[research99]

RE: "Apparently, your argument is (1) that Simon is a dishonest creep because he fired a guy who was a convicted felon once he found out the guy was a convicted felon. I don't think your argument makes a whit of sense and I am very happy that the trial judge saw fit not to create (2) a new cause of action which would entitle convicted felons to sue their employers if the employer fires the felon after finding out about the felon's criminal history."

#1: No, Simon is a dishonest creep because the case file evidence reveals the substantial difference between his private actions and his public statements. Please address this issue, if you choose to discuss the "character" issue I mention.

#2: No, this wouldn't introduce a new cause of action, as most "employers" already ask you on standard employment forms your arrest history.

Only hypocritical screw-ups like Bill Simon get burnt, by writing sub-standard contracts then handing over millions before awaiting the results of background checks (while decrying that same practice in their "how to" business books).

[vbmoneyspender]

I see. Remind me to ignore your posts the next time you label another conservative a dishonest creep.