- 12 -
$300,000 credit facility was available for the contract. During
the meeting petitioner allegedly asked Mr. Griffin "how he [Mr.
Griffin] could publish this letter with what was clearly a
misleading statement in it to a government official", and whether
he had any "appreciation for the harm" done to petitioner by that
statement. Petitioner considered the statement about the
available credit facility to be "false" and "misleading" because
he assumed that the statement referred to the credit facility set
up by Signet, which credit facility could only be used in
connection with the HUD contract. Petitioner claims that he was
concerned about the possibility of somehow being held accountable
for what he believed to be the misstatement. He further claims
that due to the above-described experience with his prior
employer, he was concerned that he might be sued, or otherwise
suffer some damage or harm to his professional reputation.
Nothing in petitioner's version of the meeting suggests that
future commissions were discussed.
Mr. Griffin's version of the meeting focuses on petitioner's
employment performance and employment contract. According to Mr.
Griffin, petitioner voluntarily resigned because he agreed that
his performance had not met CMS's expectations. According to Mr.
Griffin, during the meeting petitioner indicated that he had
contacted certain financial institutions, and claimed entitlement
to potential future commissions that would result if CMS secured
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011