Skip to main content

View Diary: Michele Bachmann still won't pay staff, so staff rats her out to the feds (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  However, in most places there is no law that says (0+ / 0-)

    you have to report illegal behavior to the police so in theory it could be enforced if someone went to the cops/feds on their own.  It would probably get thrown out on public policy grounds but it would be an expensive legal fight.

    You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

    by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:56:34 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know about that... (0+ / 0-)
      in most places there is no law that says you have to report illegal behavior to the police
      I think proactive reporting laws are the rare exception, not the rule. For example doctors and teachers have to report suspected child abuse to cops.

      But just, "Gee, I think my neighbor is running a meth lab?"

      "Gee, I think my coworker is shoplifting."

      "Gee, I think my company accountant is skimming off the books?"

      I don't think there's many laws requiring people to report such things to the police.

      "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."
      —Dan Savage

      by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:17:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly, and that is why such a NDA might be (0+ / 0-)

        enforceable as since there is no legal requirement to report (with a few exceptions) it's not an illegal act to require not reporting.  Of course, it might not be upheld on public policy grounds but not because the contract requires an illegal act.

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:40:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Anderson, Cassandra Waites

          That's weird. A NDA requiring not reporting suspected illegal activity? Nah. That can't be enforceable. It would violate free speech garantees, and not for a rational, defensible reason, like "don't reveal the secret recipe for Coke."

          There is a substative legal distinction between requiring silence for proprietary advantage and requiring silence for the sake of concealing criminal activity and obstructing justice.

          The first concerns only civil law and both parties are signing a private contract. The second concerns criminal law and the state is also an unwitting party to the contract's execution.

          "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."
          —Dan Savage

          by Scott Wooledge on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:30:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site