5 ms·

Insurance companies obviously end up being the front line of insurance fraud and should definitely turn over those cases to the proper authorities. But this shi

Insurance companies obviously end up being the front line of insurance fraud and should definitely turn over those cases to the proper authorities. But this shit? "Erie had even paid part of the salary of the lead detective who knocked on Schmidt’s door that day, as well as that of the prosecutor who went on to charge him with felony insurance fraud. And it would also secretly cover the costs of an expert witness to testify against Schmidt in court." Why on gods green earth is it legal for any person or company to directly pay police departments like this? How is this not a bribe?

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
The really crazy thing is a small time blogger I know got fined thousands of dollars for not disclosing a product endorsement on her small time blog. The FTC is up and active and enforcing the rules... on the smallest companies in the US. Somehow in this country if I get a free meal at a restaurant, post about it and don't disclose the free meal, I'm a target. But bribing police is legal without disclosure to courts? I can pay 'experts' to testify in court without revealing I'm paying? Just when I though the corruption couldn't get any more entrenched, I keep finding new areas of deep rot.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  Oh yes. Just the other week, the largest workplace immigration raid in history took place. Seven factories owned by the same company. 680 individuals arrested for being undocumented - a misdemeanor, leaving aside all the other polarization of opinions on that. It's a felony to (knowingly) employ someone without work authorization. Not one supervisor, manager, or executive has been charged with anything in relation to these raids. And ICE has announced no plans to do so.
- CocaKoala 7y ago
  > I can pay 'experts' to testify in court without revealing I'm paying? I feel like it's generally understood that when expert witnesses get called to the stand, they're being compensated for their time by whoever is calling them.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    > I feel like it's generally understood that when mommy blogger talks about a product on their blog, they're being compensated for their time by whoever is calling them. I edited it for you to see if you agree that what's good for the geese should be good for the gander. If that logic won't fly for Mommy blogger with the FTC, why should it fly with expert witness? The stakes are WAY lower in one than in the other. To be clear, I'm not supporting the idea of the FTC giving fines to anybody. But the idea of rule of law is that laws should apply to everyone, which is clearly not the case. Your argument BTW, feels weird. Why would you bring up the idea of 'generally understood' when that can equally apply to the other side? To me it feels like one of those subtle defenses for the current system that don't actually spell out a defense, but tries to remove criticism with offhanded comments.
    - CocaKoala 7y ago
      Blogging is a hobby for many people; being an expert witness is not. Does every expert witness donate their time out of the goodness of their heart? They're experts; they have a career doing something. They're taking time out of that career to consult for the case and appear on the stand; why would you not think that time is compensated for? Edit: I could see an argument that normal witnesses are not compensated for their time, and so a layperson might assume that an expert witness is not? But normal witnesses are appearing in their capacity as a witness; expert witnesses are appearing in their capacity as an expert. They're consultants; consultants get paid for consulting.
      - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
        > They're consultants; consultants get paid for consulting. Bloggers... get paid for blogging. The issue, just like the expert witness, is by who. That is literally the whole point of disclosure for mommy bloggers, disclosing conflict of interests. Why not for witnesses? Again, you keep putting out arguments that seem to be defending the current system without actually stating as much. If you feel the FTC should be as it is, then say so. These off handed contrarian comments with subtle defense of terrible things... is a kinda dishonest way to communicate. I will say, you did spell out the rationalization of this. But a rationalization is just that: "the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.". Your logic can also be restated in a way that really highlights the issue I have: People are not to assume someone in a commercial setting is getting compensated for endorsement. So therefore a disclosure is needed and strong enforcement. People who are volunteering (jury) are to assume that things that happen in a non-commercial setting happen for money. Therefore, no disclosure is needed and no enforcement. Also, the commercial setting has low stakes. The court setting has high stakes. Which again, brings us back to: what's your point with these off handed comments? Edit: Reading your other comments on this page, I think you didn't even read the article, which is why your comments are coming off so strange.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

The really crazy thing is a small time blogger I know got fined thousands of dollars for not disclosing a product endorsement on her small time blog. The FTC is up and active and enforcing the rules... on the smallest companies in the US. Somehow in this country if I get a free meal at a restaurant, post about it and don't disclose the free meal, I'm a target. But bribing police is legal without disclosure to courts? I can pay 'experts' to testify in court without revealing I'm paying? Just when I though the corruption couldn't get any more entrenched, I keep finding new areas of deep rot.

FireBeyond 7y ago
Oh yes. Just the other week, the largest workplace immigration raid in history took place. Seven factories owned by the same company. 680 individuals arrested for being undocumented - a misdemeanor, leaving aside all the other polarization of opinions on that. It's a felony to (knowingly) employ someone without work authorization. Not one supervisor, manager, or executive has been charged with anything in relation to these raids. And ICE has announced no plans to do so.
CocaKoala 7y ago
> I can pay 'experts' to testify in court without revealing I'm paying? I feel like it's generally understood that when expert witnesses get called to the stand, they're being compensated for their time by whoever is calling them.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  > I feel like it's generally understood that when mommy blogger talks about a product on their blog, they're being compensated for their time by whoever is calling them. I edited it for you to see if you agree that what's good for the geese should be good for the gander. If that logic won't fly for Mommy blogger with the FTC, why should it fly with expert witness? The stakes are WAY lower in one than in the other. To be clear, I'm not supporting the idea of the FTC giving fines to anybody. But the idea of rule of law is that laws should apply to everyone, which is clearly not the case. Your argument BTW, feels weird. Why would you bring up the idea of 'generally understood' when that can equally apply to the other side? To me it feels like one of those subtle defenses for the current system that don't actually spell out a defense, but tries to remove criticism with offhanded comments.
  - CocaKoala 7y ago
    Blogging is a hobby for many people; being an expert witness is not. Does every expert witness donate their time out of the goodness of their heart? They're experts; they have a career doing something. They're taking time out of that career to consult for the case and appear on the stand; why would you not think that time is compensated for? Edit: I could see an argument that normal witnesses are not compensated for their time, and so a layperson might assume that an expert witness is not? But normal witnesses are appearing in their capacity as a witness; expert witnesses are appearing in their capacity as an expert. They're consultants; consultants get paid for consulting.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      > They're consultants; consultants get paid for consulting. Bloggers... get paid for blogging. The issue, just like the expert witness, is by who. That is literally the whole point of disclosure for mommy bloggers, disclosing conflict of interests. Why not for witnesses? Again, you keep putting out arguments that seem to be defending the current system without actually stating as much. If you feel the FTC should be as it is, then say so. These off handed contrarian comments with subtle defense of terrible things... is a kinda dishonest way to communicate. I will say, you did spell out the rationalization of this. But a rationalization is just that: "the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.". Your logic can also be restated in a way that really highlights the issue I have: People are not to assume someone in a commercial setting is getting compensated for endorsement. So therefore a disclosure is needed and strong enforcement. People who are volunteering (jury) are to assume that things that happen in a non-commercial setting happen for money. Therefore, no disclosure is needed and no enforcement. Also, the commercial setting has low stakes. The court setting has high stakes. Which again, brings us back to: what's your point with these off handed comments? Edit: Reading your other comments on this page, I think you didn't even read the article, which is why your comments are coming off so strange.