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

Prev Next Index