Re: That'd be a sight.... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17803353 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:20:41 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:20:41 EDT Re: That'd be a sight.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17803353 pb5k : Please learn to write a more cogent post before criticising another's reading abilities.

said by phattieg See Profile :

The whole purpose of getting a corporate license is so no one is personally held responsible for damages/lawsuits.
The wording in that post clearly implies that no one within a company may be held liable simply because of its corporate structure, which clearly isn't the case.

If you meant something else, it wasn't broadcast as clearly as you thought. My apologies.
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17803353 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:30:34 EDT Re: That'd be a sight.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17802824 phattieg :
said by pb5k See Profile :

said by phattieg See Profile :

said by donjuan2002 See Profile :

Well that will be the Owner of the company in this case the CEO that is in charge, somebody is getting is going to lose his/her job.
Umm, who would they take. Certainly not the CEO. The whole purpose of getting a corporate license is so no one is personally held responsible for damages/lawsuits.
I think you're confusing stockholder liability with that of management liability. While it is true that shareholders can not be held responsible for a corporation's actions, its ethically challenged employees most definitely can be.
Please read the post. I already said what you said, only I chose different wording which may have confused my point. The whole reply says the CEO won't go to jail, but whoever managed his account will be the likely culprit. It's probably not well documented as to who exactly handled his issue, so there was no one to send to court.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17802824 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:56:56 EDT Re: That'd be a sight.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17802159 Ahrenl : I believe SarbOx dumps it all on the CEO. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17802159 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:14:09 EDT Re: That'd be a sight.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17801625 Warez_Zealot :
said by captokita See Profile :

How can you issue a warrant to a company? Are they gonna arrest the building? That'd be one heckuva big set of handcuffs. :D
Corporation: any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

That's why a corporation is a joke.. They would have to arrest every single person who works there..
--
The meek shall inherit the earth but don't forget the poor are the ones who inherit the debt.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17801625 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:47:26 EDT Re: That'd be a sight.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17801445 pb5k :
said by phattieg See Profile :

said by donjuan2002 See Profile :

Well that will be the Owner of the company in this case the CEO that is in charge, somebody is getting is going to lose his/her job.
Umm, who would they take. Certainly not the CEO. The whole purpose of getting a corporate license is so no one is personally held responsible for damages/lawsuits.
I think you're confusing stockholder liability with that of management liability. While it is true that shareholders can not be held responsible for a corporation's actions, its ethically challenged employees most definitely can be.
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17801445 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:19:38 EDT Re: That'd be a sight.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17800766 phattieg :
said by donjuan2002 See Profile :

Well that will be the Owner of the company in this case the CEO that is in charge, somebody is getting is going to lose his/her job.
Umm, who would they take. Certainly not the CEO. The whole purpose of getting a corporate license is so no one is personally held responsible for damages/lawsuits. It's likely if handcuffs would be issued, the people who handled the guys business would be under fire, not the CEO. I doubt anyone would be in cuffs, however. Nice to see a person taking it to court when they refused to resolve it. I DO hate when companies bill you, screw up your credit, and refuse to fix things, when it's not you who was in error. I try to handle those situations one on one, so this scenario doesn't happen.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17800766 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:14:27 EDT Re: That'd be a sight.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17800729 donjuan2002 : Well that will be the Owner of the company in this case the CEO that is in charge, somebody is getting is going to lose his/her job.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17800729 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:06:01 EDT That'd be a sight.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17800708 captokita : How can you issue a warrant to a company? Are they gonna arrest the building? That'd be one heckuva big set of handcuffs. :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17800708 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:01:59 EDT