Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 62
1 I know that in this case I made no such commitments,
2 therefore, could not have breached them. But, on a more
3 broad issue, it is just flatly incorrect that my method of
4 litigation was to threaten the press. They may have
5 thought the press was important. It is my observation
6 that companies that spend millions of dollars to create a
7 perception or a misperception in the American public's
8 eyes do not wish press reports that might cast doubts on
9 those misperceptions. But, as a matter of practice,
10 I never threatened to go to the press. I never said to
11 any company, including McDonald's: "If you do not do
12 this, we will get bad press for you". It was there,
13 I knew it, but I thought it was an extremely inappropriate
14 hammer for me to use as a State official. I thought it
15 was while legal, while ethical for me to make such
16 threats, I thought it would have been unprofessional and
17 inappropriate for me to do so. Other enforcement
18 officials chose just the opposite and I did not quibble
19 with them, but as a matter honour with me I did not want
20 to use a consideration that was by the way.
21
22 I would threaten litigation because that was my job to
23 bring it if the company would not agree to comply with the
24 law and to correct its past errors in that direction, but
25 I did not threaten anything as to press. It is a
26 makeweight argument that is manufactured and told to this
27 court out of the whole cloth.
28
29 Q. There were some press releases referred to when
30 Mr. Horwitz was giving evidence. Would you personally
31 have been responsible for those press releases?
32 A. It was a rare instance at the Texas Attorney General's
33 office that I would even see a press release before it
34 went out. I did not have any recollection of the press
35 release from Attorney General Mattox until I saw it.
36 Similarly, I mean, all of the letters that I have reviewed
37 I had not looked at in five or six years and could not
38 have quoted you what was in them. But when I looked at
39 them I recollected them. When I saw McDonald's transcript,
40 or whatever, of the press release, other than noting that
41 this was clearly from McDonald's (because the press
42 secretary's name was misspelled) I did not have any
43 recollection of having ever seen that. It might have come
44 my way. I likely would not have read. I did not care
45 what the office said to the press by way of a press
46 release, because that was not my job. My job was to deal
47 with companies such as McDonald's that had violated the
48 law.
49
50 Q. I have another reference here but it is not the right one.
51
52 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just the put the allegation of Mr. Horwitz.
53
54 MS. STEEL: I cannot remember what it is, but the note was
55 something to the effect of -- it is on the same point --
56 Mr. Gardner had read a press release over the phone to
57 them that -- I cannot remember exactly where it is, so
58 I cannot check exactly what was said.
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do you ever remember reading -- can you
