Well, not for all those intermediaries… and the people who get a cut from thier “productivity”. That’s the real barrier, rich people siphoning money off of a process they don’t meaningfully contribute to.

Idolize the movement, not the person. Then it wouldn’t matter what was in the files.

But still illegal federally… wait until donald want to deport people for smoking pot…

I think I need a note signed by the president to pick up my kids adhd meds early due to a vacation. The pharmacists at my place are good though, they don’t judge or anything, they just can’t do things the computer says no to.

Adhd stims.
I don’t mind them requiring a perscription, but all the extra crap is really just gatekeeping from the people who need the meds.
And yeah, mix just about any med with alcohol and you can abuse it (alcohol generally increases speed of absorption). So the dissonance of it being legal while many other things are illegal is only stronger.

Alcohol is legal while pot isn’t. And I can’t have refills on my sons perscription, or fill it more than 3 days early because someone might “abuse” it. Not supporting an action, just pointing out the absurdity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery_laws “There are fifteen[6] countries in which stoning is authorized as lawful punishment” (for adultery)

Plenty more it is just illegal.

16 us states.

Punishment and enforcement vary. But it is certainly against the law in a lot of places. In others it will put you “at fault” in divorce proceedings. So maybe not illegal, but has legal consequences.

This is sorta good. If your doctor feels that strongly about something like that, you don’t want them as a doctor. They probably believe all sorts of things that aren’t medically accepted.

Yeah, now apply basic logic to that. First it says likely, not 100%. Next, banning it only between a boss and a subordinate is not “Completly banning” it. There is nothing in that sentence that supports your opinion that they can’t ban “any” personal relationships.

I did, several times. And pointed out the flaws in your argument. Your response says you have no logic with which to counter.

None of that says it wasn’t common practice to do what they did. I think it is egregious, but if it is common than it won’t be as big a deal as it is being made out to be. It looks more like short cuts than actions that are more nefarious than normal.

Did Atnea refuse at some point, and this subpoena was the result? I haven’t heard that anywhere. Did they go over the top with the threat of being held in contempt of court? I think so, but it was probably boilerplate BS that goes on every subpoena.

Aside from all that. It is common for the prosecution to have information they aren’t allowed to present in court. So if they could have gotten the information anyway had they followed proper procedure, then it doesn’t automatically impact the fairness of the trial. That is why the jury decides the result.

I think you need more to say it impacted the possibility of a fair trial. Like proof they believed the request would have been denied if filed correctly. Or proof they knew they had more information than they asked for, that it was protected information, and they continued to read it anyway. Otherwise these “mistakes” only impact the lawyers getting sued or what not outside the scope of this trial.

Got a source? Sounds like an interesting story. I can’t read german though…

Your article clearly says they can have policies about it. The penalty for not following policies is often termination. So the article doesn’t say what you are claiming it does.

Note in your first paragraph of the quote, it only says likely. So even they admit that there is wiggle room. Nothing in the article specifically protected the right to have a relationship with a subordinate, and in fact says if disclosed they can move people so they are no long subordinate as a result of thier relationship. Which is clearly not saying that company policy can’t involve consequences for having a relationship with a subordinate.

The CEO wasn’t transparent about it to the board, so he can be fired for that.

He was married, so he would be breaking a law by having sex with anyone else in many jurisdictions, and the bad image/press that gives the company would be enough to fire him even if it wasn’t illegal where he is.

The liability alone that she “could” claim she felt pressured into the relationship because he was the boss would likely give them cause to fire him based on his contract.

Stocks often go up in the short term after layoff because of the substantial cost savings. Companies usually tie them to a change in direction to some new market that shows promise. In reality, they are getting rid of higher paid people that they will replace with lower paid people. So that will increase profits which tends to lift the stock price. If they are laying off due to poor business prospects for the future, that would lower the stock price. So it all in how they spin it, and in how the market for thier product is doing.

As for the rest, you don’t seem to know what a CEO of a small company does. This is a sub 500 person company. The CEO does a ton of networking to help get customers. And bigger companies will expect to be talking to the CEO, not a subordinate. So respect and clout are critical. Big company CEOs operate differently.

Oh man did I go down a rabbit hole. Apparently most subpoenas for information are in fact signed by the attorneys. Only if the opposing side or the reciever wish to challenge it does the judge get involved. This is where the court date comes in. It is supposed to be on the subpoena to show there is a real case or something. I assume because a third party could verify the signer is part of that case.

I don’t have a great source for this because I mostly found it as an aswer to a question on legal forumns. Short of some very dense legal procedure docs I doubt there would be a better source.

So it doesn’t seem like him signing it is abnormal. News stories do mention that the court date didn’t exist. I imagine that is probably common as well if the date hasn’t been set. But maybe not.

It seems the biggest procedural issue was that the documents were supposed to be requested to go to the court first, but they requested them to be sent to the prosecution, then forwarded them to the court. I can’t see the case being tossed for that.

The defense is complaining that the prosecution should have realized the mistake by the size of documentation they received. I mean maybe, but again, that doesn’t seem like grounds for disarmament or dismissal. And they did report the mistake to the court and the defense. It took 12 days, but they claim that is when they realized it. And it would be hard to prove otherwise I think.

I can’t find any more reference to a witness to anything, so maybe that wasn’t accurate.

Stock goes down, they lay people off to make it go up. And they will be without a CEO for a while. The fill in person probably will be at a disadvantage in deal negotiations because the topic of conversation will be the affair, not whatever product they are offering. That will also hurt the companies future prospects and stock price.

He was technically her boss. And he gave her that job. Was it because she was sleeping with him? That will certainly cause people at the company to assume so. So whenevr the next person doesn’t get a promo, they will sue because the company fostered an environment where you only get ahead by having sex with your superiors. Also, most companies have a written policy about fraternizing with subordinates. It usually states termination as a consequence of breaking the policy.

Well, I envy your hopefulness.
https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2025/07/15/immigration-agents-demand-tenant-information-from-landlords-stirring-questions-and-confusion/ ICE officers (cops essentially) signed the subpoenas. It’s not technically a lie. I can write and sign something I call a subpoena too. So all the prosecution had to do was have someone other than the lawyers sign it, just to help ensure they can’t be disbarred for it. While not a lie, I would call it an abuse of power and position for sure. So no, the “fake” subpoena just isn’t the smoking gun you think it is. The only real question is what did they say that the witness heard. None of the news stories I read were very specific about that. And I think the witness worked for the insurance company, which is getting sued for handing over the information. So the witness likely will be pressured not to talk as it could incriminate them and thier employer. And I bet they will be represented by lawyers from the company, as they likely couldn’t afford as good of a legal team.

Depends on the motivation. In both of these cases it allows the gov to put people in jail easier. So while different, they are probably the same from the probability perspective.