 | |
{OT} - Pardon for Libby - vote.com query
Toyota Discussions related to Toyota cars and trucks (alt.autos.toyota)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: {OT} - Pardon for Libby - vote.com query -
03-09-2007
, 02:21 PM
|
"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:lpa3v2hm9h9o5r30o73cocf3vtm6sha5en (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:58:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? The corporate officer would certainly not be called before a grand jury, so your second question doesn't matter. Corporate officers are called before grand juries all the time... Scott in Florida Not for office sex, since that is not a crime. They may be fired or demoted, but not taken to court. |
btw a grand jury can ask you ANYTHING....
Please study a bit...
--
Scott in Florida
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:48:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:lpa3v2hm9h9o5r30o73cocf3vtm6sha5en (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:58:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? The corporate officer would certainly not be called before a grand jury, so your second question doesn't matter. Corporate officers are called before grand juries all the time... Scott in Florida Not for office sex, since that is not a crime. They may be fired or demoted, but not taken to court. If they were called before a grand jury and lied. btw a grand jury can ask you ANYTHING.... Please study a bit... -- Scott in Florida |
Describe a situation in which a grand jury would get involved in sexual
matters between two people in an office, ASSUMING that neither person
complained about the sexual liason?
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:47:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:loa3v2p568er09ipdcdreoiae10bhq0deo (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:58:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: Depends on whether the corporation had any rules governing such things. Show me a major corporation that does not.... Scott in Florida None that I ever worked for, including Merril Lynch and Kraft. Which corporate rules do YOU have access to, or are you using a crystal ball today? Wrongo.......... Hey Legend in your own mind.... You misspelled one of the companies you supposedly worked for. They probably fired you. Here are a few of the rules for one of your 'former employers'.... How about Merrill Lynch? Access to the Internet Only authorized connections to the Internet are permitted and access must be accomplished via an approved secure gateway. Merrill Lynch employees are not permitted to link to the Internet from Merrill Lynch offices via modem dial-up services or other external service providers without the express approval of the Office of General Counsel. Employees should exercise good judgment when using the Internet for personal reasons during business hours. Under Merrill Lynch policy, employees may not: * transmit, copy or download any material, including sexually explicit images or messages and materials containing racial, ethnic or other slurs, that may defame, embarrass, threaten, offend or harm a Merrill Lynch person or client or the general public; Obligation to Report Violations or Misconduct All Merrill Lynch persons are expected to act quickly and effectively against violations of the Guidelines and the firm's policies and procedures. Employees are obligated to report any known or perceived violation of law, regulation or Merrill Lynch policy and Guidelines to one of the following resources: their manager, a Leadership & Talent Management representative, the Ethics Hotline, or the Office of General Counsel. If you are unsure about the best course of action, you should consult with one of the above resources. Likewise, if you are not comfortable raising an ethical issue or discussing a possible or actual violation with your manager, or you have done so and the manager has not responded to the problem, you must seek assistance elsewhere within Merrill Lynch and report the matter through one of the alternative resources, that is, a Leadership & Talent Management representative, the Office of General Counsel, or the Ethics Hotline. The Office of General Counsel is available to assist with business conduct and ethical issues that give you concern. Nevertheless, in many instances, you must rely on your own personal ethical standards in assessing difficult situations. Consider the following questions: * Is the proposed action legal? * Does it endanger anyone's financial stability, life, health or safety? * Is it consistent with Merrill Lynch policy? * Will it enhance the company's reputation? * Would we lose clients if this action were known to them? * Would you like to see it become a general industry or public practice? * Would you be embarrassed if all the details were known by your manager, peers, subordinates, family or friends, or if they were published in a newspaper? * Could this action in any way be interpreted as, or appear to be, inappropriate behavior? * What would you think of your manager, peers or subordinates if any of them behaved similarly? * Does the action you are considering make you feel uncomfortable? Are you compromising your own personal ethics in any way? Though romantic relationships between employees and situations where an employee is working with a relative are not prohibited at Merrill Lynch, Merrill Lynch policy does impose special requirements when one of these employees remains in the other employee's (the manager/supervisor) chain of command. In such circumstances, Merrill Lynch policy requires that steps be taken to ensure that such relationships do not disrupt the group and that the manager/supervisor is not responsible for supervising, evaluating or compensating the other employee. -- Scott in Florida |
This bears no relationship to civil law. Grand juries get involved with the
law of the land. If a corporation wants to can someone for breaking a rule,
they do not need to involve the court system.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:vsc3v2p98s7dpu193ulk3ked991f2crmae (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:48:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:lpa3v2hm9h9o5r30o73cocf3vtm6sha5en (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:58:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? The corporate officer would certainly not be called before a grand jury, so your second question doesn't matter. Corporate officers are called before grand juries all the time... Scott in Florida Not for office sex, since that is not a crime. They may be fired or demoted, but not taken to court. If they were called before a grand jury and lied. btw a grand jury can ask you ANYTHING.... Please study a bit... -- Scott in Florida Describe a situation in which a grand jury would get involved in sexual matters between two people in an office, ASSUMING that neither person complained about the sexual liason? |
I see I've nailed you again.
I'll play for a bit...
Director one is before the grand jury because there is an
investigation of a corporation involving insider trading.
Director one is asked if he has had sex with an intern.
Director one says no.
Further investigation shows he is lying.
--
Scott in Florida
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:31:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:vsc3v2p98s7dpu193ulk3ked991f2crmae (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:48:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:lpa3v2hm9h9o5r30o73cocf3vtm6sha5en (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:58:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? The corporate officer would certainly not be called before a grand jury, so your second question doesn't matter. Corporate officers are called before grand juries all the time... Scott in Florida Not for office sex, since that is not a crime. They may be fired or demoted, but not taken to court. If they were called before a grand jury and lied. btw a grand jury can ask you ANYTHING.... Please study a bit... -- Scott in Florida Describe a situation in which a grand jury would get involved in sexual matters between two people in an office, ASSUMING that neither person complained about the sexual liason? ROFLAMO I see I've nailed you again. I'll play for a bit... Director one is before the grand jury because there is an investigation of a corporation involving insider trading. Director one is asked if he has had sex with an intern. Director one says no. Further investigation shows he is lying. Scott in Florida |
1/2 second after the director was asked about sex, his lawyer would be out
of his chair crying foul, and we would be correct because sex has nothing to
do with insider trading. It would be obvious (to anyone but an idiot) that
the prosecutor was simply trying to color the jury's opinion of the
director.
It would certainly work on you, if you were on the jury.
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <1173463258.289251.219840 (AT) c51g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com>, "AnneCoultersAdamsApple" <annecoultersadamsapple (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu... (AT) my-deja (DOT) com wrote: dbu, wrote: klinton not only lied, but he lied under oath, perjury, a felony......jail time for klinton, but he wiggled out of it. If Clinton deserved jail, then GW Bush and Cheney deserve to be tortured at Abu Graib and hanged because they're infinitely worse offenders than Mr. Blow Job ever was. It is coming to that soon. First we should start with Alberto Gonsoles. We need to start somewhere. Should a lawyer be the US Attorney General if he/she doesn't believe the US constitution guarantees habeas corpus? I don't think so. A You are talking out of your ass again. You have no clue. -- Lie or stupid- you read more than the first line of A's post- for shame! |
"Tell the truth, I don't read more than the first sentence of your
postings. Started a couple weeks ago when you yet again repeated
yourself. bye"
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <wlhIh.4495$B25.2476 (AT) news01 (DOT) roc.ny>, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: "dbu" <question-mark (AT) einp (DOT) com> wrote in message news:question-mark-CDC03E.12041709032007 (AT) comcast (DOT) dca.giganews.com... In article <1173463258.289251.219840 (AT) c51g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com>, "AnneCoultersAdamsApple" <annecoultersadamsapple (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu... (AT) my-deja (DOT) com wrote: dbu, wrote: klinton not only lied, but he lied under oath, perjury, a felony......jail time for klinton, but he wiggled out of it. If Clinton deserved jail, then GW Bush and Cheney deserve to be tortured at Abu Graib and hanged because they're infinitely worse offenders than Mr. Blow Job ever was. It is coming to that soon. First we should start with Alberto Gonsoles. We need to start somewhere. Should a lawyer be the US Attorney General if he/she doesn't believe the US constitution guarantees habeas corpus? I don't think so. A You are talking out of your ass again. You have no clue. ....and you're here to provide everyone with a clue. Go for it. I see Scott has left you speechless again. Maybe you should take a break. |
No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with a
situation where someone in an office accidentally unplugged the water
cooler. He can't.
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with a situation where someone in an office accidentally unplugged the water cooler. He can't. I thought it was about sex in the office. |
Same thing, unless you're a fake saint and you claim they're not the same
thing. If you'd like something more annoying than the water cooler example,
here's another: Breaking donuts in half and leaving the half in the box, so
nobody wants to eat it.
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
"dbu" <question-mark (AT) einp (DOT) com> wrote in message news:question-mark-9A9E45.14270609032007 (AT) comcast (DOT) dca.giganews.com... No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with a situation where someone in an office accidentally unplugged the water cooler. He can't. I thought it was about sex in the office. Same thing, unless you're a fake saint and you claim they're not the same thing. If you'd like something more annoying than the water cooler example, here's another: Breaking donuts in half and leaving the half in the box, so nobody wants to eat it. |
half donut. The squeamish wouldn't take it if they thought you had bitten
it in half but, even if it had teeth marks in it, somebody would take it
before the end of the day.
Yeah, we're a rough crowd.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:jkd3v2drhm808kj13ual7l3pgahthgrio2 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:31:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:vsc3v2p98s7dpu193ulk3ked991f2crmae (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:48:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote in message news:lpa3v2hm9h9o5r30o73cocf3vtm6sha5en (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:58:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? The corporate officer would certainly not be called before a grand jury, so your second question doesn't matter. Corporate officers are called before grand juries all the time... Scott in Florida Not for office sex, since that is not a crime. They may be fired or demoted, but not taken to court. If they were called before a grand jury and lied. btw a grand jury can ask you ANYTHING.... Please study a bit... -- Scott in Florida Describe a situation in which a grand jury would get involved in sexual matters between two people in an office, ASSUMING that neither person complained about the sexual liason? ROFLAMO I see I've nailed you again. I'll play for a bit... Director one is before the grand jury because there is an investigation of a corporation involving insider trading. Director one is asked if he has had sex with an intern. Director one says no. Further investigation shows he is lying. Scott in Florida 1/2 second after the director was asked about sex, his lawyer would be out of his chair crying foul, and we would be correct because sex has nothing to do with insider trading. It would be obvious (to anyone but an idiot) that the prosecutor was simply trying to color the jury's opinion of the director. It would certainly work on you, if you were on the jury. |
You DON'T have a lawyer with ya in grand jury.
Again....
I got ya.....
http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html
Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System
What is the purpose of the grand jury?
The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the
evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is
probable cause to return an indictment.
The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer
between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue
that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply
acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.
Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable
cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even
conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor
to present conflicting evidence.
In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury
has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over
the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted
power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in
complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or
her good faith.
Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?
In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer
present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their
testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer.
A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow
the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer
to observe the proceeding.
--
Scott in Florida
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.