Profile of the Psychopath / Sociopath

[mrsCALoki]

Then you also have to take into account whether the company is subject to laws such as the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the British Bribery Act 2010 (c.23) or the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq.

Well more generically you could just say "local laws". Something as simple as plant security, for example.... In Canada very few plant security guards carry handguns, and I am pretty certain none have machine guns. One of the more important skills is chain of evidence. In other countries, the ability to shoot their machine gun accurately is the most important skill.

In some parts of the world the laws say employee theft requires a stern lecture and progressive discipline. In other countries chopping of the employees hands is the moral and legal response. In some countries a traffic accident and a dead pedestrian should result in waiting for the police so they can investigate. In others a rushed drive to the airport and eventually a blood money payment are appropriate.

For corporations that work in multiple cultures the local laws are often a major issue and definitions of truth and moral and right are far from rigid. Men wielding power in those companies are just not that easily defined as normal.

 

[mrsCALoki]

And the insanity continues.

Not really, I feel I was wronged. That has not changed. Loki does not want publicity. So unless something changes in the next 2 years, no legal action . So I shall just smile and accept that what will be wil be.

 

[Narg]

I told Loki as soon as the flu symptoms made it possible, and we called the family lawyer. If the therapist says I have been injured and it costs money for treatment, it is de facto proof of damage. If you believe there are damages and can show them in court you can launch a civil case. For this kind of court case one should budget $50k to $100k for legal fees. Almost certain that given the actions by both parties before the event, the courts will at best award a trivial amount, but almost certainly just dismiss the case and have both parties pay their own costs. The victim has 2 years to launch the civil case. The Hedge Hog was nice enough to point out that there are simpler options.

So simple answer, criminal charges are a bitch. Civil litigation will probably results in two very happy lawyers , and a warm fuzzy feeling that justice was served.

Oh and a pissed of husband when the media gets hold of it.

Actually, an ethical lawyer will probably tell you that you have no case and that you should save your money. If you want to sue for tortious infliction of mental suffering/distress, you have to put your own medical and psychological records into evidence and waive any claim to doctor-patient confidentiality. Of course, your claim will have to be issued against "John Doe" unless you can find out the identities of Schlong and whomever else you are targetting.

Meanwhile, you will have to identify yourself and, as the proces slowly moves forward, your husband. You'll also have to establish that you (personally) have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a cost award if one is made against you. If you don't you'll likely have to post a bond in an amount to be determined by the court in order to be allowed to continue to sue.

You'll then need to sue Fred to obtain the i.p. addresses of your targets. If you are successful, you will then need to prove Schlong's identity, which will difficult if multiple people have access to the same computer. If after all of that you can actually identify and locate the Defendants, you will then be faced with the impossible task of proving that you were injured by people being mean to you on the internet.

So far as I can tell, no one has identified you by name or location. At best, Schlong posted a link showing that there was no boat in the location you claimed to be at. That is the opposite of stalking. Of course, you will also be giving Schlong's lawyer an opportunity to review your medical/psych records with a fine tooth comb and cross-examine you on anything found therein - all of which becomes public. At best, you'll waste money on a lawyer who will be unable to advance your case. At worst, you'll spend much more money to have your privacy breached and your sanity called into question in a very public forum.

 

[versitile1]

Sure, whatever floats your ummmm, "tub".

 

[yung_dood]

Very, very few executives are psychopaths or sociaopaths. Most people just live in their own bubble without that much exposure to radically different points of view. Most executives work exceedingly long hours and believe, with some jusitification, that their work is ethical and responsible and that they are entitled to the compensation they receive. You don't have to be a sociopath to justify what you do for a living. Everyone does it.

Babiak and Hare found a statistically significant deviation from the norm in the number of very successful (CEO and other upper management) business people who met their psychopath test - but that was only about 3%.

Human beings are built and socialized to self-justify. I would bet good money that every single person on this board engages in a number of coping strategies to justify their actions. That doesn't make any of us disturbed in the DSM IV sense.

The problem with the tests is that the corporate machine is A-Moral and totally profit driven in most circumstances. How someone behaves outside of work is totally different to how they perform in their career, so one may argue that the real psychopath is the corporation.

Where I beg to differ, is when bribery comes into play (both legal and illegal). The hypocrisy that is used to justify the interests being served is just wrong and unfair.

 

[Aardvark154]

Well more generically you could just say "local laws". Something as simple as plant security, for example.... In Canada very few plant security guards carry handguns, and I am pretty certain none have machine guns. One of the more important skills is chain of evidence. In other countries, the ability to shoot their machine gun accurately is the most important skill.

In some parts of the world the laws say employee theft requires a stern lecture and progressive discipline. In other countries chopping of the employees hands is the moral and legal response. In some countries a traffic accident and a dead pedestrian should result in waiting for the police so they can investigate. In others a rushed drive to the airport and eventually a blood money payment are appropriate.

For corporations that work in multiple cultures the local laws are often a major issue and definitions of truth and moral and right are far from rigid. Men wielding power in those companies are just not that easily defined as normal.

Your larger points may well be correct.

However, macho man (macho woman?) executive who says so what if my company is covered by those laws Aardvark mentioned, in Central Africa this is the way one does business, should also expect to spend time imprisoned and have the company pay a large fine.

 

[mrsCALoki]

Actually, an ethical lawyer will probably tell you that you have no case and that you should save your money. If you want to sue for tortious infliction of mental suffering/distress, you have to put your own medical and psychological records into evidence and waive any claim to doctor-patient confidentiality.

Our more or less ethical lawyer advised that we would almost certainly not recoup our legal costs. But that as long as the psyciatrist and therapists agreed I had been harmed the case could be launched and would be heard. Gee I guess the therapist etc I shall be seeing will have to determine if I suffered damage and should be warned they may have to testify.

Of course, your claim will have to be issued against "John Doe" unless you can find out the identities of Schlong and whomever else you are targetting.

Ya, I guess we would need to have the lawyer hire a competent computer person to get the IPs?

Meanwhile, you will have to identify yourself and, as the proces slowly moves forward, your husband.

That is the only reason I am dropping the entire thing.

You'll also have to establish that you (personally) have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a cost award if one is made against you. If you don't you'll likely have to post a bond in an amount to be determined by the court in order to be allowed to continue to sue.

No big deal, interest will still accumulate. But why are you assuming Ontario? I was harmed in another jurisdiction much friendlier to this sort of thing.

You'll then need to sue Fred to obtain the i.p. addresses of your targets.

Oh I think there are other ways to do that.

B]If[/B] you are successful, you will then need to prove Schlong's identity, which will difficult if multiple people have access to the same computer. If after all of that you can actually identify and locate the Defendants, you will then be faced with the impossible task of proving that you were injured by people being mean to you on the internet.

I guess all those points will give the other lawyers a chance to drag the court case on and on. But justice will be served I guess.

So far as I can tell, no one has identified you by name or location. At best, Schlong posted a link showing that there was no boat in the location you claimed to be at. That is the opposite of stalking. Of course, you will also be giving Schlong's lawyer an opportunity to review your medical/psych records with a fine tooth comb and cross-examine you on anything found therein - all of which becomes public. At best, you'll waste money on a lawyer who will be unable to advance your case. At worst, you'll spend much more money to have your privacy breached and your sanity called into question in a very public forum.

Do you mean I might spend significant money seeking justice, and in the end, just walk out feeling that justice was served? Yes I got that. And apparently appealing the decision is even more expensive, and being able to do so is dependent on the jurisdiction? Yes I got that. Our lawyer is saying the lawyers would be racking up hundred of hours on this one.

I got it. I understand. And I am going to see a top notch psychiatrist in a few days to determine if he feels I was traumatized and need therapy. And if he does not advancing the case is sort of mot.

Either way, LL does not want the bad press so I shall not be doing anything to embarrass him.

I think I said that before. So why go on with the comments? Pretty much a dead issue given the present situation.

 

[TROOPS]

I told Loki as soon as the flu symptoms made it possible, and we called the family lawyer. If the therapist says I have been injured and it costs money for treatment, it is de facto proof of damage. If you believe there are damages and can show them in court you can launch a civil case. For this kind of court case one should budget $50k to $100k for legal fees. Almost certain that given the actions by both parties before the event, the courts will at best award a trivial amount, but almost certainly just dismiss the case and have both parties pay their own costs. The victim has 2 years to launch the civil case. The Hedge Hog was nice enough to point out that there are simpler options.

So simple answer, criminal charges are a bitch. Civil litigation will probably results in two very happy lawyers , and a warm fuzzy feeling that justice was served.

Oh and a pissed of husband when the media gets hold of it.

Delusional idiot. If you need a therapist over all of this then you sir are a moron.

 

[mrsCALoki]

Delusional idiot. If you need a therapist over all of this then you sir are a moron.

I am pretty certain my opinion and yours are worthless in a determining is I was damaged. The documentation filed by a top rate psychiatrist is all that matters. Well that and the receipt for treatment.

So why go on and on? It is immaterial. So what in the world is driving you people to keep bringing it up?

Yes I know I am compulsive and reply to questions and statements. That should be obvious by now. Maybe I am part roti?

 

[mrsCALoki]

Your larger points may well be correct.

However, macho man (macho woman?) executive who says so what if my company is covered by those laws Aardvark mentioned, in Central Africa this is the way one does business, should also expect to spend time imprisoned and have the company pay a large fine.

I guess you better not do things in jurisdictions where they are crimes? Hey I am way too poor to have to worry about any of those things.


And I really do not know the ins and outs of it at all. I just know C suite people seem to have a very weird code of ethics if they are multi-nationals.

 

[TROOPS]

Maybe I am part roti?

You were damaged when you were born. You're part something alright..........part retarded. Your own doing.

 

[Aardvark154]

I guess you better not do things in jurisdictions where they are crimes?

Indeed the U.K. Canada, and the U.S.A. all if you do business here you can't $£$£$£$£ (NO Baksheesh!)

 

[mrsCALoki]

You were damaged when you were born. You're part something alright..........part retarded. Your own doing.

Thank you for your insight. I shall cherish it with all the care it deserves.

 

[Lurker1]

Actually, an ethical lawyer will probably tell you that you have no case and that you should save your money. If you want to sue for tortious infliction of mental suffering/distress, you have to put your own medical and psychological records into evidence and waive any claim to doctor-patient confidentiality. Of course, your claim will have to be issued against "John Doe" unless you can find out the identities of Schlong and whomever else you are targetting.

Meanwhile, you will have to identify yourself and, as the proces slowly moves forward, your husband. You'll also have to establish that you (personally) have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a cost award if one is made against you. If you don't you'll likely have to post a bond in an amount to be determined by the court in order to be allowed to continue to sue.

You'll then need to sue Fred to obtain the i.p. addresses of your targets. If you are successful, you will then need to prove Schlong's identity, which will difficult if multiple people have access to the same computer. If after all of that you can actually identify and locate the Defendants, you will then be faced with the impossible task of proving that you were injured by people being mean to you on the internet.

So far as I can tell, no one has identified you by name or location. At best, Schlong posted a link showing that there was no boat in the location you claimed to be at. That is the opposite of stalking. Of course, you will also be giving Schlong's lawyer an opportunity to review your medical/psych records with a fine tooth comb and cross-examine you on anything found therein - all of which becomes public. At best, you'll waste money on a lawyer who will be unable to advance your case. At worst, you'll spend much more money to have your privacy breached and your sanity called into question in a very public forum.

Love it..... fucking love it.

 

[TROOPS]

Thank you for your insight. I shall cherish it with all the care it deserves.

You're welcome Mr.Loco:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:


You want privacy? Then get off these forums, dummy.

 

[wangbang]

 

[mrsCALoki]

Indeed the U.K. Canada, and the U.S.A. all if you do business here you can't $£$£$£$£ (NO Baksheesh!)

I thought that you could do business where ever you wanted, but if your siege social (I forget the English word) was in the those countries charges could be filed. No idea if I am right, just the impression I had. Is that wrong.

 

[mrsCALoki]

You're welcome Mr.Loco:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:


You want privacy? Then get off these forums, dummy.

Thank you for your insight. I shall cherish it with all the care it deserves.

 

[Aardvark154]

I thought that you could do business where ever you wanted, but if your siege social (I forget the English word) was in the those countries charges could be filed. No idea if I am right, just the impression I had. Is that wrong.

You do significant (there are legal definitions) business in any of the three (and without researching it any number of other states [Australia springs to mind]) and then bribe elsewhere. . . . . .

 

[TROOPS]

Thank you for your insight. I shall cherish it with all the care it deserves.

Again, you're welcome Loco.

Your Home