Perjury probe on Cathay execs over 49ers trial
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perjury probe on Cathay execs over 49ers trial
Perjury probe on Cathay execs over 49ers trial
Two Cathay Pacific executives are being investigated for allegedly lying during a trial over the airline's unfair dismissal of 49 pilots in 2001.
MaryAnnBenitez
The Standard
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Two Cathay Pacific executives are being investigated for allegedly lying during a trial over the airline's unfair dismissal of 49 pilots in 2001.
The complaint pertains to statements made at the trial last year by director of flight operations Nick Rhodes and industrial relations manager Zdenek Kroutil.
They said there are no documents relating to the July 2001 meetings of a Cathay review team that decided to dismiss the pilots.
Police received a report of perjury in December.
"The case is being investigated by the district crime squad of Central district. No arrest has been made at this stage," a spokesman said.
In November, the High Court ruled Cathay Pacific behaved wrongly in firing dozens of pilots in 2001. Seventeen pilots are now in line for up to HK$3.5 million in damages for being defamed by the airline when it sacked them and 32 other pilots - a group known as "the 49ers."
The dismissals came after years of wrangling over rosters and flying hours, with stepped-up industrial action in the wind.
Court of First Instance judge Anselmo Reyes also singled out current chief executive and then director of corporate development Tony Tyler, and Philip Chen Nan-lok, then chief operating officer and now chairman of John Swire & Sons (China), for making damaging statements against the pilots, including "holding Hong Kong to ransom."
The ruling is being appealed.
According to the complaint, Rhodes and Kroutil said documents for management meetings held over three days in July 2001 were destroyed after that year.
But subsequently they produced a crew list related to the same meetings, printed out in 2004, a source told The Standard.
Asked to comment on the complaint, Rhodes said he was "not aware of any perjury suit." Kroutil could not be reached.
The source said it is believed that during the trial last October, Rhodes and Kroutil "did not tell the truth while giving evidence under oath ... regarding some documents, in effect, committed perjury."
In court transcripts made available to The Standard, Rhodes said: "We weren't trying to be evasive. There were no documents attached to the meeting."
But there were various lists of crew as the only agenda item was to review whether they were working in Cathay's best interests, he adds.
Kroutil told the court that they were advised to delete the lists of crew, and so he did not keep a copy.
Two Cathay Pacific executives are being investigated for allegedly lying during a trial over the airline's unfair dismissal of 49 pilots in 2001.
MaryAnnBenitez
The Standard
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Two Cathay Pacific executives are being investigated for allegedly lying during a trial over the airline's unfair dismissal of 49 pilots in 2001.
The complaint pertains to statements made at the trial last year by director of flight operations Nick Rhodes and industrial relations manager Zdenek Kroutil.
They said there are no documents relating to the July 2001 meetings of a Cathay review team that decided to dismiss the pilots.
Police received a report of perjury in December.
"The case is being investigated by the district crime squad of Central district. No arrest has been made at this stage," a spokesman said.
In November, the High Court ruled Cathay Pacific behaved wrongly in firing dozens of pilots in 2001. Seventeen pilots are now in line for up to HK$3.5 million in damages for being defamed by the airline when it sacked them and 32 other pilots - a group known as "the 49ers."
The dismissals came after years of wrangling over rosters and flying hours, with stepped-up industrial action in the wind.
Court of First Instance judge Anselmo Reyes also singled out current chief executive and then director of corporate development Tony Tyler, and Philip Chen Nan-lok, then chief operating officer and now chairman of John Swire & Sons (China), for making damaging statements against the pilots, including "holding Hong Kong to ransom."
The ruling is being appealed.
According to the complaint, Rhodes and Kroutil said documents for management meetings held over three days in July 2001 were destroyed after that year.
But subsequently they produced a crew list related to the same meetings, printed out in 2004, a source told The Standard.
Asked to comment on the complaint, Rhodes said he was "not aware of any perjury suit." Kroutil could not be reached.
The source said it is believed that during the trial last October, Rhodes and Kroutil "did not tell the truth while giving evidence under oath ... regarding some documents, in effect, committed perjury."
In court transcripts made available to The Standard, Rhodes said: "We weren't trying to be evasive. There were no documents attached to the meeting."
But there were various lists of crew as the only agenda item was to review whether they were working in Cathay's best interests, he adds.
Kroutil told the court that they were advised to delete the lists of crew, and so he did not keep a copy.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Israel
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, Messrs. Rhodes and Kroutil alleged manipulators of the truth?
Never!
Incidentally, there are some choice bits of alleged truth manipulation by Kroutil at the S.O BBP tribunal hearing.
For instance when he stated that his department had nothing to do with the selection of S.Os for assessment. A statement flatly denied by Capt. A Wilson.
But I digress....
Never!
Incidentally, there are some choice bits of alleged truth manipulation by Kroutil at the S.O BBP tribunal hearing.
For instance when he stated that his department had nothing to do with the selection of S.Os for assessment. A statement flatly denied by Capt. A Wilson.
But I digress....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure there were many statements made which were not entirely correct, however just taking the issue in the article, they were probably right in that at the time they knew of no documents about the meeting. I think they would have assumed that everyone destroyed the copies of the crew lists and that they had no idea IW kept a copy secretly. I'd also imagine that when they thought of the word 'document' they were probably thinking about minutes of the meeting.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that is the case then they should have said that during the trial, which they didn't, which is perjury. They were asked about what documents where present because the 49ers lawyer specifically wanted such documents. By denying the existence of such documents which they knew existed, they lied. They withheld evidence which could have affected the outcome of the trial and they did so because they feel that they are above the law.
Can't wait to see these degenerates taken away in cuffs.
Can't wait to see these degenerates taken away in cuffs.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't wait to see these degenerates taken away in cuffs
What about an ex-DFO and an ex-Basings Manager who, if I recall correctly, said the same thing in a court in the UK? 
AAR
AAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Wikipedia, the free encylopedia
Pseudologia fantastica, mythomania, or pathological lying, is one of several terms applied by psychiatrists to the behavior of habitual or compulsive lying. It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck. One definition of pathological lying is the following: "Pathological lying is falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime."
Characteristics
The defining characteristics of pseudologia fantastica are that, first, the stories are not entirely improbable and often have some element of truth. They aren't a manifestation of delusion or some wider form of psychosis: upon confrontation, they can't acknowledge them to be untrue, even if unwillingly. Second, the fabricative tendency is long lasting; it is not provoked by the immediate situation or social pressure as much as it originates with the person's innate urge to act in accordance. Third, the stories told tend towards presenting the person in question in a good light. For example, the person might be presented as being fantastically brave, knowing or being related to many famous people.
Characteristics
The defining characteristics of pseudologia fantastica are that, first, the stories are not entirely improbable and often have some element of truth. They aren't a manifestation of delusion or some wider form of psychosis: upon confrontation, they can't acknowledge them to be untrue, even if unwillingly. Second, the fabricative tendency is long lasting; it is not provoked by the immediate situation or social pressure as much as it originates with the person's innate urge to act in accordance. Third, the stories told tend towards presenting the person in question in a good light. For example, the person might be presented as being fantastically brave, knowing or being related to many famous people.
Last edited by 6feetunder; 13th Mar 2010 at 18:29.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRIMES ORDINANCE(Hong Kong) - SECT 31
Perjury
If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter, either
generally or in a particular judicial proceeding, wilfully makes a statement
in any judicial proceeding which is material in that proceeding and which he
knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of
perjury and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for
7 years and to a fine.
Perjury
If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter, either
generally or in a particular judicial proceeding, wilfully makes a statement
in any judicial proceeding which is material in that proceeding and which he
knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of
perjury and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for
7 years and to a fine.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porky Pies!
Would you believe it. The DFO and his little friend Sten have been interviewed at Central Police Station.
They allegedly lied under oath during the recent 49er's trial.
The DFO telling lies?
Surely not!
They allegedly lied under oath during the recent 49er's trial.
The DFO telling lies?
Surely not!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Goes Around - Comes Around
If there are charges precipitating from this sorry chapter of Cathay history - I hope the concerned individuals are picked up at work and escorted off the premises in full view of the work force and management at Cathay City. Humiliation, degradation, depression, the fracture of families, loss of livelihood - loss of life - those involved in the perpetration of this act of industrial terrorism sold their souls in the pursuit of long term higher yields. The memory is fresh for me - like it happened yesterday.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Add another
What about the Screaming Skull ? Will he receive a subpoena and take the stand ? And if so, who will run Austrlia's civil aviation safety authority while he is back in town catching up with his old gang in the courtroom ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6feetunder
From here: Plagiarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As was this from here: Pseudologia fantastica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."[1] Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure, up to and including expulsion. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination of employment. Some individuals caught plagiarizing in academic or journalistic contexts claim that they plagiarized unintentionally, by failing to include quotations or give the appropriate citation. While plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old history, the development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much easier.