The Glade 4.0

Perhaps as wrongful prosecution or malicious prosecution? Whatever the name of that applicable statute is.

_________________

There is a court case from the 1940s indicating that in certain circumstances, individuals in charge of a corporation may be held personally liable. I have a hard time believing that this case meets those standards, but the circumstances do exist.

The problem I see is that the company apparently went ahead and folded rather than fighting it out at the time. I think this might make it difficult to float a countersuit, although I could see one by the man, personally, alledging defamation, slander, or libel if the actions taken by the CPSC were frivolous.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

They folded because the government shut down their ability to do business. Their sales channels were intimidated into not selling their products.

They could not longer function as a business without the ability to sell their product.

That is correct, but they still folded voluntarily. I'm not sure to what extent the corporate entity still exists or could prove malicious harm. If only we had a lawyer to talk about it....

On the flip side, I don't see any reason sovereign immunity would apply. If the regulators at the CPSC acted in bad faith, they would not have immunity either, and they might not anyhow.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Generally speaking, suing specific officers of the government requires the government to allow your case to go forward. Officers are granted immunity (again, generally speaking) when doing the lawful actions of their office.

This immunity is, nominally, the same protection for officers at companies. Except when it isn't. Like now.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The Federal Tort Claims Act already allows these suits to proceed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So, FCTA allows you to sue the GOVERNMENT. And? Can't specifically target the commissioners wrongfully targeting you.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So what? The goal would be to remedy the economic damage done, and enjoin the agency from further action. The individuals also might still be targetable if they acted in bad faith (which might be demonstrable if the evidence of unsafe products is indeed that weak) but there's really no particular reason that should be a goal.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sure there is. Because they need to lose their job. Corporations are designed to shield individuals. Not satisfied with ruining this guy's business, they've decided to go get extra-judicial on his ***.

They need a taste of that. Those who enforce the law must be held to it equally.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That has nothing to do with enforcing the law equally. It's about remedying the problem this guy and his company are faced with, not about your desire to get a boner because some government official lost his job.

They also have not decided to "go extra-judicial on his ***." There was a court case cited from the 1940s that allows what they are doing in some cases. This case may not meet those standards. That does not mean they have somehow gone off and invented some rogue procedure.

This is why the courts are so far separated from the public; to keep questions like this within the law, and out of the hands of people with ideas like "they need a taste of that."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Punishing those who misuse their position isn't about "getting a boner." It's about holding individuals accountable. If corporate citizens should be held accountable, so too should government citizen.



Weird then, how this doesn't happen in other law-abiding cases, just to this guy.



This has nothing to do with the courts. It has to do with tyranny through bureaucracy and inequal accountability standards.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Corporate citizens are not normally held accountable individually, unless they committed a crime (which falls under the criminal system anyhow, not the civil system). The government employee that acts in good faith should not be held individually accountable even though he made an honest mistake. That should only happen if bad faith or malicious wrongdoing is shown. So far, it hasn't, although there is some evidence in that regard.

In any case, the point of a lawsuit is to remedy harm to the plaintiff. Lawsuits may do that through punitive damages in some cases, but their primary purpose is not to punish, and certainly not to satisfy random members of the public with the results of the case.

We also don't have corporate or government citizens. This is not shadowrun. We have citizens.



Which is evidence of possible bad faith, but not conclusive. The fact that a legal option is rarely exercised does not make it illegitimate.



The question of who can be sued and under what grounds is definitely something to do with the courts. There is no unequal accountability; in both cases there are standards for when individuals may be held accountable. This is about you just wanting to see government employees lose their jobs, and have an excuse to throw the word "tyranny" around in melodrmatic fashion.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

You are still an active duty police officer. Taco Bell offers a discount to officers in uniform. Do you accept the discount?

_________________

Im not a police officer, I hate Taco Bell, and this question is irrelevant, an attempt to distract onto me personally, and trolling.

If you want to discuss the issue, discuss. The. Issue. If you insist on asking personal questions I'm not going to entertain any conversation at all.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

That's not a personal question; that's quite literally a standard ethics test question.

_________________

I'm sorry to hear you are not interested in discussion.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

The only person hostile to discussion right now is you; I posted a standardized test question. It applies, incidentally, because the issue at hand is government ethics and the ethics of those holding government positions. That question, amusingly, will appear on my annual ethics compliance test in about 60 days. I have to take one every year as a government employee.

I know the right answer. I'm willing to bet you know the right answer. You think it's a personal dig. It's not. The answer should be ingrained into your skull, and quite likely rightfully is. But there are departments and divisions and units within our government who don't care what the right answer is. And unfortunately, the law leaves us little recourse in those situations. That's the brunt of DFK!'s position.

_________________

Khross: You directed the question at me personally, making it a personal question. Government employees do not take "standardized ethics tests" ; ethics classes are not given in that ashion, and in any case this forum is not an ethics test. It is also irreevant to the topic at hand.

You do not have privilege to any answers from me of a personal nature. Those questions are off limits to you and if asked, they will be rejected out of hand. Discuss the issue at hand without reference to me (or anyone else) personally. Otherwise you are not interested in conversation. Your attempt to just say "no, you!" is not going to change this.

The problem with DFK!s statements is that he is demanding lawsuit retribution based on his personal dismay with the situation, when he is not party to the case. He also seems to think this will result in people being fired, which is an administrative action and not a proper civil remedy. The ethics of the government action are not in dispute except insofar as that bad faith (as opposed to simple stupidity) has not been demonstrated yet.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

That question is not a personal question. And, yes, government employees do take yearly compliance tests in ethics and all sorts of glorious things like the legalities of their jobs. It's sort of required by law that way.

_________________

Except that no, government employees do not take yearly ethics tests, they take yearly ethics training. No test is involved. You are incorrect.

And it is a personal question. Period. You addressed it directly to me. There is no room for debate on this subjecty; you are merely trying to avoid the fact that you were using it to make me personally the issue. You do this frequently. You will desist if you wish to have any conversation other than this pointless back and forth.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Interesting side-note, but the rule of thumb on the lawyers' ethics test is that you should always pick the second most ethical-sounding answer. Make of that what you will....

Diamondeye:

I am a government employee, and I would think I know what's required of me on an annual basis to remain employed as a government employee. In fact, by and large, our entire post-secondary education system is staffed by government employees.

_________________

Throwing down the BS flag on that. Either way, until you fix your attitude, you're SOL.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Really? Who owns all these public institutions that employ our professors and higher education administrators? State governments with all sorts of Federal regulators for various compliance issues -- financial aid, Title IX, athletics. And, sorry, but the only person giving anyone attitude here is you. I've neither said, nor posted, anything hostile.

Seriously, do you not understand that?

_________________

While I often tell people I am a former employee of the Texas Department of Education, that is only technically correct. I'm sure its less so at a university level as they too are (yes governmental) entities with their own boards. The "State government" as traditionally thought about has little to do with their day to day operations. They operate under certain regulations and programs, but so do "private" universities.

Which is why people don't normally consider them "government agents"

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"