11 ms·

More like "It's not a crime if a corporation does it." The US treats corporations with kid gloves. They get away with so much, and in those rare cases where a r

More like "It's not a crime if a corporation does it." The US treats corporations with kid gloves. They get away with so much, and in those rare cases where a regulatory body does anything, it's often just a strongly worded letter, a warning, a threat to one day send a strongly worded letter, or, in really rare, extreme cases, a company official gets called in to say a few words in front of Congress. Nobody goes to jail, fines get whittled down to nothing in appeal after appeal, and the government usually finally just accepts a pinky-swear to never be bad again. Contrast that to how individuals get the hammer put down on them by the justice system if they so much as fart in the wrong room. The lesson from the last 50 years should be: If you want to commit a crime and get away with it, do it as a corporation.

jeffhuys 2y ago
This also happens in the EU, tho.
- akoncius 2y ago
  there are some exceptions, when US jails EU CEO https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16743308/volkswagen-oliver-schmidt-sentence-emissions-scandal-prison https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16743308/volkswagen-olive...
memhole 2y ago
This has actually been partly why when people ask me about my business I tell them it sometimes feels more like a statement about incorporating yourself. Minus the crime part to be clear. I actually try to hold myself to a high ethical standard.
maiar 2y ago
This. The entire point of corporations is to shield individuals from penalties, but they don’t work. Business failure in good faith, where the shielding makes sense, is not really protected because bank loans require personal liability and because it’s impossible these days to recover from a damaged reputation unless you come from a family rich enough to hire its own PR firm. On the other hand, when it comes to letting rich people get away with absolutely unambiguous criminality, corporations work very well.
- alt227 2y ago
  I get the feeling this was the plan from begining.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Sure, the plan (of LLCs) was always to limit liability but initially _who_ could incorporate wasn't literally everybody. Like the founding fathers ran their business as themselves. There isn't some Monticello LLC that Thomas Jefferson was CEO of so if TJ did something bad then he's personally liable for it. This is what's changed and is the problem, people get LLCs in situations they really don't deserve them in.
    - datavirtue 2y ago
      What are you talking about?
  - brookst 2y ago
    While the lack of accountability for corporations is crazy, I’m a firm believer in the Cube observation: there is no master plan.
    - namaria 2y ago
      There is one master plan tho: might is right. It gets pushed back, but it seeps through every contention wall we have put up so far.
      - brookst 2y ago
        A flaw in human nature, but not a plan. There was no board meeting where people came up with it and set out a roadmap and had milestones and KPIs. It’s an emergent property and it sucks, but there’s no conspiracy.
        wahnfrieden 2y ago
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
We need to start seizing IP into the public domain and sending shareholders to jail when their companies misbehave. I'm on the hook if my dog bites somebody, it should be no different if the role of my dog is played by a company. Monetary risk is not a real enough risk.
- layer8 2y ago
  While I’m sympathetic to the sentiment, I don’t see how “sending shareholders to jail” could possibly work, given how many people own shares. It’s like your dog would be collectively owned by a million people. Maybe you mean the board?
  - dclowd9901 2y ago
    A charitable reading of that would be shareholders who have enough sway to push corporate action. Boards, really.
  - RobotToaster 2y ago
    To continue the analogy, if a dog is aggressive and hurts people it gets put down, why not put down the corporation?
    - brookst 2y ago
      Because the ripple effects are much larger. Lay off a few thousand people in most cities and you’re sinking all sorts of businesses that had nothing to do with the crime.
      - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
        Putting down a corporation doesn't necessarily mean ending a productive operation. Employee or government takeover are options too.
        __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
amazingamazing 2y ago
i find this comment strange. limited liability is by design
- anticorporate 2y ago
  Yes, limiting the liability of criminals from prosecution is the design. That's what's wrong with it, and why we must stop it.
- wat10000 2y ago
  Limited liability means the shareholders are shielded. It’s not supposed to mean the company itself is shielded.
- swatcoder 2y ago
  The "design" is sensitive to which liabilities are limited for whom. Shielding marginal or non-voting investors from disproportionate responsibility for things essentially out of their control transfers risk from them, and makes it easier to move money to useful places. That's great! Shielding key decision-makers and large-stake owners from responsibility for actions performed at their behest is not so much. And in fact, the pure "design" of limited liability has means for "piercing the veil" and keeping these individuals responsible and for wholly disolving corporate charters. It just turns out that once commercial enterprise grows big enough, or is steered by influential enough leadership, capturing regulation and enforcement to serve their own interests, they can undermine those safeguards and assert a kind of wholesale corporate immortality and immunity that completely undermines the "design" -- a bug in the implementation of that design, if you would.
fentaniljail 2y ago
[dead]
paulddraper 2y ago
Please cite example of farting in the wrong courtroom. Either that, or your post is hyperbolic.
- buggy6257 2y ago
  Yes. Yes it is. Congrats you cracked the code.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    And yet, if someone replies “that’s exaggerated” they’ll be told they’re wrong. Have your cake and eat it too
- stanleykm 2y ago
  hacker news discovers literary devices
gruez 2y ago
>Contrast that to how individuals get the hammer put down on them by the justice system if they so much as fart in the wrong room. The lesson from the last 50 years should be: If you want to commit a crime and get away with it, do it as a corporation. That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not. It's not any different than say, simple property crimes (eg. stealing or vandalism) vs white collar crimes, both of which can be perpetrated by individuals but the latter are far harder to prosecute. Stealing a candy bar is an open and shut case, especially with surveillance footage. A long firm fraud[1] is far harder to prosecute. If you buy a truckload of candy bars on credit, fail to repay the vendor, and declare bankruptcy, prosecutors are going to have a hard time prosecuting the case. Having bad business acumen isn't a crime, so on the surface nothing illegal has happened. To prove wrongdoing they must prove that you intentionally acquired goods on credit without intending to pay it back, which is far harder. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_firm_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_firm_fraud
- regularization 2y ago
  > That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not. I Yes, but why are individual crimes easy to prosecute and corporate crimes not. These are not things that just popped into being like a thunderstorm. They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way.
  - pwg 2y ago
    The GP did not mean "individual crimes". The meaning was: "most crimes that an individual will commit turn out to be easy to prosecute". I.e., shoplifter steals candy bar, surveillance camera has clear view of the shoplifters face, and of the theft, and security camera in parking lot gets license plate of car they drive away in. Easy conviction for prosecutor, as there little question of who committed nor of what crime was committed. Contrast that with the GP's example "business type" crime. To prove the "business" committed a crime, they have to find a way to prove the business, when buying the truckload of candy bars, at the time of the purchase, intentionally never intended to pay back the loan taken out to buy the truckload. Proving intent (i.e., effectively "mind-reading") is way more difficult than proving a crime happened in the "shoplifter" example above. There's no security camera footage recording the "intent" of the business when it purchased the truckload of candy bars.
danju 2y ago
[dead]
bdangubic 2y ago
Contrast that to how individuals get the hammer put down on them by the justice system if they so much as fart in the wrong room. The thing is though - in America people are corporations except of course no one will teach you that. Open an single-person LLC and boom - you are now corporation. Have a rental, move it under LLC, own a car, LLC… now you are corporation (with limited to no liability) :)
- gruez 2y ago
  You have to be very careful with this, especially as a single person corporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil Moreover most of the difficulty in prosecuting corporate crimes comes from the fact that responsibility is spread across multiple people, that it's hard to prove anyone did anything wrong. Obviously that won't work with a single person corporation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- otterley 2y ago
  That’s not quite true. It’s just the first step. Your business then has to observe and perform all the required customs and ceremonies (board meetings, etc.) in order to be respected by the law. Otherwise a court can “pierce the corporate veil” and find individuals liable for their actions.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    I am speaking from personal experience… all those customs and ceremonies are formalities you pay a company few bucks a month to handle for you…
    - otterley 2y ago
      What companies do this for you? I wasn't able to find any in a few minutes of research. I found several that operate as a registered agent, but that's just one piece of the puzzle.
lb1lf 2y ago
'Corporations have neither bodies to be punished or souls to be condemned. Hence they do as they please.' -Edward, Lord Thurlow.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Tangentially, my other favorite on such things: > There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back. -- Robert Heinlein, Life-Line
amelius 2y ago
This will get worse soon with the oligarchs in power. And by the way, this is preaching to the choir. Nothing will change if we keep echoing the same things to ourselves.
steveBK123 2y ago
Exactly - theres a lot of stuff that if an individual/small business owner did, they'd be personally onerously fined or jailed.. but corporations get a pass. Corporations also have a lot of money to pay good lobbyists & lawyers such that laws are pretty forgiving, loopholes are found & exploited, and finally they are vigorously defended if the government ever does try to crack down. Ubers behavior during its growth phase, and even now is a good example of this. The latest letter of the law vs spirit of the law thing Uber did was circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage. To avoid having to pay any difference to make up the hourly wage to drivers, Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. So the drivers remain on the road, driving/idling, waiting to get back into the app. The "work" is still getting done, but it doesn't count against Uber. Imagine a small restaurant doing similar, deciding at random slow times instead of sending staff home for the day, they assign them no tables and mark them as off-the-clock. When demand picks up again, they get assigned some tables and resume making money. The whole independent contractor on-demand app market is an automated exploitation engine.
- gruez 2y ago
  >To avoid having to pay any difference to make up the hourly wage to drivers, Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. So the drivers remain on the road, driving/idling, waiting to get back into the app. The "work" is still getting done, but it doesn't count against Uber. I get legislators want uber drivers to earn a living wage, but expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd. >Imagine a small restaurant doing similar, deciding at random slow times instead of sending staff home for the day, they assign them no tables and mark them as off-the-clock. When demand picks up again, they get assigned some tables and resume making money. You're trying to imply small businesses don't do this but this happens all the time. It's not even limited to minimum wage laws. After the ACA was passed, everyone started avoiding hiring people for more than 32 hours if they could, to skirt the "you have to provide healthcare to all full time employees" requirement.
exe34 2y ago
Luigi Inc.
yapyap 2y ago
I’d say “it’s not a crime if ur rich” or “it’s not a crime if ur powerful” is more fitting.
casey2 2y ago
If you go down the list, every single reason written or not that illegal taxicabs for example are illegal doesn't apply to ride sharing platforms this is why you see such a major propagandist push from taxi companies about Uber drivers being rapists, serial killers, mass shooters etc while taxi drivers are angles. The laws exist for a reason and it's not to protect the wages class of people who drive taxis. Since ride-sharing doesn't break the letter nor the spirit there is very little desire to change laws to make it illegal. An individual choosing to break the law on the other hand, well, we've already seen what happens, things get bad fairly quickly as opposed to the decade plus of relatively spotless service from Uber and similar companies. There is even a statistically significant gap in DUIs compared to certain cities that banned ride-sharing companies, though I haven't seen a proper meta-analysis yet.
wnevets 2y ago
This is only gonna get worse, we just had the CEOs of massive corporations actively campaigning for the current president.
flawn 2y ago
Make company leadership (partly) liable again and create incentives against such happenings.
nxobject 2y ago
My favorite example is PG&E: convicted for 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter after the Camp Fire, the punishment was… a $3.4 million fine, because you can’t incarcerate a corporation. https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/wildfire/pges-manslaughter-punishment-guilty/103-c8e8eb69-e128-4d09-bec6-f9569dee7293 https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/wildfire/pges-mansl...

jeffhuys 2y ago

This also happens in the EU, tho.

akoncius 2y ago
there are some exceptions, when US jails EU CEO https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16743308/volkswagen-oliver-schmidt-sentence-emissions-scandal-prison https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16743308/volkswagen-olive...

memhole 2y ago

This has actually been partly why when people ask me about my business I tell them it sometimes feels more like a statement about incorporating yourself. Minus the crime part to be clear. I actually try to hold myself to a high ethical standard.

maiar 2y ago

This. The entire point of corporations is to shield individuals from penalties, but they don’t work. Business failure in good faith, where the shielding makes sense, is not really protected because bank loans require personal liability and because it’s impossible these days to recover from a damaged reputation unless you come from a family rich enough to hire its own PR firm. On the other hand, when it comes to letting rich people get away with absolutely unambiguous criminality, corporations work very well.

alt227 2y ago
I get the feeling this was the plan from begining.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Sure, the plan (of LLCs) was always to limit liability but initially _who_ could incorporate wasn't literally everybody. Like the founding fathers ran their business as themselves. There isn't some Monticello LLC that Thomas Jefferson was CEO of so if TJ did something bad then he's personally liable for it. This is what's changed and is the problem, people get LLCs in situations they really don't deserve them in.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    What are you talking about?
- brookst 2y ago
  While the lack of accountability for corporations is crazy, I’m a firm believer in the Cube observation: there is no master plan.
  - namaria 2y ago
    There is one master plan tho: might is right. It gets pushed back, but it seeps through every contention wall we have put up so far.
    - brookst 2y ago
      A flaw in human nature, but not a plan. There was no board meeting where people came up with it and set out a roadmap and had milestones and KPIs. It’s an emergent property and it sucks, but there’s no conspiracy.
      - wahnfrieden 2y ago

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

We need to start seizing IP into the public domain and sending shareholders to jail when their companies misbehave. I'm on the hook if my dog bites somebody, it should be no different if the role of my dog is played by a company. Monetary risk is not a real enough risk.

layer8 2y ago
While I’m sympathetic to the sentiment, I don’t see how “sending shareholders to jail” could possibly work, given how many people own shares. It’s like your dog would be collectively owned by a million people. Maybe you mean the board?
- dclowd9901 2y ago
  A charitable reading of that would be shareholders who have enough sway to push corporate action. Boards, really.
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  To continue the analogy, if a dog is aggressive and hurts people it gets put down, why not put down the corporation?
  - brookst 2y ago
    Because the ripple effects are much larger. Lay off a few thousand people in most cities and you’re sinking all sorts of businesses that had nothing to do with the crime.
    - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
      Putting down a corporation doesn't necessarily mean ending a productive operation. Employee or government takeover are options too.
      - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago

amazingamazing 2y ago

i find this comment strange. limited liability is by design

anticorporate 2y ago
Yes, limiting the liability of criminals from prosecution is the design. That's what's wrong with it, and why we must stop it.
wat10000 2y ago
Limited liability means the shareholders are shielded. It’s not supposed to mean the company itself is shielded.
swatcoder 2y ago
The "design" is sensitive to which liabilities are limited for whom. Shielding marginal or non-voting investors from disproportionate responsibility for things essentially out of their control transfers risk from them, and makes it easier to move money to useful places. That's great! Shielding key decision-makers and large-stake owners from responsibility for actions performed at their behest is not so much. And in fact, the pure "design" of limited liability has means for "piercing the veil" and keeping these individuals responsible and for wholly disolving corporate charters. It just turns out that once commercial enterprise grows big enough, or is steered by influential enough leadership, capturing regulation and enforcement to serve their own interests, they can undermine those safeguards and assert a kind of wholesale corporate immortality and immunity that completely undermines the "design" -- a bug in the implementation of that design, if you would.

fentaniljail 2y ago

[dead]

paulddraper 2y ago

Please cite example of farting in the wrong courtroom. Either that, or your post is hyperbolic.

buggy6257 2y ago
Yes. Yes it is. Congrats you cracked the code.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  And yet, if someone replies “that’s exaggerated” they’ll be told they’re wrong. Have your cake and eat it too
stanleykm 2y ago
hacker news discovers literary devices

gruez 2y ago

>Contrast that to how individuals get the hammer put down on them by the justice system if they so much as fart in the wrong room. The lesson from the last 50 years should be: If you want to commit a crime and get away with it, do it as a corporation. That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not. It's not any different than say, simple property crimes (eg. stealing or vandalism) vs white collar crimes, both of which can be perpetrated by individuals but the latter are far harder to prosecute. Stealing a candy bar is an open and shut case, especially with surveillance footage. A long firm fraud[1] is far harder to prosecute. If you buy a truckload of candy bars on credit, fail to repay the vendor, and declare bankruptcy, prosecutors are going to have a hard time prosecuting the case. Having bad business acumen isn't a crime, so on the surface nothing illegal has happened. To prove wrongdoing they must prove that you intentionally acquired goods on credit without intending to pay it back, which is far harder. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_firm_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_firm_fraud

regularization 2y ago
> That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not. I Yes, but why are individual crimes easy to prosecute and corporate crimes not. These are not things that just popped into being like a thunderstorm. They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way.
- pwg 2y ago
  The GP did not mean "individual crimes". The meaning was: "most crimes that an individual will commit turn out to be easy to prosecute". I.e., shoplifter steals candy bar, surveillance camera has clear view of the shoplifters face, and of the theft, and security camera in parking lot gets license plate of car they drive away in. Easy conviction for prosecutor, as there little question of who committed nor of what crime was committed. Contrast that with the GP's example "business type" crime. To prove the "business" committed a crime, they have to find a way to prove the business, when buying the truckload of candy bars, at the time of the purchase, intentionally never intended to pay back the loan taken out to buy the truckload. Proving intent (i.e., effectively "mind-reading") is way more difficult than proving a crime happened in the "shoplifter" example above. There's no security camera footage recording the "intent" of the business when it purchased the truckload of candy bars.

danju 2y ago

[dead]

bdangubic 2y ago

Contrast that to how individuals get the hammer put down on them by the justice system if they so much as fart in the wrong room. The thing is though - in America people are corporations except of course no one will teach you that. Open an single-person LLC and boom - you are now corporation. Have a rental, move it under LLC, own a car, LLC… now you are corporation (with limited to no liability) :)

gruez 2y ago
You have to be very careful with this, especially as a single person corporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil Moreover most of the difficulty in prosecuting corporate crimes comes from the fact that responsibility is spread across multiple people, that it's hard to prove anyone did anything wrong. Obviously that won't work with a single person corporation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
otterley 2y ago
That’s not quite true. It’s just the first step. Your business then has to observe and perform all the required customs and ceremonies (board meetings, etc.) in order to be respected by the law. Otherwise a court can “pierce the corporate veil” and find individuals liable for their actions.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  I am speaking from personal experience… all those customs and ceremonies are formalities you pay a company few bucks a month to handle for you…
  - otterley 2y ago
    What companies do this for you? I wasn't able to find any in a few minutes of research. I found several that operate as a registered agent, but that's just one piece of the puzzle.

lb1lf 2y ago

'Corporations have neither bodies to be punished or souls to be condemned. Hence they do as they please.' -Edward, Lord Thurlow.

FireBeyond 2y ago
Tangentially, my other favorite on such things: > There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back. -- Robert Heinlein, Life-Line

amelius 2y ago

This will get worse soon with the oligarchs in power. And by the way, this is preaching to the choir. Nothing will change if we keep echoing the same things to ourselves.

steveBK123 2y ago

Exactly - theres a lot of stuff that if an individual/small business owner did, they'd be personally onerously fined or jailed.. but corporations get a pass. Corporations also have a lot of money to pay good lobbyists & lawyers such that laws are pretty forgiving, loopholes are found & exploited, and finally they are vigorously defended if the government ever does try to crack down. Ubers behavior during its growth phase, and even now is a good example of this. The latest letter of the law vs spirit of the law thing Uber did was circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage. To avoid having to pay any difference to make up the hourly wage to drivers, Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. So the drivers remain on the road, driving/idling, waiting to get back into the app. The "work" is still getting done, but it doesn't count against Uber. Imagine a small restaurant doing similar, deciding at random slow times instead of sending staff home for the day, they assign them no tables and mark them as off-the-clock. When demand picks up again, they get assigned some tables and resume making money. The whole independent contractor on-demand app market is an automated exploitation engine.

gruez 2y ago
>To avoid having to pay any difference to make up the hourly wage to drivers, Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. So the drivers remain on the road, driving/idling, waiting to get back into the app. The "work" is still getting done, but it doesn't count against Uber. I get legislators want uber drivers to earn a living wage, but expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd. >Imagine a small restaurant doing similar, deciding at random slow times instead of sending staff home for the day, they assign them no tables and mark them as off-the-clock. When demand picks up again, they get assigned some tables and resume making money. You're trying to imply small businesses don't do this but this happens all the time. It's not even limited to minimum wage laws. After the ACA was passed, everyone started avoiding hiring people for more than 32 hours if they could, to skirt the "you have to provide healthcare to all full time employees" requirement.

exe34 2y ago

Luigi Inc.

yapyap 2y ago

I’d say “it’s not a crime if ur rich” or “it’s not a crime if ur powerful” is more fitting.

casey2 2y ago

If you go down the list, every single reason written or not that illegal taxicabs for example are illegal doesn't apply to ride sharing platforms this is why you see such a major propagandist push from taxi companies about Uber drivers being rapists, serial killers, mass shooters etc while taxi drivers are angles. The laws exist for a reason and it's not to protect the wages class of people who drive taxis. Since ride-sharing doesn't break the letter nor the spirit there is very little desire to change laws to make it illegal. An individual choosing to break the law on the other hand, well, we've already seen what happens, things get bad fairly quickly as opposed to the decade plus of relatively spotless service from Uber and similar companies. There is even a statistically significant gap in DUIs compared to certain cities that banned ride-sharing companies, though I haven't seen a proper meta-analysis yet.

wnevets 2y ago

This is only gonna get worse, we just had the CEOs of massive corporations actively campaigning for the current president.

flawn 2y ago

Make company leadership (partly) liable again and create incentives against such happenings.

nxobject 2y ago

My favorite example is PG&E: convicted for 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter after the Camp Fire, the punishment was… a $3.4 million fine, because you can’t incarcerate a corporation. https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/wildfire/pges-manslaughter-punishment-guilty/103-c8e8eb69-e128-4d09-bec6-f9569dee7293 https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/wildfire/pges-mansl...