|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 03:33 AM EDT |
> I don't believe that nicotine or our products are addictive.
He told the truth. He had a false belief. What do we do for that?
I know some societies where re-education on a collective farm
would be suitable treatment. Is there a problem in the US with
such a forest of protective amendments to your constitution that
it is lawful for people to believe uintruths?
You asked the wrong question. It should be: Are these people
whose belief is contrary to proven scientific evidence fit persons
to hold the post of CEO in such large corporations? And AFAIK
the only people authorised to answer that are the shareholders
and/or BoD.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
Short answer No and that is NO in court too.
Witnesses have to tell the truth, lawyers do not. A lawyer duty is to the client
as such if a lawyer knows something negative about the client the lawyer can be
disbarred for revealing that information.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
they were all very well briefed by their legal team as to exactly what to say in
answer to the questions put to them in order to avoid perjury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
