Wrenstreetcarpark
New Member
I am pretty certain that both the charity and council will have appointed some high powered accountants and lawyers to help them deal with SISU. They have had plenty of experience as to how SISU operate and are fore warned.
Even if they have, and it would be surprising if they hadn't, they are having to deal with a bucket load of mercury tipped on a sloping board, or a bag full of snakes: take your pick, but dealing with Sisu can be no picnic. If Mutton does come out in public when Sisu press his buttons it can't be a surprise. Maybe it is what they want, another diversion.
The judges summing up on an earlier thread really shows what they are having to deal with:
Ms Seppala was the least satisfactory of all the witnesses. I fear Ms Seppala has a
distorted recollection of some events – particularly about what happened at the meetings
in New York in January 2005 – and, with the benefit of hindsight, has introduced a “spin”
(I am sorry not to be able to find a better word) which suits the Applicants’ case. She is
also prone to exaggerate – the Respondents would characterise it as lying, but I give her
the benefit of the doubt on that – for instance her suggestion (eventually withdrawn by
her) that Mr Wallace had “continually” represented to the Applicants that the RCF Banks
had a strong direct claim against TXU Corp when in fact he never said that at all. She also
recollects (and she may well have believed what she was saying) events which did not, as
I conclude, take place (namely a conversation with Mr Wallace “in a small room” and Mr
Olin reading and explaining a position paper in New York on 11 January 2005.
I repeat it without apology because at the centre of all of this is Joy Seppala, and this is her track record.