If he thinks that this will get him out of the fact that the CPA "elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures required"...
We don't have the letter, but Judge Herndon noted that it wasn't the CPA who made that choice:
In these letters, the CPA indicates a departure from generally accepted accounting principles. He further notes that plaintiffís counsel elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles.
I might be wrong, but I'd say those two sentences are about as close as the CPA could get (within the bounds of professionalism) to saying, "The financial statements provided by my client are complete BS."
As long as someone on TWC's end can put a check in the "resolved" box at the end of the conversation (and keep technicians from leaving the building), the complaint is off the record.
Actually, it's even worse. The policy says the complaint does not have to be recorded if it's handled "to the customer's satisfaction" or doesn't require a visit from a technician.
So... it doesn't matter if the customer isn't satisfied. The customer could be screaming in frustration, but as long as TW doesn't send a technician to deal with it, they can continue to say they have no complaints.
Doesn't Techdirt make its money consulting? So are you cynical about Techdirt too?
Oh, yes. Terribly so. (OK, OK, to be specific, it's management consulting I dread. Best case I've seen: Consultants come in, make the time and effort to understand the organization and its issues, prepare a detailed report and step-by-step plan to makes things work better, and... they leave, the report is filed away forever, and management makes a tick in the "paradigm shifted" box.)
I can easily envision some consultant-happy boss deciding it's time to do something managery and decreeing that all employees stand at their desks, because he's heard it's the Next Big Thing. Not that I'm cynical about managers. (Definitely cynical about consultants, though.)
Reading that... every single on of those people other than the victim is rotten all the way through.
Well.... the kid's mom sounds OK. (Yes, I know that's not what you meant.) They're appealing the conviction and planning a civil suit against the school district. Good. Or, at least, a good start.
They seriously need to look at removing this judge from the bench. In this parade of horrible authority figures, a judge who makes rulings on the basis of "Well, if they're in court, they must have done something" really manages to stand out. (We're used to idiotic behavior from principals, after all.)
ďThe single best thing that ever happened to Germany were the war crimes tribunals, because it forced Germany to come to its milk about what in fact has happened.Ē
I blame Joe Biden for Godwinizing this discussion before it even got started. When did he say that anyway? (I'm curious about context.) Also curious: "come to its milk"? Is that a Bidenism, or should I know what it means?
There's a particularly telling section on Page 15 of Judge Wright's ruling:
An exchange between the undercover agent and Defendants on January 30, 2013, compellingly demonstrates the economic pressures Defendants faced, exacerbated by the Government:
[Agent]: Yep, what do you always say, you ainít afraid of no money, right? [CI]: Yeah, I ainít afraid of no money. [Agent]: You ainít afraid of no cocaina are you? . . . Male: Hell yeah, it will change my life. . . . [Whitfield]: Sure, Iíll never be broke again. My kidís gonna be straight. . . . [Whitfield]: Iím gonna buy property and everything, probably like five or ten years down the line, but it will be right. (Oppín Ex. 2 at 45.)
With the Government dangling over $600,000 in front of clearly impoverished individuals, it is no surprise that they took the bait.
First, whether or not Senator Feinstein used the "torture" is a superficial detail not worth two paragraphs. She already said it was horrible.
It is not superficial. It matters. It matters because Senator Feinstein, like those who instituted and carried out this program, knew full well that calling this abuse by its true name could lead to public recrimination as well as, possibly (and certainly justifiably), to prosecution. It matters because they used twisted language like "enhance interrogation techniques" to cover up an illegal and immoral policy of systematic and deliberate brutality. And it matters because allowing them to get away with this makes us all complicit.
And as to your point about torture as a crime: The U.S. is a party to the Convention Against Torture. So, yes. It's a crime.