Question of the day (May 24, 2008):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon do wrong?

Question of the day (May 23, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is wrong.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

When will Verizon learn?

Question of the day (May 22, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon break the law?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (May 21, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is against the law.

When will Verizon stop taking what is not theirs?

When will Verizon start obeying the law?

Question of the day (May 20, 2008):

Doing the right thing is always right.

Why won't Verizon do the right thing?

Why won't Verizon obey the law?

Question of the day (May 19, 2008):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon do wrong?

Question of the day (May 18, 2008):

It is a sin to steal.

Why does Verizon sin by stealing?

When will Verizon learn?

Question of the day (May 17, 2008):

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do.

When will Verizon learn this lesson?

When will Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (May 16, 2008):

Obeying the law is a must.

Why does Verizon think they are above the law?

Why does Verizon not respect the law?

Question of the day (May 15, 2008):

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do.

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

When will Verizon learn?

Question of the day (May 14, 2008):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon do the wrong thing?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (May 13, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is wrong.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (May 12, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon break the law?

Question of the day (May 11, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is stealing.

When will Verizon stop taking what is not theirs?

When will Verizon finally get it right?

Question of the day (May 10, 2008):

Obeying the law is a responsibility of all companies.

Why does Verizon think they are above the law?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (May 9, 2008):

Our nation if strong because of ethical companies.

When will Verizon become part of this countries strength?

When will Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (May 8, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is the wrong thing to do.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Why does Verizon not see that stealing is wrong?

Question of the day (May 7, 2008):

Stealing intellectual property is wrong.

Why does Veriozn go wrong?

Will they ever learn?

Question of the day (May 6, 2008):

Verizon is doing the wrong thing.

Why does Verizon steal intellectual property?

Why are they getting away with it?

Question of the day (May 5, 2008):

Doing the right thing is supposed to be the right thing to do.

When will Verizon straighten up there act?

When will Verizon learn?

Question of the day (May 4, 2008):

Basing profits on stolen property is fraud.

Why does Verizon commit fraud?

Why does Verizon base profits on stolen property?

Question of the day (May 3, 2008):

Taking things without paying for them is stealing.

Why does Verizon take things that are not theirs?

When did stealing become ok for large corporations?

Question of the day (May 2, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon break the law?

Where are the receipts?

Question of the day (May 1, 2008):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon do the wrong thing?

Question of the day (April 30, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is aginst the law.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (April 29, 2008):

Doing the right thing is always the right thing to do.

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Why does Verizon steal intellectual property?

Question of the day (April 28, 2008):

Software is intellectual property.

Why does Verizon steal intellectual property?

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Question of the day (April 27, 2008):

Loading and using stolen software is against the law.

Why does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon load and use stolen software?

Why does Verizon break the law?

Question of the day (April 26, 2008):

Stealing is not the right thing to do.

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Question of the day (April 25, 2008):

Verizon is not above the law.

Why do they think they are above the law?

Why does Verizon takes things that are not theirs?

Question of the day (April 24, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon not obey the law?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (April 23, 2008):

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do.

When will Verizon do the right thing?

When will Verizon realize that obeying the law is the right thing to do?

Question of the day (April 22, 2008):

Righteousness means doing the right thing.

Why does Verizon not practice righteousness?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (April 21, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is wrong.

Why does Verizon not obey the law?

Will Verizon ever get the message?

Question of the day (April 20, 2008):

Doing the right thing is always the right thing to do.

When will Verizon do the right thing regarding theft?

When did theft become ok?

Question of the day (April 19, 2008):

Obeying the law should be routine for any respectable company.

Why does Verizon no show they know how to obey the law?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (April 18, 2008):

Retaliating against whistleblowers is against the law.

Why does Verizon not obey the law?

Why does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliate against whistleblowers?

Question of the day (April 17, 2008):

Doing the wrong thing is the wrong thing to do.

Why does Verizon do the wrong thing?

Why does Verizon steal intellectual property?

Question of the day (April 16, 2008):

Retaliation against an employee informant is against the law?

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon break the law?

When will they get caught?

Question of the day (April 15, 2008):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon do the wrong thing?

Question of the day (April 14, 2008):

Verizon should not take what is not theirs.

Why can't Verizon see that this is stealing?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (April 13, 2008):

Retaliation is the wrong thing for a company to do to an employee.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, retaliate against an employe?

When will justice be done?

Question of the day (April 12, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is wrong.

When will Verizon learn their lesson?

When will Verizon stop taking what is not theirs?

Question of the day (April 11, 2008):

Stealing is wrong.

When will Verizon learn?

What will it take?

Question of the day (April 10, 2008):

Doing what is right should be on everyone's mind.

What does Verizon not get it?

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Question of the day (April 9, 2008):

Doing the right thing includes obeying the law.

Will Verizon ever do the right thing>

Will Verizon ever start obeying the law?

Question of the day (April 8, 2008):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, steals software.

When will this ever stop?

Will they ever get caught?

Question of the day (April 7, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

When will Verizon start obeying the law?

When will Verizon stop stealing?

Question of the day (April 6, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is stealing.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

When will Verizon get caught?

Question of the day (April 5, 2008):

Verizon is wrong to steal software.

When will they open their eyes?

When will they stop stealing software?

Question of the day (April 4, 2008):

Retaliation is the wrong thing to do.

Why does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, retaliate againt Alvin Reed?

When will justice prevail?

Question of the day (April 3, 2008):

Doing the right thing is supposed to be the right thing to do.

When will Verizon do the right thing?

When will Verizon own up to wrong doing>

Question of the day (April 2, 2008):

Worldcom should not retaliate against whistleblowers.

Why doe Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, retaliate?

Will they ever do the right thing?

Question of the day (April 1, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon steal?

When will they get caught?

Question of the day (March 31, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is against the law.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (March 30, 2008):

Retaliation by a company is wrong.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, retaliate against Alvin Reed?

Will they get caught?

Question of the day (March 29, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is stealing.

When will Verizon stop stealing?

When will Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (March 28, 2008):

It is wrong for Verizon to steal.

When will they wake up to this reality?

When will Verizon stop stealing?

Question of the day (March 27, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is wrong.

Why does Verizon do wrong?

When will they ever learn?

Question of the day (March 26, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is stealing.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (March 25, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why do they not get caught?

Question of the day (March 24, 2008):

Verizon is getting away with a crime.

When will authorities acknowledge this crime?

Will justice ever prevail?

Question of the day (March 23, 2008):

Retaliation against a righteous employee is illegal.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, retaliate?

Why did Wordlcom do that?

Question of the day (March 22, 2008):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, does not follow SOX.

Why is SOX not enforced?

When will justice prevail?

Question of the day (March 21, 2008):

Retaliation against a righteous employee is wrong.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliate?

When will Verizon make right against this employee?

Question of the day (March 20, 2008):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliated against Alvin Reed.

Why are they getting away with it?

When will they learn?

Question of the day (March 19, 2008):

Verizon is not a good corporate citizen.

When will Verizon learn?

When will Verizon become a good corporate citizen.

Question of the day (March 18, 2008):

Wordlcom/MCI now Verizon steals.

Where are the receipts?

Why does Veriozn steal?

Question of the day (March 17, 2008):

Stealing is agsint the law.

When will Verizon do the right thing?

When will Verizon obey the law?

Question of the day (March 16, 2008):

Verizon doesn't care to obey the law.

Where are the corporate law abiders?

Where is justice for all?

Question of the day (March 15, 2008):

It is illegal for a company to retaliate against a whistleblower.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliate?

Where is justice?

Question of the day (March 14, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon break the law?

Why does Verizon defraud stockholders?

Question of the day (March 13, 2008):

Verizon steals intellectual property.

How can they get away with it?

Why aren't they being caught?

Question of the day (March 12, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

When will Verizon start obeying the law?

When will Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (March 11, 2008):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliated against Alvin Reed.

Why do they think they can get away with this?

Where is justice?

Question of the day (March 10, 2008):

Verizon should not steal.

When will Verizon learn their lesson?

When will Verizon stop stealing?

Question of the day (March 9, 2008):

Stealing is the wrong thing to do.

Why does Verizon do the wrong thing?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (March 8, 2008):

Doing the right thing is supposed to be what we do.

Why will Verizon not do the right thing?

Why won't Verizon admit they don't have receipts?

Question of the day (March 7, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon break the law?

Where are the receipts?

Question of the day (March 6, 2008):

Retaliation is wrong.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliate against Alvin Reed?

Why won't they admit the truth?

Question of the day (March 5, 2008):

Verizon steals software.

Why does Verizon do this?

When will they stop?

Question of the day (March 4, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is wrong.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (March 3, 2008):

Stealing is wrong?

Why does Verizon do the wrong thing?

Where are the receipts?

Question of the day (March 2, 2008):

Doing the right thing is supposed to be the right thing to do.

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Where are the receipts?

Question of the day (March 1, 2008):

Verizon knows better then to think disobeying the law is OK.

Why does Verizon disobey the law?

Where are the receipts?

Question of the day (February 29, 2008):

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do.

When will Verizon do the right thing?

When will Verizon stop stealing?

Question of the day (February 28, 2008):

Obeying the law is a right and privelage in America

Why does Verizon not exercise this right?

Why does Verizon not obey the law?

Question of the day (February 27, 2008):

Every day is supposed to be obey the law day.

When does Verizon obey the law?

Wheres the beef?

Question of the day (February 26, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon break the law?

Why does Verizon steal

Question of the day (February 25, 2008):

Obeying the law is a requirement of good citizenship.

When will Verizon become a good corporate citizen?

When will Verizon begin obeying the law?

Question of the day (February 24, 2008):

Verizon is supposed to obey the law.

What is wrong with Verizon?

Why is it so difficult to obey the law?

Question of the day (February 23, 2008):

Verizon steals what is not theirs.

Why does Verizon not realize this is wrong?

What will it take to wake up Verizon?

Question of the day (February 22, 2008):

Taking things that are not our is against the law.

Why does Verizon break the law?

Why are they getting away with it?

Question of the day (February 21, 2008):

Taking what is not our is wrong.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Where is justice?

Question of the day (February 20, 2008):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliated against Alvin Reed.

Should Alvin Reed have kept his mouth shut?

Should Alvin Reed have closed his eyes?

Question of the day (February 19, 2008):

Taking what is not our is stealing.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Where is the sense in their actions?

Question of the day (February 18, 2008):

Verizon does not do the right thing?

Why does Verizon think they are above the law?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (February 17, 2008):

Verizon steals software.

Why isn't software considered property by Verizon?

Why does Verizon get away with it?

Question of the day (February 16, 2008):

Verizon has consistently lied in court documents.

Why is telling the truth so hard for Verizon?

Why can't Verizon admit to the truth?

Question of the day (February 15, 2008):

Verizon is not a trust worthy company.

Will Verizon ever learn?

Will Verizon ever do the right thing?

Question of the day (February 14, 2008):

Retaliation is wrong.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliate against Alvin Reed?

Why are they getting away with it?

Question of the day (February 13, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is wrong,

Why does Verizon not care what they take without paying for it?

Where is the outrage?

Question of the day (February 12, 2008):

Retaliation against employees who object to theft is wrong.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, retaliate against Alvin Reed?

When will Verizon hear the music?

Question of the day (February 11, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is stealing.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Question of the day (February 10, 2008):

Stealing is not the right thing to do.

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (February 9, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon break the law?

Isn't the law supposed to be upheld?

Question of the day (February 8, 2008):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon take software that is not theirs?

Question of the day (February 7, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is stealing.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Why does Verizon steal software?

Question of the day (February 6, 2008):

Taking software without paying for it is stealing.

Why does Verizon take things without paying for it?

Why doesn't Verizon pay for things they take?

Question of the day (February 5, 2008):

Companies should not steal.

What makes Verizon above the law?

Why does Verizon not obey the law?

Question of the day (February 4, 2008):

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do.

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Why does Verizon not see stealing is wrong?

Question of the day (February 3, 2008):

Taking others things is stealing.

Why does Verizon take others things?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (February 2, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is stealing.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Question of the day (February 1, 2008):

Truth is paramount to justice.

Why won't Verizon tell the truth?

Why won't Verizon admit to stealing?

Question of the day (January 31, 2008):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Question of the day (January 30, 2008):

Obeying the law should be Verizon's priority.

Why does Verizon not obey the law?

Why does Verizon think they are above the law?

Question of the day (January 29, 2008):

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do.

Why does Verizon not realize this?

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Question of the day (January 28, 2008):

Doing what is right is the right thing to do.

Why does Verizon not do the right thing>

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (January 27, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why does Verizon do what is against the law?

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Question of the day (January 26, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is wrong.

Why does Verizon take what is not theirs?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (January 25, 2008):

Verizon doesn't know right from wrong.

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (January 24, 2008):

Verizon steals software.

Why do they do it?

Don't they see that it is wrong?

Question of the day (January 24, 2008):

Verizon should not do wrong.

Why does Verizon not consider stealing doing wrong?

What is Verizon thinking?

Question of the day (January 23, 2008):

Verizon should do the right thing.

Why do they not realize the right thing is to obey the law?

Why does Verizon not obey the law?

Question of the day (January 22, 2008):

Taking things that are not ours is stealing.

Why does Verizon take things that are not theirs?

Why is stealing ok to Verizon?

Question of the day (January 21, 2008):

Verzion should not steal.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon take things that are not theirs?

Question of the day (January 20, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is stealing.

Why does Verizon steal software?

Why don't they get it?

Question of the day (January 19, 2008):

Verizon is stealing other people's stuff.

Why don't they quit?

Why don't they care?

Question of the day (January 18, 2008):

Verizon steals software and retaliates against those who object.

Why does Verizon steal?

Why does Verizon retaliate?

Question of the day (January 17, 2008):

Verizon does not have receipts for stolen property.

Why do they claim in court documents that it is not stolen?

Why does Verizon lie to the courts?

Question of the day (January 16, 2008):

Verizon should not take things that are not theirs.

Why does Verizon take things that belong to others?

Why does Verizon steal software?

Question of the day (January 15, 2008):

Stealng is against the law.

Why does Verizon not obey the law?

Why does Verizon think stealing is ok?

Question of the day (January 14, 2008):

Verizon is supposed to do the right thing.

Why does Verizon not realize that the right thing is to obey the law?

Why does Verizon not obey the law?

Question of the day (January 13, 2008):

Verizon should know better then to steal.

Why does Verizon ignore common sense?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (January 12, 2008):

Verizon should not take what is not theirs.

Why does Verizon take but not pay for?

Why does Verizon not see intellectual property as property?

Question of the day (January 11, 2008):

Taking what is not ours is wrong.

Why does Verizon take intellectual property?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (January 10, 2008):

Verizon is wrong to steal.

Why do they not care if they are in the wrong?

Why do they consider stealing ok?

Question of the day (January 9, 2008):

Verizon is supposed to obey the law.

Why does Verizon not do this?

Why is it so difficult?

Question of the day (January 8, 2008):

Stealing is against the law.

Why doesn't Verizon obey the law?

Why does Verizon steal?

Question of the day (January 7, 2008):

Retaliation is wrong.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliate against Alvin Reed?

Why did Verizon steal?

Question of the day (January 6, 2008):

Verizon is wrong to retaliate against Alvin Reed.

Why does Verizon do this?

Why do they think they can get away with it?

Question of the day (January 5, 2008):

Software is intellectual property.

Why does Verizon steal software?

When will they ever learn?

Question of the day (January 4, 2008):

Stolen property is stolen property.

Why does Verizon steal?

What will make them change?

Question of the day (January 3, 2008):

Intellectual property carries 5 years in prison for stealing.

Why does Vrizon steal?

Will they get caught?

Question of the day (January 2, 2008):

Verizon is wrong to retaliate against Alvin Reed for objecting to stolen property.

What lesson is there to be learned here?

When will Verizon learn this lesson?

Question of the day (January 1, 2008):

Retaliation is retaliation.

Why does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliate against Alvin Reed?

When will Verizon wake up?

Question of the day (December 31, 2007):

Fraud is fraud.

Why does Verizon get away with fraud?

When will Veriozn learn?

Question of the day (December 30, 2007):

Defrauding stockholders is wrong.

Why does Verizon continue to defraud stockholders?

Why does Verizon base profits on stolen property?

Question of the day (December 29, 2007):

All companies should obey the law.

Why will Verizon not obey the law?

When will Verizon learn?

Question of the day (December 28, 2007):

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do.

Why will Verizon not do the right thing?

When will Verizon wake up?

Question of the day (December 27, 2007):

Verizon retaliated against Alvin Reed for objecting to stolen property.

Why does Verizon not understand that retaliation is wrong?

When will Verizon learn?

Question of the day (December 26, 2007):

Verizon should not steal.

When will Verizon learn?

What will it take to get Verizon to stop stealing?

Question of the day (December 25, 2007):

Christianity teaches us not to steal.

When will Verizon learn this?

Why won't Verizon follow Christian teachings?

Question of the day (December 24, 2007):

Verizon should know not to steal.

Why does Verizon steal?

When will it stop?

Question of the day (December 23, 2007):

Stealing is against the law.

When will Verizon wake up?

When will Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (December 22, 2007):

Verizon should know that stealing is against the law.

Why won't Verizon obey the law?

Why won't Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (December 21, 2007):

Verizon is supposed to know to not steal.

Why does Verizon steal?

When will it stop?

Question of the day (December 20, 2007):

Verizon is suppose to act like a corporate model for ethics.

Why will Verizon not do this?

Why can't Verizon be ethical?

Question of the day (December 19, 2007):

Software is intellectual property.

Why does Verizon steal software?

When will Verizon respect property rights?

Question of the day (December 18, 2007):

What Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon did to Alvin Reed is a crime.

Why won't Verizon correct the situation?

What does it take to get justice?

Question of the day (December 17, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon steal?

What could make them stop stealing?

Question of the day (December 16, 2007):

Verizon should know better then to steal property.

When will Verizon wake up?

What lesson is learned here?

Question of the day (December 15, 2007):

Intellectual property should be respected.

Why does Verizon have no respect for intellectual property?

When will Verizon learn?

Question of the day (December 14, 2007):

Verizon should not steal.

Why do they do it?

Do they think they won't get caught?

Question of the day (December 13, 2007):

Verizon should know better then to steal

Why does Verizon does this?

Are there any consequences?

Question of the day (December 12, 2007):

Verizon should not steal intellectual property.

When will Verizon start obeying the law?

What will it tke to get Verizon to wake up?

Question of the day (December 11, 2007):

What Verizon is doing is wrong.

When will Verizon learn it's lesson?

When will Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (December 10, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon not recognize this?

When will Verizon wake up?

Question of the day (December 9, 2007):

Verizon should know between right and wrong.

Why does Verizon not do the right thing?

Why does Verizon steal intellectual property?

Question of the day (December 8, 2007):

Intellectual property requires billions to produce.

Why does Verizon think it is ok to steal intellectual property?

When will Verizon wake up and smell the coffee?

Question of the day (December 7, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon required employees to load and use pirated software as a condition of employment.

Why don't they know this is wrong?

When will they learn their lesson?

Question of the day (December 6, 2007):

Verizon should know that stealing is wrong.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon retaliate against Alvin Reed for objecting to this thievery?

When will this issue be resolved?

Question of the day (December 5, 2007):

It is a felony to require employees to load and use stolen intellectual property as a condition of employment.

Why did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, retaliate against Alvin Reed?

What lesson is learned here?

Question of the day (December 4, 2007):

Software is intellectual property.

Why does Verizon not recognize software as property that can be stolen?

When will Verizon learns its lesson?

Question of the day (December 3, 2007):

Stealing intellectual property is wrong.

Why does Verizon think they are above the law?

When will justice prevail?

Question of the day (December 2, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

When will Verizon learn?

Why does Verizon think they are above the law?

Question of the day (December 1, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon is responsible for paying for software.

When will Verizon admit they use stolen software?

Why have they chosen to criminally cover it up?

Question of the day (November 30, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, stole intellectual property.

Will they get away with it?

Will they get caught?

Question of the day (November 29, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, knows they had stolen property.

Why have they chosen to criminally cover it up?

Do they think they can get away with it?

Question of the day (November 28, 2007):

Verizon is not being truthful in court documents.

When will Verizon provide the alleged receipts?

When will justice prevail?

Question of the day (November 27, 2007):

No receipts have been provided in the Reed v MCI case.

Why will Verizon not admit that the property was stolen?

Will Verizon get away with this criminal cover up?

Question of the day (November 26, 2007):

Intellectual property is property too.

Why does Verizon not respect intellectual property?

When did stealing intellectual property become ok?

Question of the day (November 25, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

Why does Verizon steal then retaliate against those who object?

When will Verizon learn?

Question of the day (November 24, 2007):

Verizon has yet to produce receipts for what it claims in court documents to NOT be stolen property.

Where are the receipts if it is not stolen?

Why is retaliation and cover up ok at Verizon?

Question of the day (November 23, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

When will Verizon learn?

When will justice prevail?

Question of the day (November 22, 2007):

Verizon is not supposed to be above the law.

When will retaliation be recognized by the courts?

Will Verizon get away with the retaliation in the Reed v MCI case?

Question of the day (November 21, 2007):

Verizon is supposed to know the difference between right and wrong.

When will Verizon learn this difference?

When will the wrong be righted?

Question of the day (November 20, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon should not retaliate against employees who object to the commission of felonies.

Why is Verizon getting away with this retaliation?

When will justice take hold?

Question of the day (November 19, 2007):

Verizon is guilty of retaliation in the Reed v MCI case.

Will they get away with it?

Will justice prevail?

Question of the day (November 18, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon is criminally covering up the lack of receipts in the Reed v MCI case.

When will the truth be told?

How long must these lies continue?

Question of the day (November 17, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon are criminally covering up the retaliation and lack of receipts for the Reed v MCI case.

When will justice prevail?

When will the truth come out?

Question of the day (November 16, 2007):

Stealing intellectual property is wrong.

When will Verizon learn this lesson?

Is getting away with it ok?

Question of the day (November 15, 2007):

Verizon knows they don't have receipts in the Reed v MCI case.

Why does getting away with it not bother Verizon?

Will the truth come out?

Question of the day (November 14, 2007):

Alvin Reed was required to feloniously load and use stolen intellectual property as a condition of employment.

When will Verizon admit they don;t have receipts?

When will Verizon admit the truth?

Question of the day (November 13, 2007):

Retaliation is wrong.

When will Verizon stop retaliating against Alvin Reed?

When will Verizon follow their own ethics guidelines?

Question of the day (November 12, 2007):

Building trust and credibility takes work.

Why will Verizon not do this?

Why will Verizon not build trust and credibility?

Question of the day (November 11, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

When will Verizon stop stealing?

When will Verizon start doing the right thing?

Question of the day (November 10, 2007):

Verizon is supposed to do the right thing.

When will Verizon do the right thing in the Alvin Reed case?

When will justice be served?

Question of the day (November 9, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, retaliated against Alvin Reed when he objected to be required to load and use stolen intellectual property as a condition of employment.

Will Verizon do the right thing?

Will Verizon compensate Alvin Reed for this retaliation?

Question of the day (November 8, 2007):

Stealing intellectual property is against the law.

When will Verizon start obeying the law?

When will Verizon follow the law of the land?

Question of the day (November 7, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon required Alvin Reed to load and use stolen intellectual property as a condition of employment?

Why will Verizon not provide any receipts?

Why won't Verizon admit the receipts don't exist?

Question of the day (November 6, 2007):

Doing the right thing should be paramount in every companies mind.

When will Verizon do the right thing?

When will Verizon come clean?

Question of the day (November 5, 2007):

Stealing intellectual property is wrong.

When will Verizon admit that they are in the wrong?

When will Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (November 4, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, required Alvin Reed to load and use stolen intellectual property against his will?

When will Verizon admit they don't have receipts?

When will Verizon admit they never paid for this property?

Question of the day (November 3, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, stole intellectual property and retaliated against Alvin Reed when he objected.

When will Verizon make right?

When will Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (November 2, 2007):

Stealing is not the right thing to do.

When will Verizon learn this lesson?

When will Verizon stop stealing?

Question of the day (November 1, 2007):

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do.

When will Verizon do the right thing?

When will Verizon see the right thing to do?

Question of the day (October 31, 2007):

It is five years in a federal penetentiary for stealing intellectual property.

When will Verion fess up to this stealing?

What will Verizon do to correct this issue?

Question of the day (October 30, 2007):

Getting away with it should not be a consideration in corporate ethics.

When will Verizon wake up?

When will getting away with it be taken off the table?

Question of the day (October 29, 2007):

Corporations should not steal intellectual property.

When will Verizon learn this lesson?

Why does Verizon think they are above the law?

Question of the day (October 28, 2007):

Intellectual property is property too.

Why does Verizon not consider stealing intellectual property to be wrong?

When will intellectual property thief be given the dignity it deserves?

Question of the day (October 27, 2007):

Stealing intellectual property is wrong.

Will Verizon open it's eyes?

Will Verizon stop stealing intellectual property?

Question of the day (October 26, 2007):

Pirated software is a problem in corporate America.

Why will Verizon not admit this?

Why is Verizon trying to claim there is no pirated software?

Question of the day (October 25, 2007):

Stealing is against the law.

When will Verizon obey the law?

Do laws matter?

Question of the day (October 24, 2007):

Intellectual property thief is still thief.

Will Verizon do the right thing?

Is it not too late to fix the Reed v MCI case?

Question of the day (October 23, 2007):

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do.

Why won't Verizon follow their own advice?

Why won't Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (October 22, 2007):

Verizon should know that stealing intellectual property is wrong.

Why does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, not correct the Reed v MCI case?

Will justice be done?

Question of the day (October 21, 2007):

Stealing intellectual property is wrong.

Why does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, not realize this?

Will justice prevail?

Question of the day (October 20, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, know they are getting away with stealing intellectual property and retaliating against those who object.

Is getting away with it the right thing to do?

Are morals a thing of the past?

Question of the day (October 19, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

Why won't Verizon correct the Reed v MCI case?

Is getting away with it ok by secular progressives?

Question of the day (October 18, 2007):

To this day, Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, is covering up stolen property.

Where's the receipts?

Where is the verification of ownership?

Question of the day (October 17, 2007):

The Rule of Law is supposed to apply to everyone.

Do rich corporations get an exception to the Rule of Law?

Is justice for sell in this country?

Question of the day (October 16, 2007):

It is wrong to steal intellectual property. It is more wrong to retaliate against those who object.

Is pirated software ok by the unrighteous?

Are some crimes not really crimes to the unchurched?

Question of the day (October 15, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, is criminally covering up stolen intellectual property.

Do you think they will get away with it?

Is Righteousness only for Christians?

Question of the day (October 14, 2007):

Getting away with it is not an option to Christians.

Will Verizon repent?

Do pigs fly?

Question of the day (October 13, 2007):

Verizon is criminally covering up stolen property.

Is stealing ok in a secular world?

Is retaliation acceptable towards those that object?

Question of the day (October 12, 2007):

Verizon clearly doesn't care about ethics.

Is talk cheap when used sparingly?

Did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, have to claim to be ethical?

Question of the day (October 11, 2007):

In the Reed v MCI case, Verizon is clearly covering up stolen property.

Is it ok to cover up a crime if you think you won't get caught?

Will Verizon eventually be caught by the police?

Question of the day (October 10, 2007):

Verizon knows better then to commit a criminal cover up yet choices to do so anyway.

Does Verizon care about ethics?

Is getting away with it ok?

Question of the day (October 9, 2007):

In the Reed v MCI case, Verizon is clearly criminally covering up stolen property.

Does Verizon think they are getting away with this?

Is the court of public opinion open for business?

Question of the day (October 8, 2007):

Getting caught by the police is not supposed to be the only deterent to crime.

Will Verizon open their eyes?

Will Verizon do the right thing?

Question of the day (October 7, 2007):

Stealing is wrong even if you don't get caught.

Will Verizon get caught by the police?

Does Verizon care about it's reputation?

Question of the day (October 6, 2007):

Deere has a long reputation among farmers.

Can this reputation withstand corruption?

Is a criminal cover up corruption?

Question of the day (October 5, 2007):

Deere can fix the Reed v MCI case.

Will Deere do the right thing?

Is doing the right thing the right thing to do?

Question of the day (October 4, 2007):

Verizon cannot provide receipts in the Reed v MCI case.

Is getting away with it ok by secular standards?

Does a paper trail prove Verizon corruption?

Question of the day (October 3, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

Will Verizon and Deere get away with it?

Is stealing ok if you don't get caught by the police?

Question of the day (October 2, 2007):

Stealing is against the law.

Is it ok for Verizon and Deere to steal?

Are Verizon and Deere above the law?

Question of the day (October 1, 2007):

The rule of law is about trust.

Is Deere condoing purjury what rule of law is supposed to be about?

Is it ok for Deere and Company to condone perjury?

Question of the day (September 30, 2007):

Doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do should include obeying the law.

Is stealing intellectual property considered obeying the law?

Is stealing ok if you don't get caught by the police?

Question of the day (September 29, 2007):

The ethical reputation of Deere and Company is just at stake as the reputation of Verizon in the Reed v MCI case.

Will the CEO of Deere and Company do the right thing?

Does Deere and Company take ethics seriously?

Question of the day (September 28, 2007):

Deere and Company is well aware of the unethical legal trickery Verizon is using in Reed v MCI to keep from having to show what few receipts exist.

Does Deere nnd Company think they are going to get away with this?

Is the ethical reputation of Deere and Company at stake?

Question of the day (September 27, 2007):

Obeying the law should be paramount in everyone's mind.

Why do secular progressives only consider being caught?

Is it so hard to just obey the law?

Question of the day (September 26, 2007):

Obeying the law is supposed to be standard procedure.

Why do secular progressive companies ignore the law when convenient to do so?

Is it ok to assume there is no God watching over us?

Question of the day (September 25, 2007):

Doing the right thing is supposed to be the right thing to do.

Why does Deere and Verizon condone purjury to cover up the Reed v MCI case?

Why is a criminal cover up preferred over just doing the right thing?

Question of the day (September 24, 2007):

John Deere should want to maintain a reputation for ethics.

Why do they allow their CEO to be on the Verizon Audit Committe?

Why does John Deere not stand up for ethics in the Reed v MCI case?

Question of the day (September 23, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

Did Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, error is requiring employees to feloniously load and use stolen intellectual property as a condition of employement?

Is Worlcom/MCI, now Verizon, continuing to error by criminally covering this up?

Question of the day (September 22, 2007):

John Deere's reputation is on the line for allowing their CEO to be part of the Reed v MCI criminal cover up.

Does John Deere care about ethics?

Do they weigh getting away with it higher then maintaining an ethical reputation?

Question of the day (September 21, 2007):

Stealing is wrong whether you get caught or not.

Will Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon get caught in the Reed v MCI case?

Will justice be served?

Question of the day (September 20, 2007):

The court of public opinion is strong, one person at a time.

Do individuals matter?

Is the reputation of Verizon, John Deere, and others worth saving?

Question of the day (September 19, 2007):

Getting away with a criminal cover up is not something to be proud of.

Is basing profits of stolen property defrauding stock holders?

Is not getting caught a valid defense?

Question of the day (September 18, 2007):

Criminal cover ups happen when corrupt companies think they can get away with it.

Does getting away with it make it ok?

Is Righteousness only for Christians?

Question of the day (September 17, 2007):

Stealing is just plain wrong.

Why does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, not understand this?

Why does MCI commit perjury in court documents?

Question of the day (September 16, 2007):

Worldom/MCI, now Verizon, claims in court documents that there was never any stolen property.

Why could they not pass a software raid?

Why don't they just provide the receipts, if they existed?

Question of the day (September 15, 2007):

Righteousness is expected in Christian companies. Secular companies don't seem to care.

Was Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, right to retaliate against Alvin Reed for objecting to stolen property?

Is Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, a secular company?

Question of the day (September 14, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon is criminally covering up requiring employees to commit felonies as a condition of employment.

Will justice prevail?

Is right right and wrong wrong?

Question of the day (September 13, 2007):

The lack of justice in the Reed v MCI case is a perfect example of why employees are afraid to report corporate corruption.

Is it reasonable to assume that the honest economy is harmed by this lack of justice?

Will justice ultimately prevail?

Question of the day (September 12, 2007):

Sarbanes Oxley is about trust. It is not too late for the CEO of John Deere to fix the Reed v MCI case.

Will John Deere do the right thing?

Can John Deere still be trusted or has the John Deere logo lost its meaning?

Question of the day (September 11, 2007):

Stealing is wrong.

Is corporate America given a special out for this fact?

Is getting away with it a special badge of honor for corporate America?

Question of the day (September 10, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, required employees to load and use stolen intellectual property as a condition of employment.

Does an employee have the right to object to pirated software?

Can a company legally retaliate against an employee who objects to pirated software?

Question of the day (September 9, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, cannot find one shred of evidence that the property in question in Reed v MCI is not stolen, yet they continue to purjure themselves in court documents claiming it is not stolen.

Should justice be about who spends the most on lawyers fees?

Is ethics a thing of the past.

Question of the day (September 8, 2007):

It is well established that around one in five software programs in use in corporate America is stolen property.

Has pirated software become like going three miles over the speed limit and getting a ticket for impeding traffic by going to slow?

Is using less then one in five stolen software programs considered impeding profits?

Question of the day (September 7, 2007):

Alvin Reed's department used mostly stolen intellectual property. Alvin Reed objected to this in emails for a year and a half.

Why is Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, so afraid to show what little verification of ownership exists?

How can the company claim no stolen property when the amount of verifiable ownership is significantly less then the amount of software Alvin Reed complained about?

Question of the day (September 6, 2007):

Reasonable belief means having legitimate reason to believe. Facts that prove something clearly constitute reasonable belief.

Is it reasonable to believe that something is stolen when told constantly that it is stolen and no proof of ownership is available during discovery?

Is it reasonable to believe that a criminal cover up is involved when court documents state opposite of what the facts show?

Question of the day (September 5, 2007):

Reasonable belief of stockholder fraud is knowing that profits being reported to stockholders is based on stolen property, fines alone could be in the tens of billions of dollars.

Is not getting caught the same as not doing the crime?

Is it ok if others have been known to commit this crime as well?

Question of the day (September 4, 2007):

The retaliation clause of Sarbanes Oxley only requires that an employee show REASONABLE BELIEF that stockholders are being defrauded.

Is it reasonable to believe a statement that is absolutely true?

Where's the beef (receipts)???

Question of the day (September 3, 2007):

Getting away with requiring employees to feloniously load and use stolen intellectual property as a condition of employment is not normally something a company, such as Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, shoold be proud of.

Is getting away with it a reasonable approach?

Are morals and ethics important for corporate America?

Question of the day (September 2, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, criminally covered up the pirated software in Alvin Reed's department, then stated in court documents that it was not stolen.

Is basing profits on stolen property within the purview of stockholder fraud?

Is criminally covering it up within the purview of stockholder fraud?

Question of the day (September 1, 2007):

Stealing is wrong, yet Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, thinks it is only wrong if you get caught.

Where's the receipts?

Why is there not one electronic entry or one piece of paper that in any way indicates legal ownership of items in question?

Question of the day (August 31, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, at the highest levels, is criminally covering up the fact that our department could not pass a software raid.

Is this what companies are supposed to do?

Does a criminal cover up make a company unethical?

Question of the day (August 30, 2007):

Stealing is wrong, yet Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, continues to steal, as far as we know, up to now, and refuses to provide any verification of ownwership.

Does Verizon owe current employees verification of ownership so that they will know whether or not they are breaking the law?

Does Verizon owe Alvin Reed discovery, verification of ownership?

Question of the day (August 29, 2007):

Requiring employees to commit felonies as a condition of employment is wrong, yet Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, continues to do that even today.

Where are the receipts?

Why is MCI hiding what few receipts exist?

Question of the day (August 28, 2007):

Alvin Reed was required to commit felonies as a condition of employment. This is an undisputible fact.

Will the courts call Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, on this fact?

Will his co-workers continue to be required to do the same?

Question of the day (August 27, 2007):

Criminal cover ups are wrong, yet Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, continues to think they can get away with it.

Is the court of public opinion in session?

Is getting caught by man the only criteria to consider?

Question of the day (August 26, 2007):

At Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, we were required to commit felonies as a condition of employment. The company has decided to take a calculated risk at the highest levels to criminally cover this up.

Does God know what they did?

Should potential customers know what they did?

Question of the day (August 25, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon has yet to provide verification of ownership that would have been available in the event of a software raid in Alvin Reed's department.

Where's the beef?

Where's the receipts?

Question of the day (August 24, 2007):

Christians know to fess up when we do wrong. Secular progressives try to cover it up, as in the Reed v MCI case.

Does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, not realize that the average citizen cannot trust this company because they see right through this criminal cover up?

Are ethics imporatant at all to secular progressives?

Question of the day (August 23, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, have admitted that they cannot find receipts in the Reed v MCI case. Yet they continue to claim in court documents that the property was not stolen.

If a company cannot tie ownership to a department, then how could anyone possibly know how many other departments are stealing the same property?

Does illogical mean logic in a secular progressive company?

Question of the day (August 22, 2007):

Stealing is stealing, murder is murder, for Christians, but secular progressives have a different take on stealing, murder, and other crimes.

If Alvin Reed's department had committed murder, instead of stealing, and Alvin Reed had objected to these murders, would the company have tried to cover this up like the criminal cover up of the stolen intellectual property?

Is a calculated risk that you won't get caught a reason to criminally cover up stealing or murder?

Question of the day (August 21, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, admits that verification of ownership does not exist, yet continues to claim in court documents that the property was not stolen.

Can Worldcom have it both ways?

Would our Founding Fathers have approved of this criminal cover up by Verizon?

Question of the day (August 20, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, has yet to meet a banruptcy court order almost three years late to reduce cost on the FLPS project by three million dollars. Alvin Reed was not allowed to present a million map a day solution three years ago that would have far exceeded that requirement, all because he objected to pirated software.

Is criminally covering up pirated software more important to the secular progressive crowd then obeying bankrupcty court orders?

Is criminal cover ups the status quo for secular progressives?

Question of the day (August 19, 2007):

Ethics is a learned trait, primarily learned on Sunday mornings. The secular progressive mindset is that it is not a crime if you don't get caught and therefore, it is ethical to criminally cover up crime.

Does this logic make sense to Christians?

Do secular progressives see the flaw in this logic?

Question of the day (August 18, 2007):

Stealing has been wrong for as long as mankind has been around.

Does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, have any remorse whatsoever for stealing from Microsoft, Oracle, Mapinfo, and many other software companies?

Does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, have a conscience.

Question of the day (August 17, 2007):

Ethics is key to being recognized as doing the right thing.

Will Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, ever be recognized as a company that does the right thing?

Will Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, ever become an ethical company?

Question of the day (August 16, 2007):

A trully ethical company would do as they say and say as they do with regard to claims of wanting to establish themselves with trust and credibility.

Will Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, be able to save their reputation when they treat righteous employees as they did Alvin Reed?

Is trust and credibility something that one can only talk about and not act on and expect it to mean anything.

Question of the day (August 15, 2007):

Christians do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Secular progressives say they will do the right thing, then not do it.

Were Worldcom's guiding principles just pure public relations and nothing more?

Will the world realize what Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon is really all about?

Question of the day (August 14, 2007):

After the Bernie Ebbers fiasco, Worldcom spent an inordinate amount of time trying to convince employees a message of gaining respect and credibility.

Alvin Reed, as a Christian, very much wanted to believe this public relations and did start lowering his guard and objecting to the crimes being required to commit as a condition of employment.

Does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, have no shame at all in the retaliation towards this gullible employee?

Question of the day (August 13, 2007):

Doing the right thing also means knowing one is free from retaliation for doing the right thing.

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, was clearly wrong to retaliate against Alvin Reed for doing the right thing.

Will Verizon eventually be forced to do the right thing?

Question of the day (August 12, 2007):

Honor and dignity are traits that Christians hold dear. Secular progressives hold no similar characteristics because of lack of moral foundation to base them on.

Is it honorable for Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon to retaliate against Alvin Reed, then try to get away with it?

Is dignity a trait only for Christian based companies?

Question of the day (August 11, 2007):

Doing the RIGHT THING takes courage.

GETTING AWAY WITH IT is cowardous.

Does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, GETTING AWAY WITH retaliating against Alvin Reed because of his objections to pirated software make Verizon a coward?

Question of the day (August 10, 2007):

Righteousness is a learned trait. Companies that operate at the secular progressive level tend to have far less respect for basic moral principles then companies that operate with respect for Christian values.

It is reasonable to conclude that a company who retaliates against righteous employees operates at the secular progressive level?

Is righteousness something that our Founding Fathers intended in our economy?

Question of the day (August 9, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, is well known as a corrupt company. No reasonable person thinks that the hoopla in the earlier part of the decade really changed the underlings of this corruption.

Is it reasonable to assume that Alvin Reed was simply foolish to have believed that the company had become ethical?

Is it not right for Alvin Reed to suffer for believing such a foolish thing that the company had become ethical.

Question of the day (August 8, 2007):

People don't trust corporations, and for good reason. Corporations can't be trusted. For example, Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, claim in Reed v MCI court documents that there was never any pirated software in this company, yet admit they cannot provide verification of ownership that would have been required in the event of a software raid.

Should corporations be able to "GET AWAY WITH IT"?

Is Trust and Credibility an outdated concept?

Question of the day (August 7, 2007):

The court of public opinion can be harsh on a business that flaunts the laws of the land. In Reed v MCI, Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, clearly flaunts the law. Any reasonable person recognizes that they would have provided verification of ownership long before now if it existed.

Is "Getting Away With It" what America Justice is supposed to be based on?

Are there consequences to retalaiting against an employee for objecting to the defrauding of stock holders?

Question of the day (August 6, 2007):

An ethical company would provide what would have been available to armed federal marshals in the event of a software raid if asked. An unethical company would criminally cover it up. Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, clearly does not have verification of ownership that would have been available in the event of a software raid, yet they continue to claim in court documents that there was no stolen property.

Does a reasonable person recognize that an ethical company would have resolved the Reed v MCI case long ago by providing what would have been available in the event of a software raid?

Does a reasonable person recognize that Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, is not providing this because they don't have this proof of ownership.

Question of the day (August 5, 2007):

Any reasonable observer recognizes that courts of law have become weapons of the rich, famous, and powerful. The little guy really doesn't have a chance without an advocate. The court of public opinion is a right given to us by our Founding Fathers that can be much more powerful.

How much does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, stand to lose in lost good will in the court of public opinion with regards to the Reed v MCI case?

Will Deere and Company enjoy the ride down as well, given that the CEO of Deere in one of six members of the Verizon Audit Committee.

Question of the day (August 4, 2007):

The court of public opinion is a very powerful force. Our Founding Fathers showed great wisdom in providing the protections of the First Ammendment.

Will the potentially billions of dollars in lost good will from Alvin Reed exercising his First Ammendment rights deter MCI from retaliating against other righteous employees?

Will MCI try to stiffle Alvin Reed's First Ammendment rights?

Question of the day (August 3, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon has been repeatedly asked to provide Rick Cassidy, the primary internal customer, for Alvin Reed during his employ, with historical verification of ownership. Rick Cassidy has provided a notarized statement that Dave Vermilyea told both departments that the property was stolen.

Why is Rick Cassidy in fear of his job to pressure management to admit that they do not have this historical verification of ownership?

Why is MCI so flagrantly flaunting the law?

Question of the day (August 2, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon continues to play it cool to appear as if they don't realize that are "GETTING AWAY WITH IT".

Is "GETTING AWAY WITH IT" the Christian thing to do?

Does this not clearly dissaude a reasonable worker from complaining in the first place?

Question of the day (August 1, 2007):

The bottom line is always the question in board rooms.

If a lack of action, or lack of correcting a wrong, were determined to cost the company a billion dollars in lost good will, would the company do the right thing?

Is, "being too late", really a good excuse for defrauding stockholders out of this billion dollars?

Question of the day (July 31, 2007):

Should an employee keep quite when subjected to software of questionable ownership? Since it it so easily duplicated and because the software companies are so rich, secular progressives say yes, Christians say no.

Are morals important?

Are secular progressives so blind, they do not see this moral difference?

Question of the day (July 30, 2007):

Morals and Ethics are learned traits. Christian companies understand this, secular progressive companies don't.

Should Alvin Reed have kept his mouth shut about the stolen intellectual property?

Should Alvin Reed have realized that Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, is a secular progressive company?

Question of the day (July 29, 2007):

Righteousness is a learned trait, typically learned on Sunday mornings and practiced during the week. Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon is a secular progressive company without this typical training.

Would MCI have retaliated against Alvin Reed if it were a Christian company?

Are morals and ethics important?

Is God watching?

Question of the day (July 28, 2007):

After the Enron/Worldcom fiasco's in the early 2000's, Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, employees were inundated with public relations that the company had allegedly become an ethical company.

What happened in the Reed v MCI case?

Is this the real MCI?

Did Alvin Reed error in believing all that propaganda about allegedly becoming an ethical company?

Question of the day (July 27, 2007):

Alvin Reed has been diagnosed with an over sensitivity to the commission of felonies, situational anxiety disorder. The North Carolina Industrial Commission may have an opportunity to determine if wanting to obey the law is abnormal.

Would it not have been easier for Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, to just obey the law then to subject Alvin Reed to the commission of these felonies?

Is MCI really that insensitive?

Where's the beef (receipts)?

Question of the day (July 26, 2007):

While Alvin Reed was abiding by the Worldcom bankruptcy court order to reduce cost by three million dollars by reducing the time to do a dig ticket from sixty to fifty seconds, some in his department had to spent an inordinate amount of time trying to fix old code that crashed often. Alvin Reed's code was known for its significant higher quality and didn't crash. These others defrauded the Internal Revenue Service and stockholders by putting this time as new development instead of maintenance which are at significant different tax rates, which is extremely illegal.

Why is it that Alvin Reed's family is the ones who are suffering?

Is it not clear that Alvin Reed clearly errored by obeying the law and objecting to the rampant stolen property used as conditions of employment in the department?

Question of the day (July 25, 2007):

A reasonable person may well conclude that the criminal cover up in the Reed v MCI case is worse then the original crime. If Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, GETS AWAY WITH IT, this retaliation and cover up by MCI will send shivers up and down the spine of every law abiding employee in corporate America.

Wasn't Sarbanes Oxley suppose to fix this?

Where's the beef (receipts or purchase orders, or bills of lading, or CDs, or original packing, or a notebook entry, or a note on a piece of scratch paper, or anything whatsoever that in any way shape or form even hints at valid ownership)???

Question of the day (July 24, 2007):

Rick Cassidy has signed a notarized statement confirming that we were told the property was stolen. He has yet to receive even the slightest indication that that issue has been resolved, even after repeated attempts by Alvin Reed to ask all the way up to the Verizon Audit Committee to fix this particular situation.

Did the CEO of Deere and Company, one a six members of the Verizon Audit Committee personally aprove of the rude manner in which Alvin Reed was addressed by his administrative assistant when asking when the Rick Cassidy situation would be fixed?

Just because Rick Cassidy MIGHT not go to jail, if able to prove duress, does the CEO of Deere and Company understand that the CEO of Deere and Company CAN go to jail for not fixing the Rick Cassidy situation?

Question of the day (July 23, 2007):

Most of the other employees in Alvin Reed's department at Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, were not willing participants in the original loading and using of rampant stolen property and are not willing participants in the criminal cover up.

Are employees dissuaded in the first place from complaining when they see retaliation before their very eyes occuring with no recourse?

Is GETTING AWAY WITH IT what our Founding Fathers intended?

Question of the day (July 22, 2007):

The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 came about in large part because of the corruption and cover ups at Worldcom. Worldcom even today, after switching names to MCI then to Verizon, continues with these corruption and criminal cover ups.

Will Worldcom GET AWAY WITH IT this time?

Is GETTING AWAY WITH IT the right thing to do?

Is it a mistake for a Worldcom employee to think they should report corruption?

Question of the day (July 21, 2007):

Alvin Reed was retaliatied against by Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, for refusing to commit felonies. He objected repeatedly in emails since August of 2003.

Will Verizon GET AWAY WITH IT?

Are morals and ethics important to a secular progressive company?

Did our Founding Fathers mess up in writing the constitution?

Question of the day (July 20, 2007):

The retaliation clause of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) puts the burden of proof on the employer when retaliation occurs. SOX was intended to encourage employees to report fraud to help the economy.

How much does Verizon covering up fraud hurt the economy?

What provisions are in the Laissez Faire economic model to stop fraud?

Did our Founding Fathers intend for Verizon to "GET AWAY WITH IT"?

Question of the day (July 19, 2007):

An ethical company would not allow retaliation against an employee for objecting to the commission of felonies. An ethical company would not criminally cover up such retaliation.

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, clearly cannot find receipts for the stolen property.

Is it possible for a reasonable person familiar with the facts in Reed v MCI to conclude that Verizon's claims of being ethical are anything other then patently false?

Question of the day (July 18, 2007):

Alvin Reed spoke with Deere and Company legal counsel yesterday. For the record, all Alvin Reed wants is back pay and his good name back. The issue brought up was Rick Cassidy, a current employee, to this day not being able to pass a software raid.

The only way out for the Verizon Audit Committee, which includes the CEO of the parent of John Deere, and the CEO of the parent of Olive Garden, is if they can get away with it.

Would a reasonable person conclude that Rick Cassidy is being put under tremendous pressure to NOT ask for the receipts if he wants to keep his job?

Is retaliation a learned or inherited trait?

Question of the day (July 17, 2007):

The Business Software Alliance notes studies that show approximately one in five software programs in corporate America in stolen property.

This is cleary basing profits on stolen property.

Is this defrauding stockholders?

If everyone is committing a felony, does it count?

If everyone hires illegal aliens, does anyone care?

Question of the day (July 16, 2007):

It is against the law for the Verizon Audit Committee to retaliate against an employee who objects to defrauding stockholders. Criminally covering up stolen property makes the crime orders of magnitude worse.

Where are the receipts?

Why will the Verizon Audit Committee not provide receipts for property they claim in court documents is not stolen?

Will the United States Department of Labor let Verizon get away with this criminal cover up?

Question of the day (July 15, 2007):

Any reasonable person familiar with the facts in Reed v MCI realizes that the Verizon Audit Committee is well aware that the company would have provided verification of ownership between January 2005 and October 2005 when Alvin Reed repeatedly asked for it in emails and by phone to human resources and others, if they had it.

Any reasonable person realizes that this is a Verizon criminal cover up because Verizon thinks they can get away with it.

Will the United States Department of Labor take these letters with the seriousness that our Founding Fathers intended.

If this were one of the Founding Fathers that was being retaliated against, would the other Founding Fathers have written the constitution any differently, or would they have encouraged the President of the United States to just enforce the Constitution as it exists.

Question of the day (July 14, 2007):

The six members of the Verizon Audit Committee, including the CEO of John Deere and the CEO of the parent of Olive Garden, are legally and criminally responsible to ensure that section 301 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act in enforced at Verizon, which means enforcing sections 806 and 1107.

Verizon has given over sixteen million dollars to the "political machine" over the years.

Is justice for sale in this country?

Will that sixtenn million dollars be enough to keep the Verizon Audit Committee out of a federal penitentiary, or will Verizon provide even more political bribes this political season?

Would our Founding Fathers have given the Verizon Audit Committee a hundred hours of community service to show that the "Rule of Law" is alive and well in the United States of America?

Question of the day (July 13, 2007):

Sections 301, 806, and 1107 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act very clearly put the responsibility for the retaliation against Alvin Reed's family on the CEO of Deere and Company and the other five members of the Verizon Audit Committee.

Any reasonable person who fully understands all of the facts in the Reed v MCI case would conclude that the only reason that the Verizon Audit Committee has not given Alvin Reed his good name back yet is because they think they can get away with it and it is only a matter of time before justice comes into play.

Did our Founding Fathers do a good job in creating the United States of America?

Will Alvin Reed eventually see justice and get his good name back?.

Question of the day (July 12, 2007):

Alvin Reed's department could not pass a software raid anytime during his employ. He objected to this repeatedly through emails since August of 2003 directly because of all the internal public relations about the company allegedly becoming an ethical company.

Is the Verizon Audit Committee willing to go the jail if the executive branch enforces SOX 1107?

Is the Verizon Audit Committee willing to admit that just giving Alvin Reed his good name back is a much better solution?

Question of the day (July 11, 2007):

Alvin Reed objected repeatedly through emails of the rampant pirated software in his department at Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon beginning in August of 2003. The administrative assistant of the CEO of Deere and Company, as one of six memebers of the Verizon Audit Committee acknowledged just yesterday on the phone that he is reading these letters bringing this to his attention.

Any reasonable person realizes that the CEO of Deere and Company is looking for a way out of the mess the MCI ethics office has gotten Verizon into.

Is it not reasonable to conclude that the simpliest and easiest solution is to insure Alvin Reed's family is no worse off then before all this retaliation?

Question of the day (July 10, 2007):

The Verizon Audit Committee has made a clear business decision that being able to get away with retaliating against Christians is more important than possibly tens of billions of dollars in lost good will over the coming decades.

Is this in and of itself defrauding stockholders?

Are the majority of Verizon stockholders Christians who care about morals and ethics, or secular progressives who do not?

Question of the day (July 9, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, has and will continue to lose a significantly more amount of money in legal fees and especially lost good will in the Reed v MCI case then they would if they would give give Alvin Reed backpay and his good name back.

What can this business decision be based on?

Is the companies association with the secular progressive customer base a contributing factor?

Question of the day (July 8, 2007):

Sarbanes Oxley Retaliation Law

To prevail under this law, the complainant only needs to show that the protected activity was a contributing factor in whatever negative employment action was taken. Once again, this aspect is unlike many other whistleblower laws which generally require that the whistleblower prove that their reporting was the cause, or at least was a significant or motivating factor in the negative employment action taken.

To rebut the claim this law requires that the employer show by clear and convincing evidence that the employee's report had no effect on the personnel action taken.

Does walking through a "MINE FIELD" of rampant pirated software for someone with situational anxiety to the commission of felonies constitute a "CONTRIBUTING FACTOR"

Question of the day (July 7, 2007):

2-04-04 I send an email to my manager, Frank Adams, complaining of being forced to use stolen property against my will.

“Frank. For the record. I have loaded a copy of Homesite V4.5.1 SN HS45PE-3997633545 onto my computer using what is obviously a bootlegged CD based on your email assurance that we have sufficient licenses on file to cover this software. Alvin. Copy to File.”

My mental state at this point for putting “Copy to File” on the bottom of my email was for my own protection if Federal Marshals were to enter the building and ask for proof of ownership.

Question of the day (July 6, 2007):

1-31-04 I send an email to my manager, Frank Adams, complaining of being forced to used stolen property against my will.

“Frank, I am once again losing a lot of sleep over the issue of being pressured to use software of questionable ownership. As noted below, I expressed my concerns with this issue with Pamela starting August 22 over Microsoft Project. September 8, I lost a weeks worth of sleep when Leon tried to pressure me into putting an eval copy of MapXtreme that Dava made very clear to Leon had expired three years earlier. An now Leon is pressuring me to put Homesite on my computer even after telling him three different times that I would not put it on my computer without some proof of ownership. There is even some question of the valid ownership of Toad. There was even discussion in yesterdays design meeting if we would pay for 4 CPU licences for MapXtreme and then just go ahead and run it on all 16 CPUs. The communication problems with Pamela and Leon are starting to affect my health and I am asking Management to takes steps to insure that Pamela and Leon understand that I do not want to be asked to use software of questionable ownership. Thank you. Alvin”

Frank Adams responds with an email that seems to be taking the entire issue far too lightly. During the next staff call that he alluded to, several people in the department tried to explain to Frank Adams why the Microsoft Project on some computers was illegal. Frank Adams did not seem to understand during the call. My concerns where, once again, being overlooked and ignored.

Is this the Verizon Audit Committee doing the right thing by allowing this to go on?

Question of the day (July 5, 2007):

9-29-03 I send an email to the FLPS project manager, Pamela Hogg, complaining of being forced to use stolen property against my will.

“Pamela, For the record, I am not comfortable using Map Extreme until we have something in writing from MapInfo extending our 30 day trial. The Wednesday call may be a good time to ask. I don’t think they will have any objections to us using their Unix/Java versions since we are converting from Windows to Java; however, it does need to be in writing just to be on the safe side. Alvin”

Note that our 30 day trial ended sometime in 2000, several years earlier. MapXtreme agreed to a new 30 day trial around November of 2003. MapXtreme and I discussed on the phone a number of times during the first half of 2004 that we were long past our 30 day, or even 60 day trial.

Does the Verizon Audit Committe think this builds trust and credibility?

Question of the day (July 4, 2007):

9-08-03 I noted this date on a later email to Frank Adams as the day of this encounter.

Dave Vermilyea spends about fifteen minutes screaming at Leon King at the top of his lungs, just a few feet behind me, how illegal it would be to put MaxXtreme on our computers. Within seconds of Dave Vermilyea walking away, Leon King shoves the CD in my direction telling me to put it on my computer. I lose a week’s worth of sleep from this encounter because even though we did not report to or work for Leon King, he and Pamela Hogg worked extremely closely. It was well understood that he would immediately tell Pamela Hogg, who would tell our manager, if we did not put MapXtreme on our computer. My wife, Donna Reed, has agreed to testify to my loss of sleep and my mental state during this general time frame.

Doesn't the Verizon Audit Committee think they should get with the program?

Question of the day (July 3, 2007):

“Pamela, Can you export the project plan into Microsoft Word Format? I don’t th[i]nk we have a site license for Microsoft Project and I don’t have a personal copy. Thanks. Alvin”

Her response was to tell me where the pirated CD was located.

Is this morally correct?

Question of the day (July 2, 2007):

Aug-03 MCI Executive management starts a campaign to convince stock holders, employees, and customers that MCI has been allegedly transformed into an ethical company. Dave Vermilyea and I spend the next eighteen months hounding Leon King, Pamela Hogg, and Frank Adams of the rampant use of illegal software in our department including HomeSite, MapXTreme, Oracle, Toad, and Microsoft Project.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee really think they are fooling anyone?

Question of the day (July 1, 2007):

'What you want does not exist. MCI has licenses and in order to give you "proof" that they have not exceeded their licenses you would need to be shown each and every computer at MCI so you could count which ones had the software installed on it to make sure the licenses were not exceeded. This is not going to happen. It would be unduly burdensome.'

Email from MCI lawyer admitting out right that my department could have never passed a software raid.

Is this really the best excuse that the Verizon Audit Committee can come up with?

Why not just come right out and say you got caught and end these charades once and for all?

Question of the day (June 30, 2007):

When we were young, Christians are taught in Sunday School to not steal. Children of athiests are only taught to not get caught by the police.

Were members of the Verizon Audit Committee brought up by Christians or by athients?

Is getting caught by God a consideration of the Verizon Audit Committee?

Where the BEEF??? (Receipts)

Question of the day (June 29, 2007):

Christians want to obey God's law. Athiests are only interested in obeying man's law.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee want to side with Christians or athiests when it comes to what they believe they can get away with in regard to SOX 301?

Are Morals and Ethics important to the Verizon Audit Committee?

Question of the day (June 28, 2007):

Obeying the law was one of the basic premises our Founding Fathers intended every God fearing citizen of this great country to do. It is reasonable to assume that our Founding Fathers never intended this basic premise to become extinct, and certainly not within the first three centuries of this country.

Is the Verizon Audit Committee proud of thinking they are getting away with the Reed v MCI case?

Is "obeying the law" an outdated concept that needs to be replaced with anarchy in this country?

Question of the day (June 27, 2007):

"Do the Right Thing Because it is the Right Thing to Do" was one of ten motto's that Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, gave to every employee of the company in multiple formats, including on the phone and through the mail, after the Bernie Ebbers fraud.

Since the Verizon Audit Committee clearly knows that this was phone and mail fraud, do they recognize that they are legally responsible for implementing this motto?

Question of the day (June 26, 2007):

The downward spiral of the moral fabric in our secular progessive society has now made righteousness a disability. Alvin Reed is considered disabled by the medical field because of his strong emotions towards wanting to obey the law. This is Alvin Reed wanting to obey God's commandment to not steal, yet our society considers wanting to not steal to be abnormal.

Is the Verizon Audit Committee proud to be the front runner in successfully retaliating against employees for just wanting to obey the law?

Question of the day (June 25, 2007):

The CEO of Deere and Company is on the Verizon Audit Committee and is legally responsible for enforcing section 301 of the Sarbanes Oxely act at Verizon. The CEO of Deere and Company has been repeatedly advised and is, or should be, fully aware of the Verizon criminal cover up of which, by SOX 1107, he could spend up to ten years in a federal penitentiary if this section of the Sarbanes Oxley law is ever enforced.

An analogy of the Reed v MCI case is if a Christian farmer finds his plow missing one day and finds it at a neigbors farm, who happens to be an atheist and therefore of much lower moral character. The atheist can NOT provide a receipt, or purchase order, or bill of lading, or even as much as a notebook entry, email, or note on a piece of scratch paper that in any way shape or form indicates ownership of the plow. The Christian farmer can't get the authorities to take action so, in essence, the atheist gets away with stealing the plow, scott free, with no repercussions whatsoever.

If the atheist farmer sold stock for his farm on the open stock market, this would clearly be stock holder fraud because the profits do not reflect the real cost of doing business, just like not looking in the drawer to see if there is a receipt. Does the CEO of Deere and Company think the atheist is within the purview of Original Intent because he gets a free plow without having to pay for it?

The retaliation against Alvin Reed makes the Reed v MCI case far more serious and severe. What will it take to get the CEO of Deere and Company to give Alvin Reed his life back???

Question of the day (June 24, 2007):

1-31-04 I send an email to my manager, Frank Adams, complaining of being forced to used stolen property against my will.

“Frank, I am once again losing a lot of sleep over the issue of being pressured to use software of questionable ownership. As noted below, I expressed my concerns with this issue with Pamela starting August 22 over Microsoft Project. September 8, I lost a weeks worth of sleep when Leon tried to pressure me into putting an eval copy of MapXtreme that Dav[e] made very clear to Leon had expired three years earlier. An now Leon is pressuring me to put Homesite on my computer even after telling him three different times that I would not put it on my computer without some proof of ownership. There is even some question of the valid ownership of Toad. There was even discussion in yesterdays design meeting if we would pay for 4 CPU licences for MapXtreme and then just go ahead and run it on all 16 CPUs. The communication problems with Pamela and Leon are starting to affect my health and I am asking Management to takes steps to insure that Pamela and Leon understand that I do not want to be asked to use software of questionable ownership. Thank you. Alvin”

Frank Adams responds with an email that seems to be taking the entire issue far too lightly. During the next staff call that he alluded to, several people in the department tried to explain to Frank Adams why the Microsoft Project on some computers was illegal. Frank Adams did not seem to understand during the call. My concerns where, once again, being overlooked and ignored.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee approve of Frank Adams retaliating against Alvin Reed because it bothered Alvin Reed to obey the law to the extent of affecting his health?

Question of the day (June 23, 2007):

“Pamela, For the record, I am not comfortable using Map Extreme until we have something in writing from MapInfo extending our 30 day trial. The Wednesday call may be a good time to ask. I don’t think they will have any objections to us using their Unix/Java versions since we are converting from Windows to Java; however, it does need to be in writing just to be on the safe side. Alvin”

Note that Alvin Reeds deparments 30 day trial ended sometime in 2000, several years earlier. MapXtreme agreed to a new 30 day trial around November of 2003. MapXtreme and Alvin Reed discussed on the phone a number of times during the first half of 2004 that we were long past our 30 day, or even 60 day trial.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee really think they can get away with retaliating against an employee for objecting to the commission of felonies with these emails never being properly addressed?

Is it not logical than any reasonable person recognizes that all the ethics office did was decide that they THOUGHT they could get away with covering up these emails?

Question of the day (June 22, 2007):

'What you want does not exist. MCI has licenses and in order to give you "proof" that they have not exceeded their licenses you would need to be shown each and every computer at MCI so you could count which ones had the software installed on it to make sure the licenses were not exceeded. This is not going to happen. It would be unduly burdensome.'

Email from MCI lawyer admitting out right that Alvin Reed's department could have never passed a software raid

Does the Verizon Audit Committee have an explaination for why our department could not pass a software raid?

Question of the day (June 21, 2007):

The Sarbanes Oxley act was put into place by Congress because the Trust and Credibility of corporate America had suffered greatly. Citizens wanted laws in place to force corporate America to not defraud stockholders.

As it turns out, even with the new laws, employees don't know when to obey the law and when not to obey the law. Over time, vast numbers of employees and voters will learn more and more about the Reed v MCI case.

Is the Verizon Audit Committee willing to continue to cover this up thinking they can get away with it?

Does the Verizon Audit Committee really think the American people are that stupid?

Question of the day (June 20, 2007):

Alvin Reed sent a series of emails to management since August of 2003 clearly indicating concerns for rampant pirated software in the company. Some of these he has, but many the company refuses to provide as discovery. An entire series of evidence on Alvin Reed's office wall appears to have been frauduently destroyed. The case was thrown out of court because the US DOL claims that defrauding stockholders by basing profits on stolen property is not within the purview of stockholder fraud, a conclusion that, when thought through, mocks the GOP platform, but conforms perfectly to the liberal interpretation of the GOP platform.

Is the US DOL reading these letters that Alvin Reed keeps sending them?

Is justice in this country only for the rich, famous, and powerful as is assumed by many, or are these people wrong and justice is for all?

Will Alvin Reed ever see the court documents corrected where the company fraudently claims no pirated software even though the average in corporate America is twenty one percent?

Question of the day (June 19, 2007):

When watching the Nifong Durham DA case on the news recently, Alvin Reed was reminded by his wife that when Bob Sar's co-counsel overheard her tell their 12 year old Son in Wake County Superior Court words to the affect that courts were not about justice when one side is willing to tell such outlandish lies ("MCI did not and has not engaged in any illegal activity involving the use of unlicensed software." (ALVIN R. REED Complainant, vs. MCI INC., Respondent, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, Case No.: 2007-SOX-00071, REPLY TO COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION AND RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION, page 6, line 2,3), Bob Sar's co-counsel was visibly shaken and had to leave the room, clearly an indication that Bob Sar's co-counsel was a hidden moral light who remembered his Sunday School lessons to not lie.

Who is the moral light on the Verizon Audit Committee who remembers their Sunday School lessons as a child to not lie?

Will this moral light shine on the US Senate Judiciary Committee willingly on their own, or will it require a US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to get this moral light to shine the truth?

Where's the beef???????????? (Receipts, or purchase orders, or bills of lading, or original packaging, or CDs, or notebook entries, or emails, or even as much as a single note on a piece of scratch paper that in any way, shape, or form indicates valid ownership of items in question during relavent time frame.)

Question of the day (June 18, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, is under tremendous pressure to provide receipts, or purchase orders, or bills of lading, or original packaging, or CDs, or even a notebook entry, email, or note on a piece of scratch paper that verifies ownership of items in question in the Reed v MCI case.

Any reasonable person would conclude that the only reason that the company has not provided this verification of ownership is because it doesn't exist, that Alvin Reed was in fact required to commit felonies as a condition of employment.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee understand the importance of being an ethical company?

Question of the day (June 17, 2007):

An ethical company would provide Alvin Reed verification of ownership of items in question with or without that being officially requested multiple times as part of discovery. Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, continues to refuse to provide what little verification of ownership that does exist because they realize this little amount would look worse then none at all.

The Verizon Audit Committee has been repeatedly advised of the seriousness of this issue and is, or should be, well aware of the criminal consequences pointed out in section 1107 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee's clear and convincing passive admission that the company is absolutely NOT an ethical company of any concern to the reputation of this company?

Question of the day (June 16, 2007):

It is well understood on Capitol Hill that Worldcom is the company that "broke the camel's back", so to speak. They are the company with the largest bankruptcy in history. One would think that as much attention they caused the world due to corporate corruption, that the company would bend over backwards to abide by Sarbanes Oxley, but that turns out not to be the case.

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, think they are going to get away with the Reed v MCI case. This is one of those situations where the criminal cover up is worse then the crime.

Does the United State Senate Judiciary Committee consider it acceptable that the reputation of politics in general will be defined possibly for generations by how the Reed v MCI case is handled with enforcement legislation going forward?

Question of the day (June 15, 2007):

Alvin Reed was required to commit felonies as a condition of employment for many years. He started objecting in emails to his manager in August 2003 directly as a result of the Sarbanes Oxley Act and being inundated by management of alleged public relations that the company has supposedly become an ethical company.

Does Robert W. Lane, the CEO of John Deere, recognize that he, and the other five members of the Verizon Audit Committee are the top men and women on the totem pole, per SOX 301, and they are the ones subject to imprisonment for allowing this retaliation against Alvin Reed's family to go unheeded?

Is Robert W. Lane laughing, or worse, choosing to ignore, these warnings because he is convinced the sixteen million dollars Verizon has given in campaign contributions over the years is going to be his "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card?

Question of the day (June 14, 2007):

The Verizon criminal cover up in the Reed v MCI case has caused Alvin Reed significant mental confusion with regard to knowing what laws to obey and what laws to break. The Verizon Audit Committee, per SOX 301, is the legally responsible top authority for this confusion.

Will the Verizon Audit Committee work to build "TRUST AND CREDIBILITY" or "MISTRUST AND DECEIT" as the Verizon ethical model going forward?

Is there a belief that Alvin Reed will eventually just give up fighting for God's commandment "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL"?

Question of the day (June 13, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon is fraudulently stating in court documents that there was never any pirated software at this company. The industry average is twenty one percent. No reasonable person could possibly conclude that the company has anywhere near zero percent or even only twenty one percent pirated software.

Was the "ORIGINAL INTENT" of our "FOUNDING FATHERS" that corrupt corporations could lie in court documents with complete impunity, while the US Senate Judiciary Committee, the US Department of Labor, and the US FBI sit quietly by and do nothing?

Question of the day (June 12, 2007):

The entire purpose of the Sarbanes Oxley act was to bring trust and credibility to corporate America. The straw that broke the camel's back, so to say, was Worldcom defrauding stock holders out of $12,000,000,000 using complex bookkeeping tricks to fool stockholders into thinking the cost of running the business was far less then it actually was.

The average pirated software rate in corporate America is 21%. The typical employee in a high tech company uses dozens of pieces of software. Since some companies use less then 21%, it is obvious that others, such as Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, use far more then 21%.

While one could argue that the rate of pirated software used only by an individual might stay the same, any reasonable person must conclude that the incredible emphasis on ethics that was placed on Worldcom employees after Sarbanes Oxley should make the rate of pirated software forced on others to decrease drastically. Such was not the case at Worldcom.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee consider "TRUST AND CREDIBILITY" to be so unimportant as to allow the retaliation against Alvin Reed to go unheeded?

Question of the day (June 11, 2007):

Alvin Reed spent 1,500 hours of overtime creating a million map a day solution which cleary exceeds the Worldcom bankruptcy court order to reduce cost on three projects by $9,000,000. He was never allowed to show this solution to the customer, even though the customer manager Jeff Showers begged project manager Pamela Hogg to allow Alvin Reed to pursue this mapping solution. The project manager's retaliation against Alvin Reed for objecting to the commission of felonies far out weighed the project manager's legal duty to abide by the bankruptcy court order in the project manager's mind.

The project manager Pamela Hogg's clearly inferior solution has never worked, and was last scheduled to be implemented more then two and a half years later in May 2007.

Will the CEO of John Deere as a member of the Verizon Audit Committee do anything whatsoever to intervene in the efforts by Verizon management of blocking this testimony from ever seeing the inside of a court room?

Would our Founding Fathers consider this flagrant passive obstuction of justice by the Verizon Audit Committee to be within Original Intent?

Question of the day (June 10, 2007):

Our Secular Progressive society considers stealing only to be a crime if you get caught by the police.

Christians consider stealing to be wrong if you get caught by God, who is omnipresent.

Do Secular Progressives try to block from their conscious minds the existence of God so that they can steal without remorse?

Does the CEO of John Deere, as a member of the Verizon Audit Committee, think that fines alone up to $120,000,000,000 are within the purview of what God considers to be stealing?

Question of the day (June 9, 2007):

Any reasonable person would conclude that Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, would have provided verification of ownership long ago if it existed. The company could very well lose ten of billions of dollars in lost good will over the coming decades because of what any reasonable person familiar with the facts must conclude as a Verizon criminal cover up.

The only possible reason any reasonable person could derive from the facts in the Reed v MCI case is that the company believes that they can get away with it.

Excluding mock purchases, is the Verizon Audit Committee willing to testify under oath that they have seen these alleged receipts, or purchase orders, or bills of lading, or original packaging, or CDs, or notebook entries, or emails, or notes on a piece of scratch paper that in any way shape or form indicate proper ownership of software that Alvin Reed's department was required to load and use as a condition of employment?

And if so, why did you fire Alvin Reed two days after he asked for discovery of this verification of ownership, while refusing to provide this evidence?

Question of the day (June 8, 2007):

It is a well established fact that there is twenty one percent pirated software in this country. Most information workers use anywhere from a few to dozens of software programs. Any statitician will conclude from these two numbers that is it statistically impossible to work in an information job without running into situations from time to time of questionable software ownership.

It is up to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and five years in a federal penitentiary, per issue, for loading and/or using stolen intellectual property. Secular progressives typically use the excuse that they might not get caught by the police, but Christians know that they will always get caught by God.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee consider it a valid excuse to retaliate against Christians who object to these crimes because Christians should realize that they might not get caught by the police?

Question of the day (June 7, 2007):

Sarbanes Oxley Retaliation Law

To prevail under this law, the complainant only needs to show that the protected activity was a contributing factor in whatever negative employment action was taken. Once again, this aspect is unlike many other whistleblower laws which generally require that the whistleblower prove that their reporting was the cause, or at least was a significant or motivating factor in the negative employment action taken.

To rebut the claim this law requires that the employer show by clear and convincing evidence that the employee's report had no effect on the personnel action taken.

It was like walking through a mine field trying to avoid the rampant pirated software in Alvin Reed's department. Alvin Reed's termination letter clearly stated the prognosis of his doctor as the reason for the termination and the doctor's prognosis is situational anxiety as a direct result of being retaliated against for objecting to being required to commit these crimes as a condition of employment.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee honestly believe that a jury will be sympathatic to the company with the largest bankruptcy in history criminally covering up that they can't find verification of ownership yet want the jury to believe that it had nothing to do with Alvin Reed's wrongful termination?

Question of the day (June 6, 2007):

Any reasonable person who looks at the facts in the Reed v MCI case must conclude that Alvin Reed was required to commit felonies as a condition of employment, by being required to load and use stolen intellectual property as a condition of employment, and retaliated against when he objected. The companies verbal defense on the phone is, in essense, if you MIGHT not get caught by the police, you must commit the felony.

Is "getting away with it" considered by the Verizon Audit Committee a ligitimate means of "Building Trust and Credibility"?

Why does Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, not just provide what would have been available to give armed federal marshals in the event of a software raid?

Question of the day (June 5, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, has tremendous incentive to provide receipts, or purchase orders, or bills of lading, or orginal packaging, or CDs, or notebook entries, or emails, or notes on a piece of scratch paper, or anything that in any way, shape, or form indicates valid ownership of items in question in Alvin Reed's department. The companies repeated refusal to provide any kind of verification of ownership clearly proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Alvin Reed was required to commit felonies that defraud stockholders as a condition of employment, as clearly noted by Alvin Reed's doctors prognosis.

Is it reasonable to conclude that Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, is not providing verification of ownership because, excluding mock purchases, it simply doesn't exist and the company has elected to criminally cover this up?

Question of the day (June 4, 2007):

Alvin Reed lowered his guard as a direct result of the Sarbanes Oxley Act and was retaliated against because of his objections, since August of 2003, to rampant fraud against stockholders. The fines alone could reach $120,000,000,000, a order of magnitude greater then the Bernie Ebbers fraud.

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, has decided to criminally cover this up because they think they can get away with it.

Does the Verizon Audit Committee really think that stock holders can't figure out that the company has tremedous incentive, if they had it, to provide receipts, or purchase orders, or bills of lading, or orginal packaging, or CDs, or at least a notebook entry, an email, or note on a piece of scratch paper that would have been available to provide armed federal marshalls in the event of a software raid?

Question of the day (June 3, 2007):

Any reasonable person familiar with the facts in the Alvin Reed v MCI case must conclude that Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, made a decison on or around January 24, 2005 to criminally cover up the flagrant pirated software and retaliation. A reasonable person would conclude that the reason for this criminal cover up was because they thought they could get away with it.

As a secular progressive company, is it reasonable to infer that Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, assumed that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would not intervene?

Does the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob consider it a sin to steal?

Question of the day (June 2, 2007):

This flagrant criminal cover up by Verizon could well cost Verizon and all companies associated with the Verizon Audit Committee tens of billions of dollars in lost good will over the coming decades. This gives the Verizon Audit Committee tremendous incentive to provide verification of ownership that would have been available in the event of a software raid, if it all existed. Refusal to provide even what little verification of ownership exists clearly demonstrates proof that it is indeed a criminal cover up.Trust and credibility at this point can only be maintained and regained by abiding by the Sarbanes Oxley Act and giving Alvin Reed his life back.

Will the Verizon Audit Committee abide by the Sarbanes Oxley Act and give Alvin Reed his life back?

Question of the day (June 1, 2007):

To prevail under the Sarbanes Oxley Retaliation law, the complainant only needs to show that the protected activity was a contributing factor in whatever negative employment action was taken. Once again, this aspect is unlike many other whistleblower laws which generally require that the whistleblower prove that their reporting was the cause, or at least was a significant or motivating factor in the negative employment action taken.

To rebut the claim this law requires that the employer show by clear and convincing evidence that the employee's report had no effect on the personnel action taken. (termination based on prognosis of doctor, the prognosis was situational anxiety as a direct result of Alvin Reed reporting this stock holder fraud because he was told repeatedly by upper management that he no longer had to tip toe through this mine field of stolen intellectual property)

It was like walking through a mine field in Alvin Reed's department to try to avoid the stolen property. Could any reasonable person conceiveably think that the mine field was not a contributing factor to a soldiers leg being blown off in middle of a mine field?

Question of the day (May 31, 2007):

Alvin Reed and others within his department at Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, were told repeatedly for many years under many different circumstances that much of the software Alvin Reed and others were required to load and use as a condition of employment was stolen. Alvin Reed and others knew with absolute certainty that part of the twenty one percent stolen intellectual property in corporate America was coming from this department. Everyone in the department knew that buying one copy then requiring everyone in the department to load and use it as a condition of employment was very commonplace in this company and everyone was afraid to object. Alvin Reed did start objecting after the Bernie Ebbers deal because employees were inundated to start using ethical business practices.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed with Alvin Reed the morning of May 30, 2007 that employees, as citizens of the United States of America, had the right to stop committing these crimes.

Will Robert Lane as the CEO of Deere and Company and a member of the Verizon Audit Committee agree with the FBI, in both words and actions, by abiding by section 301 of the Sarbanes Oxley act?

Question of the day (May 30, 2007):

John Deere CEO Robert Lane is on the Verizon Audit Committee and is, or should be, aware of the criminal cover up occurring at Verizon with regard to fraudulently claiming in court documents that there was never any pirated software at this company. Robert Lane is, or should be, aware of the retaliation against Alvin Reed because, in numerous emails since August of 2003, Alvin Reed objected to this flagrant fraud against stock holders. Robert Lane is, or should be, aware that basing profits on stolen property, fines alone up to $120,000,000,000, clearly defrauds stock holders. Robert Lane is, or should be, aware that Verizon cannot provide receipts, or purchase orders, or bills of lading, or original packaging, or CDs, or even as much as a notebook entry, email, or note on a piece of scratch paper that would have been available to provide to armed federal marshals in the event of a software raid in Alvin Reed's department, to indicate ownership of items in question.

Is the Board of Directors of John Deere willing to ask the CEO of John Deere, Robert Lane, to abide by section 301 of the Sarbanes Oxley act.

Question of the day (May 29, 2007):

Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, required Alvin Reed and others to commit felonies as a condition of employement. This is absolutely proven because the company cannot provide receipts, purchase orders, bills of lading, original packaging, CDs, or even a notebook entry, email, or hand written note on a piece of scratch paper that in any way shape or form shows the the company paid for items in question. Yet they continue to state in court documents that the property wasn't stolen.

Would our Founding Fathers consider this company getting away with this flagrant defrauding of stock holders to be consistent with original intent?

Question of the day (May 28, 2007):

Alvin Reed has submitted numerous requests for verification of ownership of stolen property since August of 2003 from Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, several in the form of subpeano's in both state and federal court.

Any reasonable person realizes that if the property in question was not stolen, the company would have provided this verification of ownership long ago.

Does one have to be dumb as a rock to not understand this?

Question of the day (May 27, 2007):

Christians consider it a sin to steal. Secular progressives consider it wrong only if you get caught. At this point, Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, has not gotten caught by the police for retaliating against employees who object to defrauding stock holders by feloniously loading and using stolen intellectual property, up to $120,000,000,000 in fines alone.

Does it take a Phd in nuclear physics to figure out whether Verizon is a Christian company or a secular progressive company?

Question of the day (May 26, 2007):

For years, Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, knowingly and willingly required employees to commit felonies as a condition of employment. When Alvin Reed objected to this from August 2003 through January 2005, the company elected to retaliate and when Alvin Reed went to the authorities, the company decided to criminally cover up the stolen property. The Verizon Audit Committee has been repeatedly made aware of this flagrant mockery of the Sarbanes Oxley act.

Would our Founding Fathers be proud of the Verizon Audit Committee for criminally covering up this fraud against stock holders because the Verizon Audit Committee thinks they can get away with it?

Question of the day (May 25, 2007):

If the John Deere Audit Committee were to examine the books and determine that 100,000 tractors were sold, but only 50,000 tractor engines were paid for, all things being equal, the John Deere Audit Committee would have no choice but to conclude that 50,000 tractor engines were stolen because no reasonable person could possibly conclude that John Deere is selling tractors without engines. If they decided to cover up the fact that an employee was retaliated against for pointing out that John Deere was defrauding stockholders by basing profits on stolen property, the John Deere Audit Committee, by the letter of the law, could spend the next ten years in a federal penitentiary per SOX 1107.

Is the CEO of John Deere, as a member of the Verizon Audit Committee, acting any differently by knowingly covering up retaliation against Alvin Reed for pointing out up to $120,000,000,000 in fines alone of stolen intellectual property at MCI?

Question of the day (May 24, 2007):

Bob Sar of Ogleetree Deakins has been the primary attorney for Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon, on the Reed v MCI case. Bob Sar continues to fraudulently state in court documents that there was never any pirated software in this company. All the emails, testimony, and investigations have proven that Alvin Reed's department absolutely could not provide armed federal marshals, in the event of a software raid, for example on September 8, 2003, with verification of ownership of intellectual property required in our department as a condition of employment.

If the choice becomes either Bob Sar being disbarred or the Verizon Audit Committee going to jail, who will turn on who?

Or is anyone willing to choice a third option and give Alvin Reed his life back?

Question of the day (May 23, 2007):

Stealing is considered a sin by believers in God. Our secular progressive society seems to have reached a point in our downward spiral where stealing is no longer considered to be wrong as long as you don't get caught by the police.

Is it fair that secular progressives use twenty one percent pirated software in corporate America while Christians just want to obey man's law and God's law?

Do Secular Progressives have any remorse whatsoever for this twenty one percent of stolen intellectual property in corporate America?

Question of the day (May 22, 2007):

Alvin Reed was required to commit felonies as a condition of employment at Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon. When the Sarbanes Oxley act was enacted, the company spent an inordinate amount of time, money, and effort in public relations to appear as if they had become an ethical company, and requiring employees to sign three different contracts that employees would bring any and all questionable activity to the attention of co-workers, management, and the ethics office

Alvin Reed fell for this propaganda and started objecting to the felonies he was required to commit as a condition of employment in August of 2003. The company response was to retaliate, which ultimately caused Alvin Reed a situational anxiety breakdown in January of 2005.

Has the moral fabric of our secular progressive society plummeted to the extent that this kind of blatant retaliation for objecting to the commission of felonies is considered acceptable and encouraged by corrupt corporations and corrupt politicians?

Question of the day (May 21, 2007):

In RR v White, June of 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal to dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining in the first place. Co-workers of Alvin Reed know the facts and have watched Alvin Reed's family being prosecuted for over two years now. These witnesses know how Alvin Reed fought against pirated software for all those years, the facts are clear in the emails to his manager.

These co-workers know how Alvin Reed created a million map a day solution, per the Worldcom bankruptcy court order to reduce cost on three projects by nine millions dollars. These co-workers know that, without his help, the project manager has yet, even as of May 2007, still not abided by that Worldcom bankruptcy court order.

Is "GETTING AWAY WITH IT" a legitimate laissez faire market strategy for a corrupt corporate to follow?

Is "EBBERS ECONOMICS" really the kind of corruption we want our country headed?

Question of the day (May 20, 2007):

Alvin Reed was required to commit felonies as a condition of employment at Worldcom/MCI, now Verizon. Armed Federal Marshals could have come into Alvin Reed's department at any time and hauled him off to a federal penitentiary, if unable to show duress. After the Enron / Worldcom corruption, Congress enacted the Sarbanes Oxley act to lower the guard of employees. Alvin Reed fell for this, started objecting in August of 2003, and was fired based on the prognosis of his doctor, situational anxiety as a direct result of being required to commit these crimes. The CEO of John Deere is on the Verizon Audit Committee and has closed an investigation of this flagrant retaliation without correcting the court documents which frauduantly claim there was never any pirated software at this company.

Should the Board of Directors of John Deere be proud of their CEO for allowing employees to be retaliated against for objecting to the commission of felonies?

Is a belief by corpora