[SheepWhisperer]

If I understand correctly, the intent to force full disclosure in order to be able to have fully informed consent.

The catch is that most of the questions cannot or will not be answered, therefore there cannot be fully informed consent, therefore violations abound and a legal trap is set upon termination.

Smart lawyer

[grey_whiskers]

Music slide!

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/randy-bachman-s-first-guitar-was-stolen-45-years-ago-in-toronto-he-just-found-it-in-tokyo-1.5614775

[WildHighlander57]

SheepWhisperer wrote:

“If I understand correctly, the intent to force full disclosure in order to be able to have fully informed consent.

The catch is that most of the questions cannot or will not be answered, therefore there cannot be fully informed consent, therefore violations abound and a legal trap is set upon termination.

Smart lawyer”

So, given the penchant for corporate drones to ignore letters like this, I guess the only proof one can have, of them not responding, is to send it certified mail, return receipt requested, and ask for a response by a certain date.

That way, there’s proof it was sent.

And if no reply, document that no response was received.