Confidentiality Agreement Alabama: Fill & Download for Free

My first reaction to this was to ask if it was a real question because the proof of the allegations have come out in court and been widely known for many decades. Monsanto’s history of unethical corporate practices made the answer obvious — but, in all fairness, not everyone has my level of experience. OK OK that sounded pretentious. I mean to say I am an old fart, son of a newspaper man who moved to the country to homestead. I grew up in farm country and Dad taught me how to see past biased news. I am happy to share what I know with you.From it’s founding in 1901,[1][1][1][1] Monsanto has been literally an "evil chemical company" killing both human beings and the environment — up to and including extinction of entire species. They are not even apologetic about it! They even become angry when anyone complains that their safety studies are inadequate or that they harmed people due to their reckless behavior.But even all that would be partially acceptable, I suppose, if unintentional. Reckless is not the same as purposeful… except they used their influence to place their own employees in other safety labs so that supposedly independent safety labs, and even at least one science journal, would pass the safety tests on their products! These are not “accidental” actions.This is not just rumor and allegations, it is a pattern of unethical behavior going back several decades. Most of the older stuff came out in the lawsuit The People of Anniston Alabama vs. Monsanto.[2][2][2][2] That case was settled out of court for a record-breaking $700,000,000 after Monsanto lost the initial cases and appeals. The settlement was in favor of the residents of the city of Anniston, Alabaman, on account of Monsanto’s pollution.$700 Million Settlement in Alabama PCB Lawsuit - The New York TimesMany who read NY Times or newspapers heard about this. There were even three episodes of 60 Minutes dedicated to it[3][3][3][3][4][4][4][4][5][5][5][5]. But what the headlines and reports didn't adequately show was the behind the scenes evidence presented to the court that made them grant such a verdict. Even though $700,000,000 is a lot, it is actually probably less than 10% of the actual damages Monsanto caused.Here are some of the public records from the court compiled by an environment activist working group: read closely if you wish. But the deeper you dig, the nastier it gets; and the more you read, the angrier you'll become — be warned!ANNISTON, ALABAMA: MONSANTO KNEW ABOUT PCB TOXICITY FOR DECADESIt gets worse! People have literally been planted by Monsanto into laboratories to rig safety studies. Courts have sent ex-Monsanto employees to prison because submitting a fraudulent safety study to EPA or any other federal agency designed to protect the public is a crime.Again you may have read the NY Times article about it:U.S. Seeks to Learn if Tests On Pesticides Were FalsifiedBut you probably never knew that Monsanto literally was directing much of the fraud with their inside guy! In fact Monsanto even sent one of their people, Dr. Paul Wright, to run an entire department at Industrial Bio-Tech Laboratories, the lab testing safety of Monsanto products.In March 1971, IBT hired Dr. Paul L. Wright, one of Monsanto's toxicologists, to oversee its PCB testing. Dr. Donovan E. Gordon joined IBT as a pathologist in August 1971, and IBT finalized its safety analysis of PCBs in November 1971. wiki linkAlthough Monsanto and IBT attempted to destroy actual evidence of wrongdoing by the plants, some survived.Memo from Monsanto to IBT directing them to change the results of a safety study *"Dear Joe:The attached table summarizes a comparison of the 3 revised AROCLOR reports (1242, 1254, 1260).In two instances, the previous conclusion of "slightly tumorigenic" was changed to "does not appear to be carcinogenic". The latter phrase is preferable. May we request that the AROCLOR 1254 report be amended to say "does not appear to be carcinogenic". [Levinskas Monsanto to J.C. Calandra IBT: re: AROCLOR 2-year Rat Feeding Studies; July 18, 1975]*Please note this particular memo from Monsanto is under constant hacker attack every time it gets posted and may not show up. I gave the last two best links to the image of the memo, but if they are down the information is a matter of public record from The People of Anniston Alabama vs. Monsanto trial.And what happened to Dr Wright? He was convicted!3-EX OFFICIALS OF MAJOR LABORATORY CONVICTED OF FALSIFYING DRUG TESTSDespite all this evidence, Monsanto tries to claim their accusers are illegitimate and the science always backs Monsanto. Critics, however, have published their analysis in top tier journals such as Science, the peer-reviewed journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science:The Murky World of Toxicity TestingEven all this bad behavior, exhibited over decades, could be forgiven if, when they reorganized into the so called "New Monsanto," they got rid of all those evil practices and started fresh. Did they? No.[6][6][6][6]Once again they placed an "inside guy" to manipulate the safety studies they don't like. Then use a fraudulent campaign to discredit both the studies and the scientists who dared even try to do the studies.Take for example the Seralini study. First peer reviewed and published, then after Monsanto sends their guy in, gets retracted improperly after a very public fraudulent smear campaign.RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maizeAnd here is evidence the study was unethically retracted:Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding StudyConflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMOThe Seralini affair: degeneration of Science to Re-Science?And here is the study republished after a huge uproar against the retraction:Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maizeHere is proof the fraudulent smear campaign against Seralini:Seralini’s team wins defamation and forgery court cases on GMO and pesticide researchMonsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed KillerScience has well established ways to deal with inconclusive studies and/or falsify studies that have controversial results. But they do not include fraud, forgery and libel defamation!!You would think this would finally get the message to Monsanto. Not at all. They are even bolder and more aggressive than ever!The most recent? Even before the new formulation dicambra got approved, Monsanto released a genetically modified dicamba-resistant soybean. Farmers went to buying the GMO soybeans and the old formulation herbicide (with a wink and a nod from Monsanto) which is volatile. (produces fumes that float over wherever the wind blows, killing millions of acres of nearby fields) This caused millions of acres of honest farmers’ crops loss and even one farmer death.Class Action Suits Against Monsanto Mount as American Farmers Lose Millions of Acres of CropsConfrontation Over Herbicide Drift Leads to Arkansas Shooting DeathThey are even STILL trying to unethically control safety studies!Monsanto Attacks Scientists After Studies Show Trouble For Weedkiller DicambaA leopard never changes its spots.—————————————————————————————————————-Edit 2/17/2019: EditorialThere are people who think corporations can't even be evil, only individual people can do that. However, I think there is a certain sort of cooperative organizational evil too. And if we want to protect capitalism and free enterprise, we must weed those sorts of corporation activities out and replace them with businesses that have impeccable ethics.Because there are huge numbers of enemies of capitalism who will use any excuse to proclaim all large corporations are evil by nature, and even that capitalism itself is evil.So I feel strongly that when a corporation behaves such as Monsanto has for decades, a total of almost 100 years of history of unethical behavior, and is STILL acting unethically, they need to go.As it turns out Monsanto was bought by Bayer in 2018. We can only hope that strong ethics in that company can filter through the Monsanto organization still present and excise the cancer that is Monsanto. We will find out in future decades. I am not holding my breath.Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. - War ElephantFootnotes[1] Monsanto - Wikipedia[1] Monsanto - Wikipedia[1] Monsanto - Wikipedia[1] Monsanto - Wikipedia[2] Case Summary: Agreement to Complete Cleanup at Anniston PCB Superfund Site Operable Unit 3 in Alabama | US EPA[2] Case Summary: Agreement to Complete Cleanup at Anniston PCB Superfund Site Operable Unit 3 in Alabama | US EPA[2] Case Summary: Agreement to Complete Cleanup at Anniston PCB Superfund Site Operable Unit 3 in Alabama | US EPA[2] Case Summary: Agreement to Complete Cleanup at Anniston PCB Superfund Site Operable Unit 3 in Alabama | US EPA[3] Monsanto Loses PCB Suit[3] Monsanto Loses PCB Suit[3] Monsanto Loses PCB Suit[3] Monsanto Loses PCB Suit[4] PCB Trial Begins In Alabama[4] PCB Trial Begins In Alabama[4] PCB Trial Begins In Alabama[4] PCB Trial Begins In Alabama[5] Toxic Secret[5] Toxic Secret[5] Toxic Secret[5] Toxic Secret[6] Carey Gillam, Investigative Journalist[6] Carey Gillam, Investigative Journalist[6] Carey Gillam, Investigative Journalist[6] Carey Gillam, Investigative Journalist

The presence or absence of compensation is not in any way an element in the creation of an attorney-client privilege. Magnetar Technologies Corp. v. Six Flags Theme Park Inc. United States District Court, D. Delaware. August 22, 2012 886 F.Supp.2d 466 2012 WL 3609715 held that “The attorney-client privilege applies only if: (1) there is a communication, (2) made between privileged persons, (3) in confidence, (4) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client.” Note not one word about compensation. State laws are in agreement. McClary v. Walsh United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. July 25, 2000 202 F.R.D. 286, applying Alabama law and holding that “Under Alabama law, not every communication between a lawyer and another person is privileged, and the privilege against disclosure requires (1) an attorney-client relationship, that is, an understanding between the parties to the communication that the lawyer has assumed certain legal responsibilities to advise and guide the client on legal matters, (2) a communication, and (3) the communication must be intended to be confidential.”It is entirely possible that Mr. Giuliani is not acting as a lawyer for Trump, not because he says he is not receiving any compensation (keeping in mind that being able to sell or barter access to Trump is, in itself, a form of compensation), but because one of the elements is that the lawyer must be rendering legal advice. There are plenty of cases saying that business advice does not create the attorney-client relationship if that does not encompass legal advice.

Please, tell your adopted child from the very beginning. Never not tell them.Our adoptive daughter was 3 months old, when she blessed our lives to become a “family”. As we held her in our arms, at home for the first time, we told her how much we loved her and that her biological parents were unable to care for her and that her Daddy and I were so happy to become her parents.Yes, at 3 months of age she was much too young to understand, but we didn’t ever want the adoption event to be a big-bad-surprise. We wanted our daughter to feel the love that overflowed from her father and I. We wanted our daughter to know that she was loved, wanted, and that we were each chosen to become part of a family.My husband and I found many books about adoption, at Books-A-Million. We chose one that was written for young children and purchased it. As our daughter grew we included this book, within the selection of other bedtime books/stories that we read each night. Every month or so, we would read this special book during our nightly bedtime ritual.As a family, we celebrate the anniversary of our adoption every year, as our “Family Day” … the day we became a family. On this special day, we remind our daughter how special she was and continues to be in our lives. We give our daughter gifts on this special day, in remembrance of the ultimate gift of the adoption.As our daughter grew, questions arose from time-to-time. We answered each question at a level that she could understand, and to the best of our ability. Part of the adoption agreement included that specific names and other details would remain confidential, until our daughter reached the age of 19 years. We always told our daughter, that this information would be provided at a later date.When our daughter’s 18th Family Day rolled around, we gave her the folder which contained all of the information that we had at the time of her adoption. It was then our daughter’s decision whether or not she wanted to contact the adoption caseworker, to seek more information. In our state, of Alabama, the adoptee is allowed to view her state paperwork and make handwritten notes about the adoption when the child turns 19 years of age. Our daughter chose to wait until she was 21 years of age to research her records, mostly to learn her medical history.Our beautiful daughter is now 37 years of age, with her own child. When someone asks her about her adoption, we’ve always heard her say that “she never didn’t know that she was adopted”, that “it was always understood, and that she felt special because of the adoption”.