Slashdot Mirror

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-...

As an incentive for businesses to keep investing in R&D, the tax law provides favorable tax treatment for research and experimental costs. In most cases, you can currently deduct these costs or deduct them over five or ten years.

Government is funding research and development through tax incentives.
It's basically giving companies money to spend on playing around with LEGOs, trying to make a better mousetrap.
Why? Cause some of them work AND you get to keep and train a lot of experienced LEGO builders and other eggheads.
The kind of people who come up with better medicines and bigger bombs.

It's not the most efficient way of going about it, but the successful results get pumped straight into the economy and you save a lot on administration and planning costs.
Cause someone somewhere is probably developing something you don't even know you'll absolutely need in ten years.
Unlike monkeys on typewriters, scientists and engineers DO come up with useful things by just playing around with stuff all day.

Full disclosure, I am a critical care physician (4 yrs college, 4yrs med school, 3 yrs IM residency, 3 years critical care)

How much do you think the average doctor gets for prescribing an opioid? Doctors aren't pharmacies. Doctors aren't pharmaceutical companies. Doctors aren't insurance companies.

This is a really rough estimate......

Look long and hard look at this reimbursement schedule (also look at how poorly Medicaid pays). Pay attention to these 2:

Office Visit, Initial, New Patient Level 2 - $75 for ~20 minutes

Offiice Visit, Established Patient Level 2 - $45 or ~20 minutes

So 3 patients/hour x 8 hours//day

Lets say half the patients you see are these types of visits, and of those, half are a mix of new and establishes (never is, most are established) 1.5 patients/hour x 8 hours = 12 patients daily

6 will be established 6*75= $450

6 will be new. 6*45= $270

The other 12 patients? Maybe you can see 12 really sick (6 established, 6 new)

6 * 200 = $1200

6 * 150 = $900

Hopefully your day would be filled with more complex patients, but it doesn't really matter. A new "complex" patient that you spend 60 minutes with will get you $200 reimbursement. So this person, for internal medicine, who went to college for 4 years, medical school for 4 years, then 3 years for residency is getting patient by Medicare (and likely your insurance company) $200 to spend an hour with you. Unless you like in rural America, you probably wont get a lawyer to sit with you for that price (I put that link in there because I did all my training at the #1 hospital in the US, but docs aren't reimbursed like that) for an hour.

So a really good day you can make $2820. Or about $700,000 revenue /yr. Now start to subtract your staff, and the time writing notes and billing queries (insurance companies are always trying to undersell how sick someone is, docs are trying to make their patients look sicker etc..), rent, EMR costs, malpractice (about 15000/yr), blah blah.....

For me, I do critical care. I bill a "99291" code for spending up to 74 minutes bringing your nearly dead loved one pack to life. The reimbursement is $239. Really? It is pretty much the same amount as sitting and talking to your elderly loved on who has 4 or 5 outpatient medical problems.

The dirty secret in medicine is right now if you want to make money as a doctor you need to specialize and do procedures. Even with volume, the numbers still add up 1 60 minute visit gets you the same reimbursement as 3 20 minute visits. That is the only way to "make money" in the ways that are often thought about in the sense of doctors make money.

If anything I hope this shows you that after 11+ (minimum) years of training, doctors are definitely not overcompensated and if anything you can make the argument that compared to other, essentially lesser trainer specialities (lawyer, engineers etc...) their "hourly" rate is undervalued. That is not even taking into account that most doctors are graduating with $200,000 or $300,000 of student loan debt.

Shhh... Your ruining his narrative.

Grow some balls and stand up for your rights, like these guys:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08...
http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/...

Simply that human nature doesn't change that quickly and the separate facilities will soon be funded inequitably because of that.

Separate facilities are already funded inequitably because of the way school funding works in most areas.

By this logic of "It didn't work out like the theoretical model and still has a lot of inequality, so we should ban it" we should ban non-segregated schools I guess. Maybe ban public schools in general? I don't know. The logic of making something illegal because it didn't work as expected just doesn't make sense. It can work in principle, that's what counts.

If you're worried about a situation where public officials start making boys schools really awesome and girls schools really bad, then make THAT illegal. Put mechanisms in place to protect against THAT. Do you think that can't be done for some reason?

Show me any time in the past where that hasn't happened instead.

I know plenty of gender-segregated schools that seem to work out pretty well.

http://education-law.lawyers.c...

Gender-segregation was explicitly carved out as an exception to anti-discrimination laws. "If a private school gets federal funding, it can’t discriminate against a student based on his race, sex (unless it’s a single-sex school), national origin and religion."

There are plenty of single-sex schools that A) operate legally and B) even get federal money.

So clearly segregation works and is seen as "ok" in some cases.

Some quick links I found covering the issue.

Americans Living Abroad Becoming Trapped by Citizenship Based Tax Rules
Mayor Of London Boris Johnson Announces He'll Renounce U.S. Citizenship
When American Expats Donâ(TM)t Want Their Kids to Have U.S. Citizenship
Meet the 'accidental American' with a big tax bill
PwC suggests a check to see if you're an 'accidental American'
âAccidentalâ(TM) Americans Still Owe Income Tax

Actually, for most definitions of HR, it doesn't matter what they think about polygraph tests. In most cases, they aren't allowed to ask you to take one, and you can pretty much always refuse if they do.

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

While scripts aren't children, in any event parents are often held responsible for the actions of their children.

Check out this article.

According to this article, lawyers take more or less 25% of the total award. So the lawyers make $81 million, whereas the plaintiffs make $324M x 0.75 / 64,000 = $3800 each, roughly.

http://taxation.lawyers.com/income-tax/Tax-Deductions-for-Research-and-Experimental-Costs.html

R&D is a deductible expense when working on a product. Pharma works on products and rarely does any basic research.

So the costs are already accounted for.

The trials and testing are not accounted for as deductible expenses however.

A plan would need to a) make tests tax deductible or b) reduce the costs of testing / quality control.

I would argue that without accurate trial data to prove that the Pharma product is a viable product it would never go to market and therefore should be considered research on the product, fully deductible. If that is the case then we're all getting screwed twice and something should be done to fix that. If not then making it deductible in a sane way to reduce costs in the market would make sense.

Be interesting if people started making citizen's arrests for same, but I'm not holding my breath.

Perhaps for certain definitions of "interesting"....I don't think a citizen's arrest for a civil rights violation would hold up. Especially since the arresting "citizen" would likely need to commit a felony in the process.

As far as I can tell this is not actually true, at least not in the US. IANAL, but the people here seem to be. As long as you're not in any way an accessory before or after the fact, as long as you remain silent and don't misrepresent or obstruct the course of justice by lying about not seeing anything when you did and as long as the victim isn't in your custody like being the parent or guardian and you don't have a professional relationship like a teacher, doctor or psychologist who has extra legal obligations then there's no general legal requirement to report crime. Even the crime of misprision require you to conceal the crime, not mere failing to report it. If you're just a completely unrelated bystander, you can do nothing. Cheering them on would make you an accessory, though.

And in case you don't believe me read here. You only assume debt as a buyer if you agree to do so, it's a de facto merger, if the seller company is really just a continuation of the original company in that most of the people running it are the same or if you don't notify the sellers creditors in a reasonable time period before acquiring the assets.

This is not right. Subpoena literally means "under penalty". Failing to comply constitutes contempt of court.

http://research.lawyers.com/Subpoenas.html

Some written contracts may spell out how and when modifications can be made. For example, if you have a credit card, you signed a contract when applying for that card. The contract may have said that the credit card issuer could change the interest rate at its discretion. By signing the initial contract, you've already given the credit card issuer the right to make future changes.

Minnesota is only At Will if the employee doesn't hold a contract "directly [limiting] ... the employer's right to terminate the employee without cause." Could be it'll get overturned, or could be he's got something preventing this in his contract, and really has a case.

/IANAL and have no info on the case beyond TFA.

In another court, earlier this month, they decided that GPS tracking without a search warrant was an invasion of privacy and a verdict was overturned due to it.

http://www.lawyers.com/our-blog/archives/305-Tracking-Suspect-with-GPS-Ruled-Illegal-Search.html

Unfortunately the label is occasionally applied too broadly and in ways that probably weren't intended. Even if the charges and label get cleared, the financial costs would be great and the damage to one's reputation may not be repairable. It's hard enough to find people that RTFA, much less the follow up stories.

Find this hard to believe "If a parent takes a picture of their child in the bathtub, there is no intent to harm, and there will be no charges" http://family-law.lawyers.com/child-abuse-and-neglect/Baby-Pictures-or-Baby-Porn.html

http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Murder-During-the-Commission-of-a-Felony.html

Felony Murder Rule
Most forms of murder require an intent to commit death. Felony murder only requires the intent to commit the felony. During the course of the felony, any homicide will be considered murder, whether it's intentional or accidental. This is called the felony murder rule.

Under the felony murder rule, all participants of a felony can be charged with murder if a homicide occurs. This is true even if a participant isn't directly responsible for the death. For example, the driver of a getaway car can be charged with felony murder if his partner accidently shoots someone while attempting to rob a bank. The purpose for the felony murder rule is to deter people from engaging in felonies knowing that they can be liable for the actions of their partners.

How? This is relevant to my interests. I was arrested for having a valid ID from the wrong state recently and the charges were dropped before I got to the judge.

My guess is: By paying a lawyer.
In the future, you can ask google directly, (arrest record expunged) is what I searched for to get that FAQ.

I didn't Google it and I'm not a lawyer or work with law enforcement. I had this explained to me by the police after a robbery. If the intent is theft you can be charged with burglary; if not, at the least you can be charged with criminal trespass. It may be more complicated, or not, but the bottom line is it's not okay to enter another person's private residence (and it's not limited to private residence) without permission. Blaming someone for having an easily copied key or weak security doesn't and shouldn't imply they are at fault. This is where you original criticism of the victim is weak.

Here is a definition of "Breaking and Entering" from lawyers.com: Breaking and entering. Here is the definition of privilege from the same source. According to that site those definitions are based on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law. Here is another site that discusses burglary in regards to B&E: Burglary.

I didn't Google it and I'm not a lawyer or work with law enforcement. I had this explained to me by the police after a robbery. If the intent is theft you can be charged with burglary; if not, at the least you can be charged with criminal trespass. It may be more complicated, or not, but the bottom line is it's not okay to enter another person's private residence (and it's not limited to private residence) without permission. Blaming someone for having an easily copied key or weak security doesn't and shouldn't imply they are at fault. This is where you original criticism of the victim is weak.

Here is a definition of "Breaking and Entering" from lawyers.com: Breaking and entering. Here is the definition of privilege from the same source. According to that site those definitions are based on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law. Here is another site that discusses burglary in regards to B&E: Burglary.

If this is the case, then how is it legal for children to play video games?

The way I understand it, they can play the games, the just can't legally agree to EULAs or ToS. I guess that means the little brats playing WoW or counter strike that are running around calling everyone fags can't be held accountable and have their accounts suspended... Or it means they can have their accounts suspended for no reason other then they can't agree to the ToS or EULA

Banks CANNOT Freeze your assets for no reason!

Stop trolling. I have been hit when they released debit cards for the first time. Getting a -$200 balance for just a few under $5 purchase made me scream, but it was clearly listed in the fine print and the "fees and schedule's" document. I keep track now and haven't had an overdraft since.

As long as you have a balance in the bank you have the right to go to that bank and take out all the money and close the account. Unless a COURT ORDER was obtained to freeze your account, the bank cannot just "take your money" Even then there is a list of exceptions and a process to get your money.

Paypal could hold your money for no reason other to protect other users agents "fraud" With the exception of putting a civil case to them, they can do anything they want. Take a look at the User agreement. Once nice clause in there "We may hold your funds for up to 180 Days if reasonably needed to protect against the risk of liability..." So if they "think" something is wrong, they lock you out for a quarter and there is nothing you can do and kill your business. A bank can't do this arbitrarily.

Paypal is nice for sending small funds from one person to another, but you NEVER keep your business balance in that.

YMMV, but from working an hourly job with an on-call component in MA I can tell you they make a distinction between two classes of 'On call'

Someone who is 'engaged to wait' on-site, like the firefighter analogy, is considered to be 'working' and therefore must be paid for their time.

Someone who is 'waiting to be engaged', but can otherwise go about their life as usual, is not working and therefore need not be paid. Once a call is made though they're on the clock for the hours spent dealing with the issue.

IANAL, and if you're taking your legal advice from Slashdot posts you really should have your head examined.

For those in MA, see http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/employmentfaq.html#oncall for ‘official’ info on the topic.

Nationally, the US Federal Fair Labor Standards Act has similar language, see http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/Pay-for-On-Call-Time.html

Where in the post did he say it wasn't?

It's the prosecution's job to prove consipiracy, not the defendant's to prove it wasn't.

Furthermore, conspiracy is between two or more people *who agree to break a law* Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 371. I only see one here. The law also states "and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy." Where is the planning with another person? Where is the follow through on any of it? Where is the cake? Where is the mens rea?

I also see a violation of free speech should he be prosecuted for discussing what might happen.

I am not a lawyer but this guy is. http://research.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/629-Federal-Criminal-Conspiracy-Law.html

And obviously I offended someone because I got modded "overrated," a chickenshit move.

Anyone defending baudbarf's claim of conspiracy is a troll trying to chill legitimate free speech.

--
BMO

The deference is between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "clear and convincing".

This is a non-question. You are making it unnecessarily broad, to set up for an 'ah-ha' moment.

Yes or no? Yes. The victim is in danger of a great many things. Emotional distress is chief among them. Unwanted pregnancy as well.

However I can find no facts that state that death is necessarily one of them, nor is contracting an STD. In fact, statistically speaking, it seems automobiles are far more deadly than rapists. I cannot find ANY facts on the mortality rate of rape. This is likely due to the notion that rape and murder are separate crimes. However, statistically speaking, rape victims are seldom murdered.

The definition of reckless endangerment just doesn't support your position.

the offense of recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person

Serious physical injury is not defined as painful bruises, cuts, and the like.

In short the answer is 'yes', but not the 'yes' you are hunting for...

I am not now, nor have I ever been arguing that rape is not absolutely wrong and reprehensible. 'Yes' there is danger. However claiming there is MORTAL danger distorts the facts.

I recall another major telephone and/or cable company that added this 'you must use arbitration' clause to their contracts, and then they were sued and the judge ruled it infringed the individuals rights. Here's one ruling I found using google:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/12/arbitration_challenges.html

And an interesting article on more recent 'arbitration' law:
http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Consumer-Contracts-Mandatory-Arbitration-Clauses.html

I guess AT&T is hoping to get 'grandfathered' in...

The goal is not to prevent piracy but rather appear to be trying. This way they can still count all the "lost sales" on their taxes. They want it to be ignored, the apparent effort makes all the difference.

http://taxation.lawyers.com/income-tax/Business-Casualty-and-Theft-Loss-Tax-Deductions.html

You're confusing "good time" with parole. Federal prisoners used to be eligible for parole much like state prisoners, but they took that away in 1987. But they can still get up to 15% of their time off for good behavior.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/drug-crimes/Federal-Crimes-FAQ.html#seven

Where is yours?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby_v._CompuServe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co. In fact the Communications Decency Act had to be updated to provide ISPs with immunity from further libel suits based on the electronic postings of their users. Here's two other citations talking all about email and libel online: http://communications-media.lawyers.com/Email-Defamation.html & http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html So it's pretty clear that libel covers electronic communications and email.

Where is yours?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby_v._CompuServe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co. In fact the Communications Decency Act had to be updated to provide ISPs with immunity from further libel suits based on the electronic postings of their users. Here's two other citations talking all about email and libel online: http://communications-media.lawyers.com/Email-Defamation.html & http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html So it's pretty clear that libel covers electronic communications and email.

I am still looking for the actual statue that defines it. http://research.lawyers.com/Florida/Employment-Law-in-Florida.html I think this about covers it thought. Florida law stated you can not falsify employee records. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0435/SEC10.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0435-%3ESection%2010#0435.10

According to this blog and many other sources, the lawyers in question were Dan Malone and Jacob Tiedt, who do indeed work at Jones Day according to their own web site. It's not clear to me what, exactly the issue is there. The names involved in sales of a property are ordinarily recorded as public information (unless it's done through an agent or something). The information about these gentlemen's employment is right on their employer's web site. Is Jones Day claiming that putting this information together is illegal?

The blog cites another article in a law journal about supposed concerns about privacy. Fair enough. But if that's the case then these guys have probably gone out of their way to keep all personal information private.

Wait, what's this? Jacob Tiedt is a pretty distinctive name. There can't be too many of those in Chicago. And, wow, that's strange. Why the heck does the guy's name appear all over the place in a Google search that simply uses "Jacob Tiedt" and "Chicago"? Heck, one of the web pages registers his political donations which ALSO indicates that his employer/occupation is "Jones Day/Attorney" and gives his ZIP code. Lexis Nexis gives all sorts of details too, and (gasp) links directly to the jonesday.com web site. Horrors. And, strange, apparently he doesn't have an unlisted number, because his name is easy to find in the various on-line white pages. It's almost as if he hasn't made the slightest effort to remain incognito.

It looks like Jones Day is going to spend a lot of time in litigation if they want to expunge the web of any links to Jones Day and these guy's personal information, and half of the web pages are as a result of their initial attempts with Blockshopper. Hello? Streisand effect?

The apparent remedy in the settlement was to prohibit links like this: Daniel P. Malone Jr., while links like this: www.jonesday.com/dpmalone are acceptable. Huh? I don't get it.

What a farce.

You're full of shit.

If the warehouse is holding others' goods, it's because the others wanted them to and because the warehouse is getting paid for it:

http://contracts.lawyers.com/Bailment.html

"If the bailment is for the benefit of both the bailee and the bailor, then the bailee owes a duty of reasonable or ordinary care."

Reasonable care does not included protection from meteors falling from the sky. Extraordinary care, which might or might not include meteor protection, would be expected only if the bailment were for the benefit of the bailee alone, which is not the case here.

Not only that, warehouses generally make depositors sign a contract specifying the terms of the warehouse's liability, which usually excludes damages due to "Acts of God".

Remember, kids, DON'T TAKE LEGAL ADVICE FROM SLASHDOT!

---linuxrocks123

Wow, did I slip into a paralell universe or something? I'm hoisting a glass to the esteemed Mr. Beckerman tonight at JW's as I listen to a local band cover the Grateful Dead. I hope you can afford that new tie now, Ray ;) Whatever you're getting out of this, it isn't enough.

Thanks for your kind thoughts, sm62704, but these well earned fees go to my esteemed brothers and sisters at Lybeck Murphy in Mercer Island, Washington. And I am hoisting a glass to them for their outstanding and courageous victory.

You're probably right, assuming the person is a low-level employee who isn't worth the cost of suing. Anyone else would be a fool to sign a non-compete simply because they think the employer is probably bluffing. I know of a few people who have been sued. Not for going to a competitor but for things like poaching employees or using company proprietary info in violoation of their employment contracts.

For general reference: Non-Compete Contracts: Uses and Abuses

Virginia is most certainly NOT a right-to-work state. It is an at-will employment state.

From the linked article:

The courts of Virginia follow an "employment-at-will" doctrine. At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not illegal. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. However, in Virginia, the mere fact that an employment contract is in writing is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the employment is at-will. To overcome this presumption, an employment contract must directly limit, in a meaningful and special way, the employer's right to terminate the employee without cause. In other words, the employer has to unequivocally indicate that it will not terminate the employee except under specific circumstances.

Six more weeks of winter, the groundhog saw his shadow.

-

There is a site that provides close to that info.. http://www.lawyers.com/ No batting averages, but there are peer reviews. Thats about as good as you're gonna get with attorneys.. They usually protect their own.

So, the value of my personal data, such as name, address, and potentially my SS, credit card, and private buying information... the value of that in a criminal court is under 6 cents. That's just great, I feel very secure against data theft since those penalties are less than the going rate for the information. And yet, somehow, my lending a copy of a song to someone is valued at nearly $10,000 per song to judge by recent court precedent.

This was a decent discussion on BoingBoing not too long ago.

"Is it true that it's 'not infringement once fair use kicks in' ?

Fair use is a defense to infringement where you admit infringement but say it was justified, isn't it? You affirm the boundaries of copyright but justify crossing them, rather than arguing that the boundaries should be moved. This is why it's argued on a case-by-case basis.

This article suggests some good reasons to move the boundaries, I think."

Not sure if that's right (IANAL), but it sure sounds like it to this lay-person.

In any trial there are two broad groups of things at issue: issues of fact (what things actuall happened) and issues of law (how to interpret the things that happened). Fair Use is an issue of law, not of fact. When an accusation is made against you in a court of law, you may defend yourself in several ways: you can deny the facts of the case ("I never did the thing that I am accused of doing.", "I never made any copies of the copyrighted work.") and you may deny the illegality of your actions ("I did the deed, but it is allowed under the law for this reason.", "I did make a copy of the copyrighted work, but it is allowed under fair use for this reason."). You can even defend yourself on both the facts and the law ("I never did the deed, but If I had it wouldn't have been illegal under the law for this reason.").

This was a decent discussion on BoingBoing not too long ago.

"Is it true that it's 'not infringement once fair use kicks in' ?

Fair use is a defense to infringement where you admit infringement but say it was justified, isn't it? You affirm the boundaries of copyright but justify crossing them, rather than arguing that the boundaries should be moved. This is why it's argued on a case-by-case basis.

This article suggests some good reasons to move the boundaries, I think."

Not sure if that's right (IANAL), but it sure sounds like it to this lay-person.

In any trial there are two broad groups of things at issue: issues of fact (what things actuall happened) and issues of law (how to interpret the things that happened). Fair Use is an issue of law, not of fact. When an accusation is made against you in a court of law, you may defend yourself in several ways: you can deny the facts of the case ("I never did the thing that I am accused of doing.", "I never made any copies of the copyrighted work.") and you may deny the illegality of your actions ("I did the deed, but it is allowed under the law for this reason.", "I did make a copy of the copyrighted work, but it is allowed under fair use for this reason."). You can even defend yourself on both the facts and the law ("I never did the deed, but If I had it wouldn't have been illegal under the law for this reason.").

Hey look at you, you know how to link. Unfortunately overwhelming your post with links != t3h w1n. The link below clearly explains that employees in California are considered to be "at will"

http://research.lawyers.com/California/Employment-Law-in-California.html

Despite that fact, what I'm arguing is the reality that people can and do file tons of wrongful termination suits. Sure they might be trivial, sure they might not stick. But that will be determined after the company spends a lot of time and effort fighting it. So as a result, very common HR policy is to force employers to follow procedures as if we were not an "at will" or "right to work" state in order to head off the suits before they start. It is a giant burden, believe me.

You can feel free to link to whatever you want, but that's the reality. I've laid off enough people in the last two years, at multiple companies, to know exactly how things work.

In Georgia a non-compete has never held up except for executives and people who sold businesses to another business entity. The judge can find one flaw and strike the *whole* contract. The courts look upon these contracts as illegal in 99% of cases because they try to keep ordinary people from working.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2005/07/11/story4.html
http://intellectual-property.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/Using-Non-Competes-To-Protect-A-Companys-Investment-6746.html
http://www.icemiller.com/enewsletter/NonCompetesOtherMyths.htm

Gee, that's the exact opposite of every single definition of "defamation" available to check online.

This isn't legal advice, but while in a strict dictionary sense "defamation" might be anything said that hurts a reputation, truth is an affirmative defense. The articles linked above state that no action is called for and no damages occur when someone states a truth. The person whose reputation is tarnished by the truth earned that reputation. Speaking or printing the truth therefore does no damage to the rightful reputation. That seems to this non-attorney to mean you can call the speech or publication by any name you want, but you're not going to get money by suing someone for telling the truth.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but grade-school Social Studies teachers in the U.S. teach their students about John Peter Zenger and the case of New York v. Zenger. That case set forth truth as a defense for slander and libel in the common law of the North American colonies of England.

BTW, where are "defamiation" and "plaese" on any of the above sites? Do I need the latest edition of Black's? I can't find those definitions at all, oh careful and detail-oriented A. Coward. Without resolving those two issues, I'm having trouble following your carefully stated premise and well-reasoned arguments to your no doubt brilliant conclusion.

Meh, the bosses could use the GP quote verbatim. The store was in texas, an at-will employment state.

"If you know that there is a crime being committed, then YOU are obligated to report it. If you know that they are illegal and you do not report them, then you are a criminal for obstructing justice."

Got supporting evidence for that statement?

Non-reporting does not equal "obstruction". Non-reporting is not an action. "Obstruction" is an action.

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/obstruction-o f-justice.html

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/obstruction-of-ju stice/

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18 /usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_73.html

1. You have no clue what the standard for civil tort is. You still think shareholders can sue a company just for losing money. They can't. In legal parlance, merely losing money is not actionable.

2. You have no idea what summary judgment is or when it's likely

3. You have no idea what slander is. Saying that a company violates your patent--no matter if that's true or not--is not slander. I'm sorry, but it's just not. Go look it up.

4. Twice in your most recent post you talk about "slander and liable" laws. Twice. Here's a clue: It's not "Liable." It's "Libel." I highly doubt you made the same "typo" twice. once again, you're just under-informed

5. You're stupid. You just are. You make comments that contradict each other. When I point out how stupid you are you say things like "declare how you are th ehighest judge in the land." You're just dumb, bro. I'm sorry, maybe you're good looking or you have a huge penis, i don't know, but you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. .... But you are still a tool ...