, who purportedly blew such a whistle! But let’s examine closer what was actually “blown,” according to the case document.

“Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. On these facts, one might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency.” (Page 23, 24) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that, on or about October 24, 2003, after reading (a) story on the internet about an employee of Northrop Grumman subsidiary Logicon being “arrested” by the securities and exchange commission (“SEC”) in connection with Logicon’s dealings with the Legato sales group, he contacted Kevin Gross (“Gross”), an attorney with the San Francisco office of the SEC. He said that this contact was motivated by,” (Page 8) [emphasis added]

“My concern was mainly that it involved an account for which I was responsible, and account for which I had identified numerous events of anomalous activity… I was talking about the GAAP violations. I mentioned that there were numerous accounts, specifically Northrop Grumman, which did not have the end user data being provided for the sale […] I asked about the one-off side letters and side agreements […] and I wanted to know to what effect are those legal or illegal.” (Page 8)

“Grove also told Gross that he had “audio recordings of the people in question” which he was unwilling to disclose because he did not have legal counsel. Grove testified that Gross informed him that since he was not represented by counsel, his dealings with the SEC “needed to be a one-way relationship, which meant that I could voluntarily call him and give him updates.” Id. Grove told Gross that he would rather go to EMC with his information and “see how they react.”” (Page 8) [emphasis added]

“Grove further testified that he told Giametta, “All I did was call them and ask some questions… but from what the attorney said, it sounds like the questions and concerns… could be problematic” with regard to the EMC acquisition.” (page 10) [emphasis added]

“… regarding LEGATO and how their actions are affecting EMC’s investment in purchasing Legato” and that his “goal is to be able to have EMC address these issues in a confidential and tactful manner” and “allow EMC to act on it’s own accord without any intervention by the SEC.” (Page 11) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that he contacted attorney Kevin Gross of the SEC in October of 2003 and “identified numerous events of anomalous activity… GAAP violations.”. He also informed Gross “about one-off side letters and side agreements” and asked whether such arrangements were legal. HT at 166. Grove further informed Gross of his belief that “the illicit formulae, if you will, were being used at the highest level of Legato to make executive decisions.” According to Grove, Gross asked him to provide his audio recordings which purportedly corroborated his allegations against Legato officials, but he declined to provide the recordings because he did not have an attorney and because “I am not an expert in that area, I’m just an employee — if I’m wrong, I don’t want a public investigation coming out.” Id. Instead, Grove testified that he told Gross that he “would like to go to EMC … and brief them with my concerns and see how they react.” (page 23) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed. TR 84-94. There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue.” (Page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

It seems thus far that no whistle was actually blown, according to Richard Andrew Grove’s own testamentary statements on the official court decision. And yet this is not in tune with what the heroic and apparently victimized Grove tells the media camera.

Combing the facts of the case document further, let’s examine the Legato software functionality issue as to what was actually stated in court. Perhaps the reader may wish to count just how many times Mr. Grove mentions “The Legato software backdoor” in that video?

(Part 3 – 0:00 to 1:32; 2:30; 3:00; 3:40) – backdoor in software “July 2003, I found out about the software”; 4:00 – software that allows “nefarious transactions to go on”… I went to my managers and I was told not to talk about it.” (Almost all of part 3 is related to the software issue.)

(Part 4 – 7:09, 7:59) – “…Legato software.”

(Part 5 – 0:35, 1:14, 2:54) – “…software.”

(Part 7 – 1:52) – “…software back door.”

(Part 8 – 7:57) – “…software back door.”

–=–

Many more instances of the email archive “backdoor” are mentioned throughout this misleading documentary. In the hundreds of radio interviews that Mr. Grove has done, this software email deletion function of the Legato software is generally the foundational, predominant subject in the apparent case of purported “whistleblowing.” Likewise, according to Mr. Grove, Project Constellation’s CD was apparently entered into evidence.

But how predominant was this software issue in the actual court case as compared to these hero-worship interviews conducted with Richard Andrew Grove:

Legato Product Functionality

Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed. TR 84-94. There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue. (page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

The only whistle blowing activity that the judge granted Grove protection under Sarbanes Oxley for was EMC’s share price inflation and its questioning accounting procedures. But this claimed email erasure or back doors in the software…? The software itself is only mentioned two times, on page 25, and only in the final judgment! How can this possibly be? Surely the case is revolved around these software facts represented in this interview by Mr. Grove, and not as the judge portrays merely upon Grove’s own conduct as an employee and the fact of his apparently purposeful failure to properly blow the whistle.

Paul Verge:  “So you proved in court that the General Counsel of EMC, Paul Dacier, to whom you blew the whistle, is the same person who ordered that you be immediately fired for doing so? Isn’t that against the Law? (4:00 part 6) [emphasis added]

–=–

This leading question by the interviewer, which the court document records Grove admitting to have read, proves inaccurate.

Rich Responds (Part 6: 6:31ff, 6:52ff):

“Not only is it against the law, Paul Dacier. When I told him I’m blowing the whistle etc. …His first move was to figure out how to terminate me for cause.” When I questioned them about “cause” they said for “reasons“. It came out in court that Paul Dacier was the one who terminated me, in direct violation of numerous whistleblower laws.” [emphasis added]

–=–

But let’s have a look at what Judge Sutton said about Grove’s termination in light of these determinative affirmations by Grove:

“Though the contributing factor standard places only a relatively low hurdle in the path of a Sarbanes-Oxley complainant, it is one that Grove cannot surmount on this record. That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” (Page 26) [emphasis added]

“At this point, Grove had blown the whistle, and EMC was ready to listen. However, over the next several weeks, Grove swallowed the whistle and decided not to cooperate with EMC in investigating his concerns because he objected to meeting with EMC’s General Counsel. Apparently, it was Grove’s belief that having “entered protected activity,” he was eligible for “asylum” which, among other things, would effectively provide him with absolute insulation from any adverse employment consequences. Under this theory, he apparently believed that he was within his rights to unilaterally stop doing the job that he was hired to perform, dictate the ground rules that would govern the manner in which he cooperated in EMC’s investigation of the issues he raised in his November 4, 2003 email, and to refuse to cooperate if his terms were not met. I find no support for Grove’s interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley in the language of the statute, its legislative history or legal precedent developed under the Act. (Page 27) [emphasis added]

“The evidence in this case shows that Grove’s protected activity served to save him from termination in November of 2003 and that his subsequent unprotected actions caused his termination on January 15, 2004. Therefore, I conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment at EMC. (page 29) [emphasis added]

–=–

To be perfectly clear, Grove’s protected activity was not a contributing factor in his termination, but his own actions certainly were.

Once again let’s read those direct quotes from Richard Andrew Grove:

“Not only is it against the law, Paul Dacier…When I told him I’m blowing the whistle etc. .. His first move was to figure out how to terminate me for cause.

“When I questioned them about “cause” they said for “reasons”. It came out in court that Paul Dacier was the one who terminated me, in direct violation of numerous whistleblower laws.”

–=–

And now from page 26 of the judge’s final ruling:

“That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  (page 26 ) [emphasis added]

–=–
Employee Of The Month?
–=–

It has been my experience that “fans” will worship and thus defend their particular hero even when the evidence is so overwhelming that no justification can be made for that unreasonable behavior. And so we must examine the reasons for the termination of Richard Andrew Grove a bit closer and according to the official court decision so as to dispel such fallacious behavior.

Why would Judge Sutton claim that EMC had a perfectly legitimate reason to terminate Mr. Grove’s employment there? Let’s examine Mr. Grove’s employment record at Legato/EMC as listed, and try to ascertain why he might not have been an “Ideal Employee” and why his personal “conduct” could not be considered as protected activities by the law.

“For his part, Gheesling testified the expectation that Grove would move from New York City to a location within his assigned sales territory was a “key condition” of Grove’s hiring, “because it made no sense for me to hire somebody in New York City when I could have hired somebody in D.C.”  (Page 4) [emphasis added]

“In fact, Grove never did relocate to a place within his assigned sales territory. He did however, leave his apartment in New York City to move in with another Legato sales representative in Princeton, New Jersey “because I was not making the money I expected, [so] I was going to leave my apartment two months early… [and] sublet my apartment … to raise the money to be able to move to Virginia.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

“When Gheesling subsequently learned that Grove had moved to New Jersey instead of a locale within his sales territory, he “was pretty livid, because I felt like, you know, one thing that was very clear, even in my interview with Richard, was that the job was located in D.C.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that Gheesling had previously raised the subject of his relocation during the quarterly business review on August 14th, 2003. HT at 126.” (Footnote #8) (Page 8)

“Grove stated that he informed Gheesling of his plan to move to New Jersey where he would be working out of a home office and that Giametta never told him that this arrangement was not satisfactory. HT at 117-118.” (Footnote #9) (Page 8)

–=–

Moving further into the case, we find merely a new employee causing problems in his employment and admittedly not fulfilling his obligations under that title while adhering to false beliefs due to his rather grandiose identity crisis of being a “whisle-blower,” as if the actions of being a bad employee are somehow protected activities.

“On October 20, 2003, Grove received email notification of a Legato new employee training session scheduled for November 4-6, 2003 in California.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

“Grove initially refused Giametta’s request for a meeting, stating “unless you tell me specifically who said what, you’re not going to see me tomorrow” and “if you want to see me tomorrow, you need to tell me who said what,” but he later relented and agreed to meet with Giametta in New York City. HT at 448-449, 451.11.” (Page 9) [emphasis added]

“Gheesling also claimed that Grove’s attitude was negative. As a result of his conversations with Giametta, Gheesling said that he became aware as early as September of 2003 that Giametta “was fundamentally having harder and harder times dealing with [Grove] . . . It was like [Grove was] preaching and . . . on a soapbox about issues . . . it seemed that [Grove] had to persist and to argue in front of everybody, that [he] couldn’t take it offline.” HT at 616- 617. Gheesling testified that he “needed to step back in and make sure both parties [i.e., Grove and Giametta] were clear . . . about the expectations of… working positively.” HT at 713.” (Page 9) [emphasis added]

“Grove was aware that the training session was mandatory. As discussed above, Grove was previously scheduled to depart on November 3, 2003 for the mandatory Legato training session in California. However, Grove decided instead “not to go away for a week… but to stay here, engage my concerns, alert EMC, and continue to work on […] assignments […] pertaining to my 30-day goals.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

“Grove did not inform anyone in Legato of his decision to not attend the training session. Gheesling testified that he decided to terminate Grove’s employment on November 6, 2003 after he had learned that Grove was not in attendance at the California training which he considered to be of the highest priority for any newly-hired employee, that nothing was physically wrong with Grove and that Grove had not communicated with him.  In Gheesling’s view, Grove’s actions amounted to unacceptable insubordination. At that point, Gheesling asked Legato’s head of Human Resources, Kimberly Schulze, as well as Sill to immediately initiate action to terminate Grove’s employment. (page 11) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that he was aware of the requirement that he meet with Dacier, and he understood that he had an obligation to “follow lawful mandates of the CEO” and that Tucci had directed him to contact Dacier. HT at 499. He also acknowledged that ignoring orders from a superior is sufficient grounds for termination.” (Footnote #33) (page 29) [emphasis added]

“Grove acknowledges in his brief that he was terminated for his “{f}ailure to meet with Dacier.” Grove Br. at 6.” (Footnote #34) (page 29) [emphasis added]

–=–
None Dare Call It Blackmail
–=–

“On cross examination, Grove indicated that he believed he could unilaterally refuse to meet with his manager “under terms of retaliation” and that he felt Giametta was retaliating against him at the time the call was made. (page 9) [emphasis added]

“Grove allowed his tape recorder to continue running after the telephone conversation with Giametta ended, and he is heard discussing the call with his fiancée and Mr. Taylor, his coworker and housemate.. (page 9) [emphasis added]

“During this discussion, Grove discusses his potential next steps, including advising EMC that they were “bringing a cancer into [their] great company, you know, that could kill the whole merger.” (page 9) [emphasis added]

“Grove and Giametta attended a meeting on October 31, 2003 with sales representatives from EMC. While at the meeting, Giametta pulled Grove aside and asked him what he had said to the SEC… Grove said that he refused to discuss the SEC conversations until after his “unresolved issues” (i.e., his complaints about the Bank of Tokyo commission, concerns that that others were working on his McGraw-Hill accounts and the Northrop Grumman “anomalies”) were addressed. (page 10) [emphasis added]

–=–
What Meetings?
What Customers?
–=–

It appears that the judges opinions and final judgement call were that Mr. Grove’s interpretation of the protections offered we an overstepping of logic and reason. He apparently concluded that he would continue to be paid without complying with the mandates of his job and managers, or for that matter showing any respect thereto.

“On November 10, 2003, Grove did not participate in the weekly Monday morning sales call held by Giametta. On or about November 11 – .  Grove did not attend the business review meeting. (page 13) [emphasis added]

“At the same time, he admitted that he did not participate in mandatory weekly sales conference calls with Giametta or the mandatory quarterly business review following his reinstatement in November and that he did not see any customers or try to make any sales after November of 2003. (page 13) [emphasis added]

However, after Grove failed to attend the quarterly business review, Gheesling explained that there were business opportunities in Grove’s accounts that needed to be pursued, and he assigned other representatives to pursue these opportunities:

“[I]f you got an opportunity, you got to close it, you got to get somebody on the deal to get it closed. I can’t wait to figure out if he [Grove] is going to show up to that customer, and I can’t wait to figure out what’s happening . . .  I had to make that judgment […] the bottom line is, to run a company, you got to continue to have somebody tend to it […] working the opportunity.” (page 14) [emphasis added]

“Grove asserts he engaged in six instances of activity protected by Sarbanes-Oxley:

(1) Raising concerns to Giametta regarding the revised revenue forecasting formula;

(2) Questioning the accounting procedures used during the Bank of Tokyo deal;

(3) Raising concerns regarding the “illicit / illegal activity with respect to… Northrop Grumman;”

(4) Questioning the functionality of Legato’s product;

(5) Contacting the SEC; and,

(6) Sending the November 4, 2003 email letter to Dacier and Mollen.” (Page 22)

–=–

Here we see that the judge (marginally) agrees with Grove on only 2 of these 6 points of contention. But let’s compare these claims of what should be “protected activity” by that of Mr. Grove to the above court document:

From the documentary video “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” quoting Mr. Grove:

(Part 6 – 3:52) “The other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making.”

(Part 6 – 4:40) “The events I claimed did in fact take place.” “Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court, put in court, including “Project Constellation Exhibit #7…”

(Part 6 – 4:55) “What you said is true (referring to the judge referring to RAG), but it happened slightly outside of the ‘statute of limitations'”

(Part 6 – 5:35) “These events happened, they are true, they are factual“

–=–

To be fair to Mr. Grove, the judge agrees with “Case A” and marginally with “Case B” – (“Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. One might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency.”) So although Judge Sutton agrees that protection is granted for certain, specifically defined and limited protected activities, it appears that Mr. Grove interpreted these protections to extend to ALL activities of and by himself .

In other words, it appears that Richard tried to pull a “Fight Club.”

While no whistle was truly blown, according to the case file, the threat of doing so apparently held for Mr. Grove a prima facie production value. But this is a far cry from the half-truth narration provided in this documentary, which states:

“These events happened, slightly outside of the ‘Statute of Limitations.'” (20/20 Part 5 05:35)

–=–

And speaking of narrators (of the film), inconceivably, Richard’s fiance’ Lisa Arbercheski then applied for a job at Legato about three months (in 2004) after this termination. For those that wish to do the search, Lisa’s court documents are also online, as is Richard Andrew Grove’s resume’, where we see his employment cycle to change about every 6-18 months. But due to their litigious nature, we will only stick to the public case at hand so that this information as presented should not be mistaken as either a personal attack or at all libelous.

The court case briefly addresses Mr. Groves claims as such:

“Each instance of Grove’s asserted protected activity is analyzed below…”

a. Revenue Forecasting Formula

“Since Grove believed, and a person with comparable expertise and knowledge would have reasonably believed, that the tenfold inflation of revenue forecasts constituted fraud against EMC’s shareholders, I find that Grove engaged in protected activity when he raised his concerns over the revenue forecasts initially to Giametta, and eventually to EMC management via the November 4, 2003 email. See Platone at 17 (“an employee’s disclosure that the company is materially misstating its financial condition to investors is entitled to protection under the Act”).” (Page 23) [emphasis added]

b. Grove’s Telephone Call to the SEC

“Grove testified that he contacted attorney Kevin Gross of the SEC in October of 2003 and “identified numerous events of anomalous activity […] GAAP violations.” He also informed Gross “about one-off side letters and side agreements” and asked whether such arrangements were legal. Grove further informed Gross of his belief that “the illicit formulae, if you will, were being used at the highest level of Legato to make executive decisions.” (Page 23) [emphasis added]

“Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. On these facts, one might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency. (Pages 23-24) [emphasis added]

Case C. The Bank of Tokyo Transaction

“I find that his communications with Legato officials about this deal were not protected.” (Page 24-25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Again we can compare here the facts of the case with the spin of Richard Andrew Grove…

To be clear, and according to his online resume, Mr. Grove is a salesman, listing “spin selling” at the end of his resume’ as one of his specialized “sales training” skills.

Just what is spin selling? A brief description is here inserted for the readers consideration:

(Neil Rackham, SPIN Selling, McGraw Hill, 1996) – An absolute classic (originally published in 1987 as ‘Making Major Sales’ which shows through massive research how classic sales techniques fail miserably in big-business, and that you can get greater success by asking a sequence Situation, Problem, Implication and Need-Payoff questions. See also the review of this book…

Neil Rackham, in this classic book shows how classic sales techniques such as closing and objection-handling can actually reduce your chance of selling, especially in big business-to-business sales situations, where buyers are savvy to the classic tricks.

Overall, the method, like many other approaches, is a ‘hurt and rescue’ approach. You find their problem and ‘hurt’ them by exposing the terrible things that might happen (spot the use of tension). Then you rescue them with your product.

The four question types are described below. There’s much more detail in the original book, with even more practical detail in the SPIN Selling Fieldbook.

Situation questions

In big sales, minimize the small talk and focus on finding background detail that can be used to make sense of the buyer’s business situation. Context creates meaning. This is about understanding the wider context before you zoom into the details.

Problem questions

Ask questions to uncover problems which your product can address. If you are selling tractors, ask about maintenance costs, breakdowns and so on. If you are selling life insurance, ask about how many dependents the person has.

A trap here is to dive straight into presenting the benefits of what you are selling. You may know the problem, but they do not! Going straight to the sales pitch will just get you objections.

Implication questions

Instead of telling them the problem they have (which is also likely to raise objections), the goal is now to get them to see (and feel!) the problem. By asking questions which draw out the implications of the problem, they get to feel the pain that will drive them towards your product. This is the ‘hurt’ of Hurt and Rescue.

For example, the person selling tractors might ask about implications of unplowed fields whilst the life insurance salesperson could carefully ask what would happen to the children if the target person died or became very ill.

Need-Payoff questions

Having hurt the target person with your implications, you now give them a straw to grasp at by asking how their pain could be resolved. With careful questions, you can get them to the state where they are asking for your product even before you show it to them. This is a very neat ‘rescue‘ of Hurt and Rescue, where they either rescue themselves or ask you to rescue them.

For example, the tractor sales person can ask how much better the tractor was like when it was new, or whether any of the farmer’s neighbors have solved problems of old and problematic tractors. The insurance sales person could ask questions that build pictures of the target person’s children being safe and secure whatever curve-balls the world might throw at the family.

Overall, this is a superb salesperson’s book, particularly if you are engaged in Relationship Selling and a must-have for persuaders in all professions. If it’s not in your bookshelf, it’s probably because it’s in your hand!

Link–>http://changingminds.org/books/book_reviews/spin.htm

–=–

If we apply these sales techniques to what we have seen so far, we may understand better the disposition of Mr. Grove during this misadventure on all levels. And for that matter, we might even conjecture that Mr. Grove’s web forum Tragedy & Hope could be renamed as Hurt and Rescue.

Case D.  The Northrop Grumman Account.

“Grove argues that he engaged in protected activity when he reported anomalies and “side-letter deals” in Legato’s Northrop Grumman account.” – (Page 25)

“It is clear from context that the complaints that Grove raised with Legato officials concerned his compensation rather than GAAP or any other perceived violations of securities laws. Consequently, these communications, like those in relation to the Bank of Tokyo transaction, were not protected by Sarbanes-Oxley. (page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Let’s compare that to the statements by Richard Andrew Grove in this documentary again, where he sells this case with phrases like, “The other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making… The events I claimed did in fact take place… Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court, put in court, including “Project Constellation Exhibit #7″… What you said is true (referring to the judge referring to RAG), but it happened slightly outside of the “statute of limitations”… These events happened, they are true, they are factual…”

You may know the problem, but they (your audience) do not!

e. Legato Product Functionality.

Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed. (Page 25)

There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue. (Page 25) [emphasis added]

f. The November 4, 2003 Email.

“Though the contributing factor standard places only a relatively low hurdle in the path of a Sarbanes-Oxley complainant, it is one that Grove cannot surmount on this record. That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” (Page 26) [emphasis added]

“When Grove’s post-November 4, 2003 conduct is balanced against EMC’s legitimate interest in investigating his reports of serious corporate misconduct and fraud and in having its employees engage in productive work, the scale tips decisively in EMC’s favor.” (Page 28, 29) [emphasis added]

“It appears that Grove refused to cooperate with EMC’s attempt to investigate his disclosures because he wanted to deal, at least initially, with someone from the HR department instead of the corporation’s general counsel. In view of the fact that he specifically raised issues of fraud in connection with Legato’s revenue forecasting and recognition practices, I find that Grove’s refusal to meet with EMC’s general counsel despite being instructed to do so by both Sill, an HR representative and Tucci, EMC’s CEO, was patently unreasonable, especially where he has offered no evidence that he had a valid reason to be wary of Dacier based on any past dealings. Also unreasonable was Grove’s belief that he could unilaterally declare that he had “entered protected activity” and then not perform his job without any repercussions. Considering the circumstances (i.e., that he had approached EMC directly with his disclosures, representing that he wished to discuss them internally so as to avoid outside intervention, but then engaged in a course of stalling and dissembling that he was not cooperating on the advice of legal counsel),  I find that Grove’s conduct after November 4, 2003 is indefensible and, therefore, not entitled to protection under Sarbanes-Oxley… Indeed, his unreasonable refusal to cooperate in EMC’s investigation of the issues that he raised is the antithesis of the type of employee conduct that the Congress sought to encourage and protect when it wrote section 806.33 (Page 28-29) [emphasis added]

“The evidence in this case shows that Grove’s protected activity served to save him from termination in November of 2003 and that his subsequent unprotected actions caused his termination on January 15, 2004… Therefore, I conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment at EMC. (page 29) [emphasis added]

The Final Court Order:  (FCR)

“Since Grove’s complaint is untimely with respect to his allegations of retaliation prior to his January 15, 2004 termination, and since he has failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to his allegation of unlawful termination and post-termination retaliation, his complaint under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is DISMISSED in its entirety… SO ORDERED.” (Page 30) [emphasis added]

–=–

But wait, Mr. Grove claims, “The other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making… The events I claimed did in fact take place… Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court... These events happened, they are true, they are factual…”

Spin selling…

–=–
An Appeal To No Appeal?
–=–

As one final exhibit, let us examine the reason (or lack thereof) that no appeal was filed.

In the film, Mr. Verge asks the leading question: “So there’s no “appeals” process?”

In answer, Mr. Grove responds accordingly:

“Well I can continue appealing but, after you’ve already seen what happens; you go in an put it all on the record and it’s all right there, they just do not want to… they’re not going to decide against a multi-billion dollar corporation, whose founder is the ambassador of Ireland to Ireland for president Bush at that time. Right? Or, I believe he might have stepped down at that time as an ambassador at that point, but he was still Bush buddies, and Bush was still in office, so… (raises hands in air in defeat).” (part 6 – 5:46 – 6:11)

–=–

So now George Bush is to blame? I see… Is that not a fallacious appeal to authority, a red herring, and a lame excuse? After all, Richard is the guy who gave up everything to be a whistle-blower, so why would he quit so easily after giving up so much? Doesn’t really make sense. If money and the funding of the appeal would have been the excuse invoked, at least it would have been believable and on par with his drive to “blow the whistle.” But he just  quits without appealing because of a loose connection to President Bush, which without irony and in the same sentence he also disassociates his own claim about that connection?

Let’s look and see, just so there’s no confusion of facts:

• Richard J. Egan
  • Title: Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
  • Appointment: August 29, 2001
  • Presentation of Credentials: September 10, 2001
  • Termination of Mission: January 31, 2003
    –Source: Wikipedia, entry for “United States Ambassador To Ireland”

–=–

Grove’s termination date: January 15th, 2004.

So we know that Bush has nothing to do with this. Just more fallacious spin. In fact, I should point out here that government makes quite a profit off of charging big corporations fines and penalties. It really par for the course, and part of the business model.

But was the question actually answered?

Well, the stated question, which was worded as more of a declaratory statement, perhaps even to fool the viewer with spin, was: “So there’s no “appeals” process?”

For the actual answer, let’s merely consult the instructions listed on the court document in question so as to clear up any misconceptions that our hero whistle-blower could appeal if he chose to.

“NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS”

“To appeal, you must file a Petition for Review (“Petition”) with the Administrative Review Board (“Board”) within ten (10) business days of the date of the administrative law judge’s decision. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(a). The Board’s address is: Administrative Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4309, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. Your Petition is considered filed on the date of its postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication; but if you file it in person, by hand-delivery or other means, it is filed when the Board receives it. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(c). Your Petition must specifically identify the findings, conclusions or orders to which you object. Generally, you waive any objections you do not raise specifically. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(a).”

“At the time you file the Petition with the Board, you must serve it on all parties as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-North, Washington, DC 20001-8002. The Petition must also be served on the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.”

“If no Petition is timely filed, the administrative law judge’s decision becomes the final order of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1980.109(c). Even if you do file a Petition, the administrative law judge’s decision becomes the final order of the Secretary of Labor unless the Board issues an order within thirty (30) days after the Petition is filed notifying the parties that it has accepted the case for review. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1980.109(c) and 1980.110(a) and (b).” (page 30)

–=–

Let’s be candid for a moment…

This case was not a case of whistle-blowing, for no whistle was actually blown. This was a case of wrongful termination where damages were sought in monetary compensation. And so it would seem that all of this mountain of 1,000’s of pages of evidence amounting to corruption and theft by these corporations and the software in question were merely sideline items, not introduced to place the company in responsibility and punishment, but instead for the purposes of showing only wrongful termination in an attempt to obtain some unjust compensation from a former employer, presented under the pretense of the protections of the Sarbanes Oxley law, which obviously does not apply to “unreasonable refusal to cooperate in EMC’s investigation of the issues…” for which the judge declared to be “the antithesis of the type of employee conduct” that would be protected by said congressional law. It would seem that this was not a whistle-blower case at all, in fact. And it would therefore seem that this documentary “evidence” presented in media form by the Tragedy & Hope corporation has no basis in the reality of what actually happened. It seems the evidence was never actually considered, in other words, in any fashion or actual case regarding the blowing of a whistle… at least not in this case.

That is to say that there would be no reason for Mr. Grove to file an appeal, for the evidence against him is so overwhelmingly damning. And it seems that he never actually filed a case pertinent to only the corruption, but instead only for his own disposition in the action. There was no appeal to his whistle-blower status or to this case because there was no action taken on Mr. Grove’s part qualified to be under whistle-blower status, at least according to the SEC and the judge in this administrative case.

And so it seems that this mountain of evidence implicating these companies was merely a tool for spin selling, for psychological warfare, and not an actual attempt at whistle-blowing.

And to that there is no appeal… except the fallacious appeals of victimization and heroism to the public and to fans.

Again I state here that if these presumptions and conclusions are incorrect, based on the official evidence provided, I will gladly alter and correct any mistakes in this document and apologize publicly for my incorrectness or mistaken speculation. I’ll only need the evidence of that being the case. But litigious threats, personal attacks, and more spin wont help in that cause.

–=–
In Conclusion
–=–

If there is one thing that needs to happen within this community of those who seek the reality of things, it must certainly be that all of our hero’s must be killed (figuratively speaking). Hero worship leads generally to acceptance of the hero’s claims not because of evidence, but because of that hero status – a personification of correctness based on the costume of legitimacy. But here we see that Captain Spin and his selling sidekicks are neither deserving of this hero (whistle-blower) status (not legally or in reality) nor of the trust that has been granted them because of this falsely presented persona. This whistle-swallower, as the judge refers to him, must not be placed upon any pedestal, be believed, or given some special credit or pass because of his claims, for no man’s pedestal should symbolically replace his burden of proof.

It appears that forums like Tragedy and Hope bring together similar hero’s of the alternative media in order to support one another in their individual claims, and to lend a sense of false security and projection of truthfulness – the Justice League of the truth movement. If anything, this evidence should be nothing more than a kick in the pants of the reader to prove everything and except nothing at face value, for the spin machine reaches into the depths of everything, even sometimes expressing itself from the most truthful among us. We live in a culture of spin, of false simulation, of a rejection of the painful reality of things. And even those seeking the truth often find the one that may best suit their own world view, creating our own truths without evincing them and while dismissing that which causes the most pain, which just happens to usually be the reality of things.

As to this particular case, we obviously have a direct contradiction between the reality and the spin. We have a documentary film called “20/20 Hindsight – Censorship on the Frontline,” which of course is created by and includes exclusively the supposed hero’s and victims of Mr. Grove’s corporate Tragedy & Hope gang. We can listen to Mr. Grove appearing on many radio shows warning us about the “economic nefarious activities” that stem from a piece of Sarbanes Oxley software that has a “backdoor,” which allows corrupt corporations to “hide decisions which imperil our democracy.” This video was presented as the incredible story of a heroic, self-sacrificing, and victimized whistle-blower. Yet the official court record shows that the whistle was picked up, seemingly used as a weapon of trickery in pursuance of “compensation,” but not actually “blown” in any official capacity according to the story told.

Perhaps most disturbing was the notion of an appeal to pity made by Grove to the audience that being a whistle-blower is dangerous and will make us a victim like himself. To the reader I say nonsense! Grove’s case, in fact and according to the record, was not even a true whistle-blower case!

It is also apparent, in consideration of the case itself and in listening to the rhetoric of Mr. Grove in this documentary film 7 years later, that much of the legal knowledge expressed by Mr. Grove was likely learned after-the-fact of the case in question, helping the spin process at least sound a bit more legitimate.

Mr. Grove is on record as personally testifying that he did not in any correct (legal) capacity bring up these issues with the SEC which would have extended any shield of whistle-blower protection; and the court record shows that he never raised the issue with his employer, EMC, except in a vague and questionably tactical rhetoric that would seem to be put forth only to induce a personal gain despite his questionable employment record. And the judge certainly admonishes publicly this notion in this public case.

So the question must be asked in support of this overwhelming evidence against this video presentation’s apparent spinning of the facts… why was this video made?

Let’s reconsider the facts:

“Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. On these facts, one might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency. (Page 23 – 24) [emphasis added]

“There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. (Page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Any reasonable and therefore neutral observer of these facts, even and especially the most ardent “fan” of these filmmakers and mostly of Mr. Grove, must ask the same painful question: why is this video about “whistle-blowing” when in fact and in the official evidence no whistle was ever really blown?

I can’t answer that question, and only put forth here the idea that it and the other inquiries posed here certainly should be asked, and the answers should be demanded before any more “media” is accepted from these apparent spin-masters. Quotes from Richard Andrew Grove claim vehemently that he risked everything, including a six-figure job and the sacrifice of never having a house or children. But the facts don’t support the claims.

If only he had just been a good employee…

Then again, if only he had actually blown the whistle…

One final note:

–=–

 “You are the central
nervous system of the planet –
spread this everywhere”

–Richard Andrew Grove, quoted from
“20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline”

–=–

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, July 18th, 2015