With no other info, I’d probably say no. But reading a bit, we find the company claims it derived no benefit from dumping – whilst the alternative was to use equipment which I assume is fairly costly to operate. And, just how would the employees benefit? A minor time saving, which I admit would be an occasional temptation, but as an ongoing policy I certainly lean toward it being a below-the-table deal from some level of management (not necessarily principals).

OTOH, it looks like the only proof[s] on offer are the fact that dumping was done (physical evidence) and the confession[s] of crew (which seem not to have involved stating “I did it for the money so-and-so gave me”). No proof company was actively involved; the circumstantial evidence seems fairly convincing, but is it actually enough to support the conclusion?

I’ve certainly met a number of law students who’ve had one year of law school and think they know everything already and don’t even begin to realize what they don’t know, and Justinian is one of those sorts. His legal analysis skills are poor: if he blogs about something other than another blog post or a newspaper article, such as contractual or statutory language, or the argument in a judicial opinion or brief, he consistently demonstrates that he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. There’s an anonymous commenter on his site called “Lawyer” who very amusingly takes Lane to task. I wish she commented here more often instead, because she’s the best part of that site, and ends up causing me to waste far too much time there.

My best guess is Lane is trying to create an anti-fan club for me the way his wife has for Rachael Ray. He needs to aim higher in life.

Lane . . . Lane . . . LANE . . . ????