Reply With Quote
Do lawyers use Wikipedia?
And you call me dumb. I used legal definitions.
Scott, why are you so fast to call someone "dumb?" Is it because you are so ing stupid you can't mount a coherent argument?
you.
In trying to make things so simple that even you could understand... you still couldn't understand.
Do lawyers use Wikipedia?
And you call me dumb. I used legal definitions.
Scott, why are you so fast to call someone "dumb?" Is it because you are so ing stupid you can't mount a coherent argument?
you.
The funniest part of Wild Cobra's idiocy is that there isn't even an outstanding question as to whether these arrangements were in violation of Section 1 (the first ing section!) of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The only questions that remain are whether the employees can obtain class certification (District Court already say they can) and whether they are en led to damages. The arrangements themselves are so facially anti-compe ive that it's not even a question anymore.
Of course, Wild Cobra has been becoming increasing anti-compe ive lately, as evidenced by this gem:
What's next in your authoritarian state, Comrade Cobra?
No, people who need to explain BASIC ING CONCEPTS TO MORONS use Wikipedia.
No.
ing morons believe wikipedia without verifying the information first. You are the ing moron.
Please show me the law that covers what the lawsuit is asking.
Scott. I fail to see how you have enough brain cells to run a business.
The law does not cover what all you lib s want it to. They are trying to get a judge to rule otherwise. they are attempting to bend the law, but then, that's often the only way liberals can win in law. Twist it;'s intent.
Why not just ask congress to pass a new law to make agreements like this clearly illegal?
So it is again all down to your partisan nature. You and Boots are the true brothers. Except he has a bit of a clue.
Jesus...
I understand exactly what Scott is misunderstanding.
You right here say that they agree to not compete. This should not be hard.
The Sherman an rust law as was pointed out to you.
As I pointed out before it is a per se violation because it is two independent firms who are conspiring to limit trade in the labor market. Don't repeat that you hav enot been told. You have been multiple times.
So you are going to join the idiot club too?
I have said I don't like what has happened. Debating the law is not the same as saying I agree with what it does.
People are not goods. If such a precinct is made, at some point someone will think of a way to make closer, the possibility to enslave us with the new legal President.
If you want to make the action this lawsuit is addressing, then change the law. Look at how many other things made precedent by judges have damaged our freedoms.
And repeating an idea over and over again does not make it fact.
I read that before I asked for the law that applies.
The law that applies has been laid out in front of you over and over again in this thread...
WC, if the clear violation of the Sherman An rust act is not apparent to you, will you settle for simple collusion?Commerce is the whole system of an economy that cons utes an environment for business. The system includes legal, economic, political, social, cultural and technological systems that are in operation in any country. Thus, commerce is a system or an environment that affects the business prospects of an economy or a nation-state. It can also be defined as a component of business which includes all activities, functions and ins utions involved in transferring goods from producers to consumers.
Do you really not see that the action taken by the firms in question is illegal?Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open compe ion by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties"
From the first wiki link:
This article needs additional citations for verification.
The second:
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.
How intelligent is it to use bad references? you have not proven anything yet.
First of all using law definitions from your law dictionary is not binding. Different terms have different meanings. If you want to make a case about what we are talking about then cite some court cases.
I can name one huge area of litigation that is along these same lines. Sports law. Team control of players. Prior to the free agency era, teams agreed to not compete for the services of other teams players. It's pretty obvious what the SCOTUS ruled because such collusion is now illegal.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conspiracy/
It is also a civil matter and can be pursued by an individual as well. There is a long history of law regarding trusts and employees. That the practice that seemed extinct for the past 100 years is now back and dip s like you think its okay for them to do is a sad state of affairs. Your servility makes it near impossible to respect you.
Why do people here argue with the teabagger equivalent to mouse?
The excerpt from the Sherman An rust Law is from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sherman_an rust_act
The other two were simple definitions. Would you prefer me to quote them from a dictionary? Pick your favorite...
Yeah. I am starting to get that. Intentional stupidity is wearing. How much do you think is feigned?
WC is surely a dittohead, but the trolls almost exactly like robdiaz does in The Club.
No Sherlock.
I have already read all that. we interpret it's meaning differently.
It may be broad, except it clarifies it speaks of "in restraint of trade or commerce"
So, you believe a person is to be "chattle?"
Which is why I went ahead and gave you a definition for commerce...
No, I don't believe that people are chattel, but I do believe that labor clearly qualifies as "a component of business which includes all activities...involved in transferring goods from producers to consumers."
I am joining the idiots... .?
I can see it. Rob actually gets a good one in for himself though. WC just seems to like to take abuse.
My God man.
That definition came out of an unsourced wiki article. Is that what the legal definition says, if so, where?
My God man. I told you it was a simple definition. Again, would you prefer I quote that definition directly from a dictionary? Pick your favorite...
Are you really so -bent on slurping any and all corporations that you nitpick a simple definition in order to deny the point?
So source it with a legal definition or precedent, or be labeled as unfit to debate.
What he believes is besides the point and you are avoiding the point. Try a different tactic.
This is the first sentence of the Sherman Act. It is very to the point
I wrote this:Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
Do you need more help?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
