Comments on: Frederick Gulson http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/ Blogging U.S. vs. Philip Morris, Inc. Fri, 18 May 2012 04:59:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Krueger http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-91688 Krueger Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:12:43 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-91688 An update: Tobacco giant bid to oust judge Business Day November 26 2009 http://www.smh.com.au/business/tobacco-giant-bid-to-oust-judge-20091125-jrt1.html Summary: BAT's document destruction continues to be a key issue in tobacco litigation, and Gulson may be called as a key witness in another case. An update:

Tobacco giant bid to oust judge
Business Day
November 26 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/business/tobacco-giant-bid-to-oust-judge-20091125-jrt1.html

Summary: BAT’s document destruction continues to be a key issue in tobacco litigation, and Gulson may be called as a key witness in another case.

]]> By: Krueger http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-91687 Krueger Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:10:00 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-91687 My, my. How reminiscent of the sliming of Wigand by BAT. You don't make yourself an enemy of the tobacco industry without getting slimed, and usually worse. This is one reason for Wigand's and Gulson's reluctance to become whistleblowers. And honestly, it's a good reason: you don't want to put yourself and your family through that. There is a cost, and usually it's a big cost. You don't choose that lightly. My, my. How reminiscent of the sliming of Wigand by BAT. You don’t make yourself an enemy of the tobacco industry without getting slimed, and usually worse. This is one reason for Wigand’s and Gulson’s reluctance to become whistleblowers. And honestly, it’s a good reason: you don’t want to put yourself and your family through that. There is a cost, and usually it’s a big cost. You don’t choose that lightly.

]]> By: Nick Lawson http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-61268 Nick Lawson Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:01:15 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-61268 I hope that this helps to reveal the truth about the so called "Whistleblower" I hope that this helps to reveal the truth about the so called “Whistleblower”

]]> By: Nick Lawsom http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-61267 Nick Lawsom Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:59:20 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-61267 I think that if you want to know about the real Fred Gulson you should read the judgment by His Honour Justice Rares which is set out below: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2007/97.html See Para 136 - Mrs Gulson gave Dr Harris a note at that consultation in which she described her husband as aggressive, irrational, manic, inconsiderate, inappropriate, unable to be reasoned with, impulsive and abusive. She said that some day he ‘... will go over the top and hurt someone’. And she also said he was bullying, overtalking and would ‘only [have things] his way’. She recorded that he had been emotionally and verbally abusive and that he could not be reasoned with. She recorded that the family were all walking on eggshells and that Mr Gulson had ‘nil communication skills’. There were rules for him and then rules for everyone else. She said he was speeding in the car and threatening people. Can this be the same man?? Yes it can and is!! I think that if you want to know about the real Fred Gulson you should read the judgment by His Honour Justice Rares which is set out below: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2007/97.html

See Para 136 - Mrs Gulson gave Dr Harris a note at that consultation in which she described her husband as aggressive, irrational, manic, inconsiderate, inappropriate, unable to be reasoned with, impulsive and abusive. She said that some day he ‘… will go over the top and hurt someone’. And she also said he was bullying, overtalking and would ‘only [have things] his way’. She recorded that he had been emotionally and verbally abusive and that he could not be reasoned with. She recorded that the family were all walking on eggshells and that Mr Gulson had ‘nil communication skills’. There were rules for him and then rules for everyone else. She said he was speeding in the car and threatening people.

Can this be the same man??

Yes it can and is!!

]]> By: Krueger http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-6093 Krueger Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:43:24 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-6093 An update: Chistopher Dale, a senior partner at Clayton Utz at the time of these events, now names himself as the source of leaked internal documents in McCabe: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/lawyer-revealed-as-smoking-source/2007/01/27/1169788743200.html An update: Chistopher Dale, a senior partner at Clayton Utz at the time of these events, now names himself as the source of leaked internal documents in McCabe:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/lawyer-revealed-as-smoking-source/2007/01/27/1169788743200.html

]]> By: krueger http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-401 krueger Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:23:38 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/02/16/frederick-gulson/#comment-401 A blog on personal injury law takes a look at the McCabe case, the Eames decision, and tobacco litigation in general: Playing for keeps http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/schools/Law/apl/blog/stories/personalinjury/158.htm An excerpt: ...Time pressures in tobacco litigation are generated mostly by the tobacco companies themselves for their own advantage, quite deliberately and on several levels. Tobacco companies sell an extraordinarily profitable but lethal product which acts by addicting their customers and then killing many of them slowly (though unpredictably) over 20 years or more. Customers are unlikely to commence expensive litigation until they develop lung cancer, by which time they typically have only a year or two to live. That makes tobacco litigation relatively easy to defend (especially when you have billions of dollars from a huge addicted captive market, allowing you to employ the "best", most ruthless lawyers). All you have to do is create delay and obstruction (while professing only to be asserting your ordinary rights as a litigant) until your opponent dies... A blog on personal injury law takes a look at the McCabe case, the Eames decision, and tobacco litigation in general:

Playing for keeps
http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/schools/Law/apl/blog/stories/personalinjury/158.htm

An excerpt:

…Time pressures in tobacco litigation are generated mostly by the tobacco companies themselves for their own advantage, quite deliberately and on several levels. Tobacco companies sell an extraordinarily profitable but lethal product which acts by addicting their customers and then killing many of them slowly (though unpredictably) over 20 years or more. Customers are unlikely to commence expensive litigation until they develop lung cancer, by which time they typically have only a year or two to live.

That makes tobacco litigation relatively easy to defend (especially when you have billions of dollars from a huge addicted captive market, allowing you to employ the “best”, most ruthless lawyers). All you have to do is create delay and obstruction (while professing only to be asserting your ordinary rights as a litigant) until your opponent dies…

]]>