Rubashkin freed from prison.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that missed these two posts and you weren't intentionally ignoring them link=topic=88429.msg1886044#msg1886044 date=1517788947]
a guilty plea by a new owner who bought the company after SMR was already in prison. that tells us something about what happened? or something about what the state wanted the company to say to be let live?
Heshy friedman has a foggy clue about what violations did or didn't happen before he got there?

Would never ignore you. 
What about the human resources manager pleading guilty? Is this the same HRM under the old owner?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I repeat, if new owner (DJT) 'pleads' claims about what happened during his predecessor's (BHO) tenure, does the latter have any clue what actually took place befor he showed up? does his claim have any bearing on what actually happened? on 'facts'? or is it a simple legalese technicality?

What about the human resources manager pleading guilty? Is this the same HRM under the old owner?

[gozalim]

Would never ignore you. 
What about the human resources manager pleading guilty? Is this the same HRM under the old owner?

I doubt it.
the prosecutor made sure to clean house. (any rubashkin holdovers would g-d forbid add value to the bankruptcy sale price and ruin the sentence).
note the 'no-rubashkins' clause in the bankruptcy proceedings

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I doubt it.
the prosecutor made sure to clean house. (any rubashkin holdovers would g-d forbid add value to the bankruptcy sale price and ruin the sentence).
note the 'no-rubashkins' clause in the bankruptcy proceedings

So there was child labor violations after he sold the company? The new owners new of this problem and did nothing? That is hard to believe.

[gozalim]

So there was child labor violations after he sold the company? The new owners new of this problem and did nothing? That is hard to believe.

in all likelihood the new owners plead to what purportedly happened before they arrived. (I'm guessing about the HRM, but the owner was certainly new...)
a plea like that has more bearing on the law than on reality...

[ChaimMoskowitz]

in all likelihood the new owners plead to what purportedly happened before they arrived. (I'm guessing about the HRM, but the owner was certainly new...)
a plea like that has more bearing on the law than on reality...

What about the human resources manager guilty plea? No way is any person going to plead guilty for something when they weren't even employed there at the time.
I am confused here. Are you saying there was no children working there?

[gozalim]

What about the human resources manager guilty plea? No way is any person going to plead guilty for something when they weren't even employed there at the time.

The owner certainly plead on things that he was not party to. I'm guessing the HRM was the same story.

I am confused here. Are you saying there was no children working there?

I wasn't there, I don't know if kids worked there.
I certainly don't know if the old management knew of their age. and the discussion of whether not hiring those who seem to be kids without proof of their youth will get you arrested for age discrimination I certainly don't know.
I just fail to see what a plea by an unrelated party, (which I presume to be a legal formality because I don't know what else to make of it), what it contributes to our knowledge of facts...

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I just fail to see what a plea by an unrelated party, (which I presume to be a legal formality because I don't know what else to make of it), what it contributes to our knowledge of facts...

If you think they are going to plead guilty to child labor when there was none I have a bridge to sell you. Especially the HRM!!!

Children testified at the trial. Did they all lie? Lets be real here. He was found not guilty of these charges but don't pretend children didn't work there. A simple google search will give you your answer if you care.

[gozalim]

Children testified at the trial. Did they all lie?

this part seems relevant, as they are alleging something they would have knowledge of. stick to it. leave out legal formalities that add nothing to the facts.

(you don't wanna do that, because that would leave you without the implied criminal knowledge of their age)

If you think they are going to plead guilty to child labor when there was none I have a bridge to sell you. Especially the HRM!!!

I'm sure nobody plead guilty to charges on their own behalf without committing the crime. my question here for the lawyers out there is, what is the legal value of a new owner (or HRM) pleading to charges on behalf of 'the company' or some other previous entity/person, with obviously no implications (or knowledge!) of the pleader?
I ask what it accomplishes legally, because I know what it means factually.

(If you're convinced that, although the pleading owner was clearly new, the HRM was a carryover, look it up. compare the names. shouldn't be too hard...)

[ChaimMoskowitz]

(the HRM was a carryover, look it up. compare the names. shouldn't be too hard...)

That's what I have been saying.

[gozalim]

That's what I have been saying.

fact? or assumption?

link? quote?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

fact? or assumption?

link? quote?

A common sense assumed fact. 

[gozalim]

A common sense assumed fact. 

you know what they say about assumptions.

regarding your 'common sense' logic, you're overlooking some basic facs, as I pointed out:
-some of these pleas were clearly newcomers. no reason the others shouldn't be the same story.
-leaving in a carryover HRM would go against everything else the prosecutors stood for. would be very surprising to say the least.

If you can verify your 'common sense' 'logical' ASSUMPTION, lmk.
otherwise PUOSU

[ChaimMoskowitz]

otherwise PUOSU

I think you should PUOSU, no? I already proved child labor unless you believe the kids lied under oath.

[aygart]

I think you should PUOSU, no? I already proved child labor unless you believe the kids lied under oath.

You did not prove knowledge of that.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

You did not prove knowledge of that.

Wrong thread. Get back to the memo. 

[aygart]

Wrong thread. Get back to the memo. 

So you are saying their testimony was a nothingburger?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

So you are saying their testimony was a nothingburger?

I am saying I am not going to link 1+1=2.

[aygart]

I am saying I am not going to link 1+1=2.

That is fine definitely to me since I have no horse in this race but you have not proven the primary point of dispute.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

That is fine definitely to me since I have no horse in this race but you have not proven the primary point of dispute.

Don't need to prove something that is widely accepted as fact. You need to stop thinking you are in the election thread.