Random Politics & Religion #00

You know, you might help your case out a little better if you, instead of posting a link to a sensationalized article, you actually, you know, post the legal documents themselves.

But I guess it's because you don't want to show the fact that these companies are agreeing to settle this out of court (my guess is because the negative publicity would be damaging along with drawn out legal costs associated with it) instead of actually going to court and argue their case.

After reading a bit about the background, it seems like in most other states (California being the weird case), this would have been laughed at and thrown out of court. California, they have a small chance of winning, but mainly because that state's all *** up in the legal sense anyway.

But anyway, please show us where it states that there was collusion, and not the appearance of such, as accused by the plaintiffs. I, for one, would have loved to see this actually go to court and watch it get thrown out of court (as it would have most likely happen, they have no evidence nor is there any reasonable excuse to state as such). Then the only bitching you would hear is how evil corporations are and how they just paid the courts to screw the little people over.

Yeah, in professional employment where one can leave a company to start their own, non-compete clauses exist to prevent the leaving employee from stealing the clients when they leave.

There are TWO different cases here.

The class action lawsuit, which has not been settled yet.

The DOJ final judgement, which is final for all respective companies involved. Which Nik has already quoted as it was in the link Mil already provided.

V. CONDUCT NOT PROHIBITED
A. Nothing in Section IV shall prohibit a Defendant and any other person from attempting to enter into, entering into, maintaining or enforcing a no direct solicitation provision, provided the no direct solicitation provision is:

contained within existing and future employment or severance agreements with the Defendant's employees;
reasonably necessary for mergers or acquisitions, consummated or unconsummated, investments, or divestitures, including due diligence related thereto;
reasonably necessary for contracts with consultants or recipients of consulting services, auditors, outsourcing vendors, recruiting agencies or providers of temporary employees or contract workers;
reasonably necessary for the settlement or compromise of legal disputes; or
reasonably necessary for (i) contracts with resellers or OEMs; (ii) contracts with providers or recipients of services other than those enumerated in paragraphs V.A. 1 - 4 above; or (iii) the function of a legitimate collaboration agreement, such as joint development, technology integration, joint ventures, joint projects (including teaming agreements), and the shared use of facilities.
B. All no direct solicitation provisions that relate to written agreements described in Section V.A.5.i, ii, or iii, that a Defendant enters into, renews, or affirmatively extends after the date of entry of this Final Judgment shall:

identify, with specificity, the agreement to which it is ancillary;
be narrowly tailored to affect only employees who are anticipated to be directly involved in the agreement;
identify with reasonable specificity the employees who are subject to the agreement;
contain a specific termination date or event; and
be signed by all parties to the agreement, including any modifications to the agreement.
C. For all no direct solicitation provisions that relate to unwritten agreements described in Section V.A.5.i, ii, or iii, that a Defendant enters into, renews, or affirmatively extends after the date of entry of this Final Judgment, the Defendant shall maintain documents sufficient to show:

the specific agreement to which the no direct solicitation provision is ancillary;
the employees, identified with reasonable specificity, who are subject to the no direct solicitation provision; and
the provision's specific termination date or event.
D. Defendants shall not be required to modify or conform, but shall not enforce, any no direct solicitation provision to the extent it violates this Final Judgment if the no direct solicitation provision appears in Defendants' consulting or services agreements in effect as of the date of this Final Judgment (or in effect as of the time a Defendant acquires a company that is a party to such an agreement).

E. Nothing in Section IV shall prohibit a Defendant from unilaterally deciding to adopt a policy not to consider applications from employees of another person, or to solicit, cold call, recruit or hire employees of another person, provided that Defendants are prohibited from requesting that any other person adopt, enforce, or maintain such a policy, and are prohibited from pressuring any other person to adopt, enforce, or maintain such a policy.

AND WHEREAS this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by the Defendants that the law has been violated or of any issue of fact or law, other than that the jurisdictional facts as alleged in the Complaint are true;

AND WHEREAS, the Defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by this Court;

NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the Defendants, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED.

Here is the case number, and all the numbers for the court dockets filed:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2011cv02509/243796/
Feel free to pay to retrieve the individual dockets, and peruse them at your leisure.

You may want to stop moving the goal posts.

Wait, I asked you to prove to us that there was collusion. I'm not doing the work for you.

Also, who's moving the goal posts? Did you not read what I originally wrote, or are you just going to play the fool?

Except people keep failing to show these so-called policies where companies are actually actively seeking to "screw the little people" in all positions.

But let's go down this route a bit. Give examples of companies screwing people over. Let's take this one step at a time.

We were talking about the class action lawsuit. I know you want to include the DOJ lawsuit in there, but you know what? That's not the point.

Fine, the DOJ said to stop, which they did prior to the DOJ telling them to stop. Did they break any laws though? Hell, the link you provided stated that they didn't:

All the DOJ stated was that they didn't like the policy in place, so they sued over it. The companies didn't fight it because they weren't continuing the practice anymore anyway.

Notice this little statement on top?

Senate Republicans say they've been unable to make a deal to extend contested anti-terror provisions. As a result, the post-Sept. 11 programs will expire at midnight.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas says the program will "go dark" at midnight due to objections in the Senate.

The objections have come primarily from GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who is running for president.

Intelligence officials are warning that the result of the Senate's inaction will amount to a win for terrorists.

At issue is a program allowing the National Security Agency to collect Americans' phone records in bulk to search for terror connections. Other lesser-known provisions also will expire.

Best thing congress has done in a decade or two.
Rand Paul for President!

It almost makes up for authorizing the damn thing in the first place.

it will continue with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

It almost makes up for authorizing the damn thing in the first place.

The legal authority for U.S. spy agencies' collection of Americans' phone records and other data expired at midnight on Sunday after the Senate failed to pass legislation extending their powers.

After debate pitting Americans' distrust of intrusive government against fears of terrorist attacks, the Senate voted to advance reform legislation that would replace the bulk phone records program revealed two years ago by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

Although the Senate did not act in time to keep the program from expiring, the vote was at least a partial victory for Democratic President Barack Obama, who had pushed for the reform measure as a compromise addressing privacy concerns while preserving a tool to help protect the country from attack.

But final Senate passage was delayed until at least Tuesday by objections from Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian Republican presidential hopeful who has fulminated against the NSA program as illegal and unconstitutional.

As a result, the government's collection and search of phone records terminated at midnight when key provisions of a post-Sept. 11, 2001, law known as the USA Patriot Act expired.

In addition, U.S. law enforcement and security agencies will lose authority to conduct other programs.

Those allow for "roving wiretaps" aimed at terrorism suspects who use multiple disposable cell phones; permit authorities to target "lone wolf" suspects with no connection to specific terrorist groups, and make it easier to seize personal and business records of suspects and their associates.

Still, eventual resumption of the phone records program in another form, and the other government powers, appeared likely after the Senate voted 77-17 to take up the reform legislation, called the USA Freedom Act.

"This bill will ultimately pass," Paul acknowledged after the procedural vote.

The Senate abruptly reversed course during a rare Sunday session to let the bill go ahead, after Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reluctantly acknowledged that Paul had stymied his efforts to extend the Patriot Act provisions.

Intelligence experts say a lapse of only a few days would have little immediate effect. The government is allowed to continue collecting information related to any foreign intelligence investigation that began before the deadline.

Obama strongly backed the Freedom Act, as have most Democrats. It passed the House of Representatives on May 13 by 338-88.

After the Senate adjourned, the White House issued a statement calling on the Senate to "put aside partisan motivations and act swiftly."

The measure could face more debate in Congress. Republican Senator Richard Burr offered several amendments, including one to extend the existing program for 12 months to provide more time to adopt changes mandated by the Freedom Act.

That could be a problem for some House members, because it doubles the transition period in their version of the bill.

'DEMAGOGUERY AND DISINFORMATION'

Republicans have been deeply divided on the issue. Security hawks wanted the NSA program to continue as is, and libertarians like Paul want to kill it altogether.

The Senate debate was angry.

Paul said the Patriot Act provisions wasted resources better spent targeting those planning attacks. He even accused some of his critics of wanting an attack on the United States "so they can blame it on me."

McConnell accused Paul, his fellow Kentucky Republican, and other Patriot Act opponents of waging "a campaign of demagoguery and disinformation" based on revelations from Snowden "who was last seen in Russia."

McConnell has endorsed Paul for president. But he wanted to extend the Patriot Act provisions, unchanged, for five years, and agreed only reluctantly to allow a vote on the Freedom Act despite what he called its "serious flaws."

Several senators accused Paul of using the issue to raise money for his presidential campaign.

"He obviously has a higher priority for his fundraising and political ambitions than for the security of the nation," Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, told reporters.

The Senate resumed consideration of the legislation at 4 p.m. EDT, just as security officials said they had to begin shutting down the NSA program to meet the deadline.

The Freedom Act would end spy agencies' bulk collection of domestic telephone "metadata" and replace it with a more targeted system.

The records would be held by telecommunications companies, not the government, and the NSA would have to get court approval to gain access to specific data. Neither the current nor proposed new system gives the government access to the content of phone conversations.

Many civil liberties groups feel the Freedom Act does not go far enough in protecting privacy.

"Congress should take advantage of this sunset to pass far reaching surveillance reform, instead of the weak bill currently under consideration," Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office, said in a statement.

A review panel Obama established in 2013 concluded that the metadata collection program had not been essential to preventing any terrorist attack. Security officials counter that it provides important data they can combine with other intelligence to help stop attacks.

10. Spain
9. North Korea
8. Belgium
7. China
6. Iraq
5. Libya
4. The Islamic State
3. United Kingdom
2. United States
1. Maldives

Can't video here. What's the source on that? The alliance of Wishful Thinking Russian ComradesPutin Supporters?

Your bias is clearly showing.

We must get medicaid to pay for expensive puberty blocking drugs!

Your bias is immediately jumping to any kind of Russian connection purely based on lack of any mention.