El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
<im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 28, 6:48 am, Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote:
>> There is a principal in law that shields the employees and is extended >> to the Officers of the Corporation. It is almost impossible to pierce >> this shield unless the employee/officer acts in an unlawful or >> inconsistent manner or outside the purview of their position and/or >> authority.
>Mark, not entirely true. >And no, I won't get in to the nuances regarding on the distinctions >between employees and owners/officers of the corporations.
I think he's referring to Fiduciary Shield Doctrine.
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:11:56 -0700 (PDT), grendal
> <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Oct 28, 6:48 am, Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote:
> >> There is a principal in law that shields the employees and is extended > >> to the Officers of the Corporation. It is almost impossible to pierce > >> this shield unless the employee/officer acts in an unlawful or > >> inconsistent manner or outside the purview of their position and/or > >> authority.
> >Mark, not entirely true. > >And no, I won't get in to the nuances regarding on the distinctions > >between employees and owners/officers of the corporations.
> I think he's referring to Fiduciary Shield Doctrine.
> -- > "Susan" > S00p3r Usenet Society Against Nitwits
Group:
I apologize for not being able to respond this week, but I'm involved in several projects that take up my time. And, I can see from your comments that you desperately need my assistance. Maybe in a few days...
What I do notice, though, is that Terry Polevoy disappeared rather rapidly once I asked the questions Tim Bolen posed for me. Is that telling, or what? Tim said Polevoy would run like a rabbit once I did that - and he was right on. Notice that?
I talked to Tim Bolen again, and it was his thinking that Polevoy was probably approaching this group for help - since he can't get any help anywhere else, and he is desperate to ingratiate himself with his original group. Tim says "this fool sued his own support network - twenty one of them because they abandoned him in the Barrett v Clark case, leaving him holding a $311,000 US, plus three years 10% interest, financial bag. They had raised money for Barrett and Grell to pay off their portion of the debt to Rosenthal ($200,000) - but not for Polevoy."
Tim Bolen tells me that he is the engineer in those cases (there is more than one, now) going after the "volunteers" inside of the Wikipedia Project. He talks about that problem, and how A4M is solving it, in his A4M sues Wikipedia article. He says Wikipedia is falling over itself trying to back away from those cases.
On Oct 29, 2:51 pm, charlesgriffman <charlesgriff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Group:
> I apologize for not being able to respond this week, but I'm involved > in several projects that take up my time. And, I can see from your > comments that you desperately need my assistance. Maybe in a few > days... <snip>
> I'll try and get back to you soon.
> HTH
> Chuck
Wow, Timmychuck. You mean you're actually going to start helping now? That will be an interesting and unusual change. Are you sure you're up for it? You really shouldn't jump into such a huge and drastic lifestyle change so quickly, especially at your age. You should ease into it gradually.
-- A sense a disturbance in the farce. TOASTEDspam.com
charlesgriffman <charlesgriff...@gmail.com> wrote: > I apologize for not being able to respond this week, but I'm involved > in several projects that take up my time. And, I can see from your > comments that you desperately need my assistance.
I don't know that anybody 'desperately' needs a court jester, but by all means, feel free.
> What I do notice, though, is that Terry Polevoy disappeared rather > rapidly once I asked the questions Tim Bolen posed for me. Is that > telling, or what? Tim said Polevoy would run like a rabbit once I did > that - and he was right on. Notice that? > I talked to Tim Bolen again, and it was his thinking that Polevoy was > probably approaching this group for help - since he can't get any help > anywhere else, and he is desperate to ingratiate himself with his > original group. Tim says "this fool sued his own support network - > twenty one of them because they abandoned him in the Barrett v Clark > case, leaving him holding a $311,000 US, plus three years 10% > interest, financial bag. They had raised money for Barrett and Grell > to pay off their portion of the debt to Rosenthal ($200,000) - but not > for Polevoy."
> Tim Bolen tells me that he is the engineer in those cases (there is > more than one, now) going after the "volunteers" inside of the > Wikipedia Project. He talks about that problem, and how A4M is > solving it, in his A4M sues Wikipedia article. He says Wikipedia is > falling over itself trying to back away from those cases.
Please don't name the voices in your head, Tim. Usenet quoting is difficult enough for some folks without having to worry about which personality they're talking to.
> I apologize for not being able to respond this week, but I'm involved > in several projects that take up my time. And, I can see from your > comments that you desperately need my assistance. Maybe in a few > days...
Don't bother fruit loop. Your posts are way off topic and nobody is interested in your loony tunes.
On Oct 29, 1:51 pm, charlesgriffman <charlesgriff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Group:
> I apologize for not being able to respond this week, but I'm involved > in several projects that take up my time. And, I can see from your > comments that you desperately need my assistance. Maybe in a few > days...
Timmy, Getting sued again? Or did the IRS catch up to you?
And by talking to 'Timmy' did you look in a mirror or just mumble to yourself?
On Oct 28, 6:11 pm, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 6:48 am, Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote:
> > There is a principal in law that shields the employees and is extended > > to the Officers of the Corporation. It is almost impossible to pierce > > this shield unless the employee/officer acts in an unlawful or > > inconsistent manner or outside the purview of their position and/or > > authority.
> Mark, not entirely true. > And no, I won't get in to the nuances regarding on the distinctions > between employees and owners/officers of the corporations.
On Oct 28, 6:11 pm, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 6:48 am, Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote:
> > There is a principal in law that shields the employees and is extended > > to the Officers of the Corporation. It is almost impossible to pierce > > this shield unless the employee/officer acts in an unlawful or > > inconsistent manner or outside the purview of their position and/or > > authority.
> Mark, not entirely true. > And no, I won't get in to the nuances regarding on the distinctions > between employees and owners/officers of the corporations.
Which may exist if talking about an American corporation. You may remember that SpamHaus is a Brit corporation. Big difference: In Brit company law directors/officers of a Brit not_for_profit can not be held liable for anything the company does or owes. Any/all liability stops with the company AND the max liability is limited by a 'guarantee' which in most cases is a few hundred pounds.
That's the reason many public orgs are Brit registered.
> On Oct 28, 6:11 pm, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 6:48 am, Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote:
> > > There is a principal in law that shields the employees and is extended > > > to the Officers of the Corporation. It is almost impossible to pierce > > > this shield unless the employee/officer acts in an unlawful or > > > inconsistent manner or outside the purview of their position and/or > > > authority.
> > Mark, not entirely true. > > And no, I won't get in to the nuances regarding on the distinctions > > between employees and owners/officers of the corporations.
> On Oct 28, 6:11 pm, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 6:48 am, Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote:
> > > There is a principal in law that shields the employees and is extended > > > to the Officers of the Corporation. It is almost impossible to pierce > > > this shield unless the employee/officer acts in an unlawful or > > > inconsistent manner or outside the purview of their position and/or > > > authority.
> > Mark, not entirely true. > > And no, I won't get in to the nuances regarding on the distinctions > > between employees and owners/officers of the corporations.
> Which may exist if talking about an American corporation. You may > remember that SpamHaus is a Brit corporation. Big difference: In Brit > company law directors/officers of a Brit not_for_profit can not be > held liable for anything the company does or owes. Any/all liability > stops with the company AND the max liability is limited by a > 'guarantee' which in most cases is a few hundred pounds.
> That's the reason many public orgs are Brit registered.
No, the reason many 'public orgs' are Brit registered is because they are run by Brits.
Look, the problem is that we tend to talk in generalizations and sometime what is said isn't exactly true.
The point is that there are always caveats and with respect to what Mark was talking about, is that the officer/owner of the company could be held fiscally responsible. Of course that is if he was specifically named in the lawsuit. But like I said, I wasn't going to go in to the details. ;-)
grendal wrote: > On Oct 30, 5:51 am, Phishy <sus...@hush.ai> wrote: >> On Oct 28, 6:11 pm, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 6:48 am, Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote: >>>> There is a principal in law that shields the employees and is extended >>>> to the Officers of the Corporation. It is almost impossible to pierce >>>> this shield unless the employee/officer acts in an unlawful or >>>> inconsistent manner or outside the purview of their position and/or >>>> authority. >>>> -- >>>> Mark Fergusonhttp://www.stop-spam.org/http://tcats.stop-spam.org/ >>> Mark, not entirely true. >>> And no, I won't get in to the nuances regarding on the distinctions >>> between employees and owners/officers of the corporations. >> On Oct 28, 6:11 pm, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 6:48 am, Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote: >>>> There is a principal in law that shields the employees and is extended >>>> to the Officers of the Corporation. It is almost impossible to pierce >>>> this shield unless the employee/officer acts in an unlawful or >>>> inconsistent manner or outside the purview of their position and/or >>>> authority. >>>> -- >>>> Mark Fergusonhttp://www.stop-spam.org/http://tcats.stop-spam.org/ >>> Mark, not entirely true. >>> And no, I won't get in to the nuances regarding on the distinctions >>> between employees and owners/officers of the corporations. >> Which may exist if talking about an American corporation. You may >> remember that SpamHaus is a Brit corporation. Big difference: In Brit >> company law directors/officers of a Brit not_for_profit can not be >> held liable for anything the company does or owes. Any/all liability >> stops with the company AND the max liability is limited by a >> 'guarantee' which in most cases is a few hundred pounds.
>> That's the reason many public orgs are Brit registered.
> No, the reason many 'public orgs' are Brit registered is because they > are run by Brits.
This is usually correct. A corporation and/or not for profit is usually registered where they do business.
> Look, the problem is that we tend to talk in generalizations and > sometime what is said isn't exactly true.
> The point is that there are always caveats and with respect to what > Mark was talking about, is that the officer/owner of the company could > be held fiscally responsible. Of course that is if he was specifically > named in the lawsuit. But like I said, I wasn't going to go in to the > details. ;-)
Wrong, first off, I never said "owner" and you have tried to include owner when speaking about a corporation and you can't do that. A corporation is usually never owned by a single individual and is usually operated by a board or other entity.
The employees simply are not responsible for the actions of a corporation and the only or at least the minimal "caveat" is unlawful/illegal activity and or acted outside of the employees authorized duties.
A CEO/CFO/CTO/ect are legally and therefore "essentially" employees acting on the instructions of the corporation. Corporation can mean stock holders, board members, etc and is not always the CEO.
I am done trying to explain this to you and if you believe I am in error demonstrate show me.
On Oct 30, 11:10 pm, Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote:
> Wrong, first off, I never said "owner" and you have tried to include > owner when speaking about a corporation and you can't do that. A > corporation is usually never owned by a single individual and is usually > operated by a board or other entity.
Well Mark, I'd question that. You have a lot of sole proprietorship and small corporations that are owned by a single individual. Take Linhardt as an example. Tell me who owned what...
Like I said, you have to be careful in making generalizations...
> Wrong, first off, I never said "owner" and you have tried to include > owner when speaking about a corporation and you can't do that. A > corporation is usually never owned by a single individual and is usually > operated by a board or other entity.
Actually, I think you'd be surprised how many corporations are run by as few as three individuals, all officers, in the United States. I don't know what the minimum is for the UK. This includes not-for-profits, including 501(c)(3).
> The employees simply are not responsible for the actions of a > corporation and the only or at least the minimal "caveat" is > unlawful/illegal activity and or acted outside of the employees > authorized duties.
Not quite accurate, but close to the mark. Actions by employees can indeed be held against the employee, if the actions themselves are unlawful. With a little work, I can fetch a cite to a Supreme Court case where an employee involved with bribing the Postmaster General was convicted of a felony, a conviction that withstood all appeals. I might also add the CEO of the company was *also* convicted of the same crime because it was done on his watch, and the State showed the CEO had knowledge of the crime and did nothing to stop it.
I don't know how the case law affects those who are not in the employ of the corporation. Volunteers would not be employees.
> A CEO/CFO/CTO/ect are legally and therefore "essentially" employees > acting on the instructions of the corporation. Corporation can mean > stock holders, board members, etc and is not always the CEO.
I submit that you need to study up on the duties, responsibility, and accountability, especially legal accountability, of the Chief Executive Officer in a corporation.
Which may not apply here, because Spamhaus is not a US Corporation. I don't know the set-up in the UK.
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:10:06 -0600, "Rev. Beergoggles"
<post.repl...@address.invalid> wrote: >E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists wrote: >>> charlesgriffman <charlesgriff...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I talked to Tim Bolen again
>> Is that classic SockPuppet, or just Dissociative Identity >> Disorder to complement the apparent Schizophrenia?
>Chicken grease coated Lithium pills simply don't >dissovle well when washed down with Strawberry Ripple.
>P. T. Barnum is most often associated with the circus sideshow and the display of freaks.
If that doesn't describe ChickenBolen...what does?
>Barnum is also affiliated with the famous quote "There's a sucker born every minute." >History, unfortunately, has misdirected this quotation. Barnum never did say it. >Actually, it was said by his competitor. Here's the incredible story.
Even if P.T. Barnum didn't say it, it still describes ChickenBolen.
And then we have the great philosopher Howlin' Mad Murdock's quotes that so fit ChickenBolen:
>Amy: Murdock why are you eating a sandwich that's frozen? >Murdock: I have to. I'm allergic to microwaves. They release space hamsters into my bloodstream.
:A lady noticed Murdock was reading a psychology book: :Lady: " 'Abnormal Psychology'? Are you a psychologist Mr. Murdock?" :Murdock: "No ma'am, I'm insane."
>Frankie: Are you ok? >Murdock: That has never been satisfactorily determined.
-- Say no to trolls, say yes to trollops! -A certain UK Abuse Desk Peep
Seth wrote: > In article <H5SdnaIvrZoxonPXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdn...@supernews.com>, > Stephen Satchell <use...@satchell.net> wrote:
>> I don't know how the case law affects those who are not in the employ of >> the corporation. Volunteers would not be employees.
> A person is always responsible for that person's own actions.
Like most generalizations, this one is also subject to the circumstances. The issue under discussion is whether employees -- or volunteers -- could be held liable for the actions of the corporation. Or did I miss something when I skimmed this thread?
> A volunteer who directs others on behalf of a corporation (presumably > non-profit) is in a weird situation. I have no idea what the legal > standing is.
Explain how a person can have an employer-employee relationship -- or even a agent-principal relationship -- without money changing hands? And how a volunteer can have any standing to "direct" others in a corporation? Or are you saying the a volunteer is directing other volunteers? I'm confused.
On Nov 1, 8:10 pm, Stephen Satchell <use...@satchell.net> wrote: [SNIP]
> Which may not apply here, because Spamhaus is not a US Corporation. I > don't know the set-up in the UK.
Wow, SS a name from the past.... (Sorry I hadn't seen your posts in a while... ;-)
But you can see my point. Its very easy to make a generalization which can bite you in the ass because not everyone understands the caveats surrounding your statements.
With respect to the whole thing, only the corporation Spamhaus was mentioned in the lawsuit, so its the only one that can be sued in terms of collections. If this was a US Only case, then Linhardt would have to sue Linford directly in order to pierce the corporate veil. However... That is made extremely difficult in that Linford is not a US citizen and his corporation doesn't do any business in the US. The mistake of taking the case to federal court will not happen again. ;-)
In article <4fidnRqVHLrJVHPXnZ2dnUVZ_q2dn...@supernews.com>, Stephen Satchell <use...@satchell.net> wrote:
>Seth wrote: >> In article <H5SdnaIvrZoxonPXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdn...@supernews.com>, >> Stephen Satchell <use...@satchell.net> wrote:
>>> I don't know how the case law affects those who are not in the employ of >>> the corporation. Volunteers would not be employees.
>> A person is always responsible for that person's own actions.
>Like most generalizations, this one is also subject to the >circumstances. The issue under discussion is whether employees -- or >volunteers -- could be held liable for the actions of the corporation. >Or did I miss something when I skimmed this thread?
Corporations don't actually act; people act on behalf of corporations. (E.g. Microsoft isn't an entity that can hold a pen to sign a contract, but it has officers who are authorized to sign contracts on its behalf.)
If a surgeon incorporates his practice, and then he removes the wrong kidney, he's still responsible to the victim of his malpractice. Working for a corporation doesn't avoid that.
>> A volunteer who directs others on behalf of a corporation (presumably >> non-profit) is in a weird situation. I have no idea what the legal >> standing is.
>Explain how a person can have an employer-employee relationship -- or >even a agent-principal relationship -- without money changing hands?
Why not?
>And how a volunteer can have any standing to "direct" others in a >corporation?
Many years ago, I was Vice President of the Isla Vista Fud Coop. It had a number of employees. I wasn't one, and didn't get paid. But I still could direct the paid employees.
> Or are you saying the a volunteer is directing other >volunteers?
grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 27, 10:54 pm, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: >> In article <2dudnWEckqsOa1HXnZ2dnUVZ_jVi4...@posted.sonicnet>, >> Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote: >> >Seth wrote: >> >> In article <Zrudna6GIM-pWlbXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dn...@posted.sonicnet>, >> >> Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote: >> >>> Seth wrote: >> >>>> In article <CaidnTwEatSgDVbXnZ2dnUVZ_g6dn...@posted.sonicnet>, >> >>>> Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote: >> >>>> We've told him already; why are you acting as if he can read and >> >>>> understand simple English? >> >>> You missed a Quirk Objection, assuming facts not in evidence. >> >> Which facts? >> >> And that you're acting as if he can read and understand simple English >> >This one. >> >> can be seen in your previous post in this thread.
>> Several posts upthread, you responded to ChickenBolen as follows:
>> No. If E360Insight has claims in excess of $75,000 then they can file >> in Federal Court and that Court has jurisdiction. It is called >> "diversity" because the parties do not reside in the same state.
>> The claims are against Spamhaus, not the volunteers. You don't get to >> go back and try it again, a second shot at innocent people that are >> the equivalent of a company's employee.
>> That's a reasonable way to respond to a competent adult, or even >> a moderately bright child.
>Uhm Seth...
>I don't know if you paid attention, but that was the argument made by >Linford's initial lawyers. By arguing the move of venue to the Federal >Court, they waived their right to argue jurisdiction since Linford is >in the UK. This was also reiterated when they lost their appeal on >this issue.
My point was that Mark made that statement to ChickenBolen, thereby acting as if ChickenBolen could understand a simple English statement. I wasn't saying anything about the correctness of the argument, merely quoting it.
> In article <5ab044d3-22dc-4564-a722-ebeb66859...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
> grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Oct 27, 10:54 pm, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: > >> In article <2dudnWEckqsOa1HXnZ2dnUVZ_jVi4...@posted.sonicnet>, > >> Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote: > >> >Seth wrote: > >> >> In article <Zrudna6GIM-pWlbXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dn...@posted.sonicnet>, > >> >> Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote: > >> >>> Seth wrote: > >> >>>> In article <CaidnTwEatSgDVbXnZ2dnUVZ_g6dn...@posted.sonicnet>, > >> >>>> Mark Ferguson <ab...@stop-spam.org> wrote: > >> >>>> We've told him already; why are you acting as if he can read and > >> >>>> understand simple English? > >> >>> You missed a Quirk Objection, assuming facts not in evidence. > >> >> Which facts? > >> >> And that you're acting as if he can read and understand simple English > >> >This one. > >> >> can be seen in your previous post in this thread.
> >> Several posts upthread, you responded to ChickenBolen as follows:
> >> No. If E360Insight has claims in excess of $75,000 then they can file > >> in Federal Court and that Court has jurisdiction. It is called > >> "diversity" because the parties do not reside in the same state.
> >> The claims are against Spamhaus, not the volunteers. You don't get to > >> go back and try it again, a second shot at innocent people that are > >> the equivalent of a company's employee.
> >> That's a reasonable way to respond to a competent adult, or even > >> a moderately bright child.
> >Uhm Seth...
> >I don't know if you paid attention, but that was the argument made by > >Linford's initial lawyers. By arguing the move of venue to the Federal > >Court, they waived their right to argue jurisdiction since Linford is > >in the UK. This was also reiterated when they lost their appeal on > >this issue.
> My point was that Mark made that statement to ChickenBolen, thereby > acting as if ChickenBolen could understand a simple English > statement. I wasn't saying anything about the correctness of the > argument, merely quoting it.
> Seth
Ah, Ok, so does that mean Chicken Bolen should be required to take the TOEFL test? I did get it right, its TOEFL? :-)
On Nov 4, 1:36 am, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On 2009-11-03, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Ah, > > Ok, so does that mean Chicken Bolen should be required to take the > > TOEFL test? > > I did get it right, its TOEFL? :-)
> I was more thinking of the Turing test myself... :-)
You do recall that the Turing test tests the software, not the person, right? That being said, it's difficult to imagine a piece of software capable of as much consistent irrationality as TimmyChuck displays in every single post. Might be an interesting experiment to attempt it though. It could be Lisp's finest hour!
-- I sense a disturbance in the farce. TOASTEDspam.com
TOASTEDspam.com wrote: > On Nov 4, 1:36 am, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> On 2009-11-03, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ah, >>> Ok, so does that mean Chicken Bolen should be required to take the >>> TOEFL test? >>> I did get it right, its TOEFL? :-)
>> I was more thinking of the Turing test myself... :-)
> You do recall that the Turing test tests the software, not the person, > right? That being said, it's difficult to imagine a piece of software > capable of as much consistent irrationality as TimmyChuck displays in > every single post. Might be an interesting experiment to attempt it > though. It could be Lisp's finest hour!
Consider an AOL chat room where Lisa is talking through the Dialectizer's Moron filter and A.L.I.C.E. is talking back via a Bablefish English-Russian-Spanish-Korean-English filter.
|
