CenturyLink Fights Billing-Fraud Lawsuit By Claiming That It Has No Customers (arstechnica.com) 198
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: CenturyLink is trying to force customers into arbitration in order to avoid a class-action lawsuit from subscribers who say they've been charged for services they didn't order. To do so, CenturyLink has come up with a surprising argument -- the company says it doesn't have any customers. While the customers sued CenturyLink itself, the company says the customers weren't actually customers of CenturyLink. Instead, CenturyLink says they were customers of 10 subsidiaries spread through the country. CenturyLink basically doesn't exist as a service provider -- according to a brief CenturyLink filed Monday.
"That sole defendant, CenturyLink, Inc., is a parent holding company that has no customers, provides no services, and engaged in none of the acts or transactions about which Plaintiffs complain," CenturyLink wrote. "There is no valid basis for Defendant to be a party in this Proceeding: Plaintiffs contracted with the Operating Companies to purchase, use, and pay for the services at issue, not with CenturyLink, Inc." CenturyLink says those operating companies should be able to intervene in the case and "enforce class-action waivers," which would force the customers to pursue their claims via arbitration instead of in a class-action lawsuit. By suing CenturyLink instead of the subsidiaries, "it may be that Plaintiffs are hoping to avoid the arbitration and class-action waiver provisions," CenturyLink wrote.
"That sole defendant, CenturyLink, Inc., is a parent holding company that has no customers, provides no services, and engaged in none of the acts or transactions about which Plaintiffs complain," CenturyLink wrote. "There is no valid basis for Defendant to be a party in this Proceeding: Plaintiffs contracted with the Operating Companies to purchase, use, and pay for the services at issue, not with CenturyLink, Inc." CenturyLink says those operating companies should be able to intervene in the case and "enforce class-action waivers," which would force the customers to pursue their claims via arbitration instead of in a class-action lawsuit. By suing CenturyLink instead of the subsidiaries, "it may be that Plaintiffs are hoping to avoid the arbitration and class-action waiver provisions," CenturyLink wrote.
Corporations are people too! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not true. Limited liability. You can sue for anything you like, but the owners of a limited liability corporation are not going to lose a lawsuit. They very well might need to go after the individual subsidiaries.
Re:Corporations are people too! (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's not true. Limited liability. You can sue for anything you like, but the owners of a limited liability corporation are not going to lose a lawsuit.
That all depends. Limited liability is not zero liability: the shareholders of a company that is sued might be required to pay back dividends or other payment they received of the company's profits to cover liability: particularly if it becomes deemed transfer in conjunction with fraudulent actions or a crime.
There are situations where the courts can pierce the corporate veil and hold the parent company or investors responsible in excess of their investment; for example, especially, if the parent company was intermingling assets of their multiple subsidiaries, or if the parent or operating companies were significantly undercapitalized with major assets being transferred to the parent or vice-versa (eg a corporate structure that is an alter-ego of one or more of its owners organized only to act
as a 'shield').
Re:Corporations are people too! (Score:4, Interesting)
Only if CenturyLink actively manages their subsidiaries day-to-day operation do they pierce the veil (or whatever the term is) of the subsidiary arrangement. We have CenturyLink, nee Level 3, nee TW Telecom for our office fiber. The only communication I have that says CenturyLink is the announcement of the merger.
That said, the announcement says:
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you call it when you want to claim dark fiber or multiple fibers in a bundle as separate miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, chances are you can divide that number by 12 or 24 to get the real numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
At least they aren't using molecule-miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Unharmed except having lost their investment into the LLC.
Re: (Score:2)
Limited liability doesn't mean unlimited liability, and courts most certainly can peal away at subsidiaries to get to the actual entity (person or corporation) who controls those subsidiaries. There's the whole concept of legal control of a company, and just because a corporation sets up a bunch of subsidiary companies, particularly where that corporation controls a majority stake, or as it sounds like in this case, holds all the ownership, the courts are almost certain to dispose of any notion that these s
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I did hedge in my comment with "they very well might". If there is some criminal or nefarious intent proved, then yes a court might pierce the shield. But that might be a harder fight than suing the subsidiaries and getting the arbitration clause thrown out.
Re: (Score:2)
John Roberts
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This, exactly this, is why Move to Amend is so important.
If we were at war, who in the corporation gets drafted?
If someone is killed by a corporate product, who goes to jail for murder?
If everyone's retirement funds go up in smoke, who pays them back?
You cannot have the rights of being a person WITHOUT the responsibilities of being a person.
I've incorporated myself as an LLC, and look forward to my spending spree before filing for reorg under chapter 11 multiple times.
Re:Corporations are people too! (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess how many "unsafe" products would be released? Zero
You are way to idealistic. I'm developing a product. If it is safe (99%) I'll make millions, otherwise (1%) it will kill people. It isn't easy to determine which case holds. So I have a choice: 99% chance of becoming a multimillionaire along with 1% chance of a prison sentence, or I can just drop it (and all the funds I've put in to development up to this point.) If I'm a psychopath, I'll leap at this chance. If I'm not, I'll likely fool myself into believing the 1% chance is really zero, and go for it.
History abounds with cases where people have done unsafe things, even when it was their own lives at stake, when pressured by bosses or prospects of financial bounty or ruin.
What you suggest might well help, but it won't magic away unsafe products.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no absolute guarantees, however a court would decide wether the level of risk taken along with any appropriate mitigations taken were reasonable or negligent on your part...
If you took all reasonable steps to ensure the product was safe and mitigate potential risks there should be no problem. After all, nothing is completely safe and there are always risks.
Re: (Score:2)
and have to spend the time in prision. Including death penalty. Guess how many "unsafe" products would be released? Zero
I know right. I mean that solved the problem of people murdering other people, so it will work just as well here.
Re: Corporations are people too! (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but this is corporate law 101: The company responsible is always the company whose name and branding is on the materials that the company's customers interact with. There are many examples of case law confirming this, including a SCOTUS ruling.
CenturyLink's name and branding was plastered all over the materials used to purchase the service. CenturyLink's branding was plastered all over the billing statements. This applies regardless of whether the materials are physical or online. Either CenturyLink's legal team is as stupid and lazy as CenturyLink's employees, or the c level executives didn't bother consulting with a lawyer at all. This isn't even a crapshoot, it's more like driving your car into a wall and expecting that it won't get damaged.
Re: Corporations are people too! (Score:5, Interesting)
Also consider then...
Centurylink's name and branding was on the bills...
As per centurylink's arguments in court, the people who received the bills were NOT their customers.
Thus fraud has clearly occurred, because people who are not customers of centurylink were billed for centurylink services.
Limited Liability Corporations can do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now nearly 200 years later, the "corporations are people" crowd has steadily usurped the rights and liberties meant for real people in flesh and blood to these corporations. No criminal liability. Assets flow one way, Liabilities flow the other way, so no civil liability either. Perverse arguments like "spending money = speeach" and "corporations can have religious belief" has made mockery of our society.
We can't clone ourselves, and transfer liabilities to the clone and keep assets with us. We can not clone ourselves, transfer the salary earned by the clone to us, call it "carried interest" and pay lower taxes. But corporations can do all these and more.
Unless we limits the rights of the corporations commensurate with the liabilities they carry, we are doomed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on. At the very least, people active in the running of the business should not have limited liability - it completely defeats the whole libertarian ideal of individual responsibility. I can understand the desire to encourage passive investment, but I don't see any upside in limiting the liability of active investors.
Re: (Score:2)
All the decisions that proclaim that "corporations are people" are based on lies. A lie that Congress intended this and then a lie that the Supreme Court had already decided this.
Re: (Score:2)
who will be criminally responsible for the criminal acts of a corporation
Corporations do not commit criminal acts, only people do. Behind every "this product from Acme corp caused x deaths" was a decision made by a PERSON. The way one holds a corporation responsible is by opening the employees to criminal liability. Every corporate criminal conviction should see at least one actual person do prison time because a person or group of people consciously made a decision to act a certain way.
What a ya gonna do about it? (Score:3)
Unless you and everyone else readi
Re: (Score:2)
If the trend continues till Nov 2020, there is some chance. All the standard groups of the Republicans, the deficit hawks, the free
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And "liability" in the sens
Re: (Score:3)
Can a corporation marry a woman? I have that legal right and your reasoning seems to apply.
You have put forth the same flawed answer that others have used before. Just because people have a right does not mean that right extends to a group of them. That is a NEW idea proposed by conservatives only in the most recent time. [b]Most importantly, that right is not given to ALL organizations you join. The fact that I am a member of the PTA does not grant the head of the PTA the right to speak for me. Individ
They should use this photo for their company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weasels are great animals that keep vermin populations under control. How about this one instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Weasels are great animals
So, you're a lawyer?
They'll get away with it too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I voted Democratic, it got worse. I voted Republican, it got worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I voted third party - things got worse, but I had nothing to do with it, so I sleep better at night.
Re: (Score:2)
You threw your vote away by not playing by the rules of our 2-party society. Maybe you are rebelling against a flawed system, but by your choice to vote 3rd party the system effectively excluded you from participating in democracy.
P.S. I was registered as LP [lp.org] for many years. So I'm not really judging you quite as harshly as I sounded.
Re: (Score:2)
You threw your vote away by not playing by the rules of our 2-party society.
You want to see what the "playing by the rules of our 2-party society" looks like? Take a look at the 2 major-party candidates last presidential election.
Voting for somebody that you don't want to be elected -- that's what sounds like a wasted vote to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Voting for somebody that you don't want to be elected -- that's what sounds like a wasted vote to me.
That's what everyone says. But they still slavishly vote against the opposing side rather than voting for a particular candidate. Much of this can be resolved by voting reform. Improving the candidates can be solved by reversing Citizens United. People could become more educated on issues and expect real debates instead of a series of pandering-to-their-base soundbites.
But I'm not going to hold my breath. Or rather maybe it will get better when my generation breathes their last breath.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. You have a choice between two flavors of bought-and-sold career politicians. Trump's win in 2016 shows that a bunch of people can come out of the woodwork, vote for an established party, and surprise the pollsters. Hillary was so confident and ran such a weak campaign because she sorely underestimated the effectiveness of the free coverage that Trump received in exchange for his bombastic soundbites.
Re:They'll get away with it too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
touche' but I'm too honest to be a successful politician, seriously. I wish people would take the time to better understand a topic at a deeper level then what can be explained in the 30 second sound bite. But most people don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like voting wasn't enough. Are you running yet?
Are you talking about running away from America? Because god knows there's no point in running for public office there. Unless your goal is to work up the republican or democratic hierarchy conforming to their norms on the way. For all the democracy you guys love the USA has one of the worst and most dysfunctional forms of a somewhat non-corrupt democratic government.
Re: (Score:2)
So you reacted to the Democrats being insufficiently left wing by voting for the right-wing party?
That, right there is why this country is fucked, over the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
I voted independent.
Of course, other people mocked me for "throwing away my vote", and then voted Democratic and Republican. It still got worse.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying the real answer is just "greed and abuse of power", with no particular reference to an economic system?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Holding up a local telephone utility operating under government charter and heavy regulation as an example of "capitalism" is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism. And a government that has been bought and paid for by those big ass corporations.
You realize that those two things are diametrically opposed?
If he had said "and a government that doesn't let corporations pay for influence," yes, they would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism does not require corporations - those are something that was created by the government. When you complain about a corporation, you are complaining about an organization operating under a government charter.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that some kind of bluff that you assumed I'd wince at? I want:
- An amendment making it illegal for corporate or union money be used in politics, with some kind of wording to allow corporate-owned free press
- An end to limited liability for active owners and employees of a company
- (Possibly) Change the criteria for who gets a corporate charter so that there is some demonstrated public good. I'm having trouble buying the argument for passthrough LLCs. Perhaps there is a good economic argument for passthr
Re:They'll get away with it too (Score:4, Informative)
... a government that has been bought and paid for by those big ass corporations.
Government interference in a market is a socialism thing.
The first is corporations controlling government. The second is government trying to control corporations. While you're right that the second would be closer to socialism, what actually exists is much closer to the first, which is plutocracy (or corporatocracy).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Capitalism. And a government that has been bought and paid for by those big ass corporations.
You realize that those two things are diametrically opposed? I mean, you admit that one of the problems is the government. Government interference in a market is a socialism thing.
No, not just socialism. Any form of government is going to have something to say about how markets work and what is or is not allowed.
The topic wasn't government influence in a market so much as it was about corporations writing the rules. That's either corporatism aka facism or that's corruption - which is possible in socialism, democracy, or any other form of government.
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said crony capitalism; that's closer to what the OP was complaining of than fascism is.
Re: (Score:2)
Government interference in a market is a socialism thing.
Can also be a fascist state thing. Lots of ways you can have government controlled markets that have nothing to do with right-left political spectrum.
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism. And a government that has been bought and paid for by those big ass corporations.
You realize that those two things are diametrically opposed? I mean, you admit that one of the problems is the government. Government interference in a market is a socialism thing.
It is a crony capitalism thing. Also, a fascism thing. Markets and trade do not exist without laws of some kind to regulate them. A "regulation free" economy is a fantasy - it has never existed (even ancient economies had regulations for fair weights and measures). Given that laws and regulations must exist, who writes the laws and enforces the regulations becomes a subject of political contention. When businesses, and the rich, are in a position to dictate how they are written and administered you get cron
Re: (Score:2)
There is absolutely no contradiction between government and business getting into a corrupt bed together. Happens all the time, if the political system permits it.
Corruption happens in government - full stop. We have a capitalist-ish system, so yeah, our corruption comes from capitalism. If we had a socialist system, our corruption would come from somewhere else.
So yeah, a capitalist system inherently will have corruption. A socialist system inherently will have corruption. It's a human thing, not an economic system thing. You even say so yourself: "if the political system permits it".
But any action that defeats the economic mechanisms of capitalism is anti-capitalis
Re: (Score:2)
Including breaking up monopolies, prosecuting false advertising, and requiring companies to clean up their messes? Are these all "socialism things"?
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking up monopolies - Socialist
That's true, but it's not the root cause. I challenge you to point out a significant monopoly that predates the limited liability corporation (or some other government-chartered organization). Monopoly is an unintended consequence of government interference, and monopoly busting is not the only mitigation that becomes necessary.
Companies forced to clean up their messes - Depends.
This gets even more complicated. Neither libertarianism nor capitalism really demands private real estate. Private property, sure - but not necessarily ownership of the land. Most of
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that those two things are diametrically opposed? I mean, you admit that one of the problems is the government. Government interference in a market is a socialism thing.
Christ that logic hurts my brain.
Let me get this straight-
If the mob pays an illegal immigrant to shake you up for protection money, illegal immigration is the problem, not organized crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Bringing the analogy full-circle, it sounds like you are arguing that you should trust that illegal immigrant who was willing to take someone's money to beat you up.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like I'm arguing that not taking a hard line against immigration is not diametrically opposed to cleaning up organized crime.
The diametric opposition you claim is in fact a farce. An example of bad logic, or an attempt at being manipulative. Not sure which.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just extending your analogy. You are, I think, arguing through analogy that capitalism is the enemy because it corrupts the government.
I'm throwing that back at you, saying that you can't trust a corruptible government to do what is right.
The problem is the governmental system, not the capitalism. Bernie Sanders proposed an amendment to banish corporate and union money from politics. I think that's an excellent start.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree that the government has a role in setting up a free market. They can "grease the wheels", so to speak... set up the rules of the game. But I'd like a specific example where the government enabling a local monopoly "lessens control of the market". Eliminating competition gets rid of one of the main tenets of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a semantic argument. Most people on here would be using the term "capitalism" as shorthand for "free market capitalism". I certainly am.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what socialism is. Plenty of Russians (and hell, a Cuban too) at work who fled from it. My wife has a co-worker currently dealing with the nightmare of a sick dad in worker's paradise Venezuela. Sure, you can sneak in a little bit of socialism when you are lucky enough to have a cash cow that even the government can't fuck up - Norway is a prime example. And "free country" is a relative term. I can say what I want with almost no limits by the government outside of IP law and endangering other people
No customers? (Score:3)
That would explain a lot regarding what they refer to as "customer service"...
Re: (Score:2)
It makes perfect sense if they are taking customer service advice from Darl McBride, Stephen Elop, and Prenda Law.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just from the George Carlin School of "Customer Service".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Improper tax collection too (Score:2)
They do improper tax collection, too. They list X% tax = $Y value, however absolutely no line item or combination of line items with X% would equal $Y value. Even worse, is that they list multiple percentages for various taxes, and each would have a completely different and arbitrary base value if you calculated it out, none of which actually exist on the bill. I have countless other billing issues with them too. They wouldn't do shit over the phone, even after several months. I even went directly into one
Re: (Score:2)
I have a simple answer for ya. CenturyLink runs Washington State's 911 service. Fuck with CL, you're literally fucking with people's lives.
Simple to disprove (Score:2)
Stand up in court, show the monthly bill. If it says CenturyLink on it, then it is CenturyLink. Pretty simple way to disprove this arguement.
Ambiguity is usually resolved against the drafter (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument that they don't have customers is not nearly as clear as they suggest -- what matters is what is in the contract, not how they actually provide services through affiliates.
Read through, for example, the digial phone subscriber terms of service [centurylink.com] that contains the dispute resolution clause involved in those products.
Does it identify the corporate entity that is on the other side of the transaction? (hint: "In this agreement, we use the terms 'we,' 'us' or 'our' to mean CenturyLink.")
Does it mention any local or operating company? (hint: run a word search)
Does the notice section clarify any of this?
Does the agreement contain an "integration clause" that says that all other information or representations are to be disregarded? (hint: section 8. H.)
So who is to say that the CenturyLink holding company is not a party to the subscriber agreement? Who might have drafted the agreements (which apparently are identical no matter which operating company serves the customer)?
If you look at the basic agreements, only the High-Speed Internet and Internet Access Services Residential Terms and Conditions (updated in fall 2017l) actually specifies that the agreement for that product is with a particular affiliate providing services. Both the digital phone and TV service agreements do not. Earlier versions of the internet agreements may not have as well...
This isn't going to get them a quick dismissal without judicial findings of fact...
Re: (Score:2)
Which is likely part of their plan. To keep dragging this out until it doesn't matter or the people behind it give up. And considering that a lot of their customers are the elderly, the second might happen a lot quicker than the former.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple improvement. (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations should not be allowed to own other corporations.
One layer of obfuscation and liability protection is sufficient for legitimate businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
That can be really hard to make work, even for smaller organizations. There are real reasons why you have a holding company beyond liability protection that are quite difficult to avoid. Operations in multiple states is an easy one, but there are regulatory barriers in many industries that require a firewall between groups which are difficult to achieve without separate corporate structures. It can also make it hard to spin off or acquire another line of business.
Re:A simple improvement. (Score:4, Interesting)
Operations in multiple states is an easy one, but there are regulatory barriers in many industries that require a firewall between groups which are difficult to achieve without separate corporate structures. It can also make it hard to spin off or acquire another line of business.
One could argue that limiting the size and scope of how big and individual entity can get would be a good thing though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed 100%!
Originally, corporations could NOT own other corporations but I'm not sure what year that got hijacked.
This whole "I want to reap the benefits of a company but not have _any_ responsibility for when they are liable" has gotten WAY out of hand.
The fact that corporations are treated like people in the eyes of the Law just makes things worse.
Some interesting reading:
https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28... [npr.org]
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/co... [reclaimdemocracy.org]
https://consumerist.com/2014/0... [consumerist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree with that statement.
If implied in their argument, LLC Corporations are to be treated like people...then logically...
cat << EOD
Corporations should not be allowed to own other corporations.
EOD \
| sed -e 's/corporations/people/g'
"People should not be allowed to own other people"
I would throw away that key for a lesser offense.
truer words were never spoken... (Score:2)
>That sole defendant, CenturyLink, Inc., is a parent holding company that has no customers, provides no service...
Got that right.... as a former customer.
Lawyer joke? (Score:3)
Nonexistent customers vs nonexistent service billed? Is that a lawyer joke?
Fraud (Score:3)
If you didn't order a service but were still charged for it then its true, you aren't a customer..
However as you aren't a customer, you also can't have agreed to any arbitration clauses since there was never any agreement or contract in place between you and the provider for the service they charged you for.
If a company charged you for a service and you were not a customer of that service and did not have an agreement in place to purchase that service, then that company committed fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
CenturyLink basically doesn't exist as a service (Score:2)
No kidding. I've been trying for years to get the bastards to provide me with the internet speed they advertise to me on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
You've just given me an idea! >:D
no, only kidding. I had to look up who CenturyLink are - a US internet/telecoms service provider. How did the US telecoms industry evolve into the embodiment of most of the points on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist?
Re:Please, no violence! (Score:4, Informative)
You've just given me an idea! >:D
no, only kidding. I had to look up who CenturyLink are - a US internet/telecoms service provider. How did the US telecoms industry evolve into the embodiment of most of the points on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist?
They didn't; telcos have always operated this way, starting way back when Ma Bell still had a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Open secret: USA - home of capitalism- does not have much in the way of actual competition for telco's on a regional basis.
See all 'last mile'.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel sorry for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, good luck actually pinning any of these activities on anyone at the C level. I agree that someone should be punished for this,
Re:Time for a Judge with a Daedric Gavel (Score:4)
They claim they get the big bux because the buck stops with them. If they negligently let the legal team make whatever crazy move it wants without supervision, and compound their negligence by not correcting the situation after the fact, why should they be absolved?
Re: (Score:2)
The bosses are ultimately responsible for the actions of their employees, and could have stepped in at any time to put a stop to any activity taking place.
It's for a court to decide if they were complicit in the actions or unaware of it taking place. For minor crimes that the top level were not aware of perhaps you should only punish those directly responsible, but for any sufficiently large scale crimes the top level execs should either be punished for being complicit in the crimes, or punished for being c
Re: (Score:2)
Prison time for corporate misconduct is not handed out enough.
Look at it like this... If I knock over a liquor store, and steal a couple hundred dollars, I'd go to jail for 20 years (give or take). I'd be a convicted felon, and I'd never get anything more than a minimum wage job. Basically, my life would be over.
If I'm a C-level executive and play fast/loose with the law, I can steal millions of dollars; from hundreds or thousands of people -- and unless I embarrass the establishment (like Madoff), I might
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm a C-level executive and play fast/loose with the law, I can steal millions of dollars; from hundreds or thousands of people -- and unless I embarrass the establishment (like Madoff), I might get probation, or a few years of parole/supervised release.
Don't aim your sights too low! If you do it right . . . you will get a government bailout!
The C-Level folks at CenturyLink have already stashed their cash in the Cayman Islands. And they have their bags packed, in case any Feds do eventually come looking for them.
The trick about running a scam, is to know when to cut loose and bail out. That was Madoff's mistake . . . he got too greedy, and stayed around too long.
Re:Time for a Judge with a Daedric Gavel (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that it is asinine, prison time is a bit over the top.
No it isn't. Time and time again asshats like this use the "corporate card" to shield themselves from shit like this. They get away with all kinds of shit and laugh while hiding behind corporate laws and lawyers. It's more than time we stripped them of assets and send their ass to prison.
We are more than happy to lock up some kid that robs a liquor store for $50 bucks for 20 years. But IF we send one of these fuckers to prison its for 6 months even though they stole millions. Bull fuckign shit. lock them up and let them rot.
They're the ruling class (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We used to behead kings....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But IF we send one of these fuckers to prison its for 6 months even though they stole millions. Bull fuckign shit. lock them up and let them rot.
Yep, let's feed the prison industrial complex even more. I mean prison has solved everything. There's no more drug dealers, no more murders, nothing. Everyone is living in perfect harmony for fear of going to prison.
Or back in reality all we've achieved is to be number one in the world when it comes to citizen incarceration rate.
Prison is meaningless as both a punishment and as a deterrent. Prison used to be reserved for removing people from public who were incompatible with the public, but we now propose e
Re: (Score:2)
If you as an individual Citizen are found to be participating in a scheme to file false invoices with Big Corp you most certainly can be criminally prosecuted and jailed - we have had two publicized cases along those lines in our metro area this year alone and one resulted in a 20-year sentence for the perp. But when Big Corp knowingly and deliberately changes customers' accounts without the customers' permission and bills th
Re:Time for a Judge with a Daedric Gavel (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that it is asinine, prison time is a bit over the top.
Why is prison time over the top?
Billing people for services they never subscribed to is FRAUD...
If an individual did this, they would be prosecuted and sentenced to jail time. Why should this be any different if a corporation does it?
Re: (Score:3)
Also watch the documentary The Corporation [thecorporation.com]