I was thinking a RICO type indicment might be used as well. But doesn't the underlying business venture itself need to be an illegal enterprise? I'm not clear on that....seems they have distorted it to the point it can be used against legitimate business concerns if the other aspects of the crime are there....IDK.
Caution: Rant!
- Thread starter d00df00d
- Start date
- Status
If the UAW built these recalled cars in question.... there would be no problems or deaths.
RICO has been used in pursuing all types of entities.
The treble damages part of RICO has undoubtedly attracted the attetion of tort litigators looking at Toyota.
Also, at what point do the alledged ill-gotten gains end?
Toyota would have to settle any such action at huge expense.
The federal conspiracy statute might also come into play, since all that would be needed would be to mine Toyota company e-mail for any discussion of how to manage information given to NHTSA.
An actual act need not have ocurred, IIRC, merely the contemplation of one in a discussion involving at least two employees.
The thing about a typical federal indictment is that usually a laundry list of charges are levied, bringing the possibility of running into long minimum sentences for losing on just one charge at trial.
Sometimes, just talking to the feds can land you in a federal prison.
Had Martha Stewart simply told the feds to go talk to her lawyers, rather than granting the courtesy of an interview, she would have walked.
Martha was in no way guilty of insider trading as the law was written.
The treble damages part of RICO has undoubtedly attracted the attetion of tort litigators looking at Toyota.
Also, at what point do the alledged ill-gotten gains end?
Toyota would have to settle any such action at huge expense.
The federal conspiracy statute might also come into play, since all that would be needed would be to mine Toyota company e-mail for any discussion of how to manage information given to NHTSA.
An actual act need not have ocurred, IIRC, merely the contemplation of one in a discussion involving at least two employees.
The thing about a typical federal indictment is that usually a laundry list of charges are levied, bringing the possibility of running into long minimum sentences for losing on just one charge at trial.
Sometimes, just talking to the feds can land you in a federal prison.
Had Martha Stewart simply told the feds to go talk to her lawyers, rather than granting the courtesy of an interview, she would have walked.
Martha was in no way guilty of insider trading as the law was written.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Did everyone miss line one of the first post? Cripes...
I have to ask-why do we really care? Just because your "rant" is your view doesn't mean that other people can't discuss the issue in the manner they see fit.
If you prefer not to be aggravated by others, just ignore their posts. Otherwise the armchair quarterbacks will continue to voice their opinion, no matter how much or how little is based in science, research or reality.
Did everyone miss line one of the first post? Cripes...
I have to ask-why do we really care? Just because your "rant" is your view doesn't mean that other people can't discuss the issue in the manner they see fit.
If you prefer not to be aggravated by others, just ignore their posts. Otherwise the armchair quarterbacks will continue to voice their opinion, no matter how much or how little is based in science, research or reality.
You don't get it.
The thread was not supposed to be about debating whether Toyota is at fault and why. It was supposed to be about the way people are talking about it, and the logical fallacies they commit. If you or anyone else can't see the difference between those two, that's fine. But I can, which means I can see that most of the posts here are total non-sequiturs. Can't blame me for being frustrated about that.
I'm doubly frustrated because I think our reaction to this fiasco is far more important than the fiasco itself. I don't even care that I was the one who started the thread. I'd be reacting exactly the same way if it had been someone else. It just sucks that we can't talk about this without the same people throwing the same tantrums over and over, whether they are relevant or not.
The thread was not supposed to be about debating whether Toyota is at fault and why. It was supposed to be about the way people are talking about it, and the logical fallacies they commit. If you or anyone else can't see the difference between those two, that's fine. But I can, which means I can see that most of the posts here are total non-sequiturs. Can't blame me for being frustrated about that.
I'm doubly frustrated because I think our reaction to this fiasco is far more important than the fiasco itself. I don't even care that I was the one who started the thread. I'd be reacting exactly the same way if it had been someone else. It just sucks that we can't talk about this without the same people throwing the same tantrums over and over, whether they are relevant or not.
So there are some irrational responses. We're not all Mr. Spocks. A large portion of a 1st world economy is based on emotional decisions. One can still dig through the chatter and find some useful technically accurate nuggets. Or decline to read such threads.
More Kool aid please
In resonse to the OP MR doodfood
I think you should disclose you work for Toyota or you need to have a few drinks and not worry about Toytotas problems or you need to step away from these forums, simple things seem to bother you.
Somehow since your not winning the arguement you have to rant about an issue your obviously on the worng side of. Tough to defend a company which lies to its customers and covers things up.
In resonse to the OP MR doodfood
I think you should disclose you work for Toyota or you need to have a few drinks and not worry about Toytotas problems or you need to step away from these forums, simple things seem to bother you.
Somehow since your not winning the arguement you have to rant about an issue your obviously on the worng side of. Tough to defend a company which lies to its customers and covers things up.
Last edited:
I am locking this because it has become personal attacks and not a discussion. Recalls and problems with products are not a new thing and we should stay informed. There is no need to attack the members that do not agree with you. We do not have a lemon law because it sounded like a fun thing to do -- it was because there was a major problem.
- Status
Similar threads
