4 ms·

This is not a correct comparison. Firstly, if an employee of a company fucks up at work, the company is responsible, not the employee. In certain regulated fi

This is not a correct comparison. Firstly, if an employee of a company fucks up at work, the company is responsible, not the employee. In certain regulated fields, if a licensed individual fucks up, even when employed, their licence can be impacted and they can be fined (this is common in the financial industry). If a prosecutor intentionally misleads a judge, there is a misconduct process that can impact their license and career. When the article says "fbi", they mean an attorney acting on behalf of the FBI, and that person can be held accountable if the judge decides to.

barelysapient 4y ago
Not entirely true. It depends on the role the employee. Employee who are officers or directors of the company, or lawyers for the company, can absolutely be held personally responsible. That's why it's common for employee's in those position to be covered by E&O insurance.
- dcow 4y ago
  How do I jump to this timeline?
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    This happens all the time. It's just not reported on social media. If you own shares in companies directly, you often receive updates on lawsuits against C-level execs.
  - barelysapient 4y ago
    I tried to find some statistics on this hit came up empty. Here’s a recent example. https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2022/09/09/lawsuit-accuses-kohls-executives-directors.html https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2022/09/09/lawsui...
lurquer 4y ago
> Firstly, if an employee of a company fucks up at work, the company is responsible, not the employee. That’s utterly wrong. The employee is always a potential defendant. Legal doctrines such as respondeat superior and principal/agent and the like extend the liability to the employer. Nobody bothers to sue the employee as they’re generally broke. The goal is to sue the employer. But, there is no ‘immunity’ that arises from being an employee.
- drc500free 4y ago
  The liability shield protects the shareholders, not the employees.
chasil 4y ago
How do you explain this? More importantly, why am I obligated to pay for this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_let...
- pas 4y ago
  Path dependence. SCOTUS decisions slowly but surely led to this. Most people don't care. Those who do are overwhelmingly "tough on crime" and "think of the children" and "drugs are bad" and so on idiots. And so the "average citizen" (median voter) cheered for these decisions, and so here is the result.
  - chasil 4y ago
    I actually think it's time to be "tough on government." Article V is really looking good right now. None of this is working for us.
shagie 4y ago
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-engineer-sentenced-his-role-conspiracy-cheat-us-emissions-tests https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-engineer-sentenced... > A Volkswagen engineer was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Sean F. Cox of the Eastern District of Michigan to 40 months in federal prison, and two years of supervised release his role in a nearly 10-year conspiracy to defraud U.S. regulators and Volkswagen customers by implementing software specifically designed to cheat emissions tests in hundreds of thousands of Volkswagen “clean diesel” vehicles sold in the U.S., the Justice Department announced today.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  There are "fuck ups" and then there's committing fraud against the government (or any clear violation of the criminal code). Of course, you are not protected by your employer for the 2nd case - HOWEVER, the company is ALSO considered at fault and often fined accordingly. Regardless, the FBI lawyer CAN still be punished in this case. Just because we don't know why the judge did not see fit to do so, does not mean they are immune. For all we know, the judge knew exactly what he was doing and wasn't really misled at all.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    > There are "fuck ups" and then there's committing fraud against the government Not really clear why a lawyer lying to the judge is not as bad here.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Can be, in principle, but uniformly are not.
mattwilsonn888 4y ago
> This is not a correct comparison. You are right, what the FBI did here is much worse.

barelysapient 4y ago

Not entirely true. It depends on the role the employee. Employee who are officers or directors of the company, or lawyers for the company, can absolutely be held personally responsible. That's why it's common for employee's in those position to be covered by E&O insurance.

dcow 4y ago
How do I jump to this timeline?
- koheripbal 4y ago
  This happens all the time. It's just not reported on social media. If you own shares in companies directly, you often receive updates on lawsuits against C-level execs.
- barelysapient 4y ago
  I tried to find some statistics on this hit came up empty. Here’s a recent example. https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2022/09/09/lawsuit-accuses-kohls-executives-directors.html https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2022/09/09/lawsui...

lurquer 4y ago

> Firstly, if an employee of a company fucks up at work, the company is responsible, not the employee. That’s utterly wrong. The employee is always a potential defendant. Legal doctrines such as respondeat superior and principal/agent and the like extend the liability to the employer. Nobody bothers to sue the employee as they’re generally broke. The goal is to sue the employer. But, there is no ‘immunity’ that arises from being an employee.

drc500free 4y ago
The liability shield protects the shareholders, not the employees.

chasil 4y ago

How do you explain this? More importantly, why am I obligated to pay for this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_let...

pas 4y ago
Path dependence. SCOTUS decisions slowly but surely led to this. Most people don't care. Those who do are overwhelmingly "tough on crime" and "think of the children" and "drugs are bad" and so on idiots. And so the "average citizen" (median voter) cheered for these decisions, and so here is the result.
- chasil 4y ago
  I actually think it's time to be "tough on government." Article V is really looking good right now. None of this is working for us.

shagie 4y ago

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-engineer-sentenced-his-role-conspiracy-cheat-us-emissions-tests https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-engineer-sentenced... > A Volkswagen engineer was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Sean F. Cox of the Eastern District of Michigan to 40 months in federal prison, and two years of supervised release his role in a nearly 10-year conspiracy to defraud U.S. regulators and Volkswagen customers by implementing software specifically designed to cheat emissions tests in hundreds of thousands of Volkswagen “clean diesel” vehicles sold in the U.S., the Justice Department announced today.

koheripbal 4y ago
There are "fuck ups" and then there's committing fraud against the government (or any clear violation of the criminal code). Of course, you are not protected by your employer for the 2nd case - HOWEVER, the company is ALSO considered at fault and often fined accordingly. Regardless, the FBI lawyer CAN still be punished in this case. Just because we don't know why the judge did not see fit to do so, does not mean they are immune. For all we know, the judge knew exactly what he was doing and wasn't really misled at all.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > There are "fuck ups" and then there's committing fraud against the government Not really clear why a lawyer lying to the judge is not as bad here.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Can be, in principle, but uniformly are not.

mattwilsonn888 4y ago

> This is not a correct comparison. You are right, what the FBI did here is much worse.