> You're reading research that says they're geniuses?
I didn't say this
> ...
Re the rest. Thanks. I had implicitly assumed we were talking about financial or white collar crimes rather than all crimes. In other words the types of crimes people generally assume that richer people commit (insider training, tax evasion, wage theft, etc.)
I think you are correct in the most general sense of "all crime"
Criminality seems to peak around 85IQ where people are smart enough to commit crimes but stupid enough to decide to commit them and not smart enough to get away with them.
Assuming you're arguing in good faith, then please help me understand your perspective.
1. If it wasn't a single judge (Kathaleen McCormick) that ruled on this case, please let me know which other judges contributed to the ruling
2. How much compensation did Elon Musk receive from Tesla during the ten-year period in question, if not zero?
3. Which information were the voters missing? Bear in mind that after the very high profile court case where McCormick claimed the board was corrupt, shareholders were able to consider her opinion, and they still rejected it, and voted for the pay deal again.
4. Musk was previously a Democrat voter, but I would suggest that in supporting small-state libertarian values (and, in fact, heading up the effort to shrink the state), supporting rightwing parties in Europe, and supporting Trump, he is probably a conservative in all the ways that matter.
5. It's not irrelevant that the activist judge was Democrat-appointed, unless you believe the false premise that as soon as someone becomes a judge, all their human nature and political loyalties are immediately and permanently supressed.
6. Musk's political worldview is very relevant here. As Biden showed throughout his term in office, he wanted to see a heavily partisan, heavily Republican Elon Musk disempowered and excluded. Biden made no secret of this, excluding Musk from offical events around electrification of transport (where Musk is the world industry leader), and those instances where Biden made the false claim that legacy automakers like GM were "leading" auto electrification. Biden made repeated threats to use government agencies to investigate Musk (i.e. lawfare) for spurious reasons. Other establishment Democrats undoubtedly felt the same way - they feared Musk and wanted him disempowered.
1. You called the judge an "activist" which I don't agree with. Further if there were legitimate concerns about bias they could have requested that the judge recuse herself. It also ignores the, rightfully, failed appeals which were not ruled by McCormick
2. This is covered extensively in the document I linked
3. This is covered extensively in the document I linked
4. I regret commenting on musk's politics. I have no idea if he actually voted for democrats previously and if so he he actually ever supported small-state libertarian values. They aren't relevant to the case.
Yeah. Hearsay is an out of court statement provided to show the proof a matter. It has little to do with oral vs non oral. There are also exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions and so on.
Correct. The majority are not promoted. If they are in the first year of their current level/role and have previous experience, they still haven't accumulated much institutional knowledge to make them indispensable. While experience helps, their impact in a new role is still developing, and their departure is less likely to disrupt operations significantly.
The article states that the lawsuit was rejected merely on procedural grounds (specifically the doctrine of administrative exhaustion) . It does not come close to stating that the action was legal.
The actual court decison (which I have also read) is consistent with the article.
The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) precludes APA review amongst other relief (since it precludes district court jurisdiction entirely). That being said, this "termination" is likely invalid under the CSRA.
Please see Elgin v. Dept. of Treasury 567 U.S. 1 (2012) for details.
I'd believe this in very specific contexts but I can't find any reliable explanation of what those might be. Can you point me to anything worthwhile to read on the topic?
I am fairly certain that consumer and employment pre-dispute arbitration agreements are strongly negative but I haven't learned enough about FINRA/securities arbitration to have a strong opinion.
In general, forced arbitration is not an effective legal posture for investors, and a common instrument applied to suckers.
Sociopath structured parasitism always poses a liability around treasure. Handle or hire your own due diligence solutions... Seriously, don't assume either of our nonsense applies in your country. =3
reply