 Corporations can do WHAT!? |
  |
 Sep 24 2010, 08:21 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,328 Joined: 2-April 07 From: The Center of the Universe Member No.: 11,360  |
QUOTE (Doc Chase @ Sep 24 2010, 03:24 PM)  U.S. citizens and based corporate entities are still subject to U.S. law outside of the country - I.E. they come back, they get nailed to the proverbial cross. Maybe---in my example country X calls the slavery indentured servitude and part of its penal code. Karoline's says it is just providing jobs to the convicts in the foreign country. It even pays them (well it is put in a fund and promptly stolen by govt X's officials). |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 24 2010, 08:27 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,179 Joined: 10-June 10 From: St. Louis, UCAS/CAS Border Member No.: 18,688 |
QUOTE (Warlordtheft @ Sep 24 2010, 08:21 PM) Maybe---in my example country X calls the slavery indentured servitude and part of its penal code. Karoline's says it is just providing jobs to the convicts in the foreign country. It even pays them (well it is put in a fund and promptly stolen by govt X's officials). IIRC, if the international court says 'hey, that's slavery' then the U.S. courts will sit up and take notice. In this particular case, if the plaintiffs had named the executives instead of the corporation, it would have likely gone forward. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2010, 08:30 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
QUOTE (Doc Chase @ Sep 24 2010, 04:27 PM) In this particular case, if the plaintiffs had named the executives instead of the corporation, it would have likely gone forward. Which makes it an example of "Plaintiffs did not do the research". -k |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2010, 08:35 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 44 Joined: 3-August 10 Member No.: 18,885 |
QUOTE (Doc Chase @ Sep 24 2010, 12:27 PM) IIRC, if the international court says 'hey, that's slavery' then the U.S. courts will sit up and take notice. In this particular case, if the plaintiffs had named the executives instead of the corporation, it would have likely gone forward. Exactly. Also, the case was brought under a Tort statute. For those not familiar with the term, a Tort is a civil action. ie. This wasn't about the criminal act of slavery, it was about the monetary damages the plaintiffs suffered as a result. They probably sued the corporation (rather then the executives that ordered the acts or the employees who committed them) because it had the biggest pockets. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2010, 08:38 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,179 Joined: 10-June 10 From: St. Louis, UCAS/CAS Border Member No.: 18,688 |
QUOTE (Toloran @ Sep 24 2010, 08:35 PM) Exactly. Also, the case was brought under a Tort statute. For those not familiar with the term, a Tort is a civil action. ie. This wasn't about the criminal act of slavery, it was about the monetary damages the plaintiffs suffered as a result. They probably sued the corporation (rather then the executives that ordered the acts or the employees who committed them) because it had the biggest pockets. Indeed, because the corporations cover the liability as they were ostensibly 'business operations'. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2010, 08:40 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,179 Joined: 10-June 10 From: St. Louis, UCAS/CAS Border Member No.: 18,688 |
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 24 2010, 08:30 PM) Which makes it an example of "Plaintiffs did not do the research". -k Well, they're sort of caught between a rock and a hard spot. If they name the executives, then it's questionable as to whether or not Dutch Royal Shell would cover the liability. The US Court said "DR Shell didn't pull the trigger, Joe Schmoe in Marketing did, so you'll have to sue him." Man, now I'm just not sure. It's something I'd love to discuss in an international law class...if I was taking one. *cough* |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2010, 09:55 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,679 Joined: 19-September 09 Member No.: 17,652 |
Karoline's International Cupcakes, where sweating blood isn't a figure of speech (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Also, if any international cupcake conglomerate crops up anytime soon, I'm totally not involved. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2010, 10:16 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
QUOTE (Doc Chase @ Sep 24 2010, 09:24 PM) U.S. citizens and based corporate entities are still subject to U.S. law outside of the country - I.E. they come back, they get nailed to the proverbial cross. How do a corporation leave a country anyways? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2010, 10:18 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
QUOTE (Warlordtheft @ Sep 24 2010, 08:54 PM) Which if it involved a private conversation-can be pretty hard to do. THe other issue is where the suite takes place for example "This is mister Johnson from HR, care to have lunch?" Plausible deniability up the ying yang... |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st April 2025 - 12:41 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.