Even though no one was hurt (and I don’t want to hear this mental anguish BS), how long do you think it will take before a lawsuit is filed against Wal-Mart and\or the kid’s parents?

Part 2. If this was a black kid who asked white people to leave the store, do you think it would have even been investigated?

1) I don’t think the harassment or bias intimidation charges are going to stick, because there were no threats made or implied. I suppose some lawyers might try to hold Walmart responsible for allowing customers easy access to their intercom system, and might sue for something along the lines of emotional distress, but I don’t see that going very far either. It was nothing more than some stupid kid making a racist joke, and as long as we still have a 1st Amendment, nobody has the right not to be offended.

2) Possibly, but in our current political climate I find it unlikely that a black kid would get charged in the same manner. There have been a few cases in the news of black people getting charged and successfully convicted for committing hate crimes against whites, but such cases are still very much the exception rather than the rule. There is still a pervasive attitude in this country that minorities cannot, by definition, be racist. And district attorneys are usually fearful of doing anything that might offend the black community, so they are reluctant to accuse black suspects of racism even if they know it’s true.

Case 1: Your company has incurred a material loss during the current fiscal year, and you are trying to decide how it should be presented in this year’s income statement. Identify the authoritative guidance that indicates the criteria that need to be met to present the loss as extraordinary in the income statement.

Case 2: Your company is a defendant in a lawsuit that could result in a material loss in the coming year if the plaintiff prevails. You are concerned that you may have to accrue a loss and a liability for this contingent result of the lawsuit. Identify the authoritative guidance that indicates the conditions under which the loss and liability will be accrued before the lawsuit is resolved.

Case 3: Your company is involved in real estate sales and has been told that you may fully recognize the sale price at the date the contact is signed. Apparently, the installment method is an alternative when criteria for full accrual are not met. Identify the authoritative guidance that explains the installment method for your situation.

Case 4: Your company finances expansion through long-term debt on which you regularly pay interest to the lenders. You are trying to determine whether that interest should be included as an operating activity, an investment activity or a financing activity in the Statement of Cash Flows (SCF). Identify the authoritative guidance that indicates the SCF section in which these interest payments should be reported.

Case 5: Your company manages Internet sites. One of your duties is to negotiate exchanges with other companies in which you place advertisements on each other’s websites. In some of these transactions, the two parties exchange no cash. Identify the authoritative guidance that indicates how your company should measure revenues and expenses to report these exchange transactions

This is basically a look-up problem on the website asc.fasb.org. For Case 1, an Income Statement issue, you can work you way through the online codification tool by going to 225-Income Statement, 20-Extraordinary and Unusual Items, and 45-Other Presentation Matters. This lists out the criteria that need to be met to present the loss as extraordinary in the income statement. The short answer is 225-20-45.

This should get you started on completing the other cases.

And, obviously, what she’s done is criminal, rather than personal injury. Stealing and forgery. You don’t actually have any monetary loss besides your stolen money and bounced check fees.

Anyway, you need to file police reports – all of you – and report her to your state insurance department’s website – the fraud unit – and file complaints with the company she works for.

From: Mitch Stewart, BarackObama.com <info@barackobama.com>
Subject: A stampede
To: obamahood123@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 10:34 AM

Obamahood –

Yesterday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.

It’s a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.

While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.

In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that free-speech rights permit groups like corporations and labor unions to directly spend on political campaigns, prompting the White House to pledge "forceful" action to undercut the decision.

So labor unions can spend freely on ads. Why are democrats complaining? The unions supported this lawsuit.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

There’s no reason to blame anybody, the law is clearly unconstitutional and the court got it right. The only disappointing part about the whole thing is that 4 unqualified justices who don’t understand their job voted to uphold it.

By the way, hysterical leftists, here’s the real issue(s) regarding the ruling. Spend a few minutes and educate yourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM

If you really care about health care costs, consider the all the costs passed onto the medical consumer due to trial lawyers and fear of litigation:

1) the cost of unnecessary tests, procedures and operations patients
are forced to endure and finance, for fear of lawsuits.
2) the "run-away" jury awards, which trial lawyers take 35% – 40%
3) all the frivolous law suits- trial lawyers initiate 20 suits, hoping just
one pays off where they can be compensated $10,000 per hour for
the time they spent on the case.
4) the high cost of malpractice insurance, all health care providers
and doctors have to pay for and then pass the cost back to the
consumer.
5) America is by far the most litigous country in the world because
we are the only country where the plaintiff has no financial
obligation to the defendant for the cost to defend frivolous law
suits.

All these costs are passed onto the consumer, exponentially increasing the cost of health care.

Whatever you think of insurance companies, drug companies and capitalism, there is no argunment to oppose reasonable limits and caps on jury awards and judgements IF you care about the cost of health care.

Why do liberals stand against reasonable caps and limits on law suits?

If you oppose tort reform isn’t it obvious its really just about breaking the back of the health care industry to achieve socilaized medicine?

Libs only say what other libs say, they only repeat other liberals statements and positions. Most of the propaganda comes from activist media like NY Times or activist groups like moveontosocialism.org.

Liberals can not answer this question, so they throw up red herrings-
1) tort reform has been proven to make no improvement (the source
is liberal research- propaganda).
2) evil corporations like drug and insurance co’s are 100% at fault
3) trial lawyers are the crusaders for the poor (thats why they take
40% contingency fees).
4) deny frivolous law suits occur

None of the answers liberals will give you, will justify why we shouldn’t have caps and limits on awards and judgements. Liberals are either dishonest, lemmings or dishonest lemmings.

Liberals don’t care about the cost of health care, they care only about socialism.

Is this right? Or are Prop 8 supporters not wanting to have their names associated with discrimination? Could it be that the Catholic and LDS churches are frightened of losing their tax breaks if the public finds out they are overtly political, and supporting hate? What are they frightened of?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_fundraising
So far defenders of secrecy simply are saying they are afraid of the big bad gay mafia. Boo-ho.

BTW: name calling is not going to change any minds, certainly not mine. As to "you people" – LOL – married to my original wife, with two children.

It’s typical behavior of people who don’t understand and are frightened by anything out of their narrow little frame of reference. "Threatens the Institution of Marriage!" they yowl – but ask ‘em how it threatens that institution and they cannot offer a logical explanation. Such people need to be kept busy to keep ‘em out of trouble!

The ties between ExxonMobil, AEI and the highest levels of government go way back. AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil over the years, and more than 20 of its staffers have worked as consultants for the Bush administration.

AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration’s public policy.[2] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government’s many panels and commissions.[3] Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow, and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include David Frum, Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Irving Kristol, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.[4]

Not soon enough.

But if it does not work, then you have permanently lost that job and a suit might be worthwhile. But try to get the job back first. Having a job is more important than winning a suit. (If you do sue, you might want to sue the employer too. You could have a good claim against him also if you showed him the letter and he refused to give you a chance to get the job back as at that point in time he will know that your background check failed due to an error and it would only be reasonable for him to give you a chance.)