K
keith
Even better: Tobacco
And pay through the nose in civil penalties. The officers of may
corporations are doing time for illegal activities, as well.
Even better: Tobacco
And pay through the nose in civil penalties. The officers of may
corporations are doing time for illegal activities, as well.
K
keith
You bloody fool! They *are* going to jail.
If people are vesting all their wealth in one place they deserve what they
get. The Enron fools were just that. Sure, throw the criminals in
jail, but stop the pity-party for absolute idiots.
K
keith
A corporation is in fact an entity anywhere, whether they want to admit
it or not. It is a method of limiting liability for the owners, since
they don't have control of the day-to-day operation of the corporation.
Thus, the corporation is the entity.
"The requested document does not exist on this server"
A corporation *CANNOT* lie. Only people can lie. You people are nutz!
K
keith
Well, duh! If the author is this dumb, the rest of what's written is just
as suspect. A *corporation* doesn't have a will, consience, or guilt.
Only people have those attributes. As such, a corporation cannnot violate
a law, only people can. A corporation (its owners) can be held liable for
civil damage, but not criminal.
Good grief, we have a world full of nitwits here!
R
Robert Redelmeier
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith said:
Interestingly, some (Australian?) companies didn't have limited
liability. The owners could be made to pay if the company
went bankrupt. Stocks would trade at negative prices -- the
buyer would be given money to take over the registration of
the shares. Sort of like a "capital call" on Lloyds "names".
-- Robert
A
Alan Walpool
keith> You're being silly. Corporations don't have a body and as such
keith> it makes no sense to "send 'em to jail". A coroporation has no
keith> ethics, and no morals. People do. However the *officers*
keith> (people) of said corporations are indeed sent to jail for
keith> breaking laws.
keith> You're simply being stupid. Corporations are a civil entity. I
keith> suppose you've never heard of a corporation being sued? See:
keith> tobacco.
keith> -- Keith
Well I not an expert but
http://www.wndu.com/news/062002/news_14635.php
Well no one went to jail however the corporation was found guilty by a
jury. The corporation had to close. Anyway the point is corporations
can be taken to court and punished. So I guess this means that a
corporation has ethics, and morals. Whatever ;-))
If this keeps up we will have to build special jails to hold the
corporations ;-)).
Laws are strange.
Alan
keith> it makes no sense to "send 'em to jail". A coroporation has no
keith> ethics, and no morals. People do. However the *officers*
keith> (people) of said corporations are indeed sent to jail for
keith> breaking laws.
keith> You're simply being stupid. Corporations are a civil entity. I
keith> suppose you've never heard of a corporation being sued? See:
keith> tobacco.
keith> -- Keith
Well I not an expert but
http://www.wndu.com/news/062002/news_14635.php
Well no one went to jail however the corporation was found guilty by a
jury. The corporation had to close. Anyway the point is corporations
can be taken to court and punished. So I guess this means that a
corporation has ethics, and morals. Whatever ;-))
If this keeps up we will have to build special jails to hold the
corporations ;-)).
Laws are strange.
Alan
L
leslie
keith ([email protected]) wrote:
: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:19:30 +0000, leslie wrote:
:
: > keith ([email protected]) wrote:
: > :
: > : Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act in the
: > : intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the officers first
: > : responsibility is to the owners.
: > :
: >
: > AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations,
: > in an 1886 Supreme Court Decision's head note, written by the court
: > reporter.
:
: A corporation is in fact an entity anywhere, whether they want to admit
: it or not. It is a method of limiting liability for the owners, since
: they don't have control of the day-to-day operation of the corporation.
: Thus, the corporation is the entity.
:
: > For more on this travesty, see:
: >
: > http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm Now Corporations
: > Claim The "Right To Lie"
:
: "The requested document does not exist on this server"
:
: A corporation *CANNOT* lie. Only people can lie. You people are nutz!
:
The people doing the lying claim that they are protected by their
corporation's First Amendment protection:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/269899.shtml
portland imc - 2003.08.16 - Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
"Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
author: FYI
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization.
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion
that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's
pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or
slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox
pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster
from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of
irate advertisers.
Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron
Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the
right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public
airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated"
by the verdict."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0421-09.htm
Nike Just Doesn't Do It
"...In the past, the Supreme Court has extended all manner of
constitutional protections to corporations. This despite the fact that
the Constitution nowhere mentions the word "corporation." In an
astounding act of legal prestidigitation, the Justices simply decreed
that corporations are "persons" and thus entitled to all the
safeguards of living, breathing humans. There has never been such a
breathtaking fiction in American law since the legal system justified
slavery in the nineteenth century by employing the myth that persons
are property. For the Supreme Court to rule that property - i.e.
corporations - are persons is equally extraordinary.
The true agenda of Nike and the legions of corporations supporting its
Supreme Court case is to use the Constitution, especially the First
Amendment, to subvert any attempts by the people and government to
control corporate behavior. Corporate lawyers have already argued that
the securities laws - the ones that require companies to report
numbers truthfully to investors - also violate corporate First
Amendment rights. Could there be a worse time in American history to
argue that the Constitution protects corporations' ability to deceive
workers, investors and consumers?..."
--Jerry Leslie
Note: (e-mail address removed) is invalid for email
: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:19:30 +0000, leslie wrote:
:
: > keith ([email protected]) wrote:
: > :
: > : Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act in the
: > : intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the officers first
: > : responsibility is to the owners.
: > :
: >
: > AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations,
: > in an 1886 Supreme Court Decision's head note, written by the court
: > reporter.
:
: A corporation is in fact an entity anywhere, whether they want to admit
: it or not. It is a method of limiting liability for the owners, since
: they don't have control of the day-to-day operation of the corporation.
: Thus, the corporation is the entity.
:
: > For more on this travesty, see:
: >
: > http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm Now Corporations
: > Claim The "Right To Lie"
:
: "The requested document does not exist on this server"
:
: A corporation *CANNOT* lie. Only people can lie. You people are nutz!
:
The people doing the lying claim that they are protected by their
corporation's First Amendment protection:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/269899.shtml
portland imc - 2003.08.16 - Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
"Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
author: FYI
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization.
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion
that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's
pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or
slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox
pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster
from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of
irate advertisers.
Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron
Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the
right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public
airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated"
by the verdict."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0421-09.htm
Nike Just Doesn't Do It
"...In the past, the Supreme Court has extended all manner of
constitutional protections to corporations. This despite the fact that
the Constitution nowhere mentions the word "corporation." In an
astounding act of legal prestidigitation, the Justices simply decreed
that corporations are "persons" and thus entitled to all the
safeguards of living, breathing humans. There has never been such a
breathtaking fiction in American law since the legal system justified
slavery in the nineteenth century by employing the myth that persons
are property. For the Supreme Court to rule that property - i.e.
corporations - are persons is equally extraordinary.
The true agenda of Nike and the legions of corporations supporting its
Supreme Court case is to use the Constitution, especially the First
Amendment, to subvert any attempts by the people and government to
control corporate behavior. Corporate lawyers have already argued that
the securities laws - the ones that require companies to report
numbers truthfully to investors - also violate corporate First
Amendment rights. Could there be a worse time in American history to
argue that the Constitution protects corporations' ability to deceive
workers, investors and consumers?..."
--Jerry Leslie
Note: (e-mail address removed) is invalid for email
L
leslie
keith ([email protected]) wrote:
: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:04:20 +0000, leslie wrote:
:
:
: >
: > Democracy is a value that the corporation just doesn't understand.
:
: Well, duh! If the author is this dumb, the rest of what's written is just
: as suspect. A *corporation* doesn't have a will, consience, or guilt.
: Only people have those attributes. As such, a corporation cannnot violate
: a law, only people can. A corporation (its owners) can be held liable for
: civil damage, but not criminal.
:
: Good grief, we have a world full of nitwits here!
:
No, you're just in total denial of the existence of corporate personhood.
--Jerry Leslie
Note: (e-mail address removed) is invalid for email
: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:04:20 +0000, leslie wrote:
:
:
: >
: > Democracy is a value that the corporation just doesn't understand.
:
: Well, duh! If the author is this dumb, the rest of what's written is just
: as suspect. A *corporation* doesn't have a will, consience, or guilt.
: Only people have those attributes. As such, a corporation cannnot violate
: a law, only people can. A corporation (its owners) can be held liable for
: civil damage, but not criminal.
:
: Good grief, we have a world full of nitwits here!
:
No, you're just in total denial of the existence of corporate personhood.
--Jerry Leslie
Note: (e-mail address removed) is invalid for email
R
Robert Redelmeier
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips leslie said:
Correct. She was fired for threatening to expose her
employers secrets.
Since those secrets were embarrassing, but not clearly illegal,
she doesn't get Whistleblower protection.
Had the case been filed differently, as someone who had
suffered from intentially misleading information, I expect
the outcome to be very different.
Enforcing employee fidelity is actually part of avoiding
prior restraint. Justice isn't about the good guys winning.
It's about maintaining order/predictability.
-- Robert
C
chrisv
keith said:
I thought the old saying was "put all your eggs in one basket".
M
Mike Smith
keith said:
All of 'em? You really think that most of the corporate execs who break
the law or harm the public end up in jail?
The fact that the victims were idiots (and many of them were) does not
make the guilty parties any less culpable.
R
RusH
Robert Redelmeier said:
1 not employers, bot the company who pays for commercials
2 media lie all the time - thats NO secret
there were no secrets
firing because you are going to tell the truth about monsano slowly
killing milions is ok ?
no, its all about chewbacca defense, and who has a bigger .. lawyer
Pozdrawiam.
R
Robert Redelmeier
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips RusH said:
I didn't see any mention that her expose' was of advertisers.
I don't think that would make the station nearly as angry as
an employee who was going to reveal internal secrets (that
they are biased).
The lies themselves are. And most of the media's
lies are rather subtle -- lies of omission (whole
stories or pertinent facts).
firing because you are going to tell the truth
about monsano slowly killing milions is ok ?
Had she gone to the USDA, FDA, or the police
she would have been protected. She wanted to
reveal trade secrets to the competition.
-- Robert
K
keith
That was the theme from those nitwits. At work people look at me like I
have a third eye when I tell them I have *zero* stock in the company. I
have had some for a few weeks here and there (cleaning up after dead
cats), but I have had too much invested in the company to have any green
money in there. I lost $50K twelve years ago and I'm not foolish
enoungh to compound that by tieing up green.
K
keith
Not all murders go to jail. Spare me the ignorance. The ones who are
caugh commiting crimes do go to jail. Many of what *you* consider to be a
crime aren't. However I'm sure you would enjoy being god. ...because
they piss *you* (or Dan Blather) off, you throw are the one to away the
key.
What the **** did I just say? What a maroon!
K
keith
No, corporations cannot have ethics, morals, or even sex! Corporations
are a legal fiction to protect capitolists. However the actions of
*officers* of these coporations can and are held accountable for their
actions.
....another stupid statement.
They really aren't alll that strange. Laws have been honed over the
past five or six centuries to creat a resonable society where people
can prosper. People are strange. ...and ignorant.
K
keith
You'll have to show me that one! AFAIK, Austrailian law comes from the
sample place as ours; English Common Law, which certainly does have the
concept of limited-liability (LLC).
In the dark ages this was true. I challenge you to find this in law in
the last two hundred years (outside Cicily, ...or Chicago
.
K
keith
You simply an excess of unchecked ignorance.
R
RusH
Robert Redelmeier said:
Monsanto != Fox News
Somethink that is DOCUMENTED in many European publications is by no
means a trade secret, especially if those are scientific research
documents of regulatory bodies in Canada, New Zealand, and the European
Union.
Pozdrawiam.
R
Robert Redelmeier
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips RusH said:
Precisely. She was going to reveal that her employer, Fox,
knowingly broadcast information they knew was false. Which
information is of secondary importance and wouldn't have raised
much of a stink. GMO is largely accepted in the USA.
See above. The trade secret is that her employer was
very cavalier with the veracity of their reporting.
-- Robert