Andy9o8

Race, probably. But there's a specific exception carved out of federal employment discrimination laws that allow religious organizations to discriminate in employment for religious or ideological reasons.

Did you read the thread title? He wasn't 'bashing the boss' *scoff* He was 'speaking truths'. Certainly speaking truth isn't grounds for termination is it? Of course it is, or at least can be, if it casts the employer in a bad light and/or damages the employer's business. In the absence of an employment contract or a termination in violation of anti-discrimination laws, employees are employed at-will, and they can be terminated for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. That's a large part of why federal (and some state) whistleblower laws exist in the first place. That being said: does the employer risk a potential detrimental backlash if he fires an employee for speaking truth about misconduct? Depends on each individual case - sometimes yes, and other times no.

It's rather basic that you don't get to publicly bash the boss and keep your job. That being said, if he wanted to blow the whistle on something covered by the federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, he could have done so; there is a proper way to file a complaint and be protected by the Act from retaliation. I rather doubt that doing so via Twitter under an alias is the proper procedure, but I doubt that fact pattern has been tested in court. Yet.

No. But I think they found a fava bean shell somewhere close. I hear his best friend recently had him for dinner. He would have eaten more, but he was stuffed.

You're an amphibian; everything is fishy to you.

Very sadly, a fatality occurred in Norway yesterday that might - might (it's still early as I write this) - be relevant to the discussion in this thread. It's in the Incidents forum. I suggest we all watch that incident thread as it develops.

It does leave one wondering why this wasn't more robustly beta-tested before roll-out.

Hey, since you're here, are you treating Jerry right? He seems jaded of late. You better not be mean to him.

I was born ready!

Gear & rigging bugs you that much? Jeez.

No. You radio other police cars. Their drivers are usually able to drive them ahead of the pursuit. Radio travels MUCH faster than a car can. dispatch a chopper and follow him around until he runs out of gas and has to fill up. Use good judgement: obviously if he is going to be an ass when he's driving, it is not just the cops that will make him do that. They didn't even TRY. As soon as the lights went on, the gas pedal was pressed . . . they bailed. Fuck that! Here in Texas, motor vehicle theft of a vehicle valued between $500.00 - $20.000.00 is a Class-A misdemeanor. The penalty increases with the value of the vehicle stolen. Chuck Whereas, stealin' a horse'll getcher neck stritched.

Hmmm - My guess is charge a hefty retainer. Ok, 2 things.

Horseshit is neither immunized nor nullified by being in good company.

I understand. My direct involvement is professional. To tell you more, I'd have to, well....

It's hard to type this on my phone. The earlier 10 Qs & Ks & investors conferences were less revealing than the later ones. The magnitude amounted to deliberate concealment and wilful misprepresentations. I'm closely familiar with much of the whistleblower accounts and inside emails and multiple internal working drafts of financial statements that substantiate the conspiracy. It wasn't mere incompetence, it was willful, deliberate fraud.

It was more like: Jpm did their due diligence, recognized how bad it was, but nevertheless proceede as I described above, actively concealing it from investors, auditors, analysts and govt regulators.

ok, more on topic. keep in mind that JPMC are being held accountable for the problems of Bear Stearns and Wash Mutual, which they purchased. they were the one major bank that was not in a need of a bailout. You want to call for the heads of people then go after Bear and Wash Mutual. they are the ones who caused their banks to fail. we should all be glad that JPMC was solvent and clean enough purchase them. otherwise their would be nobody around for the gov't to fine. Except that hard evidence (some obtained from whistleblowers) shows that Jpm's own internal due diligence did in fact reveal the defects in Bear and Wash's portfolios; so when Jpm bundled those legacy assets into (serrupticiously value-impaired) securities they (and their top and many middle execs) knew exactly what they were doing. Bank of America did the exact same thing when they bought out Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. So yes, JPM's top execs do indeed face potential personal criminal liability.

Voting out incumbents is a nice sound byte, but is otherwise meaningless. Who do you suppose is waiting in the wings, and how do you suppose they got there and are beholden to?

The topic is a bit more complicated than a 100 minute documentary can cover, even if it's a more honest one than a Michael Moore offering. It takes two sides for an investment con - the seller and the buyer. To be fraud, the buyer has to be unaware of what he is buying. They were not. Sorry, but that is not so in this case. I happen to be first-hand familiar with a lot of specific evidence in this case. Each of the securities at issue in this case were comprised of many mortgages bundled together into individual securities; then the securities were sold off in blocs. Of course, the investors had a duty to exercise their own due diligence into the quality of those securities before buying them - and that's essentially your point. But banks such as JPM, Bank of America, etc. deliberately concealed the fact that many of the mortgage loan accounts comprising the securities were of sub-standard underwriting quality and/or already had troubled repayment histories, and they did so in such a way that those facts would not be uncovered until too late, despite investors' and govt regulators' due diligence. In other words, albeit in a very over-simplified nutshell, the banks cooked the books and made deliberate misstatements in quarterly earnings statements to investors, and in their 10-Qs and 10-Ks filed with the SEC, for the specific purpose of concealing the sub-standard quality of the securities from investors' and analysts' due diligence investigations. They were selling snake oil, and they knew it, but passing it off as the real deal, and doing it in such a way that deliberately hid what they were doing. That was the fraud. The fraud was only uncovered (with the help of inside whistleblowers) when the mortgage accounts underlying the securities began to crumble, causing the securities to crumble. By the way (to everyone), there is in fact an active criminal investigation ongoing that may very well implicate individual top executives of JPM and other top banks for criminal prosecution. This ain't over by a long shot.

Why are you at war with Christmas turkey? Or are you just at war with Christmas? Perhaps you're at war with Turkey. Let it go; World War I is over.

OK, thanks. That surprises me. Most of the time you always sue the governmental employer as a co-plaintiff in police civil rights cases, as a matter of course. Assuming the plaintiff's attorneys aren't incompetent, my educated guess is perhaps they were concerned that if they did name The City in the suit, the City might get dismissed for the very lack-of-agency reason at issue here - thereby establishing a "law of the case" they'd be stuck with - so instead they preferred to deliberately leave it ambiguous until the post-judgment phase. IMO, if that's what they did, it's a risky strategy, because the statute of limitations to sue the City has probably expired by now; so if they lose the issue against the City now, the plaintiff's attorneys will be in jeopardy of a malpractice claim.

Yeah, definitely parenting issues. But then again I've been told I have no right to speak of the way someone parents, or doesn't parent, because I have no children. I don't want this to get moved to SC, so I'll phrase my comments carefully! The public school system is funded by EVERYONE's taxes, even though you don't have kids. It's part of the whole "good of society/benefits everyone" argument. Just throw that back at the next person who tries to say you can't have an opinion on parenting issues. If you choose not to have kids, you are not selfish or hypocritical (on this matter especially). If you have them and choose to keep them, then you've chosen to be a parent. Now step up to the plate and BE one! Especially as it in turn contributes to your kid being a productive member of that society. So there you go, McSwervy -- best way to counter those jerks who say you have no right to criticize bad parenting.

Water balloons, right? I was a dead-eye in my time.

I don't see how the city can get out of it. I'd be progressing with a lawsuit against the city. They should be paying and then going after the cop themselves... But that's just my take. I can't get the video to run (?), and I can't find any other versions of the story on Google. So before I can weigh in, it would help to know: did the plaintiff's attorney not also sue the city itself, as would be standard practice in a case like this? If so, what came of that? If not, why the hell not? I need more facts.

The power of prayer is psychological and, to some extent, social. To the extent that stimulates a positive frame of mind, so be it. To the extent that, in turn, stimulates physiological sequelae that are medically beneficial, so be it. (Just as depression can stimulate physiological sequelae that are medically detrimental.) To the extent it promotes beneficial and supportive group dynamics, so be it. Beyond that, it is, as the Brits say, bugger-all; and no dying-little-boy stories or one-with-the-universe vignettes are going to change that. If you think that's "harsh", well ... see above.